Until Midterm Elections...

Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Racism in Obama's America

Before the election of 2008, many people on both sides of the political spectrum speculated on the possibility that if we, as a nation, could elect a black president, the spectre of racism in America would be forever destroyed. How could a nation so conceived and so matured in its thinking vote for a man of color and not be able to say that finally, America is not a racist nation?

Admittedly, we've come a long way in this country. The founders of this country wrote inequality into the Constitution with the three-fifths compromise. Analysis of this action does show that it was infact taken as a means to prevent the spread of slavery...limiting the population of slave-owning states would limit their voting power in Congress. I take that as a signal that our founders were forever ahead of the curve. They knew that at the time, slavery and racism were too imbedded in the American way of life to threaten the young Republic with that battle and they put it off.

Lets see how far we've come: Lincoln declared the slaves to be free with the emancipation proclamation, he nearly tore the Union apart with a brutal war to keep it together, and he gave his life because of his actions. We have demolished the Jim Crow laws. We have passed Affirmative Action legislation under the guise of helping minorities. We have done more than nearly any other nation on the planet to confront the evil of racism. We even elected a black man to the office of President of the United States.

Unfortunately for us and our sanity, Rush Limbaugh was 100% right when he proclaimed in February of 2008 that electing Obama would not put racism to bed in this country...it would exacerbate it.

The real outrage in this matter is that the charge of racism comes as a last ditch effort to discredit those who oppose Obama's agenda. Lets examine the facts: as a writer in the politico said earlier this week, Obama is failing pretty miserably on most of his policy objectives. He had to shove through a stimulus bill without debate on only the power of his personality and his bulwark of a democratic Congress. Cap and Trade legislation limped to a finish in the Senate and has been totally abandoned in the House. Card check for the "Employee Free Choice Act" is going to be removed...that was the whole point of the EFCA. And now, Obama's principle cause, the one for which he has been campaigning since 2003, National Healthcare, has indeed become his Waterloo.

Nearly 2 million Americans marched on Washington on Saturday as a part of the 9/12 project. They were protesting many things, all of them related to Obama's policy objectives. Consistent polling has Obama's approval rating plummeting from just a few short months ago. Approval for his handling of healthcare is in the toilet. He is losing the debate. What happens when liberals begin to lose the debate? Flip to page one of the Democratic playbook and drop the race card.

Jimmy Carter goes out there saying that a vast portion of the opposition to Obama is due to the fact that he is a black man, that he is an African American.

Rep Hank Johnson of Georgia said that Senator Joe Wilson's outburst of "You Lie!" during the presidents speech has jinned up a lot of racist sentiment and supposed that now we're going to be seeing a lot of people donning white hoods and cloaks and riding around the countryside intimidating people.

Here is a montage of other media quotes:


CAMPBELL BROWN: ...vicious, racist imagery attacking our first African-American president.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Gentleman Joe Wilson has done much to make the racist history of South Carolina jump back into our present consciousness.
CANDY CROWLEY: Critics think this is about resistance to a black man as president.
JAMES CARVILLE: People are upset with President Obama because of the color of his skin. Who cannot believe that?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Could there be a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president because of his race?
WOLF BLITZER: A small but disturbing minority within the tea party movement is also blatantly anti-black.
JOHN RIDLEY: When you talk about racial image, this is not just standard debate.
ELAINE QUIJANO: A small but passionate minority is also voicing what some see as racist rhetoric.
JOHN AVLON: Hitler. Communism. Racism. All this ugliness is bubbling up.
ANDERSON COOPER: There is an undercurrent of racism in some of the criticism of the president.
JUAN WILLIAMS: An attack on somebody because you really don't like the fact that they are president or because of their race.
ROSS DOUTHAT: Clearly Barack Obama's race plays some role in the kind of anxieties that are roiling the political right.
CLARENCE PAGE: People are not just mad at Obama. They are mad at Jesse Jackson. They are mad at Reverend Wright. They are mad at Al Sharpton. They are mad at people who have nothing to do with Obama except they all happen to be black.

