From Inside Higher Ed:
[Prof. Charles J.] Ogletree, founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, says he sees the “professor” label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama’s race. Calling Obama “the professor” walks dangerously close to labeling him “uppity,” a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said….“The idea is that he’s not one of us,” Ogletree says of the professor label. “He has these ideas that are left wing, that are socialist, that he’s palling around with terrorists — those were buzzwords, but the reality was they were looking at this president as an African American who was out of place.”
Thomas L. Haskell, a professor emeritus of history at Rice University, agrees that racial bias may be implicit in the attack on Obama’s professorial past.
“For me and a lot of other academic types, we identify with Obama precisely because he is an intellectual,” Haskell says. “But what does that mean to John Q. Public? I don’t know. John Q. Public may be frightened of these people, especially because this particular intellectual is a black.”
Professor = uppity = black. Left wing, Socialist, palling around with terrorists = out-of-place black. Intellectual = frightening = especially frightening when black. True, most professors, intellectuals, and left wing Socialists are actually not black, nor are those categories seen as stereotypically black. But you say something bad about President Obama, of course that must mean you’re attacking his race. Because, you know, it’s not like conservatives have ever been known for criticizing white liberals. Why else would they pick on a liberal politician if not because of his race?
Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
bailey says:
Another highly respected academic heard from on the issue of race.
February 10, 2010, 7:11 pmBarbara Skolaut says:
These people (and I use the term loosely) are officially insane.
February 10, 2010, 7:11 pmArthurKirkland says:
I see no race angle. When Sarah Palin uses “lecturing” and “professor,” I hear (a) anti-intellectual populism carefully calibrated to please most of her supporters and (b) disdain for education from someone whose personal experience, family and opinions exhibit a lack of respect for book-learnin’, but nothing about race.
February 10, 2010, 7:14 pmDaveW says:
Is he saying this because Palin called Obama a law professor last weekend? I haven’t noticed that people call him a professor very often. Palin is the only one I know of that has done it recently.
Of course it isn’t racist. Good grief.
Whoever runs against Obama in 2012 is going to have to plan very carefully how to deal with all the racism charges that will come.
February 10, 2010, 7:16 pmAdam B. says:
Bill Clinton taught law school at the University of Arkansas. Was he ever derided as “Professor Clinton” by Republicans?
February 10, 2010, 7:17 pmCynic says:
People hear what they want to hear, and what they expect to hear. They publically claim to hear the things that either reinforce their prejudice, or can be used as ammunition against their opponents. Its demonstrated daily within the peanut gallery of this site.
February 10, 2010, 7:18 pmmaster shake says:
You’re right Professor Volokh. Most of these right-wingers so caught up in the professor label aren’t (in this instance) being racist. They’re just being proudly ignorant know-nothings who despise notions of hard work in educational achievement.
Kind of makes you think twice about voting Republican, eh Professor?
February 10, 2010, 7:19 pmBorris says:
[Sally Field voice]
You love me. You really love me.
[/Sally Field voice]
.
.
Of course it is. We all know any criticism of Obama is an act of “straight up” racism.
February 10, 2010, 7:20 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Bill Clinton taught law school at the University of Arkansas. Was he ever derided as “Professor Clinton” by Republicans?
Somehow, it just dosen’t work in the mind’s eye…
February 10, 2010, 7:23 pmDavid McCourt says:
This is why there are no great satirists writing today. The stuff writes itself, and fiction can’t hope to catch fact which outruns all.
February 10, 2010, 7:24 pmJohnF says:
Eugene,
You realize that you have just established your racist credentials by this post, of course.
February 10, 2010, 7:26 pmwlpeak says:
Peanuts, an obvious racial slur based on the close association of George Washington Carver and the same.
Seriously, isn’t all this like the new six degrees of separation game? Hey kids, let’s see how quickly we can spuriously connect any comment about the President to racism. Its fun for all ages!
February 10, 2010, 7:26 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Or perhaps the other populist joy of pointing out that for someone so allegedly well-versed in Constitutional law, his actions on occasion indicate he got some sound sleep in some of those classes.
Or course, that like everything else is questimation to the nth power.
Unlike Palin’s rectal probing at the hands of entire teams of attorneys descending on Wasilla, we know very little of this man’s life.
February 10, 2010, 7:27 pmJK says:
Wow, nice work nutpicking. I bet Glenn was downright giddy when he found that little gem of nonsense.
February 10, 2010, 7:30 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
I just can’t wait for Euro-Canadian styled health care glop to be initiated by force as being somehow a noble Constitutional moment for the Republic. Mary Whatserface from Weesiana got some hefty dollar bills in that garter belt of her for agreeing to sign on, so at the time when the damn squalling thing was still alive and not yet taken to the back of the barn to be axed, someone asked her about the Constitutionality of such programs as REQUIRED by law. Her effervescent answser?
Oh pooh, she said, leave that to the “experts”.
And damn if I though we already had the main one sitting in the Oval Office…
February 10, 2010, 7:31 pmKazinski says:
Ogletree is in the Race Industry, so almost everything will revolve around race for him. He doesn’t like any criticism of Obama, and because race is what he does he somehow will come up with a reason why the criticism of Obama is racist.
February 10, 2010, 7:38 pmDavid McCourt says:
Arthur Kirkland, so when Wm. Buckley expressed the preference to be ruled by the first 1,000 people listed in the Boston phone book, rather than the faculty of Harvard — an eminently sensible position, given the Gulags and killing fields to which the 20th century’s intellectuals have led us — you heard “disdain for education from someone whose personal experience, family and opinions exhibit a lack of respect for book-learnin’”? My word, you do hear the strangest things.
February 10, 2010, 7:39 pmwm13 says:
I see. And when this Yale graduate with 789 (=179) LSATs tells you that “Professor” Ogletree and “Professor” Hamilton are clowns, and “Professor” Obama is a fool, what ugly bigotry do you start spewing then?
February 10, 2010, 7:42 pmkdackson says:
Or simply put, “Professor” can simply imply an ivory-tower outlook with no real-world experience. Sortof like….Obama.
And disdain for education, should be limited to “ivy league” education.
Because we all know that if you don’t have an ivy-league law degree, you are beneath contemp.
February 10, 2010, 7:45 pmKazinski says:
What is the point of criticizing EV’s decision to blog about this? Either the topic interests you and you read and/or comment on it, or you move on. But why comment on something that evidently doesn’t interest you?
Why in the world would two white professors think it funny that somebody is claiming calling someone “professor” was racist?
February 10, 2010, 7:50 pmPeteP says:
I seem to recall reading that Ogletree is of the belief(s) that A ) ALL whites are racist, from birth, and B ) ‘there is no such thing as a black racist’, because ‘by definition, blacks can not be racist’.
I know he’s also a strong proponent of ‘slave reparations’ in the trillions of dollars.
And he’s a FOB ( Friend Of Barack ). Scary stuff.
February 10, 2010, 7:50 pmDavid McCourt says:
So, according to Professor — or should I just be “honest,” and say “black man”? — Ogletree, when the following exchange occurred during the campaign:
What was happening was not simply that Obama was making a promise (which he would promptly and repeatedly break). Obama was also telling us that he was black, and “uppity,” and “not one of us.”
Only a professor could believe such tripe.
February 10, 2010, 7:50 pmAlbertE. says:
To the extent that many black folks like to give themselves ostentatious titles, calling O a “professor” is “racist”?
Deacon, reverend, minister, Dr., “professor”, etc.
Titles quite often assumed by store-front preachers that have made it big.
Jesse Jackson likes to call himself Ambassador and Dr. Jackson from time to time.
Call this post what you will, but I say what I say!!
February 10, 2010, 7:59 pmneurodoc says:
They had other, more effective ways to deride Clinton.
February 10, 2010, 8:00 pmneurodoc says:
Does Professor Ogletree see racism when he is addressed as “Professor Ogletree”?
February 10, 2010, 8:02 pmtheobromophile says:
Gov. Palin’s father was a science teacher. While I don’t know whether or not he has been involved, I do know that Wasilla’s middle school has been going to the national Science Olympiad events for many years, which indicates that Mr. Palin’s department does take its book learnin’ seriously.
So that begs the question: that the hell are you talking about?
(It couldn’t be Bristol, who is putting herself through college while raising a baby; I hope it’s not Track, who is serving overseas and will probably take advantage of Army funding for his own education; it isn’t Sarah, who was on National Honor Society and graduated from her high school with honours before working her way through college – a rougher path than just having it handed to you.)
February 10, 2010, 8:06 pmYankev says:
Not since Larry Seigel retired some decades ago or since Mike Royko died, whichever last occurred.
February 10, 2010, 8:06 pmkdackson says:
Why refer to yourself as “professor” when one has the title of “governor”?
February 10, 2010, 8:07 pmYankev says:
How about Doctor Field Marshall President For Life?
February 10, 2010, 8:09 pmPerseus says:
It’s questionable whether Professor Ogletree really ought to be regarded as “one of us” professors given his record of plagiarism and demagogic playing of the race card here.
I suppose Obama qualifies as an intellectual since he does fit Marx’s notion of a “head worker” as opposed to a “hand worker.” As the article notes, the resistance of Americans to being led by pointy-heads has been a problem for Progressives long before they came in a rainbow of colors.
February 10, 2010, 8:14 pmAlbertE. says:
“How about Doctor Field Marshall President For Life?”
Generalissimo Field Marshal Doctor Professor President For Life Idi Amin Dada of Uganda – - King of Scotland – - Hajii.
Of course. But be careful, he may be listening from somewhere.
February 10, 2010, 8:24 pmConnie says:
I suspect the idea that Palin’s family’s disregards learning comes from the two children (so far) who are high school dropouts as, I believe, was Todd, and their almost son-in-law. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
February 10, 2010, 8:30 pmChris Travers says:
It certainly tells you much more about Ogletree than it does about race relations…. It also suggests Ogletree is concerned about being viewed as “uppity” by virtue of being a professor.
February 10, 2010, 8:31 pmyankee says:
Professor Ogletree is giving Obama’s critics credit for way too many levels of nuance. Conservative elites like Palin and Limbaugh lambasting Obama as a “professor” is “straight up” faux populism.
February 10, 2010, 9:05 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Indeed, or that Mr. Palin is also a union member in what should be some fairly good standing with the supposed boosters for their pitches, the Democrats. But it was deemed too icky a situation to be.
You have to have the full complement of egghead beliefs. Even though in the past, as someone mentioned above, these types have introduced the world to horror, hunger, blood, oppression, and terror on a scale unimaginable to Edward Longshanks and Marcus Aurelius. For my part I beg only to enjoy your morning macchiato but leave Marx out of all future economic solutions. Please. And no, Saul Alinsky was also not one of the Founding Fathers.
But so be it. For his part, Obama’s real-world work experience and only reason for ever stepping onto the grounds of a place of work (outside the political context of bribery, cajoling, or threatening) is apparently limited to an interim gig at Baskin Robbins.
(not that there’s anything wrong with THAT, either.)
Not to diss people’s “station” in life, as we get a belly full of from our dutiful pals on the left, but it IS widely seen from this crowd that working for a living IS fairly much for suckers.
Business people are seen by the Left (and derided thusly) evil SOB’s like Gordon Geko pouring over stock numbers while puffing on a cheroot over martinis with his latest mistress, or malnourished dumbunny starvelings.
As one pundit placed the issue:
Obama has written autobiographies before doing almost anything else in life; before actual achievement, and certainly before stepping so much as to the podium of higher level politics. This is not, contra the NY Times’ opinion, the making of a legendary writer along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt, but a self-absorbed individual steeped in Leftist ideology and the Political Machine. GOVERNOR Palin has run a commercial fishing operation, a town, and a state that has more than a smidgen to do with energy policy from time to time. Obama has, for the most part, merely run his mouth. His real-world experience with “business” concerns and monetary transaction is making pitches to the public schools growing wish list of social activism, and the baloney of “community organizer” in Chicago. Whatever that really means.
Palin, the “ignorant” Guns-n’-God Girl, by contrast, has what British Labour Party pol Denis Healy likes to call a “Hinterland” existence – a life beyond politics. When Senator Obama attempts anything “beyond” politics, such as bowling, or visiting a Waffle House, he comes over like a visiting dignitary to a foreign country getting conscripted into some bizarre local folk ritual for the camera. Sarah Palin isn’t just on the right side of the issues intellectually. She won’t need the usual staged “hunting” trip to reassure gun owners: she’s lived the Second Amendment all her life. Likewise, on abortion, we’re often told it’s easy to be against it in principle, but what if you were a woman facing a difficult birth or a handicapped child? Been there, done that. Got the T-shirt.
Energy? Unlike Biden and Obama and virtually all polysci profs and urban-bound bureaucracy-peddling politicians alike, she’s been to the icebound wasteland called ANWR and, like most Alaskans, supports drilling there. As do the natives who’d like to have some income while shivering and trying to pay the bills near that hellish wasteland so absurdly portrayed by the MSM as a chilly paradise.
There is much more than meets the eye here. Cultural confidence of Palin’s type–not eggheadery–is key to a nation’s long-term survival. Recognition of freedom, our past, our core values, our faiths, our confidence and not compromise and “negotiation” with the terror lords, our shared experience as Americans, etc.
February 10, 2010, 9:08 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
Odd. But that’s not the impression I get from reading about her struggles to pay for tuition so that she could go to college. That’s part of why it took a little longer for her finish college than those who hold her in contempt. There are a lot of people out there who didn’t enjoy the privileged status that President Obama enjoyed.
February 10, 2010, 9:08 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
If Sarah was a black woman who talked with what Senator Reid calls a “Negro accent,” she would be “authentic.” But being white, she’s ignorant. I love how liberals think.
February 10, 2010, 9:14 pmbpbatista says:
These people need racism like a fish needs water. If racism ever disappeared they would be out of work. Pathetic.
February 10, 2010, 9:15 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
I’d love to have had that rather odd (and rare) misfortune of having those skids greased so well.
Must be nice.
February 10, 2010, 9:17 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
I see no race angle. When Sarah Palin uses “lecturing” and “professor,” I hear (a) anti-intellectual populism carefully calibrated to please most of her supporters and (b) disdain for education from someone whose personal experience, family and opinions exhibit a lack of respect for book-learnin’, but nothing about race.
Interesting. When I hear someone use the term “anti-intellectual” to describe someone who is simply “nonintellectual,” I hear “look at me I’m a pseudo-intellectual who uses words with many syllables whether I understand them or not.”
Of course, YMMV.
February 10, 2010, 9:23 pmBored Lawyer says:
Is there a word to encapsulate the idea of self-satire? Meaning when one says something utterly absurd, which the speaker honestly believes is to be taken seriously, but which in fact satirizes not only himself but a whole genre of thinking?
There seems to be a lot of such being stated lately.
February 10, 2010, 9:34 pmbailey says:
So, Ogletree’s a professor-I believe that officially makes him wiser than the great unwashed.
February 10, 2010, 9:37 pmmaster shake says:
That someone has an inferiority complex in spite of all that. And perhaps has more to be proud of in terms of standarized test “aptitude” than his grades.
February 10, 2010, 9:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
(1) Professor Obama is a failure and a fool.
(2) Bouncing around a series of fourth-rate institutions is the best way to acquire an education.
(3) Using “lecturing” and “professor” as slurs in nonintellectual rather than anti-intellectual.
(4) A politician who advocates “divine intervention” as a government prescription is superior to any “egghead.”
(5) Bill Buckley’s slap at Harvard’s liberalism (any doubt he would gladly have entrusted the reins to the faculty of Hillsdale or the scholars at Hoover?) was really a well-deserved slap at people with advanced degrees.
(6) Dropping out of high school? No biggie. Especially if you say you plan to attend a two-year program after getting the GED, and insist that you really mean your “renewed virginity” pledge.
(7) Hunting is for winners; basketball is for losers.
(8) The minority of Americans who want to criminalize abortion are on the “intellectual” side, and, in that context (and that context only), “intellectual” is cool.
(9) Sarah Palin chose low-rated colleges because she was working her way through school (never mind that they are no less expensive than better schools).
(10) Health care reform is to be effected by force.
Did I miss anything?
February 10, 2010, 10:00 pmmaster shake says:
So did you leave this blog of your own volition or did Eugene finally wise up a little about associating with partisan hacks?
February 10, 2010, 10:03 pmDavid McCourt says:
Q. “Did I miss anything?”
A. What the thread is about.
February 10, 2010, 10:09 pmmack says:
If it comes to a choice between practical knowledge and wisdom – and intellectual brilliance and knowledge – I know which one I would choose. Father Martin – a Catholic Priest – and recovering alcoholic had a saying I was always fond of: “I’ve met many people too smart to get sober, but I’ve never met one too stupid to get sober.”
I’ve known wise educated men and wise uneducated men and I always prefer their company over that of educated and uneducated idiots.
February 10, 2010, 10:13 pmArthurKirkland says:
What is the thread about?
February 10, 2010, 10:13 pmmaster shake says:
Guess the good Father didn’t know too many other alcoholics then. Walk into a legal services or PD’s waiting room on any given day and you’ll meet plenty of people who fit that bill. Maybe Father Martin was too wrapped up in the intellectual ivory tower of the clergy.
February 10, 2010, 10:16 pmpmk says:
It’s a good thing that people have successfully taken this post as a challenge to demonstrate what real racist insults should sound like.
February 10, 2010, 10:16 pmpmk says:
as i read somewhere this week:
writing on one’s palm now considered “folksy”, “down-to-earth”. :)
February 10, 2010, 10:24 pmpmk says:
I think Ogletree comes across as an idiot (yet again!) in this comment, but if people think that the level of virulence in the opposition to Obama derives not a whit from his perceived illegitimacy due to his race, there’s some heavy denial going on.
February 10, 2010, 10:28 pmpmk says:
Oh, what we wouldn’t all give to be black children of single moms.
February 10, 2010, 10:29 pmKazinski says:
Huh? Clayton has always been an occasional commenter on this blog, and in some instances his own blog has been cited, but I can’t remember Clayton ever blogging here, if that is what you are trying to say.
February 10, 2010, 10:30 pmArthurKirkland says:
That could apply to the child of a wealthy entertainer in a more enlightened time.
The better formulation in this context: A biracial child born of a poor single mother before the Civil Rights Act.
Or, in other words, the ticket to “privileged status.”
February 10, 2010, 10:40 pmmaster shake says:
This was way way before most people ever heard of this blog that Mister Gay Panic was part of the team, but it did happen…
from wiki:
Past regular contributors include:
* Jacob T. Levy, Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory at McGill University.
February 10, 2010, 10:48 pm* Clayton Cramer, an amateur historian.
* Juan Non-Volokh, a pseudonym for Adler before he was tenured.
* Michelle Boardman, Assistant Professor of Law at the George Mason University School of Law and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice.
* Phillipe de Croy, a pseudonymous blogger.
Wakefield Tolbert says:
ArthurKirkland said:
1) Professor Obama is a failure and a fool.
No one has actually said that. What WAS said, I think, is that his poseur positions as economic mastermind over institutions he’s had little contact with and/or disdains makes his “let me be clear” statements all the more unclear–and highly suspect.
(2) Bouncing around at a series of fourth-rate institutions is the best way to acquire an education.
I doubt anyone said that or means that. You repeat it below in another form. More on that down there, then.
(3) Using “lecturing” and “professor” as slurs in nonintellectual rather than anti-intellectual.
You must mean “is” rather than “in”–If this is the case, then I do think this is not really said in that sense but rather to point out some rather odd variations from Constitutionality that Mr. Constitution has told us about… (NOTE: I DON’T GET TICKY about misspellings or misapplications. :0)
(4) A politician who advocates “divine intervention” as a government prescription is superior to any “egghead.”
I’ll hold a séance, and then ask Honest Abe and George Washington and hosts of others from the past about such prescriptions. Or for that matter George Patton for asking God to help him slay the Nazis using inclement weather. Pols frequently invoke some conception of higher power or another. Or is your reading of the First Amendment that it should be banned altogether and only hard-core atheists need apply from here on out? Palin managed an entire state. Obama, religious or not, cannot often manage his own mouth, if that. If the teleprompter goes on the fritz, he might try the original Palm Pilot as done by Palin and see how it works out rather than making us wince through 10 “uhs” within 3 sentences.
(5) Bill Buckley’s slap at Harvard’s liberalism (any doubt he would gladly have entrusted the reins to the faculty of Hillsdale or the scholars at Hoover?) was really a well-deserved slap at people with advanced degrees.
I doubt Buckley is slapping degreeism per se, though there is quite a bit of that going around to boot (overheard at one job interview doing cutting and pasting of art pages, “so just WHERE did you get your MBA?”) so much as mentioning that the world has lots of smart people to boot. But few smart decisions made about mankind and life in recent decades. No century was more horrific and bloody and yet so filled to the gills with our supposed betters than the 20th. The intellectual prowess of Weimar gave us…well…the Weimar Republic and supplied ammo for an angry Austrian dictator later on with the “blood and soil” ethics of the Great Philosophers of Germany. Marx gave us hunger still manifested in the Beijing Diet, and purges of the countryside of ignorant farmers in the Ukraine, as the answer to economics. Today’s Europe finds, however, that their answer to their own Euro-problems that in turn were created by intellectuals is to micromanage almost all aspects of life in a fluffy, Pan-European program that replaces BLITZKRIEG with “BITS-KRIEG”–Autocracy Lite, if you will, of the type that Tom Friedman raves over. Little tiny bits and pieces of milkwater semi-socialist rules that Buckley warned would be the end of freedom as commonly understood. Like our own Friedmans and Krugmans of our age, they of course scolded those hardheads who just couldn’t see the light in their day either. The Left LOVED Joe Stalin. Uncle Joe got better press as a result. Which is why there are no equivalents of Godwin’s Law as could be more readily be applied to a Socialist who murdered about 15 times the number of people Hitler did.
(6) Dropping out of high school? No biggie. Especially if you say you plan to attend a two-year program after getting the GED, and insisting that you really mean your “renewed virginity” pledge.
In an age when rich liberals celebrate all manner of diversity and piety about the wonders of single motherhood as long as said is Catherine Meinheim and other pea-brained starlets who flit around with baby bumps, sans baby daddy, I should wonder why a less-than-rich gal (granted, no Hollywood backup here or big bank account to hire a nanny, true) like Bristol Palin, should not be lionized for the style and panache! For decades liberals have made sure via advocacy and policy that fatherhood is for suckers and that the State makes a better Dad than Dad in most cases, and provides all the requisite incentives to bring this about. Why complain for the fruits of one night of passion with Mr. Levi and his “johnson”.
(7) Hunting is for winners; basketball is for losers.
No one said that. We’ve merely mentioned that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, some perspective can be helpful from a real “hinterland” existence beyond the creepy confines of some other dimension. Said dimension of politics comes to mind. Healy knows of what he speaketh. The UK under the intellectuals went from the proudest and freest nation of Europe in less than a generation after that famous Sun set, and now is a land where grown men traded core freedoms for free dentures as the result.
I look forward to basketball as a major Constitutional conflict in the decades to come. That should be a neat trick to behold on both sides. And if I ever get burglarized, I’ll be sure to remember the mighty basketball as the citizens first line of defense before Richland County Sheriffs Office finally drops by. Maybe I can toss one at someone’s masked head.
(8) The minority of Americans who want to criminalize abortion are on the “intellectual” side, and, in that context (and that context only), “intellectual” is cool.
No one said that. But most Americans are NOT in favor of the extreme NARAL-esque willy-nilly, Helter-Skelter take on this issue either. What WAS mentioned–yet again–was a sense of perspective about an issue and what many consider a strong counterclaim to the really UNCOOL type arguments typically put forth for the abortion-on-demand scale of things where abortion is to be the Holy Sacrament and proximate answer to even Jenny not being able to fit into a prom dress. Like, “what about birth defects” or “Down’s Syndrome.”
From this, the NARAL crowd uses such ammo to say that “no one” could be burdened with such, and from there extrapolate that one hot night with a stud is also a good reason for an abortion.
(9) Sarah Palin chose low-rated colleges because they she was working her way through school, even though they are no less expensive than better schools.
No one has said that was the main reason. But then on the other hand, we at least have SOME info on that. We know the skids were not greased for her by radical intellectuals and mysterious funding glops hard to pin down.
(10) Health care reform is to be effected by force.
I’ll try and consult the sage advice of Nancy Pelosi once again, but most probably this would be of ill-effect, as she did mention fines and jail for refusing to partake of this giant maw of everything getting eventually sucked into a public option. That might not come to full fruition, but the notion got passed around–and defended–by more than one lefty pundit comparing it (idiotically) to the expediency of driver’s licenses. Grief. Would that the intellectuals give better examples….
Did I miss anything?
No, it seems you’ve managed to spin gold from the proverbial strawman that would bedazzle even Rumplestiltskin.
Congrats. You did it. Hell on earth, brother.
February 10, 2010, 10:54 pmmack says:
master shake says:
“Guess the good Father didn’t know too many other alcoholics then.”
Oh, I think he did, well actually I know he did – I think you either don’t understand alcoholism or perhaps just misunderstand the point of what he is saying. It has to do with ego, humility, and acceptance.
February 10, 2010, 10:56 pmpmk says:
Wakefield Tolbert wins the thread. Heck, he wins this entire website.
February 10, 2010, 11:00 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Let’s see.
Things are fairly much in the tank monetarily, and what’s been “stimulated” is more government and glop to favored groups, and his team of econommic czars (can’t we rid ourselves of these folks)declares that small business has no real meaningful role to play, and KSM is about to become the
next show trial on the Bush Agecrowing about the “efficiency” of civilian trials (who are KSM’s “peers” in the Fruited Plain, I wonder, and if the result if pre-ordained, per Eric Holder, is this really a fair trial??).Meanwhile, back at the airports, the Keystone Kops of Janet II (not to confuse her with the other one–the Duchess of Waco) has made sure we get probed with all manner of annoyances and that Swedish grandmas are just as prone to strip-searches as any of the Sons of Allah, and NOW the Jihadists can kill more people tapping their feet at the airport than on the actual planes?
Yeah–Race is the plupart of the problem here. I now see the light. And one year into the servicing after saying the oath of office, he still does not own the issues as much as that hapless cowboy from Texas. So he tells us again and again.
We’re the Denialists. I think you might add that one to Hoofnagle’s Denialism Blog over on ScienceBlogs. Would make a neat addition.
February 10, 2010, 11:15 pmpmk says:
Wakefield, I agree. In your case, racism might not be your real problem.
February 10, 2010, 11:18 pmCalling Obama a Professor is “a Thinly Veiled Attack on Obama’s Race” | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] posted here: Calling Obama a Professor is “a Thinly Veiled Attack on Obama’s Race” [...]
February 10, 2010, 11:25 pmSarcastro says:
I think Borris is having the best day of his life.
On a tangential note, Conservatives are all about eggheads and intellectuals, unlike liberals who flock around secret retards like Obama. The key is to discount all media and studies that disagree with you as clearly biased.
[And yeah, this prof and his ilk are the height of stupidity. Their victimization complex hurts shelters actual racism. The irony makes my teeth hurt.]
February 10, 2010, 11:34 pmArthurKirkland says:
“Professor” Obama is a fool [7:42 p.m.]
I cannot imagine how a school of the caliber of Chicago hired a fool like this {“Professor Obama” thread, 10:11 p.m.]
“the failures of the Obama Administration” ["Professor Obama thread, 7:39 p.m.]
Sarah Palin isn’t just on the right side of the issues intellectually [9:08 p.m.]
That’s as much “fact” checking as is deserved.
February 10, 2010, 11:54 pmDavid Nieporent says:
The majority of Americans want to criminalize the majority of abortions. (As liberals well know, which is why there’s all the hysteria at the thought of “overturning Roe” (by which they mean Casey.))
February 11, 2010, 12:16 amjukeboxgrad says:
theo:
I don’t know how to reconcile that with the fact that Wasilla High has a high dropout rate:
Puzzling. By the way, are you aware of anything she did as mayor to try to enhance academic performance there? I mean something other than spending $12.5 million to build a hockey rink. You also said this:
Cite? This must be a closely guarded secret, or something she’s ashamed of, because I can’t find any legitimate support for this claim.
=====================
cramer:
Cite? As far as I can tell, the only work she ever did during her college years was competing in one or more beauty pageants (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Do you have any evidence whatsoever regarding any other job she ever held during her college years?
And I don’t quite understand how attending five colleges in six years would be considered an economical way to finish college. Moving is expensive, especially when it involves destinations like Hawaii (a current round-trip ticket between ANC and HNL starts at about $600). I somehow think that most poverty-stricken high school grads in Alaska are not likely to make Hawaii their next stop. So I wonder why that’s what she did, if she was worried about “struggles to pay for tuition.”