We are to presume, I suppose, that there can be no legitimate, thoughtful, well-reasoned, substantive reason to disagree with The One. Therefore, any such criticism must be because those lobbying the critiques are RACIST!

Give me a break. This is not only insulting, it is so pigheaded and narrowminded that it barely deserves attention.

Joe Wilson may have broken rules of decorum, but when will Harry Reid apologize for calling Bush a liar? When will Jack Murtha apologize for claiming our troops in Iraq were murdering women and children? When will Nancy Pelosi apologize for calling Americans with a policy disagreement nazis? Were their comments racially charged? What does race have to do with disagreeing with the President?

This just further exemplifies my belief that it is the Left in this country that is obsessed with race. Not only race, but race-politics and identity politics. The political Left is constantly trying to divide the American people into groups and pit them against each other. This is another example of Obama and his ilk grasping at straws in a last ditch effort to save their healthcare agenda. It truly is sad that in this, the "Post-racial Administration", we would see such blatantly obvious and troubling actions being taken.

33 comments:

  1. This was predictable though folks. Obama sat in a racist, hate filled church run by a liberal racist for 20 years. If you think he sat there and didn't learn anything, think again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK, let me first start off with saying I approve of President Obama, still.

    Yes, we are still in this economic shitt hole that former president Bush put us in but obviously Obama couldn’t fix that in a year and that’s not the topic of discussion.

    Next, health care reform I agree with Obama’s plan well most of it. I’m not going to tell you I have read all of it, because I do not have the time nor the education to understand most of the language in it.

    I do not believe though when Senator Joe Wilson yelled out “YOU LIE!” during The President’s speech it was in any way racist!! He obviously just does not agree with The President, yes I would not have yelled out, but he let his emotions get the best of him.

    I’m not trying to argue that racism has not been completely destroyed. I know for a fact we still have the KKK and other various racist cults in our society. I just believe all those media quotes saying that the senator is racist may be going too far. The senator just doesn’t believe in the health care reform.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great job Scott and pointing out some logical fallacies of the post-racism idea.

    I would like to make a connection. When William Jefferson Clinton was elected President of the United States, he was subjected to one of the most vicious witch hunts from the Republican that any President in recent history was subjected to. The only thing he was found to be guilty of was lying under oath after an unethical legal trick by Kenneth Starr.

    Now, the Republicans lose another Presidential election and they start crying like little babies as before. Another witch hunt is under way to destroy the credibility of another Democratic president.

    Since taking office, Barack Hussein Obama has been under constant, and often unfair, attack with the speech to school kids being the most recent example of the Republican Party acting like little babies. Joe Wilson and John Shimkus being guilty of acting like a three-year old during the President's speech to Congress after being asked by Congress to address it. When will the "Whitewater" witch hunt of this Presidency begin? This is where it is actually a good thing that the Republicans are in minority.

    When 95% of a certain group vote against the Republican Party, it is not because of lies, a biased media, corrupted leaders or anything of the sort. They vote against the Republican Party because it has ignored the constituency for too long - starting with Nixon's racist "Southern Strategey."

    Here's to hoping the Republicans keep acting like little school children. November 2010 is right around the corner and the "Party of Old Grumpy White Men" will continue to find itself marginalized by the voting public.

    Funny that how when the Republicans talk about protecting minority rights of others they oppose it under a logical stretch of "equal protection." When they are in the minority, it is because everyone is out to get them and they need help.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, go to stltoday.com and read the comments on the discussion board concerning the school bus attack. My favorite comment reads, "That is what you can expect from those n##### thugs. They are like f###ing animals. All of them."

    Post-racial society...Yeah right. One comment actually blames President Obama for the attack. Probably a well-reasoned Republican stating it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that it seems a little weird that a whole group of african americans would start beating up a white man for no reason. I think that boy must have said something to one of those men to make them beat him so severly. Clearly it was something racist because it was all african americans on him. I think if it was a group of white men beating up a black man and people were video taping it and laughing, all hell would have broke loose. And it would have been on every news station for days and days about how a group of racist white males beat up a poor black male.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Now, the Republicans lose another Presidential election and they start crying like little babies as before. Another witch hunt is under way to destroy the credibility of another Democratic president."

    What are you freaking talking about?! Destroy his credibility? Scott, this man has no credibility. He served in the Senate for 147 days prior to starting up his campaign for president. He never ran anything in his life. All he knows is this ACORN-community agitating. Could you please list some of Obama's accomplishments that qualified him to serve in the most powerful and important office on Earth, besides giving a great fluffy speech in 2004 and writing two...two memoires before the age of 45? I wasn't making this about Obama's credibility but good lord I cannot sit here and pretend that he ever had any! I wish we'd had this blog during the election because that was my second biggest beef with him during the campaign (first biggest beef being the fact that the man is a socialist and I am fundamentally opposed to his ideology in the role of government).

    Wow, at least Clinton was a state governor. Obama didn't serve for 6 months and he was running for president already.

    Okay, got that out of the way, moving on...

    The only man in the country who can put an end to all this race baiting and drummed up, lying vitriol about people with legitimate, substantive opposition to his policies is Obama. He needs to go out and make a speech saying to cut it out. People disagree and thats okay, its America and as Hillary Clinton once screeched it, "This is America and we have a right to debate and disagree with ANY Administration!" Amen sister and its not because of race.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You realize that Obama has booked Letterman and all the Sunday shows EXCEPT Fox. Cuz he knows Fox will throw him fastballs. Maybe a curve or knuckler. And he only wants softballs. He needs to start acting presidential and put an end to all this nonsense being put out there by Jimmy Carter et al. instead of going back into campaign mode to try and push a healthcare plan that 55% of America doesn't want!

    And speaking of Joe Wilson...not only was his outburst effective in forcing the State Run Media to cover Obama's lies publicly, but he was DEAD ON RIGHT! He knew because that same day he had had two amendments that would specifically require proof of citizenship to receive healthcare VOTED DOWN by committee. So he knew the president was lying through his teeth and he couldn't take it. I don't blame him for showing some cojones and calling Obama out on this matter. Was it in bad taste to do that during a speech? Yeah, bad taste, but good lord, how about a little comparison of civility from your beloved liberals during Bush's administration?

    Anyhow I'm off topic again because this is supposed to be about race, which I'm glad to see, we seem to agree on. My interpretation of why the race card was played all of a sudden and so vehemently is that Obama knows he is losing the argument, so what does he do? Race card. He did it to the Clintons in South Carolina! At least Bill says so. When in doubt, cry race, because this country, especially the media, is so damned worried about being labeled racist that they will cow-tow when that word gets thrown around. I for one will not tolerate it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're right, Scott L, there is no reasoned approach to dissent from the right that could not be racially based. OK, you were speaking tongue in cheek, but the fact is that the right wing's views are fundamentally anti-black. When Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for president, he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, a clear message to his anti-black followers that the killing of Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman was a badge of honor for the party. These guys know how to deliver a message without ever saying a word. Jimmy Carter knows it as a southerner, and he spoke it, wisely and clearly. The anti-black party on the right is alive and well, and they're not kidding with this president. He's a socialist; he's a Stalinist; he's everything bad in the world. Remember, America was built on this fundamental anti-black strategy. You talk about liberty and equality and then you put blacks in slavery and don't allow women to vote. Honestly, is it that much of a stretch to assume that the opposition to health care is based on a worry that poor blacks will receive services (and don't forget the Mexicans). What a party.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "but the fact is that the right wing's views are fundamentally anti-black."

    Slavery was ended by a "right wing" Republican president.

    Without Republican support, the Civil Rights acts in the 1960s would have failed due to the racist Southern Democrats.

    It wasn't a Republican governor that stood in blockade of black students wishing to attend college.

    It wasn't Republicans who turned the water hoses on crowds of black protesters.

    The only member of the KKK to serve in our Congress is Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT Senator.

    Its not Republicans whose handout policies and creation of a welfare state has utterly ruined the black family in America.

    Obama has come out and denied the criticism of him is race based, though not as absolutely as I would like. He threw Jimmy Carter under the bus on that one.