=====================
nieporent:
Cite?
February 11, 2010, 12:31 amArthurKirkland says:
I find this extremely difficult to believe. Many Americans, perhaps even a majority, favor restrictions concerning late-term abortions, which I doubt constitute the “majority” of abortions. I believe that the number of Americans who favor the hard-line positions (first-trimester abortions, morning after pills, IUDs) is relatively small. Their number might be overestimated consequent to political debate shaped by right-wing politics and/or those with rare but intense views.
February 11, 2010, 12:44 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Jukebox and Nieporent:
Mixed bag here on abortion:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx?CSTS=alert
As to Wasilla, no doubt it too suffers a from a high school afflication that will be long-remember in the Republic called “public schooling.”
A magical land of some well-heeled administrators making fairly good dough in some cases who for the life of them can’t seem to spend the money wisely–thus more $$ is the clarion call for a solution.
In my own neck of the woods, it has come to my attention that Richland High is not exactly a center of learning across the board either. Not sure of the dropout rate, but it seems that like most school you have some committed to learning and some committed to dope deals in the boys room and smoking in the parking lot, with the whole monty now surrounded, laughably like a prison, with razor wire and “this is a drug/guns-free zone” and other stupidities. The local cops get called out quite a bit over at Richland to lay down the pepper spray and ring up the cuffs when the Friday night football gets out of hand. These kids are not donnybrooking over the chess team wars.
Usually turg wars and competing gangs get into it and a good knight stick up the tail or over the skull does the trick nicely and everyone goes home for the night and nurses the wounds in the morning and rinses the eyes out, etc.
On the other hand–like Wasilla, no doubt–it has some very bright moments with dozens of mentions each year from those not in the bathrooms of numerous scholarships and awards to some of the best institutions of higher learning that can be had.
February 11, 2010, 12:44 amWakefield Tolbert says:
ArthurKirkland:
You’re right. Someone DID say that.
But (so far as I can tell) not on THIS thread, and I was referring to THIS thread’s responses, and had not even gone to that other one yet. Your post had no preface indicating a pulling of comments from other threads and was a laundry list of items to summarily hit, so that was my assumption–that you were referring to this thread only. I assumed the “Professor Obama” was a moniker you made from this thread’s original post regarding a “thinly veiled attack” on that title.
Well, in any case, I’m sorry to hear that was said.
All I can say, I guess, is that despite my many differences with Obama and his supporters great and small, I do NOT think the man is a fool. He most certainly is not, whatever else is the case. Quite the opposite. Others of the conservative bent might disagree here, but I feel damage to the Republic of this magnitude is not a manifestation of dumbness (it cannot be) but rather of misguided if well-meaning True Believer’s intention, and a deliberate refocusing of glop to interests other than market forces. Perhaps he knows all too well exactly which wrench fouls which gears when stuck in to make things grind to a halt, and, by default, bring other things around that more honor his ideology of government as Savior. Yep.
As to Palin, while not wanting to seemingly split hairs here all damned night, I recall saying that she’s on the “right side of the issues intellectually”–yes–but in the sense of what some of us feel is the correct notion, idea, take on something–a.k.a., ideology–not some vein that implies scholarship one way or another–or implying that all who hold such views are brilliant. That would indeed be a leap.
“Ideologically” would have been a better description, seeing how the other word got tossed around here.
But even if I’d meant what you thought, certainly I’d not phrase the abortion matter as “minority of Americans who want to criminalize abortion” as being an intellectually superior notion.
So is that what I said above, then?
I thought the context was clear, in that I was saying she hails from a life-perspective that is superior to theoretical dawdles/ponderings about such issues as gun rights, abortion, drilling at ANWAR, et al, and thus places one on (what some perceive) as the “right” side of things. She defeats all the common long-distance liberal talking points/pieties/fluff on such things with real-world experience rather than fantasies about gun-toters shooting cans off the backs of pick-ups all day while sucking down Miller Lite, moose-frolic and cute cuddly-wuddly polar bears at ANWAR, and the (alleged) utterly unrewarding and hellish tribulations of raising Down’s Syndrome afflicted babies that serves as a common backstop to radical pro-abortion rights groups.
She does NOT hold that tiny minorities ought to outlaw all abortion, or think this is some grand metaphysical statement about pedantic scholarship on abortion–or any other issue. Neither do I.
February 11, 2010, 12:57 amStrict says:
“Obama, religious or not, cannot often manage his own mouth, if that.”
Is this “Obama can’t even speak! He barely knows English! If he’s not told what to say he just drools and says ‘uh’ over and over!” thing a new thing going around??
February 11, 2010, 1:08 amDavid Nieporent says:
Most Americans support abortion in the commonly-talked-about situations: life of the mother, health of the mother, rape, incest, severe birth defects. These represent only a small minority of abortions, however. Most polls don’t explicitly ask about abortions for other reasons; the few that do show strong opposition to the legality of abortions for those reasons.
You can find many polls on abortion here. (As in all polls) the responses depend on the exact wording of the question asked. (Most of the polls are quite bad, as they ask things like “Should abortion be always legal, be legal with more restrictions, or be always illegal,” which doesn’t really tell you anything at all.)
February 11, 2010, 1:31 amWakefield Tolbert says:
“afflication” should have been affliction
Remember is to be remembered.
Oy…
February 11, 2010, 2:13 amjukeboxgrad says:
nieporent:
Since “most of the polls are quite bad” and don’t “really tell you anything at all,” why did you make the sweeping, unqualified, categorical claim that “the majority of Americans want to criminalize the majority of abortions?”
February 11, 2010, 3:01 amchiMaxx says:
Nieporent:
I followed your link and looked at most of the polls, and I don’t see how you reach this conclusion: “Most polls don’t explicitly ask about abortions for other reasons; the few that do show strong opposition to the legality of abortions for those reasons.”
The one consistent result in the polls is a roughly two-thirds preference that Roe v. Wade not be overturned.
Even in the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll in 2006 and 2007 that broke it down by reason for the abortion, the results for “If the pregnancy is unwanted” were 43% legal; 49% illegal; 8% unsure in 2006 and 39% legal; 50% illegal; 11 unsure in 2007. That is opposition, but not “strong” opposition.
And there’s no way to make this NBC News/WSJ poll over 10 years align with your assertion about a “strong opposition” even in 2009 (it’s most “pro-life year whose number are what I include here):
“Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor (51%). Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk (31%). OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (15%). Unsure (3%).” There’s no rational way to characterize 31% (or even, adding in the “always illegal” group, 46%) as strong opposition. Especially when, in most years, the “Woman and her Doctor” group hovers around 55-57%.
Looking at the results of the surveys you linked to as a whole, I see a population that doesn’t like abortion, and even thinks it’s immoral, but doesn’t want it to be illegal except in narrow circumstances (late-term).
=============
What does all this have to do with the idiotic “calling Obama a professor is racist” assertion? Nothing, except that it makes clear that people bring their own subjective biases even to objective information like poll results. Something as subjective as perceived racism: Those who want to find it will find it under every rock.
Ogletree seems to be the black equivalent of the sort of Jewish blogger who sees anti-semitism in any criticism of Israeli government policy, no matter how valid–in short, a crank.
Cranks get way too much turning on the interwebs.
February 11, 2010, 3:07 amRicardo says:
Which makes her own disdain for science and learning that much more inexcusable.
“You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”
Now, if she wants to be a purist libertarian and oppose all public funding of scientific research, she can do so. But saying that research on genetics and gene propagation has “little or nothing to do with the public good” is just ignorant and is intended to pander to the lowest common denominator.
February 11, 2010, 3:19 amjukeboxgrad says:
A bit more about Palin and fruit flies:
February 11, 2010, 3:32 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Well…yeah…I agree you’d have to be a hard-core libertarian to oppose that on the principle of market-oriented solutions only. They like to point out that government has no more money in total than the population from which it is pulled, in total. The difference being they can force the issue in some particular direction that private benefactors and agencies might not choose, or make a political example of something (embryonic stem cells, for example which are a bust compared to the non-embryonic version) etc.
And I happen to believe in a general sense government can and should fund some avenues. The question there, however, remains WHAT, and to WHAT degree. How decided?
The much-derided plight of the lowly fruitfly is not an obvious answer sometimes either, as say, vs. the funding of cancer research.
Much mirth is had in studying the habits of fighting beetles, and rats butts, but then the problem is that you don’t always know where any research might lead.
Think about Rogaine, for example, Minoxidil being first used to treat heart issues.
February 11, 2010, 3:34 amLTR says:
Majority of people who pursue academic careers are liberals. It’s natural that conservatives therefore develop academic scepticism, not in a sense that they hate knowledge, learning and whatnot, but in a sense that they don’t view an academic career as something that is a necessarily a good foundation for a job of running the country. If there was any dominant anti-academic and anti-intellectual litmus test among the rank and file of the American Right, I doubt people who can be described as academics and/or intellectuals would exhibit so much influence on the movement conservatives – here we can mention Chicago School economists, Buckley, neoconservative thinkers, Scalia, Bork and other originalists etc. Conservatives don’t hate intellectuals, they just hate the majority of them.
Another thinks that pretty much busts the “ignorant Right” stereotypes is the fact that self-described Republicans regularly outperform self-described Democrats on the majority of political and economical knowledge tests.
February 11, 2010, 3:36 amWakefield Tolbert says:
(note to self: while I failed to find that handy link to Palin speaking in tongues, I did note that per the learned wisdom of our betters and the ACLU’s free spokesmouths, it IS time to ban all religious believers from public office)
Thank goodness we’ll now enter into the Englightened Age of Government-as-God and Reason as the false dichotomic and opposite of the Mean bad ugly Dark Ages or UNreason!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400062284/thevolocons0d-20/
February 11, 2010, 3:46 amRicardo says:
You’re certainly right there. The point people miss about Mr. Buckley’s remark is that he actually didn’t think very much of the governing capabilities of the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book, either. Buckley was anything but an anti-elitist.
For that matter, I just read about the cabinet of the new free-market conservative government of Chile. Most of the cabinet members have PhDs or other advanced degrees from Harvard and other top-notch American universities. Would Buckley wonder why the Chilean President can’t just appoint ordinary Chileans with good old-fashioned horse sense? I doubt it.
Conservatives like Buckley simply do not like liberal intellectuals. Conservative intellectuals are more than OK with them. But Palin represents a growing segment of conservatism that doesn’t even seem to like conservative intellectuals. This movement seems to have started in the Reagan years when many conservative intellectuals looked down on Reagan and called him out as being not very bright. This triggered a reaction among some “movement” conservatives and Palin seems to be carrying the banner for this group today.
February 11, 2010, 3:50 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Yeah–my neighbors’ three girls, all of whom were homeschooled and all three of whom got scholarships to Converse College (must be a lesser institution of religious nuts and wingers!!) all made straight A’s in school, got more than a few awards each and stayed on the honor role for the one year (senior) they went to high school, and now have some fairly damn good jobs right out of college. They all play the violin in addition to several other instruments each, know Latin and French (and some smatterings of Spanish well enough to get by for the changing America, now that liberals can’t find the Rio Grande border on the map anymore) and to boot have done a fair share of some really good poetry and won other local and state awards for that as well.
Oh yeah–and they’re Eastern Orthodox and very conservative on most issues.
Sounds like a another crop of dummies to me.
I WILL have to inform the NEA about this. Sounds deadly.
February 11, 2010, 3:51 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Everyone knows that hierarchical command and control structure is the nature of the political and economic beast, so no one doubts some people are needed who’re better able to handle some positions than others. William Henry III’s treatise on the “good” forms of elitism pointed this out as well, in In Defense of Elitism, a work written by a gay liberal but sure to please good liberals until they hit the pro-capitalist parts and furrow their brows. Something in that book to tick anyone off, I’m sure.
Well, I think actually a lot of your “plain” folk are (rightly, as one libertarian pointed out when describing small business as the ongoing screw from government) concerned that intellectuals of all stripes really have only politics and abstruse notions in mind and seek power more than helping the average person.
There is some reason behind this reasoning. And there IS reason to the Tea Partiers notion that the Republican Party is presently trying to hijack this restlessness of some people and highbrow and modify it into…well…something putatively more respectable.
Like the old warhorse John McCain, who to his credit is a great man for his intellect, knowledge, and service to the nation. But not really all that conservative on most issues. So the disdain some conservative intellectuals feel is the same you might feel from truckers and gardeners and homemakers and small office guys who don’t frequent the blogosphere for the latest up-to-the-minute précis on the latest crap. They don’t usually have that kind of time on their hands. And they don’t speak the same language.
Ask a trucker or millworker or longshoreman to cruise by on VC all the time. Nonsense.
Joe Six-pack (or Plumber!) Everyman wants to know who looking out for HIM. Not the hallowed halls of power and governance. He couldn’t care less about what the right wing eggheads retort to Andrew Sullivan or Jonathan Hari and waits with bated breath to discover. Peschaw!
As to that notion from above about the next go-round being an “easy choice”, it depends on what your choices really are.
Would that all choices are quite that stark. Alas, they are generally not.
Reminds me of David Sedaris funny guess about such things as might be applied to other areas of life, as when his fantasy airline attendent asks him “would you like the Chicken Kiev, or the S**t platter with a topping of broken glass, sir.”
Sure.
February 11, 2010, 4:08 amLTR says:
I don’t know about conservative intellectuals looking down on Reagan. Buckley himself was a huge Reagan supporter and family friend. He was also something of a Henry Higgins figure to Reagans, explaining in letters to Nancy when to use term “zeitgeist” in conversations and stuff like that.
February 11, 2010, 4:11 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Oh, I see now that fruit fly encounter bit was the penning of PZ Myers. No partisan rant, that. Atheist liberal bloggers have nothing but pure objectivity on such things, do they?
And he is occasionally right about things, except when he’s wrong, which is more than he’d admit, and getting his teeth kicked in by conservative science writers like Michael Fumento on those issues where Myers likes to (common habit of his) inject ideology into science, which, as another Michael pointed out (Crichton) is BAAAD karma…..
Enjoy.
http://www.fumento.com/
February 11, 2010, 4:21 amRicardo says:
You seem to think it is a positive trait (and presumably, a sign of intelligence and sophistication) to know French. You might want to ask some partisan Republicans why they focused so much on John Kerry’s supposed French-speaking ability then. Or why James Taranto was fixated on his “French-looking” appearance while Jonah Goldberg waged an all-out secular Jihad on everything French.