    And Mark, since when do words or labels like "Stalinist" insinuate racism? You may correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Stalin a WHITE GUY FROM RUSSIA!?!? Calling Obama a socialist is merely describing his political ideology, though in all actuality, fascist would be more appropriate. I'm not calling him Hitler and insinuating that he's going to exterminate millions of people, but his political goals mirror those of the National Socialist party in 1930s era Germany. If you insist on making that statement tied to race, then we cannot debate anymore because you've totally changed the meaning of words to mean something else entirely and by so doing, you've made it impossible to have an intelligent debate. But that is, unfortunately, precisely the reason the sudden outcry of racism has been made.

    "Remember, America was built on this fundamental anti-black strategy. You talk about liberty and equality and then you put blacks in slavery and don't allow women to vote"

    Do you read my postings or are you just copying things over from the Daily Koz? I specifically documented the progress made and the actions taken to ensure and allow for the eventual downfall of slavery in my original post. Yes, we had slavery and Yes it was awful and Yes it is hippocritical that people would so found a nation under equality and liberty and then deny it to a group of people in their country but we fixed those problems. Check that, largely, REPUBLICANS fixed those problems.

    And yes, it is a racist, hateful stretch to assume that the opposition to health care is based on a worry that poor minorites will receive services. And you probably meant so say "hispanic Americans". Surely you don't want us to be funding all routine healthcare for illegal Mexican aliens? Well, you probably do.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It would appear that conservatives are basically trying to create a genocide here in the US. They start by trying to cut education funding (if they had it their way, ALL education would be private), so that poor (which consists of a lot of non-white) people can't learn how to take care of themselves, or get enough of an education to land a decent job. Then, when they get sick, they can't afford the medical bills (and of course their employer isn't required to provide health insurance for them either, we wouldn't want to "stifle" the economy) and are forced to wait until it's serious enough for them to go to the emergency room (which, if the conservatives had their way, wouldn't be required to treat people without insurance anyway. why should the hospital bear the costs? well, maybe the health insurance companies should, because they're the reason these people didn't get preventive care in the first place, but that's a whole different story). By then, it's too late, and all of these people they don't like will just start dying off. It's only a matter of time...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and Scott L, just to clarify, Stalin was very racist. This gives a brief overview of the "ethnic cleansing" that went on: The partial removal of potentially trouble-making ethnic groups was a technique used consistently by Joseph Stalin during his career: Poles (1939-1941 and 1944-1945), Romanians (1941 and 1944-1953) Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians (1941 and 1945-1949), Volga Germans (1941-1945), Finnish people in Karelia (1940-1941, 1944), Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks, Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Far East Koreans (1937), Chechens and Ingushs (1944). Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union.[2] It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics.[5] By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.[6]
    Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union
    And no, before you throw your arms up in the air like you already know, it was not because the people were anti-Communist.
    Stalin was racist (people don't have to have darker skin to be a different race, in fact if you think that way then maybe you've been racist your whole life and just didn't know it because of a definition) Just like Joe Wilson. And Rush Limbaugh. And George Bush. And most of South Carolina. And parts of Southern Missouri. Hell, a lot of rural Missouri.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, and Scott, don't you DARE freaking call Abraham Lincoln a "right-wing" president. If you want me to go through the dictionary definitions and show you why that is ABSOLUTELY wrong, then I will, but I don't want to. So please don't make me. If you really want us to go through the history of the parties and explain how they basically were flip-flopped, then I would LOVE to, because I would LOVE to prove how you and your party have NOTHING in common with Honest Abe. I'm pretty freaking sure that Abe Lincoln would have kicked the living piss out of Strom Thurmond if he tried to join the Republican party while Abe was still around. You really think the party of Lincoln is also the party of fillibustering to preserve segregation? Come on Scott, we're not that stupid, but are you??!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Abe Lincoln and Strom Thurmond in the same party?

    Scott, I would remind you that the Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans because the Civil Rights Act because the Republican Strom Thurmond filibustered it in favor of resegregation, which was also the "Southern Strategy" employed by Nixon. The "Solid South" no longer is for Democrats and is now strongly in the pocket of the Republican Party's constant racist tendencies.