From what I can tell, the issue is that speaking French is viewed as a sign of being intelligent and cultured and you view that as a good thing at least for your neighbors’ daughters. Evidently, there are at least some partisan Republicans who view it as a bad thing in a politician. Which is exactly what we’re talking about.
February 11, 2010, 4:39 amjukeboxgrad says:
wakefield:
You didn’t watch her resignation speech? Just kidding.
This might help a little:
Thank goodness he was smart enough to look away at the right moment.
While we’re waiting for a tape of that to emerge, you might enjoy watching Palin accept a blessing to be protected from “the spirit of witchcraft” (video). If you watch the long version, you can catch the part about “the wealth of the wicked,” and about “the Israelites, that’s how they work. And that’s how they are, even today.” What a giant surprise that Jews vote D. I can’t imagine why.
Straw man much? Voters are free to place superstition ahead of science, and they are free to pick elected officials who suffer from the same handicap. They’re even free to pick officials who campaign on the idea that the town needs a “Christian mayor.”
The plural of anecdote is not data.
February 11, 2010, 5:11 amJack Marshall says:
Obama is derided as a “professor” on talk radio quite frequently,for reasons touched on by various posters here: 1) he frequently lectures in his speeches, 2) his detachment has an academic, rather than a political, air, 3)some believe that he exhibits superiority and disdain by his body language. a characteristic associated with professors by those of us who had lousy ones, and 4) he seems as incompetent at executive leadership as we should expect from someone who had dealt in theory rather than practice. (Bill Clinton was many things, but professorial he was not.)
Ogletree is a fool.
February 11, 2010, 5:35 amCato The Elder says:
You are all fools. Do you not see how ArthurKirkland, magnificent troll that he is, managed to bait you all and turn the topic of this thread from Ogletree to Palin? Can’t you see his obvious machinations in every thread of this sort? Why do you keep falling for it? The only thing worse than being a troll is responding to one.
February 11, 2010, 6:02 amManuela says:
Thank you Jack for writing the only thing in this discussion that could be classified as even remotely lucid. Are these people serious??? Why don’t all you pseudo intellectuals start applying some of your meager but measurable brain power to doing something about solving the ACTUAL issues facing “black” America today instead of spinning around in this game of absurd, paranoid, racially obsessed, narcissistic tail-chasing. If this is the best you can do, it’s no wonder this country is in the state it’s in. Unbelievable.
February 11, 2010, 6:07 ammaster shake says:
Bully for them. Maybe the Tea Partiers should do more to emulate their example than heap scorn on their achievements.
February 11, 2010, 6:44 amdave from woodstock says:
these statements are among the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Assuming they believe what they say (and aren’t simply cynically playing the race card whenever possible) I think we see the prognostications of people who are too far removed from the job market. They posit ideas that simply don’t make sense to anyone else because they are used to having absurd statements taken seriously in their institutional world.
February 11, 2010, 7:54 amRicardo says:
Palin was only the person who made the “professor” remark in the first place. How could she possibly be relevant to the discussion?
February 11, 2010, 8:44 amWidmerpool says:
Corpse-man. Austrians speak “Austrian.” 57 states. Yep, definitely the signs of an intellectual.
February 11, 2010, 8:46 amWakefield Tolbert says:
I have yet to run into other conservatives of any variety who’d heap scorn on them. Different immediate concerns or more rabid interest in politics? Sure.
Scorn? Not sure where/how you came up with that. Perhaps though implying by association that the firey barbs directed against Palin should apply to most other conservatives? Unsure.
The homeschool and religion part, however, makes for a wide, juicy target for more than a few NEA nags and liberal school administrator wannabes still in graduate school. Oh yeah…
And ideologically–though not very active or overly concerned about political matters–they fairly much ARE Tea-Partiers.
Interesting goad there.
February 11, 2010, 9:40 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Cato, it seems you’re right, but the mighty ArthurK is not the only one here who flipped that table around on us. And more fool us.
Palin it turned into, and Palin it shall apparently remain, I’m afraid.
I pointed out that not all conservative families of a religious bent raise dumbunny rugrats. But as “the plural of anecdote is not data” as Troll-2 above penned, in making sure conservatives remain labeled as peabrains and superstitious peasants, it’s again turned into a précis on Palin, tongues, guilt by association, and superstition.
As we now know, the Age of Reason and Un-Benighted upon us manifested in this current administration now proposing Stimulus 2.0 downloads and systematically destroying the economy for anyone not tied into certain advocacy groups, unions, public workers, ACORN pests, and cigar-chomping bank or car company presidents–represents the highlight of Science and Reason.
Adam Smith, eat your ignorant, idiotic, hateful little heart out.
For all that trouble, our other troller could have just said “the exception proves the rule“, and been done with it all.
So thus stands the high probability (though, like the tongues encounter, not proven per se except by implication) that all of that family’s conservative friends, by contrast, merely have kids good at eating Honeycomb cereal and drooling.
February 11, 2010, 10:01 amStrict says:
“Austrians speak “Austrian.” ”
Yes, Austrians do speak Austrian – a variety of German called Austrian Standard German. And there are also Austrian dialects as well.
It’s like saying “I speak Mexican.” That’s not wrong. It conveys meaning. It’s a dialect of Spanish called Mexican Spanish. It’s different than Castilian (or Spain Spanish). The phonetics are easier for English speakers to learn, and in America it’s more useful to learn Mexican than Castilian.
February 11, 2010, 10:32 amStrict says:
Wakefield: “I pointed out that not all conservative families of a religious bent raise dumbunny rugrats.”
I don’t think anyone could reasonably disagree with this. Of course not all children raised in conservative and religious households are dumb.
The problem is, Wakefield, is that I don’t see where you made that statement. Or where anyone disagreed with it.
February 11, 2010, 10:40 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Merely in and of itself? No. But any language acquisition beyond your own is a trait that, taken along with the other languages they speak and the dozen activities and interests they’re into, seems to indicate an active interest in lifelong learning. I was merely pointing out that, contra the NEA and others’ sloppy takes on homeschooling loaded with innuendo that now passes for Lefty scholarship about conservatives and their kids living with grandma in 1000 ft hovels and having a full day of “gun-totin” rather than them thar book-learnin’s–it seems conservatives are not all what Keith Olberman and the lovely Rachel Maddow say they are. Or liberal think-tanks for that matter.
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/homeschooling-lefts-new-bugbear-du-jour.html
Not sure about Taranto’s fixation Kerry. And Goldberg no doubt was discussing the political dimensions of a France where PCism is in full swing, car burnings buy “Muslim Youth” is almost ritualistic on some special Islamic holidays (which is all the damned time) and the French penchant for voting with US interests at the UN with a record on par with Syria’s or Red China’s. I, like many right-wingers, view the nation of France with disdain–not the language. Only the French can tell you to nick off or go hump a tree or go straight to hell, and some might look forward to doing so, even as some complain about their falling to the Sons of Allah due to more PC and Multi-Culti pieties and eurosocialist glop than common sense. France does not have Puritan roots, and so also what you see in some friction is that however hypocritically WE might be sometimes, most Americans just can’t get their minds around the public displays of mistresses and other French play toys that would be scandalous in American politics.
But here’s my “aide-mémoire” on the Frenchness of Kerry:
It would seem this ungainly-looking creature, a tall version of Gollum, would be in need of a little media TLC.
Not to worry, as that was supplied for his new “French Looks!”
Sauvé, panache, and sophistication! Oh my! Almost gives the female audience a la petite mort! And yes, more than a little pour encourager les autres was added to help this notion along. But it never stuck.
But the most I heard about this whole Things French that was nattered-over by the Slipstream Media had more to do with the dear wife, Teresa, who as a French woman was said by some in the MSM to be in possession of an “Earthy, Continental flair.” That was the main joie de vivre of Things Kerry.
In other words, she was smart and classy even though her underarms smelled bad, along with being able to get down the right way to use the cedilla and accent-grave.
And as far as “what we were talking about”, I think that was originally more to do with Obama, supposed racial slurs (which are all around, dontcha know?) and thinly-veiled attacks that use intellect as a substitute for race. Perhaps some Republican activists join the MSM’s weird obsessions and laughably faux attributions to some politicians, like John Kerry. But it seems the main thing here regarding THAT issue was the pretentious nature of Kerry, not multi-linguistic skillsets.
Thanks for you input.
At least you didn’t use PZ Myers as a backstop. Good on you.
February 11, 2010, 10:43 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Right you are, as they generally UNREASONABLY make such assertions.
It is commonly and heavily implied that conservatives–and therefore by default their offspring due to parental influence on things like religion–are the lesser beings in most things other than ditch-diggin’ and washing dishes and sprinkling pepper on the salads of the highbrow at Elaine’s.
OK, THAT was caricature. But from Master Stroke, above, we have “Bully for them. Maybe the Tea Partiers should do more to emulate their example than heap scorn on their achievements.”
Ergo, Teapartiers (or TEABAGGERS, as Rachel Maddow has anointed thus, making sure an obscure sexual practice formerly known mostly to the inner city residents of San Francisco is applied here for good measure) are–for the most part–not up to par when it comes to the “book-learnin’” angle on life.
You may come on out now. It’s OK. I’ve seen worse than this.
As far as MY statement in return, I jested sarcastically “Sounds like a another crop of dummies to me.”
As to the whole “witch” thing and Palin, that is rather suspect. The “visiting dignitary” syndrome where pols get shanghaid into some strange, otherwordly cultural habit (like, say, liberal politicians pretending to know how to hunt dogs and whistle to the hound dogs, or eating at Waffle House) often play the part the best they can.
The Pope has even been decorated with totems and talismans of distant tribes, and he and his entourage have been given tokens to wear showing off features and bones of animals from great warriors.
A pagan heathen lion-hunter, he is still not.
February 11, 2010, 11:08 amThe Mighty ArthurK says:
Better for you to point that out (instead of me), Mr. Tolbert. Trust me.
February 11, 2010, 11:21 amCan't find a good name says:
Connie:
Actually, Track graduated from high school. So did Bristol. So did Todd.
I’m not going to look up whether Levi did, because I don’t really care.
February 11, 2010, 11:34 amFederal Farmer says:
My personal view on the “anti-intellectual” or “non-intellectual” movement is not that intellectuals are terrible people but that simply being an intellectual does not make one a better person or a better leader and they certainly don’t necessarily know what is best for the rest of us.
February 11, 2010, 11:40 amFederal Farmer says:
I like to think I’ve had the advantage of living on both sides of this particular railroad track.
February 11, 2010, 11:52 amCan't find a good name says:
While that may be literally true, I can’t say that Obama’s use of the word “Austrian” in context was appropriate. Responding to a question from an Austrian reporter, Obama said, “There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics.” There was nothing in the statement to indicate that Obama was referring to the particular Austrian version of German.
If he knew the standard German word for “wheeling and dealing,” or a Bavarian or Swiss word for that phrase, he could have used it and said, “… but I don’t know what the term is in Austrian.” However, I assume that Obama did not know such a word, which I don’t blame him for because he never studied German, as far as I know, and he should not be expected to know that language. Rather, his statement implies that since he was speaking to an Austrian reporter, the language his comment would have to be translated into would be “Austrian.”
That said, I don’t place that much significance on this statement, which was most likely just a minor gaffe. I suspect if one of Obama’s advisers had asked him afterwards, “Do you realize you told the reporter you didn’t know how to say something in Austrian?,” Obama would have answered something like, “Darn it, I should have said ‘German’ instead.” I don’t think he actually is ignorant of what the official language of Austria is, any more than he actually thinks he visited “57 states” during his campaign.
I was thinking of some 1980s sitcom in which, for some reason, two American characters are posing as Swiss. In order to keep up the ruse, the man whispers to the woman, “Say something in Swiss.” The woman responds, “There’s no such language as Swiss!” The joke would not have worked if the man had responded, “What about Swiss German? It’s a very common dialect in Switzerland which differs in pronunciation and grammar from the standard form of the German language.”
February 11, 2010, 11:54 amWakefield Tolbert says:
Perhaps a fair measuring stick is a question regarding the “Austrian” or any other “language”:
If X talked about “Austrian” or “Mexican” (“X” being any conservative politician) what would the overall response be from the media and blogosphere?
It would be presented as the equivalent of some podunk redneck complaining about the fact that not all “them feriners is learnin’ or speakin’ AMERICAN, by God! Learn the language, will ya!”
Less than charitable.
February 11, 2010, 12:02 pmJeff Hall says:
From an article by a former classmate who does not like her:
February 11, 2010, 12:03 pmLTR says:
OK, it’s easier for English speakers, but what about American speakers? Or Australian speakers?
February 11, 2010, 12:08 pmSarcastro says:
Obama mispoke like a dozen times! This means he’s not smart. But he is ‘intellectual’ which means he secretly hates all non-intellectual. Which is why I don’t like any intellectuals.
It’s like class warfare, only with education! I only hate the other guy cause he hates me!
[And the reason for the thread drift, IMO, is not trolling but rather that everyone agrees the Prof is an ass. That's not so interesting.]
February 11, 2010, 12:23 pmmack says:
Ricardo says:
“But Palin represents a growing segment of conservatism that doesn’t even seem to like conservative intellectuals. This movement seems to have started in the Reagan years when many conservative intellectuals looked down on Reagan and called him out as being not very bright. This triggered a reaction among some “movement” conservatives and Palin seems to be carrying the banner for this group today.”
Just more evidence of the political disconnect in America. There is an America that is not urban or academic or corporate. I think it used to be called mom and pop America, as memorialized in the maudlin images of Norman Rockwell for the Saturday Evening Post, which even then played to the laughter and derision of the affluent, hip, cool, smart, toney, urban, educated, elite.
There is a part of America that is predominantly rural and small town or small city . A part of America where a disproportionate number of front line infantry, marines and service personal come from. Where kids after high school attend two year community colleges and then maybe attend a four year school. Places where people get up at 3 to 4am to start their days. Where cattle and hogs are raised and slaughtered. Where crops are planted, and small businesses provide local services – welding, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, ditch digging, Places like rural Iowa – where Michelle Obama can visit and say – well I can see why someone living out here might need a gun. It is a world away from the halls of acclaimed academia, a place where those who seek fame and fortune shun or run away from at the first opportunity. For there is no fame or fortune to be gained here. There are no riches to be won, TV or movie cameras, national or international plaudits or recognition.
It is a place about family, a place about working hard for a living, a place about duty. Duty to family, to community, to God, to country. A place where people believe that they have the right to be free as a concomitant part of their commitment to those duties. They are places where teachers teach generations of families, where pastors baptize, marry, and then bury their flock. Where schools still have Christmas programs with Christian music. Where opening day of hunting season is a day off from school or work.
These are the fools, the rubes, the morons, the rednecks, the idiots, the uneducated hicks, hillbillies, those people that “…get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Me, I am a English Major with a double minor in philosophy and history. I grew up in a small town, attended a Podunk community college and then a 4th or 5th rate state university. I was raised a Christian – rejected it – then chose to return to it. I lived through addiction, a divorce, a separation, and raising five kids (two biological and three stepchildren – all of whom I would gladly die for if need be). I volunteer my time and money to help those in need. I counseled addicts and their families for over twenty years. I vote, write letters to my elected officials, and lobby them in person at the state capital. I watched my older brother slowly die at forty from brain cancer – he died with grace, with love, with courage, and with dignity. I buried my father after a life of service to his country, his family, and his community. I worked 80 hours a week for a decade of my life to meet my financial obligations to my family – while making sure I attended my kids dance recitals, baseball games, concerts, and school events. I held my youngest daughter at age five in the ER when she almost died from undiagnosed type I diabetes – when we didn’t know if she was going to live or die. I will never forget her asking me, “daddy am I going to die?” What do you say to that?
And I am no one special, I know many who are brighter than me. I scored a 29 on my ACT but my three best friends in HS all scored higher. My father had an IQ of 149, mine was only 121. My older brother was certainly both brighter and braver. I have friends who have raised and supported ten children – four of their own and six adopted. My cousins husband is a brilliant electrical engineer who is a millionaire after building and selling two businesses and now running a third. My youngest daughter, the diabetic, faces life head on, though I know she has to deal with fears of going to bed and maybe not waking up.
I say this because us rubes – we who cling to guns or religion – do get frustrated – aye even angry about – those in our country who are supposed to be responsible for serving in positions of public office and trust. We often do resent being talked down to and treated like idiots or morons. Our choices in life define our values. We care more about family, community, honor and duty than we do about money, fame, power, politics, or the trappings of this world. We care more about spiritual riches than material riches.
When we see our communities and families riven by economic instability, jobs exported overseas, retirement funds and social security destroyed or near bankruptcy, former high paying construction jobs given to illegal immigrants, continued increases in taxes (sin taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on energy, taxes on cars and increases in license fees, increases in fees for schools, increases in other fees and licenses), a decrease in the real buying power of income (I remember being told my salary had been increased substantially more than inflation one year – and according to the government index of inflation it had – but when I looked at my bills – they had increased more than five times the official rate of inflation – after two decades of work and pay increases the percentage of my income that went to pay the basics had increased much more than my wages – I am hardly unique in that). Now we face a huge national debt and the possibility of runaway inflation lurks. We still have no significant energy policy, after forty years since the first energy crisis in the seventies. In the midst of all this we see people hysterical over the possibility of global warming and making plans to increase the cost of energy even more – and we know in the end -who is going to have to pay that price.
Meanwhile in national and state politics we see political parties more concerned about staying in power, rewarding special interests and legislating ideological agendas than they are with serving the people by abiding by the constitution, working to provide a stable basis for economic growth and opportunity, and protecting individual liberty.
A simple way to delineate the differences between the ignorant tea party, small town, rural bumpkins and the urban, chic, educated, intellectual elite neocons and democrat progressives is this attitude towards government – in the city of Chicago it is widely known that from the top down the city and county governments are corrupt – nepotism, bribes, padding of payrolls, city and county purchases of property from connected individuals, sweetheart contracts, and so on – if you tell someone in Chicago that, hey this guy is corrupt don’t vote for him, they will look at you like you are crazy and tell you that that is the way things get done. Downstate in the sticks people would vote the person out and expect that he would be charged with a crime and tried in court for public malfeasance.
So, when the unwashed and uneducated rebel against the media blessed elite, the two sides of the same coin leadership of the republican and democratic parties, and decide that academics and the intellectual elite are out to lunch when it comes to their concerns and needs they may tend to respond to morons like Reagan and Palin who at least seem to understand their concerns and needs without condensation, snarky arrogance, or intellectually vapid platitudes and dismissal.
February 11, 2010, 12:24 pmMAM says:
It’s a “high-tech lynching” I tell you!
Ogeltree and Justice Thomas have much in common.
February 11, 2010, 12:25 pmrmd says:
I have no dog — or fruit fly — in this particular fight, but that’s from a site that calls itself The Moderate Voice? Wowsers, Scoob.
February 11, 2010, 1:01 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
And they would have gotten away with it were it not for you meddling kids and that dog!
Well, that particular poison penning is from ubercrank named PZ Myers. Look him up, as my stomach is not strong enough to write much more about him without guzzling Pepto-Bismal.
But Moderate Voice(?!), it may be judged, is a site that apparently specializes in claiming that moderation and balance are to be found in giving the “sides” of an issue to the nth degree that includes the most nutty and radical moments in political discourse.
In the physical realm, this would be like claiming that having one foot in liquid nitrogen and the other in molten iron gives the body more “balance” in the temperature scale.
Zoinks!
February 11, 2010, 1:11 pmjukeboxgrad says:
strict:
Wakefield has one of the largest collection of straw men I’ve ever seen. And I’ve been around here for a long time, so that’s saying a lot. The rambling, convoluted sentences are also a treat.
=============
wakefield:
Palin could have greeted him in a warm and respectful manner without submitting to a bizarre blessing. And under the circumstances, even just greeting him warmly was not warranted. He had just made a statement condemning “the Israelites.” I notice the way you conveniently manage to not notice that.
But yet again, someone other than Palin is somehow responsible for Palin’s own actions and choices. Once more we are reminded of the GOP concept of personal responsibility: when your poor choices get you into trouble, always try to make someone else personally responsible.
=============
can’t find:
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
February 11, 2010, 1:21 pmjukeboxgrad says:
jeff:
Who the hell is behind “guntotingliberal.com?” Can you even figure out what the person’s name is? Where do they ever provide any evidence that they actually attended high school with Palin? Why should any of their unsubstantiated claims be taken seriously? Why should the passage you cited be seen as anything other than a pathetic attempt by an unknown blogger to gain attention? If the claim is true, why has it never been mentioned or reported in anything remotely resembling a legitimate source? Palin’s intelligence is often attacked. If the NHS factoid were true, her defenders at places like Fox News would be mentioning it frequently. As far as I can tell, they’ve mentioned it this many times: zero. Why?
=============
mack:
You said many thoughtful things, so maybe you have a thoughtful answer to this question. Why are they so eager to be led by someone with a remarkable track record as a liar (example)?
=============
rmd:
I’ve seen many superficial arguments here, but it’s hard to imagine one that’s more superficial than dismissing a statement because of the name of the site where it was found. Especially since you haven’t lifted a finger to demonstrate that themoderatevoice.com isn’t actually moderate.
Indeed.
February 11, 2010, 1:21 pmKevin P. says:
Sarah Palin’s father is a school teacher. However, don’t let that stop you from getting all your news and information from the official talking points of the day.
February 11, 2010, 2:19 pmManju says:
I believe Anita Hill and I think Thomas was playing the race card but the stereotype of black men as sexual aggressors/rapists has a long history and was directly related to charge, which is why it garnered the otherwise outcast Thomas huge sympathy among af-ams. at the time.
A better example, if you where trying to do the ol turnaround, are the recent Wieseltier accusations against newly left-wing andrew sullivan, which were approvingly linked to by one glenn reynolds, who disapprovingly links this one. here, sully calling Israel aggressive is code word for pushy jew.
for anti-semitism, the right/left position on subtle bigotry is flipped. the right deconstructs to see a racial subtext while the left charges racial McCarthyism.
February 11, 2010, 2:23 pmSarcastro says:
[Good lord, mack, I have never seen a more pure form of rural populism. Your strawman intellectual really sounds alien, out of touch and hateful. Such a victimization attitude really ticks me off.
Thing is, you are neither as hated, nor as alien, nor as different as you think. Intellectuals still get married AND have kids! Intellectuals have been known to fight in wars. Intellectuals volunteer in their community and out of it.
Get off your low horse and join the community of all Americans. Disagree on policy, not on some bizarre reactionary cult of personality.]
February 11, 2010, 2:30 pmAlan Hale says:
How can saying anything (supposedly) derogatory about Obama be racist? According to a speech by Ogletree at Harvard, just before the election, OBAMA ISN’T BLACK — he’s “bi-racial” (so his election doesn’t purge Americans of their racist past):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dYPFfry6nc
If you’re interested, there’s a whole YouTube channel of clips from Ogletree’s various Harvard speeches illustrating his whacko views (e.g., American’s aren’t “chosen people”; Americans are too dumb to realize they caused 9/11; American patriotism is “superficial”; Colin Powell’s a liar; white Christians are racist, etc.):
http://www.youtube.com/user/ogletreevideos#p/u
Not to mention Ogletree’s (allegedly) a plagiarist — a few years ago he apparently was caught lifting sections of two other books, and copying them into a book he put his name on (actually, it seems his ghostwriters did it), which helped his employer earn the nickname “Harvard Clown School”:
February 11, 2010, 2:33 pmhttp://harvardclownschool.blogspot.com
Anton says:
“Calling Obama a Professor is “a Thinly Veiled Attack on Obama’s Race””
Of course it is!
February 11, 2010, 2:47 pmMAM says:
manju,
Yes, the sully contretemp is indeed more on point. Thomas is merely a mirror image of Ogletree et al.
February 11, 2010, 2:55 pmInkmiser says:
Professor Ogletree’s (did I just attack Prof. Ogletree’s race? what race is he anyway?)analysis makes the idea of constitutional penumbral emanations seem not only reasonable, but simple as well.
February 11, 2010, 3:22 pmjukeboxgrad says:
kevin:
theo already said so. Reading the thread before posting is always a good idea.
==================
sarcastro:
But viewing oneself as some kind of victim is so much more fun.
February 11, 2010, 3:28 pmmack says:
jukeboxgrad says:
“mack:
‘they may tend to respond to morons like Reagan and Palin who at least seem to understand their concerns and needs’
You said many thoughtful things, so maybe you have a thoughtful answer to this question. Why are they so eager to be led by someone with a remarkable track record as a liar (example)?”
I would quibble with a couple of the terms you use to frame your question. I don’t think that most politically disaffected Americans are “eager to be led.” I think quite the opposite, they are looking for someone to serve and represent their values. They don’t want or need a leader to venerate – just someone who defends and represents their values, who will fight for the freedoms they value, and who will respect the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
As to the link you posted, I read the brief story and most of the comments and skimmed the report. From what I gather, and I recall some of the story from before, essentially it points out that Palin was within the law to fire him, but was unethical in her behavior as she did so at least in part due to personal motivations stemming from his refusal to fire an officer who was the ex-husband of her sister.
Personally, if I understand correctly, I feel what she did was wrong and her husbands behavior seems even more out of line. I don’t think she did herself any service and should have apologized for her behavior and acknowledged that she was out of line – the same thing Clinton should have done with the Lewinski flap.
I didn’t vote for her or McCain or for Obama for that matter, as I could not in good conscience support either candidate.
However, you asked why would such people as I describe in my post support Palin – well I feel there are two answers. The first is that people support the message at times even when the messenger is flawed. So some may support what Palin may say at times but not necessarily support her personally, and some may decide that despite any moral or ethical personal flaws they are willing to support her, because they feel on balance she is a good or genuine person who really does support their values. We know that Martin Luther King was a flawed man in some respects but he is still accepted generally as a great man who did our country great service. Of course Palin is not comparable to King in service or gravity, but the principle is the same in regards to balancing our judgments’ about individuals. You also could see, I think that some people while finding her behavior wrong on the one hand also find something positive in the fact that her motivation seemed to stem from loyalty to her sister – albeit still misguided behavior – but not motivated by totally selfish crassness or greed i.e. – using her office to gain money or coerce bribes or to betray in a direct way the citizens of her state – an abuse but not a betrayal.
I think people in general will accept the failings of others within limits – certainly no one expects anyone to be perfect – as the saying goes “we are all sinners.” I think those limits are defined in public office by selling the public trust – insider deals – and similar type felonies; and by blatantly betraying certain basic principles – such as switching positions on central issues. Perhaps Palin has done some of these things – I don’t know.
People who are extremely partisan tend to focus on anything they can to discredit people they perceive to be their opponent – regardless of party. I think that most people who are not partisan will generally give their neighbors and their politicians some leeway – Obama had a little beneficial real estate deal with a political insider in Illinois – but enough people were able to say we will give him the benefit of the doubt in that matter.
Also, many of the people of whom we speak are Christian – and despite the constant media focus and depiction of the religiously intolerant – who are there – and who are making news – most Christians are not intolerant – its is not news when a Christian turns the other cheek after all. I and most of the people I know pray for Obama regularly – it’s not a matter of whether we support his politics.
When and if in peoples judgment, Palin is understood not to be genuinely supportive of their core values or she clearly transgresses in an egregious way – the public trust – then she will be cast aside as a representative. Evidently people do not perceive this as having happened in her case yet. People who are not partisan and who are skeptical of the media in general and of both political parties tend to reserve their judgment about specific allegations and many times give things time for the truth to settle out.
The spotlight is on her and people will decide for themselves based what she says and what she does. Just as people continue to watch Obama.
February 11, 2010, 3:29 pmjukeboxgrad says:
mack:
I understand your point, but I think there is good reason to say “eager to be led.” Yes, there is lots of GOP sloganeering about personal independence and self-determination. But what’s behind that sloganeering is something different. John Dean has written thoughtfully on the subject of the GOP as the party of authoritarianism.
Aside from that, my main point is that the people we’re talking about respond to Palin with great eagerness (aside from the question of whether they view her as a leader vs. whether they view her as “someone to serve and represent their values”). Why would honest people respond eagerly to a liar?
I think that’s a fair summary of the Branchflower report, but I think you’re completely missing the point. At the moment, I am not calling attention to her unethical behavior as documented in the Branchflower report. Rather, I am calling attention to one particular statement she made which was a blatant lie about the Branchflower report. There’s lots of other proof that she’s a liar, but this particular example is a good place to start.