    Seriously, Scott I know you are a better history student than your comments above indicate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Welfare has not destroyed the black family. The unfair "three strikes and your out" as well as Republican attempts to keep Blacks poor (See Greiner and Kasen above) have destroyed black families.

    Prior to the Reagan administration, Blacks were quickly becoming middle class and were within five-to-ten years from achieving middle class percentages similar to whites. Then Reagan...Huh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In our world today and forever our country is always going to be racist. There is to many gangs in the world to have racism just stop in our country. I don’t know who thought that racism was going to go away when we elected a black president but they are stupid. I am glad we actually have a black president. It shows people that no matter what color of skin they are they can still do whatever they want if they try. I do believe though racism is getting better. Lately there have been more interracial couples producing kids than there was ever before. I honestly never want to have 100% white kids. Our world needs to open up and realize that white and black is not the only race in America.
    I think the students on the bus video needs to stop playing now. It has caught our attention and now we need to move on with our lives and worry about other important things. I still don’t understand why that video made world wide news because we have fights all the time at school. I went to Belleville West too and I saw so many other fights that were worse then this one. There have been kids head split open and blood all over the floors. Many people said this was a hate crime but it was not. They are teenagers and they are going to get into fights. Now a days, it is normal for me to see this in school and it really doesn’t surprise me at all. With fights though many people don’t know the real truth about how the fight started. The real truth is the white kid actually started and pissed off the black kid. Yes the black kid was wrong for beating up the kid the way he did and I do believe he should be punished but so should the white kid. If the story that I heard was true the white kid started and should be punished too. I just think this whole situation is stupid and someone should be an end to it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "What are you freaking talking about?! Destroy his credibility? Scott, this man has no credibility. He served in the Senate for 147 days prior to starting up his campaign for president. He never ran anything in his life."

    I have one name for you in reply: Clarence Thomas.

    Thomas came to the Supreme Court as the least qualified candidate in the Twentieth Century. However, his lack of qualification before taking the job has not hindered his ability to do the job. While I might not agree with his rigid interpretation of the Constitution and his complete lack of regard for stare decisis, he has been a quality justice.

    However, Scott, since he is "on your side" you have the ability to overlook his lack of qualifications. Since Obama is not "on your side," his qualifications matter?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

    ~The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260. "

    In the least we can conclude that Mr. Lincoln was not what is now considered to be a Democrat. Right-wing in the Ronald Reagan mold, we know not, for his presidency was shortlived and he mostly concerned himself with preserving the union. He did not seem too concerned with the modern liberal worries of "income gaps" or "income quintiles", rather, he encouraged such things. I'll claim him as a Republican, at the least.

    SJ,

    As for your nimble side-stepping of Obama's glaring illpreparedness to serve in his current position, let's examine Thomas' career for a minute.

    "In 1974, he was appointed an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri (primarily handling tax matters), and subsequently practiced law there in the private sector. In 1979, he became a legislative assistant to Missouri Senator John Danforth, and in 1981 was appointed as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. The following year, Thomas became Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which position he served for eight years until joining the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990.

    Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991."
    from wikipedia.

    SO it appears as though Clarence Thomas spent his whole adult life working in the legal realm and did serve as a circuit court judge for a time. He was then appointed to another legal job, where, you have admitted, he has served as a brilliant juror, even if you don't always agree with his decisions.

    Obama spent his whole adult life working as a community agitator with ACORN, a group he now pretends to be paying little attention to when asked about their current predicament. He served in the Illinois senate and was barely moved in to the the US senate before he started running for President. He's never run a business or been an executive of any kind and we elected him to be THE Chief Executive of the US.

    Comparing apples and oranges, plus you used a poor example. I stand by my original comment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. SJ, can you explain how punishing more harshly repeat offenders destroyed anybody's family, much less blacks in general? I'm really curious about this one.

    Olympia Snowe and Jim DeMint are both "republicans".

    Joe Lieberman and Nancy Pelosi (although Lieberman is now official an independent since his party gave him the boot) were both Democrats, but clearly they have differing beliefs on foreign policy.

    Just because two folks have the same letter by their name does not necessarily reflect anything about their beliefs nor the party in general. This has been a constant complaint of mine with having myself constantly lumped in with George Bush. Yes, we both officially have an R as our registration, but I strongly disagreed with many of Bush's actions.

    Hell, Pelosi and Baucus are facing open rebellion from Democrats on healthcare, some who are very liberal and want Single Payer and won't vote for a bill without a government option, and some who claim to be fiscally conservative and don't want it. So what I'm saying is that it is entirely possible for Strom Thurmond to have been racist and for the party at large to not be. Given my party's history for advocating the freedom of slaves, I'll continue to take offence at the insinuation that just because I am conservative, I want to create a genocide for black people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "They start by trying to cut education funding (if they had it their way, ALL education would be private), so that poor (which consists of a lot of non-white) people can't learn how to take care of themselves, or get enough of an education to land a decent job. Then, when they get sick, they can't afford the medical bills (and of course their employer isn't required to provide health insurance for them either, we wouldn't want to "stifle" the economy) and are forced to wait until it's serious enough for them to go to the emergency room (which, if the conservatives had their way, wouldn't be required to treat people without insurance anyway. why should the hospital bear the costs? well, maybe the health insurance companies should, because they're the reason these people didn't get preventive care in the first place, but that's a whole different story). By then, it's too late, and all of these people they don't like will just start dying off. It's only a matter of time..."

    The problem with this is that you do not account for results, merely intentions. Plus, you are being disingenuous.

    Republicans have been opposed to ever increasing funding for public educational centers because, as myself and others on this blog have pointed out, more money does not equal better success. SJ, you ought to speak up at this one here, you yourself have come up with many brilliant ideas of fixing education, none of which involve us tossing billions more into corrupt bureacracies. Republicans are not against education, we are against waste and fraud, which has run rampant in the liberal-run public educational system in America. Plus, educational spending went way up under Bush, but you probably have a problem with the allocation. Well, for that, blame your beloved Teddy Kennedy, for it was he who wrote the NCLB bill.

    As for pretty much the rest of your implications there, you completely leave out personal responsibility. Its as if you think of these poor minorities as mindless automatons who cannot work on their own to achieve any level of success in life. Life isn't fair and some people have to work harder than others. Some people, like the Kennedys or Rockefellers, are born into great wealth. I don't hold that against them just as I don't hold one's own accumulation of wealth against them.

    Not only that, but when we get into areas of wealth redistribution (be it medicare, food stamps, or the formidable government run health care) we are talking about the proper role of government. It has nothing, NOTHING, to do with race. I don't want government run healthcare for poor whites just as much as I don't want it rich asians (who are always conspicuously omitted from the discussion of these poor racial minorities, as are indians...wonder why?)

    Claiming that conservatives want to create a genocide in America is not only insulting, it flies in the face of common sense and of the founding of this nation. You want reparations for slavery, as does Obama, but I have news for you. I, as you, did nothing wrong to anybody. I am not racist by virtue of my own success in life. It is not racist for me to choose to not give away my money to other people for any reason. I earned it. (I do give away my own money to others, but that is for me to decide, not Barack Obama). As the great Republican (conservative) president, Abraham Lincoln said, "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't feel like president is using race to help him at all. The last resort for everyone else that is opposed to Obama is to say that the race card is being thrown. It isn't fair and he is getting such a hard time for the simple fact that there are so many people still opposed to having a black president. They can't deal with it and they keep trying to throw Obama under the bus. He hasn't had a fair shot to execute his plans thoroughly yet and people (everyone) needs to give this man a break. He is only trying to undo what has already been done. He needs to address race in this country and stand up and let everyone know that he recognizes this problem. To begin with he shouldn't have even took back what he said about the white police officer arresting the black professor. That would have put this whole race thing out on the table because the issue is only seeming to get worse. Obama is under a magnifying glass for the simple fact that he is black and that makes all the issues so much more intensified. Race is an issue that will have to come to light and I hope Obama stands up and addresses this for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is impossible to deny that racial inequality is still a problem in this country. Even though we preach that the US is all about "equality and freedom", statistics show otherwise. We cannot avoid the race issue with cases like the white child beat up by the black children. Or the fact that there are more Blacks living below poverty level than other races. Etc, etc.
    I think another form of racism is common in the US. It centers around the belief that there is no racism and that all people have an equal chance. These are also the people who believe that if there is a discrepancy between incomes, it is because the minority group is not trying hard enough. I think each racial group comes with an invisible package of unearned assets that are “free” to that particular group only. Obviously, the people who are oblivious or deny these “privileges” are the most irritating for they are often the ones who claim that affirmative action is no longer necessary because everyone has a fair chance.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I feel that all of this racist crap is exactly that-CRAP! Just because the Republicans can't stand the fact that America voted for a black man as president does not give them the right to act like children. They are throwing a hissy fit about every single thing Obama is trying to accomplish.