Thank you. I agree. But all that is only part of the problem. Because aside from the unethical behavior itself (pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten), Palin has told a series of lies, in an attempt to cover up what she did and to fabricate justifications for what she did. There’s the lie I’ve mentioned, and there are a bunch of other lies, some of which are documented here.
Fair enough. This is a reasonable position to take, at least in theory. But when a responsible person takes this position, they don’t attempt to blind themselves and others with regard to those “moral or ethical personal flaws.” They don’t practice denial regarding those flaws. They acknowledge those flaws, and they call on their leader (or servant, if you prefer) to deal with those flaws. Trouble is, this is not at all what we see when we look at the Palinists.
Good point. I agree. And this is another reason to understand that a sincere apology would have been accepted. All humans are flawed, and we accept those flaws in each other when we see the flaws being handled with some sense of responsibility. But we learn something important about her character when we notice that she took a very different approach. This is one of many examples of how she always tries to find someone else to blame for her own bad behavior, instead of taking responsibility herself.
Uh, no.
I don’t see how lying to the public repeatedly can be seen as anything other than a betrayal of “the public trust.” I don’t understand why people are oblivious to this. It seems to me that they are either too ignorant to recognize the difference between truth and lies, or too lacking in integrity to care about the difference. Or both.
February 11, 2010, 4:34 pmRahul says:
Manju, good to see you here!
February 11, 2010, 6:03 pmpmk says:
Gee willikers! You betcha that’s what folksy real ‘Merikans do.
February 11, 2010, 6:12 pmtheobromophile says:
JBG: this woman is not running for office (at least not currently). She’s not even in office anymore – which should make liberals cheer, since you did such a fine job of ensuring that her return to Alaska would be as unpleasant as possible.
So why do you give an airborne duck about her and her alleged lies?
(By the way, it’s YOU that’s lying! The Branchflower report explicitly stated that Palin did nothing wrong. The Alaska Constitution grants her the authority to do what she did. Then, another group exonerated her. Somehow, though, no one focuses on the language within Branchflower nor the exoneration nor the AK Constitution, but upon, well, Branchflower’s pettiness. Yay for you all.)
February 11, 2010, 7:46 pmpmk says:
Again, it’s the libruls’ fault that Palin fled from responsibility :)
February 11, 2010, 8:03 pmBK says:
How’s this article for a “thinly veiled attack on race”: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/09/martin.obama.republicans/index.html?hpt=P1
If this commentator were white, he’d have lost his job yesterday.
February 11, 2010, 8:49 pmCan't find a good name says:
Track: Anchorage Daily News
February 11, 2010, 8:55 pmBristol: People
Todd: Anchorage Daily News
Ricardo says:
Except that it is apparently not true. You’ve been snookered by culture warriors. A poll conducted by Research 2000 (yes, commissioned by Daily Kos, so get your partisan gibes in right from the start) revealed the following favorability ratings of France:
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 61 32 7
DEM 66 29 5
REP 56 37 7
IND 60 32 8
OTH/REF 58 35 7
NRTHEST 71 21 8
SOUTH 43 51 6
MIDWEST 67 26 7
WEST 69 24 7
The only group with a majority of people who have unfavorable views toward France is the South. Self-identified Republicans and Midwesterners generally have positive views toward France. Moreover, in opinion polls on the other side of the Atlantic, the French have a more favorable view of the U.S. than the British do.
As for the French government, everyone who followed the news in the run-up to the Iraq war knows that the German government was even more anti-war than France. Ripping on France has always been about the culture war, not about geopolitics.
February 11, 2010, 9:43 pmchiMaxx says:
How has this thread become all about Sarah “Lonesome Rhodes” Palin?
February 11, 2010, 11:18 pmmack says:
Sarcastro says:
[Good lord, mack, I have never seen a more pure form of rural populism. Your strawman intellectual really sounds alien, out of touch and hateful. Such a victimization attitude really ticks me off.
Thing is, you are neither as hated, nor as alien, nor as different as you think. Intellectuals still get married AND have kids! Intellectuals have been known to fight in wars. Intellectuals volunteer in their community and out of it.
Get off your low horse and join the community of all Americans. Disagree on policy, not on some bizarre reactionary cult of personality.]
Uh, huh. Care to address anything specific other than a blanket dismissal – I have been dismissed right? Okay that is a joke. Besides I think you don’t understand my perspective at all. I am not a victim of anything or anyone – any sacrifice I have made in my life I have chosen to make, and as I well know there are many who gratefully sacrifice more. It is impossible for me to be a victim since the victory is already won, the price has already been paid, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33) – should I be ungrateful for that? I for whom the Lord most high laid down his life am a victim? Besides, I always thought that giving of oneself joyfully is a gift, not a sacrifice.
I do feel frustration and anger over the unnecessary pain in this world. I do want to do my best to leave a better world for my kids and generations to come. And I don’t reject all intellectuals – for instance I admire this one:
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis
Though some might contend he is a mere Christian apologist.
I also admire Samuel Adams: “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
And Jefferson and Paul, and Jesus, and so on – so I really don’t reject all intellectuals.
Perhaps you read phrases such as: “intellectual elite neocons and democrat progressives” and “academics and the intellectual elite are out to lunch when it comes to their concerns and needs“- to mean that I somehow had no respect for intellectuals. First, those were meant to be sarcastic and apply to those who self-identify themselves as intellectuals – because people who are truly intellectual don’t have to go around identifying themselves as intellectuals – and typically don’t have any pretension that they are elite or somehow better than the next man – they rarely evince any desire to rule or control their fellow men as they are too busy just being intellectuals. And second I truly do apologize if I offended you by my parody of how Christians, rural people, and the less formally educated of our society are all too often portrayed by the media and those who have no clue as to who or what such people are about, or as has been said: “Who have eyes and see not, and who have ears and hear not.“ Certainly many fine intellectuals have done service in the cause of freedom and for their fellow man – but to expect that or to propose the proposition that it was intellectuals that made up the backbone of the fight at Normandy or in the Fields of France, or the islands of the Pacific is not accurate – some were there – but it was the Audie Murphys and the Alvin Yorks – those hardscrabble farm boys and those blue collar working stiffs that did the up close dirty work. The intellectuals were busy building the bomb.
Do you really contend that there is not a disconnect between the those that manage and run large state, federal, and corporate bureaucracies and the people that have to deal with the consequences of those bureaucracies? We were ideally meant to have a government of amateurs and not professionals for that very reason. Every year in Springfield the rest of the state of Illinois is subject to fighting yet another slate of idiotic bills and regulations proposed by Mayor Dailey and his political sycophants and allies. Every year we see more and more state and federal regulations, rarely useful, mostly worthless, and sometimes downright criminal.
It is an age old problem that those who want to rule should not serve and those that do not want to rule are those most fit to serve. Like the canary in the coal mine, those who most obviously exercise their freedom and independence are those who are first affected by the encroaching web. Who is it that most openly exercise their liberties – the knuckle dragging gun owner, the idiot that still wants to smoke, the hot rod enthusiast, the hunter, the small time businessman, the family farmer, the amateur without a license, the do it yourselfer, the person who takes their responsibility for protecting themselves and family seriously, the idiot that believes in natural inalienable rights, that wants a limited government, that wants to be left alone without being supervised, certified, permitted, licensed, proscribed, or protected for the general good – the home-schooler – etc…these are among the groups that fight excessive regulation everyday. Do intellectuals and the ultra urban dweller have to deal with these things too – yes – but to a lesser degree and frankly there is more of an affinity in the more urban areas for people to look to government take responsibility for those things that many do not want to accept responsibility for themselves. As in: “Why would you want to own a gun to protect yourself – that’s what the police are for.”
Yes we all live and die, we all bleed and feel pain – but there are differences between those that would rule and those that would serve, those that would control and those that would live and let live.
If you don’t believe that there is rising discontent, frustration, and anger in rural and small town America over the direction of the country – or that all such frustrations that exist are just the product of fantasy or individuals duped by some right or left wing conspiracy, or ignorant fools crying victim over nothing – then feel free to own that opinion. I would simply suggest that you are wrong. There is a wind blowing and the parties in power – democrat and republican – feel it. Maybe the party out of power – the republicans think they can play it to their advantage – but if they do – it could consume them. The democrats want to defuse it and hope it blows over. Perhaps it will.
But people are aware of the power grabs inherent in the proposals for universal health care and proposals to deal with the reported threat of global warming. People are unavoidably becoming aware that increasingly there is a bureaucrat, a politician, a lawyer, or a ceo somewhere who is making decisions about the intimate details and the most treasured freedoms of their lives. And many are saying enough, no more.
February 12, 2010, 10:03 amjukeboxgrad says:
theo:
The Branchflower report can be found via here. It says this:
So you’re absolutely right that “the Branchflower report explicitly stated that Palin did nothing wrong,” as long as you believe that abusing your power and violating the State Ethics Act isn’t “wrong.”
I realize you’re using the special GOP dictionary, where words like “wrong” take on magically elastic meanings.
I just cited “the language within Branchflower.” I hope you will now explain your peculiar definition of the word “wrong.” While you’re at it, please explain why Palin herself also attempted to deny what Branchflower actually said.
There are some other things here I intend to reply to, but this is all I have time for right now.
February 12, 2010, 10:21 ammack says:
jukeboxgrad –
Just a few thoughts in response to your post:
Personally – I have no investment in Palin – I do find her at times funny and entertaining – but that doesn’t mean I would endorse her to serve as President – though I’m sure neither she nor the media are too concerned about my opinion or endorsement.
I did check out the links you posted but to my, admittedly cursory examination, they appeared to reflect a lot of he said, she said, and they said of a domestic dispute – having been in the middle of too many of those situations as a counselor – I can only say that the majority of the information is typically unreliable because the people involved often lie to each other (he hit me when he actually didn’t and he didn’t hit me when he actually did) – and thus must be taken with a grain of salt. Peoples anger, animosity, and hurt tends to distort their thinking and what they remember and how they interpret what they remember.
How do you think people that are receptive to Ms. Palin would interpret the information you refer and link to? I think they will write it off as an embarrassing and difficult family situation – and if brought up by her opponents they will see it as an out of bounds personal attack – a bit of political opportunism – that will just build sympathy for Ms. Palin.
Again, I am not defending her – I think she abused her responsibilities. That would give me pause to consider supporting her.
I have met Obama – when he was a state senator in Springfield. I wasn’t favorably impressed – to me he seemed a pretty face with a slick tongue (we have since seen he is also an intelligent man cause you don’t get to be where he is if you aren’t) – who carried water for the Daley machine. But then he was supporting legislation that I found abhorrent so I am sure that affected my view of him as a politician. As a man, husband, and father – I really know nothing of him – and I do pray for his health and for his family. I am sorry but I do disagree about the land/home deal with Tony Rezko – just as Palin abused her responsibilities even if she didn’t break the law – I think it is very clear that Obama behaved unethically if not illegally in that situation. Living in Illinois one becomes intimately aware of the political dance in Chicago – with Daley – Tony Rezko and his ilk – and machine politics. Otherwise Obama kept his nose relatively clean – but then it was apparent that the democrats were grooming him for bigger things even back then – since he was allowed to not vote on many controversial issues – while in the state senate – so he could be free to adjust his positions when he ran for higher office.
Lastly, I don’t necessarily disagree with your view that Palin’s behavior could be said to have violated the public trust – but again I think that people tend to balance that against the context of a situation – their personal beliefs and judgments about that person. For some Palin may be damaged goods because of trooper gate for others not. I mean, can you name one significant national political figure in the last ten to twenty years who has not had some scandal attached to them?
One other point in regard to Palin’s appeal – she has some of what Reagan had – the ability to connect to people who feel disconnected and disenfranchised – people feel she can relate to them – they feel she is talking to them and not at them. That is why she scares the hell out of people who reject her or her professed views – if she didn’t have that no one would be paying any attention to her at all.
February 12, 2010, 11:32 amjukeboxgrad says:
mack:
You seem to be working hard at missing the point. This is what Branchflower said:
And this is what Palin said about what Branchflower said:
The relevant text can be found via here. I am offering that citation now for the third time.
At the moment, I am not arguing that Branchflower said is correct. (It is correct, but that’s a separate issue.) I am simply pointing out that there is no excuse for Palin to lie about what Branchflower said.
If you ever manage to find a Palin supporter who admits that she told this lie, and admits that it was wrong for her to tell this lie, let me know. I’ve been looking for quite a while and still haven’t found one. And this illustrates the point I made before. It’s not just that Palin has serious character issues. It’s that her supporters are in deep denial about those issues.
February 12, 2010, 1:04 pmjukeboxgrad says:
mack:
It takes only slightly more than a cursory examination to understand that she told various lies about Wooten that are not a matter of “he said, she said.”
Here’s an utterly simple example. Palin’s sister told police that Wooten had never abused her. Nevertheless, Palin has repeatedly claimed that Wooten abused Palin’s sister.
Here’s another screamingly blatant example. Palin issued a statement claiming that a court found that Wooten had engaged in “serious, violent misconduct.” Trouble is, that’s the opposite of what the court found. What the court found was no evidence of violence.
Via here, you can click through to primary documents which contain all the relevant statements, proving all the claims I just made. These are not little tiny fibs. These are serious lies. Palin lies habitually, and about serious matters.
It’s wrong to defame anyone, but there’s a special irony in the fact that the target of Palin’s defamation is a veteran and a courageous cop.
Why are you making excuses for this? Why are you attempting to brush this off as “he said, she said?” That’s obviously not what it is, at least with regard to the specific items I have cited.
Time did a nice job of summarizing the Branchflower report. They make the key point that aside from being unethical, Palin’s behavior was incredibly amateurish and stupid. Big surprise.
February 12, 2010, 1:34 pmjukeboxgrad says:
can’t find:
Thank you for those helpful citations. I looked for them myself, but you must have been a little more clever in your googling.
On the other hand, don’t you realize that newspaper announcements are easily faked? I won’t be convinced until I see the long form. Just kidding.
=======================
chiMaxx:
The opening post was about someone calling Obama “professor.” Do you know who the someone was? Palin.
Ricardo already explained this.
Aside from that, Palinism is an intriguing and important subject. Analyzing Palinism is not really about understanding Palin. It’s about understanding the GOP.