    In response to emr... There is no way to know what was said or done on that bus. For you to say that the white student "had to have said something racist to get beaten like that" is just foolish. There have been statements from black students that the white male was very quite and kept to himself. He was simply looking for a seat on the bus, and the black boy did not want him to sit next to him. Why does it have to be that the white kid had to have done something? There was also an article about Belville where a black girl was followed off a bus and attcked by a group of people. I guess you think she deserved it to.. Oh wait she was black so it just happened to her for no reason. Give me a break! Nobody, no matter what they say should ever get beaten like that boy was. EVER!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'd like to first amend my comment about Lincoln. Certainly there is more in the record of his other policies besides the execution of the Civil War and his desire to preserve the Union at all costs. I am endeavoring to learn more as we speak and will update this post when I've learned more.

    Now then, KJay...c'mon...

    "The last resort for everyone else that is opposed to Obama is to say that the race card is being thrown."

    You must be wearing political blinders. For the entire month of August, hundreds of thousands of people, white, black, hispanic or otherwise, met in hundreds of townhall meetings all across America to voice their dissent to Obama's healthcare agenda. The message of these groups is not a racist message:
    It is merely expressing our worry that such a government run system would cripple our own beloved healthcare system.
    It is a worry that such a system will so add to the federal debt that our American Dollar will spiral into hyperinflation.
    It is a worry that such a system will lead to healthcare rationing by bureaucrats, instead of individuals.
    It is a worry that our economy and country is being taken hard to the left, far away from where we were founded.
    It is the knowledge that this president despises America as it was constituted and has expressed his desire to remake our country in his own liberal, fascist, socialist image.

    It has nothing...NOTHING...to do with his race.

    Are there racists who oppose Obama simply because he is black? Sure! And they're on both sides of the political aisle! Racism is not the unique province of any one political group; rather it is an evil force in this country. To characterize those who express dissent with Obama's policy agenda as racist is to seek to utterly avoid reasonable debate. You have it backasswards. Throwing the racecard, as Obama and the media have done, reveals the debate has been lost by them. They seek now to demonize, to suppress dissent. They know that 56% of America does not want his healthcare plan and the media blitz last Sunday was an epic failure.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I think another form of racism is common in the US. It centers around the belief that there is no racism and that all people have an equal chance"

    Are you calling me racist because I'm not racist? That's a bit of a stretch...I don't see people as race groups or sexes or sexual orientations or age groups. I see people as individuals. Anyone born in America as an American citizen has that opportunity for greatness and success. We've been over the educational discrepancies before and we determined that blacks and other minorities do not underperform because of a lack of funding. We highlighted statistics that showed that within the same school whites outperform blacks on the MAP scores. So what is it?

    Like I've said time and again, I won't deny that our educational system needs fixing. But funneling more money to minority schools HAS NOT HELPED the problem. Corruption in many inner city school districts is the problem and sending more tax dollars into that corruption will only perpetuate the problem. SJ proposed a lot of good ideas for fixing American education in a post a couple of months back...we ought to begin there.