By the way, this is the message I think she was trying to send (when she used the word that way): ‘I’m like you, and he’s not.’ Palin and Palinism is all about the glorification of mediocrity. “Elite” essentially means ‘not mediocre.’ When “elite” is used as a pejorative, that’s an example of celebrating mediocrity. Likewise for words like “intellectual” and “professor.”
There are a lot of mediocre people who are defensive about their mediocrity, and it helps them feel better about themselves when they see another mediocre person make a big splash.
mack:
I think people feel that because they see her as a reflection of their own mediocrity.
I have a feeling that there are plenty of pretty, conservative hockey moms in the US who are actually quite smart (and honest, too, but that’s a separate issue). I think it’s not at all an accident that the one being elevated by this particular group is not.
Bush understood the importance of projecting mediocrity. I think he went out of his way to sound dumb. For example, I think he probably knows the proper way to pronounce “nuclear.” In a way, Palin is the perfect successor to Bush. Bush was a Connecticut aristocrat who bought boots and a ranch so he could masquerade as a yokel. Palin surpasses Bush; instead of being a phony yokel, she’s the real thing.
When we pick mediocre leaders, we get mediocre results. Exhibit A: eight years of Bush.
February 12, 2010, 3:47 pmjukeboxgrad says:
theo:
She is arguably the most powerful person in the GOP (with the possible exception of Rush), and she is arguably the GOP frontrunner for 2012. Therefore her track record as a habitual liar is highly relevant.
The Petumenos report is a joke, as I demonstrated in detail a long time ago.
=========
mack:
Our government spends as much on weapons as the rest of the world combined. I wonder how that fits in with the concept of “limited government.”
I also wonder how congress getting involved in the Teri Schiavo matter fits in with the concept of limited government.
I also wonder how passing an “unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation’s indebtedness” (link) fits in with the concept of limited government.
I also wonder how Bush and the GOP doubling the national debt fits in with the concept of limited government.
I also wonder how Palin passing what is essentially a windfall profits tax fits in with the concept of limited government.
The trouble with the people who are saying “enough, no more” is that they were comatose until 1/20/09. Then they suddenly decided to get excited. Therefore they have roughly as much credibility as the people (like Palin) that they are choosing to elevate.
If the tea party crowd had a history of protesting Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility, then I would probably be a member of that group today. But the tea party crowd we actually have is something quite different.
February 12, 2010, 3:47 pmBrent Cooper says:
How can saying anything (supposedly) derogatory about Obama be racist? According to a speech by Ogletree at Harvard, just before the election, Obama isn’t black — he’s “biracial” (so his election doesn’t purge Americans of their racist past):
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13579
If you’re interested, there’s a whole YouTube channel of clips from Ogletree’s various Harvard speeches illustrating his whacko views (e.g., American’s aren’t “chosen people”; Americans are too dumb to realize they caused 9/11; American patriotism is “superficial”; Colin Powell’s a liar; white Christians are racist, etc.):
http://www.youtube.com/user/ogletreevideos#p/u
Not to mention Ogletree’s a plagiarist — a few years ago he was caught lifting sections of two other books, and copying them into a book he put his name on (actually, it seems his ghostwriters did it), which helped his employer earn the nickname “Harvard Clown School”:
February 12, 2010, 3:48 pmhttp://harvardclownschool.blogspot.com
jukeboxgrad says:
Speaking of Palinism and mediocrity, I recommend an article Hitchens wrote about Palin’s anti-intellectualism (“Sarah Palin’s War on Science – The GOP ticket’s appalling contempt for knowledge and learning”). It includes this interesting passage:
Someone else who has written thoughtfully about “the intellectual decline of conservatism” is Richard Posner. And this brings us back to the opening post, because turning a word like “professor” into a pejorative is a symptom of that decline.
February 12, 2010, 3:48 pmBrent Cooper says:
How can saying anything (supposedly) derogatory about Obama be racist? According to a speech by Ogletree at Harvard, just before the election, Obama isn’t black — he’s “biracial” (so his election doesn’t purge Americans of their racist past).
If you’re interested, there’s a whole YouTube channel of clips from Ogletree’s various Harvard speeches illustrating his whacko views (e.g., American’s aren’t “chosen people”; Americans are too dumb to realize they caused 9/11; American patriotism is “superficial”; Colin Powell’s a liar; white Christians are racist, etc.), here.
Not to mention Ogletree’s a plagiarist — a few years ago he was caught lifting sections of two other books, and copying them into a book he put his name on (actually, it seems his ghostwriters did it), which helped his employer earn the nickname “Harvard Clown School.” Here.
February 12, 2010, 3:55 pmmack says:
jukeboxgrad
Ya know I’m not in the business of defending Palin – take a look at your focus and get a little perspective; and whether I totally agree with you or not and whether you are right or not- people are not going to go back to that issue. I was merely trying to explain the basis of her appeal and power. Clinton and Reagan had the same thing.
I’m not a republican and I’ve never been to a tea party, I don’t listen to Glenn Beck or Rush or even watch Fox news.
And I and many of my friends and fellows have been fighting this crap for more than twenty years – not just since 2009. What is different is that for the first time there is a growing critical mass of people beginning to coalesce. Sorry not everybody did it on your schedule, they didn’t do it on mine either, but the tea parties, Palin, Glenn Beck are all just piggy backing on the growing discontent that has been simmering for years and is finally reaching a boil. Maybe they want to be leaders, maybe they will be leaders, or maybe they will get thrown to the wayside.
I mean – you think Bush was popular even in his own party at the end? There were lots of us out here outraged by the so called “Patriot Acts” – another government power grab. Take off your partisan hat. The Republicans and the Democrats are tweedle dum and tweedle dee in this.
You want me to be outraged about Palin getting vengeful on her sisters ex-husband – and lying about things that happened. Really who the heck cares, when right now the deficit is out of control, the economy is on the brink or falling into a double dip depression and the specter of the catastrophe of hyper-inflation looms. And the government wants to pass trillion dollar healthcare with backroom deals and payoffs of public money and wants to commit to a global warming agenda that will destroy the economy for the foreseeable future with further limits on peoples liberty.
Yes, it twas idiots that supported that idiot Reagan – cause he appealed to their mediocrity and made them feel better about themselves? Excuse me, I don’t think so, I think people often intuitively grasp first principles and see past the window dressing, perhaps they understand that formal education and formal measures of intelligence often have little to do with competence or ability. I’ve met illiterate uneducated street kids that masterminded criminal enterprises and ran organizations that equaled or exceeded the efforts of MBA’s from Harvard. I knew a Rhodes scholar in HS – he was brilliant – but not as brilliant as a murderer I met a few years ago – that man could convince someone that day was night and night was day. I have never met a man so skilled and adept at manipulation – he could openly manipulate even hard core cops and probation officers even when they knew he was doing it.
Bush, Obama and their predecessors don’t operate in a vacuum the members of the house and senate have/had responsibility too. The frustration and anger isn’t directed solely against Democrats and the Republicans know that.
Partisans from both political parties will try to co-opt, control, defuse the growing discontent with government and the political parties – but the problem they have is that in order for them to move forward with their agenda’s it will be necessary for them to continue down the road of continuing to diminish individual liberty and sovereignty. I hope that people have finally had enough and say no to both parties.
February 12, 2010, 5:49 pmjukeboxgrad says:
mack:
When I show you an example of a blatant lie and you brush it off by incorrectly claiming it’s all just a matter of “he said she said,” you then bear a stunning resemblance to someone who is interested in defending Palin.
If you mean that “people” are going to ignore Palin’s record as a liar, you’re obviously correct, but only as long as you define “people” as “people who support Palin.”
I’m curious what that “fighting” looked like. If you have the time to be more specific, that would help me get a handle on what you’re trying to say.
If you define “popular” as ‘I approve of him,’ then he was indeed “popular even in his own party at the end.” As of May ’08, 60% of Republicans still approved of him. How many tea party demonstrations took place while he doubled the national debt? If the number was greater than zero, your assertions would be a lot more convincing.
Yes, that had a lot of people outraged, but those people tended to not be Republicans.
As I have said here many times (proof), it would be nice if we had a two-party system. So instead of making assumptions about my “partisan hat,” you should pay closer attention to the things I have actually said here.
When we embrace leaders even though they have proven their willingness to lie to us, the odds of solving those problems become much worse. So “who the heck cares?” People who understand that picking honest leaders is a prerequisite to solving the problems you listed. When we accept dishonest leaders, we end up with the government we deserve, and we also end up with the kinds of problems that you listed.
Our last president was an MBA from Harvard, so I guess he helps prove your point.
On 1/19/10, the Independent candidate in MA won 1% of the vote. So the number of people willing to “say no to both parties” seems to be quite small.
Speaking of being willing to say no to both parties, you might find it interesting to know that I voted for the third-party presidential candidate in every single election since 1976 where there was a nationally-known third-party candidate. And I did that because I agree that “the Republicans and the Democrats are tweedle dum and tweedle dee in this.” Except that I think the GOP is even further advanced in their embrace of corporate money.
February 12, 2010, 6:44 pmmack says:
jukeboxgrad says:
mack:
I’m not in the business of defending Palin
When I show you an example of a blatant lie and you brush it off by incorrectly claiming it’s all just a matter of “he said she said,” you then bear a stunning resemblance to someone who is interested in defending Palin.
Well, you would be incorrect then – just as I was evidently incorrect in believing you to be partisan based on your continual focus on Palin while dismissing Obama’s ethical problems.
whether I totally agree with you or not and whether you are right or not– people are not going to go back to that issue
If you mean that “people” are going to ignore Palin’s record as a liar, you’re obviously correct, but only as long as you define “people” as “people who support Palin.”
People who either support her or people who are undecided – such things didn’t significantly damage Bush or Clinton or Obama either. One may not like it, but that is the political way of the world – it’s in the political past for her and she has been inoculated against it – just like Obama and Rev White and Tony Rezko.
I and many of my friends and fellows have been fighting this crap for more than twenty years
I’m curious what that “fighting” looked like. If you have the time to be more specific, that would help me get a handle on what you’re trying to say.
Organized local political non-partisan groups starting but not limited to working with ISRA – (Ill. State Rifle Assoc.) – worked with local efforts to elect candidates supportive of limited government in general – at least once or twice a year driven to the state capital to see senators and representatives and the governor – though the governor is never available. Written letters to representatives of all levels of government, supported candidates at times of all parties including third parties. And shared with friends and family my concerns about issues and government in a positive not argumentative way. Have also attended local meetings of county board and on down to PTA. Usually vote third party but will make exceptions based on the individual – I have met especially in lower level politics many good honest and like minded people of both major parties – just not so much the higher up they get.
you think Bush was popular even in his own party at the end?
If you define “popular” as ‘I approve of him,’ then he was indeed “popular even in his own party at the end.” As of May ’08, 60% of Republicans still approved of him. How many tea party demonstrations took place while he doubled the national debt? If the number was greater than zero, your assertions would be a lot more convincing.
Bushes approval numbers from self identified republicans were historically horribly low for a sitting president – you know that. The overall approval rating numbers are also of little real meaning – practically no one believes that Bush if he could have run for re-election would have been able to win his own parties nomination. Thus generic approval numbers are meaningless really unless you measure them against something. As for the timing of tea parties – things get worse under Obama and the Democrats (leaving aside the matter of who is or isn’t to blame) and of course the frustration and anger grows – like I said – movements grow in their own time not as you or I might believe they should.
There were lots of us out here outraged by the so called “Patriot Acts” — another government power grab.
Yes, that had a lot of people outraged, but those people tended to not be Republicans.
I am sure more democrats were outraged than republicans – democrats hate the daddy state and republicans hate the mommy state – they’re both abominations.
Take off your partisan hat. The Republicans and the Democrats are tweedle dum and tweedle dee in this.
As I have said here many times (proof), it would be nice if we had a two-party system. So instead of making assumptions about my “partisan hat,” you should pay closer to the things I have actually said here.
I was basing that comment on what I stated above – but I will accept your correction.
You want me to be outraged about Palin getting vengeful on her sisters ex-husband — and lying about things that happened. Really who the heck cares, when right now the deficit is out of control, the economy is on the brink …
When we embrace leaders even though they have proven their willingness to lie to us, the odds of solving those problems become much worse. So “who the heck cares?” People who understand that picking honest leaders is a prerequisite to solving the problems you listed. When we accept dishonest leaders, we end up with the government we deserve, and we also end up with the kinds of problems that you listed.
I was making an observation of practical politics (something that the libertarian party that I tend to support has no grasp of – hence their continued pathetic showing at the polls) that when people are angry and upset about major issues they will use whatever weapon the have available that they find effective. There isn’t a nationally viable candidate who isn’t compromised, honesty challenged, or ethically corrupt. People grab the handiest viable one that is closest to their message or agenda. Ideally I would love it if that weren’t the case. Look at Ron Paul, – he’s not viable and even he has his own issues even though I think he is probably cleaner than the vast majority. I sometimes wonder if anyone can get too far without being compromised.
Also as adults let us be real – MLK the great man that he was, was not honest either, he was clearly a flawed man, but I think that most would agree that he had integrity in relation to the issues he fought for, and our nation would be the poorer without him. That is why people make distinctions that you don’t seem to accept – republicans were incredibly frustrated when most people made that distinction in Clinton’s case too, between public and private integrity.
I’ve met illiterate uneducated street kids that masterminded criminal enterprises and ran organizations that equaled or exceeded the efforts of MBA’s from Harvard.
Our last president was an MBA from Harvard, so I guess he helps prove your point.
Okay, I like that comment.
I hope that people have finally had enough and say no to both parties.
On 1/19/10, the Independent candidate in MA won 1% of the vote. So the number of people willing to “say no to both parties” seems to be quite small.
Speaking of being willing to say no to both parties, you might find it interesting to know that I voted for the third-party presidential candidate in every single election since 1976 where there was a nationally-known third-party candidate. And I did that because I agree that “the Republicans and the Democrats are tweedle dum and tweedle dee in this.” Except that I think the GOP is even further advanced in their embrace of corporate money.
Well I think one needs to be patient, I haven’t lost hope – but maybe that is because I am one of those wacked Christians, predisposed however cynical I get to retain hope in the end. I did attend with my first wife for awhile a mixed congregation nondenominational (mixed political party affiliation too), church were there was speaking in tongues and laying on of hands – it was a very joyful place – and while I was never personally moved by the spirit to speak in tongues or fall out – I didn’t feel it necessary to judge those who were so moved – I figured if it was genuine for them, then that was all to the good and if it wasn’t genuine, then they were just hurting or cheating themselves. I learned a lot about acceptance and respect while I was there.
But regarding MA there wasn’t any viable candidate for people to get behind and Brown was able to tap into a populist line – also people were desperate to win to send a message and frankly to stop that crappy health care bill. That doesn’t mean that people really were so much for Brown or pro-republican as they were anti party in power. Don’t you think that divided government is one way that people have historically sought to say no to both parties?
I am glad that you support your convictions – and I probably have supported many of the same candidates that you have at times. And I do agree with you that republicans are probably deeper in the corporate pocket than the democrats – though the democrats are probably more statist than the republicans – mommy state and daddy state.
February 12, 2010, 10:03 pmjukeboxgrad says:
mack:
The fact that I disagree with you about Rezko is not a reason to claim that I am dismissing Obama’s alleged ethical problems. And I would say more about Rezko except that this pretty obviously is not the time or place for that discussion.
Clinton’s perjury did indeed significantly damage him (and it was probably a factor in Gore losing). On the other hand, it’s true that we have a generally high tolerance for dishonesty in our politicians. We kind of throw our hands up and say ‘boys will be boys.’ (Or what you said: “that is the political way of the world.”) In my opinion, this is a big mistake on our part, and the end result is that we get what we deserve.
Of course I know that. I also know that you’ve moving the goalposts. The question was this: was he “popular even in his own party at the end.” And the fact is that he was. Yes, his numbers were low compared to other presidents, but the fact remains that most Republicans still approved of him, even after he doubled the national debt and did lots of other things that contradict the “limited government” mantra. Therefore they have no credibility when they wake up on 1/20/09 and suddenly decide to be born-again deficit hawks.
First of all, I disagree with this assertion. Most Republicans approved of him, right until the bitter end. Period. The fact that other R presidents enjoyed even greater support (by Rs) doesn’t alter this fact.
Secondly, it’s not just the approval numbers. It’s that all throughout his term, most Republicans sat on their hands while he did the things we’re talking about.
Tea parties started in 2/09. So I don’t buy the “things get worse under Obama” argument.
And some movements behave in a way that earns respect, whereas other movements demonstrate that they are driven by shallow political posturing.
I don’t judge them, and I don’t want to keep them out of politics. I just want them, and everyone else, to keep their religion out of our politics. The GOP seems inclined to merge religion and politics, and I consider that fundamentally un-American.
When we repeatedly replace corporatist Rs with corporatist Ds, and vice versa, as a way of throwing a tantrum against the current “party in power,” then we’re acting like children, and we get what we deserve.
Now that we have undivided D government we suddenly hear lots of people talking about the virtues of divided government. I think those same people were not calling for divided government in 2004 or 2006, when we had an undivided R government. Funny how that works. And if we end up with divided government in 2011-2012, I’ll eat my hat if these same folks call for Obama to be reelected, in order to maintain divided government.
This point was made on another thread by commenter Strict, who asked the following question:
As far as I can tell, no one had the guts to give him a straight answer.
That word (“statist”) is generally used as a buzzword by people who are expressing the following sentiment: ‘let’s make the government as small and powerless as possible.’ Trouble is, there’s an inevitable balance between government power and corporate power. When one is reduced, the other is enhanced. That’s just the way it works. And unrestrained corporate power is ultimately just as destructive as unrestrained government power. Unrestrained corporate power leads to corporate ownership of the government, which is essentially what we currently have.
Government and business are in bed with each other, but the party who is really getting screwed is the voter.
February 13, 2010, 12:32 amDr. Weevil says:
We’re supposed to take instruction from ‘jukeboxgrad’ on who’s a liar and who’s guilty of “shallow political posturing” when he can’t even acknowledge that he was wrong on this very thread on such basic factual questions as whether Palin speaks in tongues and whether her husband and older children have graduated from high school? What a disgusting hack!
February 13, 2010, 8:54 amjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
Like theo, you like making false accusations. Let us know when you find the place in this thread where I said that I know for sure that “Palin speaks in tongues.” On the other hand, here are some things that we do know. We know at age 13 Palin was baptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. This is a place where the pastor “preached that Alaska’s natural resource wealth will fulfill the state’s destiny of serving as a shelter for Christians at the end of the world.” We also know that “videos taken in the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska, which she used to attend, show her nodding as a preacher says that Alaska will be ‘one of the refuge states in the Last Days.’ ”
We also know that once joining the church at age 13, she didn’t leave the church until she ran for statewide office, 25 years later.
Despite all these facts, she told the following lie:
Trouble is, Wasilla Assembly of God, a church where she was baptized and which she attended for 25 years, is decidedly not “nondenominational.” And her relationship with that church is clear from her own words:
Palin’s idea of a “special, special place” is a place where the pastor preached:
We also know that “the Assemblies of God teaches that spirit baptism must be accompanied by speaking in tongues.” That is, “speaking with other tongues” is part of the official doctrine of this church.
If a church where I was baptized and where I spent most of my adult life has adopted an official doctrine of speaking in tongues, then odds are that I have spoken in tongues. Especially if I express my warm feelings for that church, and describe it as “a special, special place.” If I attend a mosque for 25 years, is it fair to assume that I read the Koran and pray facing Mecca? It sure is. How is this any different? And at the very least, if she has not spoken in tongues, then she feels quite comfortable with the belief system which embodies that practice. After all, by her own words she has “grown up” in that culture.
And why are you defensive about this? Why is she defensive about this? Why did she tell an outright lie in a feeble attempt to hide her 25-year association with this church? And if she wants to renounce the church that she embraced for 25 years, she should have the courage to do that explicitly. Why did she do it by telling a lie?
Where did I say that they didn’t graduate from high school? I didn’t. I simply asked for proof that they did. What’s wrong with asking for proof?
The “disgusting hack” is you. When are you going to apologize for accusing me of making a statement I never made?
February 13, 2010, 10:42 amDr. Weevil says:
Oh look, more
liesmisrepresentations from jbg, who squirts like them a squid. I’ll just point out two more for anyone who’s still reading:1. jbg quotes a Fox report: “The Assemblies of God teaches that spirit baptism must be accompanied by speaking in tongues.” He carefully omits the next sentence: “Still, some churchgoers never have the experience.” Why does he omit it? So he can assert that the “odds are” that Palin has spoken in tongues. Odds are that if she had, someone would have noticed. No one has, so jbg just assumes what he wants to believe.
2. The pastor of the church she stopped attending in 2002 “questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven”. What does that have to do with Palin? Nothing: she wasn’t a member of his church when he said it, though jbg slyly contrives to imply that she was. (We may even wonder whether she switched churches because she thought the pastor was becoming a bit of a fanatic.)
I could go on, but there’s really no point in arguing with jbg. I wonder why he doesn’t start his own website. If his arguments are as wonderful as he thinks they are, he should have no trouble attracting readers.
February 13, 2010, 12:16 pmChrisTS says:
Yowza.
Anyhow, apropos the OP: It might interest folks here to know that most of the commenters on the IHE article (last I checked) agree that Ogletree’s ‘racism’ meme is out of place in this instance. However, as most of those commenters are academics, they are concerned with the anti-academic [if we dislike 'anti-intellectual'].
And this is a problem in a country in which higher education is in dire straits. If significant numbers of citizens simply dismiss the views and expertise of those who are educated, we cannot have intelligent discussion of complicated matters confronting us. If significant numbers deride ‘professors,’ we cannot expect the young to respect their own educational opportunities.
February 13, 2010, 3:39 pmjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
So what? Who cares? When did I claim that all churchgoers have the experience, or that we’re sure that Palin had the experience? Answer: nowhere. What I said is this: chances are she did.
Are you familiar with the concept of a corollary? The corollary of “some churchgoers never have the experience” is ‘most churchgoers do have the experience.’ If it was true that ‘most churchgoers never have the experience,’ then they would have said ‘most,’ not “some.” So thanks for proving my point. The passage you cited indicates that ‘most churchgoers have the experience.’ Which means that most likely Palin had the experience. So why are you claiming she didn’t? How do you know? And why are you and her defensive about this? What are you and her ashamed of?
Thanks for this excellent example of pretending that you know something you don’t actually know. How do you know “no one has” noticed? Answer: you don’t. All you know is that you haven’t heard anyone speak up about it. There’s a name for the fallacy you’re presenting: argumentum ad ignorantiam. Rumsfeld had his own way of expressing this concept.
By the way, there’s nothing surprising about the fact that the people who went to church with her for 25 years are not eager to reveal something about her that she obviously does not want revealed. Especially since she has a track record of being petty and vindictive toward people who displease her.
It tells us plenty, because it tells us something important about the person she accepted as a pastor. Next up, weevil will tell us that recent controversial statements by Jeremiah Wright have no relevance, because Obama is no longer in Wright’s church. Really? For some reason I don’t think you really believe that.
There is no reason to think that there was any change in his behavior. The circumstances indicate that she left his church because she decided to run for statewide office (Lt Gov). The timing is obvious, especially when we notice the way she subsequently tried to deny her history at that church. She clearly views it as an electoral liability. Why? What is she ashamed of? And why is she being sneaky about it? And if “she switched churches because she thought the pastor was becoming a bit of a fanatic,” why doesn’t she say so? What’s stopping her from condemning his offensive statements? The fact that she has refrained from doing so tends to convey the impression that she considers his offensive statements to be inoffensive.
I know I have no trouble attracting one particular reader: you. If you think my comments aren’t worth reading, I have a suggestion: stop reading them. I promise that this won’t interfere with my sleep in any way.
And I notice you still haven’t explained why you accused me of making a statement I never made.
February 13, 2010, 4:33 pmPurple Koolaid says:
OH Please Jukebox, You would never be party of the teaparty movement, even if monkeys flew out of my a**.
Have you even been to a tea party?? I have, and I can tell you there were a lot of people protesting the wars. Have you ever been to lewrockwell.com or mises.org? Do you know what a libertarian is? I cannot think of a handful of positive articles about GWB on any libertarian site. Do you ever read Glenn Reynolds at instapundit.com? He even said that the msm liked to have him on when he criticized spending of GWB, but not so much now that Obama is in office. Have you ever heard of WSJ? Peggy Noonan wrote that GWB killed conservatism? There are true conservatives out there and they were critical.
February 14, 2010, 6:15 pmjukeboxgrad says:
purple:
Wrong. If it was a true third-party movement, I would be. Trouble is, it’s nothing more than a feeble effort at rebranding the GOP.
Why is that supposed to impress me? Now that a D president is in charge of the wars that Bush couldn’t finish, they suddenly decide it’s time to protest the wars? Where were they napping prior to 1/20/09?
What’s the relevance of mentioning Rockwell? Folks around these parts view him as “fringe” and “creepy.” And the “Mises Institute Crowd” doesn’t get much respect around here either.
So what’s your point? Are there a handful of sincere, principled libertarians who genuinely opposed Bush? Of course there are. Just not that many.
Reynolds was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the war. Is that what you call libertarianism? And where is your evidence that he ever really gave Bush a hard time on economic policy? On 2/9/05, WP wrote this:
Instapundit archives for February 2005 are here. Can you find a place where he says a single word on this subject? I can’t.
Please show evidence of all the times Reynolds “criticized spending of GWB.”
I don’t recall her saying that. I recall her saying this:
Not quite the same thing. And it took her until 2008 to say that. I call that slow reflexes.
Really? It would be good if you could show some proof. As Dilan Esper aptly said:
Exactly. Notice what William F. Buckley Jr. said on 3/26/04: that it’s wrong “to denounce Bush and his policies ‘in the name of conservatism,’ ” and that there is nothing (or not much) “about Bush’s policies that makes them unworthy of conservative benediction,” and that it’s wrong to claim that “a true conservatism would take a stand against everything that is identified with George W. Bush’s policies.”
And we heard something very similar from Fred Barnes on 8/18/03: “the case for Bush’s conservatism is strong.”
So your claim is revisionism. As I already pointed out, most Rs approved of him all through this term.
February 14, 2010, 8:08 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Bruce Bartlett (“a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and … a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush;” link) makes the point about GOP hypocrisy very clearly:
The article has some truly shocking details. As the saying goes, read the whole thing.
Yes, “any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt.” And the same goes for the voters who put those Republicans in office, and sat quietly while all this damage was done.
February 14, 2010, 8:24 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Jukebox Hero Said:
And I’ve been around here for a long time, so that’s saying a lot.
Indeed. So I noticed in the VC notification emails that filled the inbox upon return from short haitus. You and Zuch should hold a VC competition. I see he too has as much time on his hands as you do. Using the simple expedient of tossing a dart at the computer screen while pulling up most any thread of VC, and yours or his name will likely be hit–dead on–at all hours day and night. You’ve been quite busy here, that’s for certain.
What it’s really “saying”, if much, is that as your state probably has a local DSS outlet, we really need to find you some gainful employment. Right about now would be great.
I might add that regarding the “glorification of mediocrity”, spending all day on some blog is no better sampling. Your highbrow services to the commonweal are apparently not needed elsewhere.
But then, that’s OK too, as neither are this president’s.
March 2, 2010, 12:29 amWakefield Tolbert says:
I await with bated breath as Republican actions about Medicare are the new justification for forging ahead on government monopoly on 1/6 of the US economy under the guise of “increased competition” and the ever-increasing paunch of the national deficit, when in reality everyone knows that everything will eventually get sucked into the giant maw of government glop, as was always the plan from the start. And, well, we also know that the deficit issue is not going to be solved anytime soon by this crowd in DC. Those damned Republicans set all the tones for this glop, didn’t they? Rascals and spendthrifts! Who’d have guessed their billions were inferior in moral scope to Obama’s untold trillions!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E
Odd that hypocrisy is now the backup argument for doing something hellishly worse for both the economy and people’s independence from government power. One hell of a note.
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2009/07/health-care-for-all-and-happy.html
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/washington-post-shills-for-obamacare.html
Hell is now adjourned.
March 2, 2010, 2:13 pmChristiane Knapik says:
I enjoy checking over all the new types of December 21,2012 mayan prophecy, I imagine one smashing thing that has come of all of this, even if nothing materializes is that it has opened our minds to the possibility that we may not be here forever and that we need to hold dear the lifespan we have.
July 2, 2010, 10:11 pmsingle mom grants says:
Superb Blog, thanks for helping me with this great Article. I think it is really a great topic to write about on my blog. Also here is some good information if needed: single mom grants
July 7, 2010, 1:19 pm