    "I feel that all of this racist crap is exactly that-CRAP! Just because the Republicans can't stand the fact that America voted for a black man as president does not give them the right to act like children. They are throwing a hissy fit about every single thing Obama is trying to accomplish."

    @Tikim...uh....what?

    How old are you, because seriously, its as if your historical record begins with Obama's election. For eight years we had to listen to a constant drumbeat of "Bush lied people died" and constant moaning that Bush stole Florida and also apparently Ohio. We heard about the "vast rightwing conspiracy" Anything Bush did or said was so utterly ridiculed and protested that a reasoned debate was not possible. We had movies and books written about Bush's assassination. One media person bemoaned their desire for Cheney's pacemaker to fail "just this once, because then we'd be rid of him!"

    For eight years, we had liberal kooks constantly running around whining about everything Bush did. Many even accused him of bringing down the twin towers on purpose as a front for war with Iraq!

    And you and others start accusing me and my own of being racist for bringing up legitimate questions and policy differences with our president? How dare you!

    Listen, it ain't crap, its just as American as Cindy Sheehan protesting the Iraq war. "This is America and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" ~Hillary

    Well thanks, Hill,...we sure will.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "As for your nimble side-stepping of Obama's glaring illpreparedness to serve in his current position, let's examine Thomas' career for a minute."

    I never said Thomas didn't have experience. I said he was the LEAST qualified Presidential appointment to be a Supreme Court justice in the 20th, and now 21st, Century. My point is the lack of experience/qualifications does not necessary doom the person to failure. We have countless examples of people doing great jobs while no one believed they could because of their lack of experience/qualification.

    President Obama's lack of experience does not doom him to failure. What I think his problem is that he is a Senator who became President. He is the second man in our history to make the jump from the legislative branch DIRECTLY to the executive branch's leadership position.

    Because of his respect for the legislative process, President Obama has not been as agressive in jamming legislation down the the throats of Congress, which is what we have seen recent administrations (actually historically as well).

    This respect has led him to stay out of the fray in Congress, which means he has allowed Congress to determine the course of the Bill.

    While I respect his holding to the seperation of powers doctrine (Justice Sotomayor was the first justice to be sworn in at the Court and not at the White House in 75 years), we might demand more from our Presidents.

    I don't know if that is a good idea or not?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Let's stop with the racism charges once and for all. If we had this blog during the Clinton adminstration, I know Scott would be launching the same attacks at him as he currently does at President Obama.

    That is not racism. It is what makes America the great nation that it is.

    I commend you Scott for using the Cindy Sheehan example. I know that not all Republicans would agree with you on that one.

    Scott L has also indicated that he might not opposed to gays marrying. He opposes Affirmative Action not because of racist reasons. His views on Aff. Action are in line with Justice Thomas on the issue. I do believe it is impossible for a black man to be racist towards blacks.

    Why can't we have a good discussion on race issues? Greiener points out some real issues, Scott realized he might've mispoken about Lincoln (who by the way was a segregationist) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    This is what we call open-mindedness. For some reason, when the issue is race we lose this great American principle.

    Liberals do not hold all the answer to the race issue and neither do Republicans. The answer comes through open dialogue between all parties involved, which in this case are Americans.

    Unfortunately, my utopia will not ever exist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Liberals do not hold all the answer to the race issue and neither do Republicans."

    I meant to use the word conservatives and not the word Republicans. Sorry for my confusing the two terms.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I would like to add two more cents to this.

    To argue that racism doesn't exist is a racist viewpoint. Funny that only white people tend to believe that racism doesn't exist.

    To argue that someone who opposes the policies of a black President is racist is stupid.

    To deny that Conservatives have some real answer to help us move past some of institutional slavery issues that exist in our country (for both poor blacks and poor whites) is not racist, but close-minded.

    ReplyDelete
  30. KJay I completely agree with you. I think people are being way to hard on Obama because of the color of his skin. People want change so fast and sometimes it just does not work that way. Its just like loosing weight, it takes time. Obama is doing a great job considering the disaster he came into. He is doing way more than me or any of you could probably do. Scott L if you think all these presidents are doing such a bad job, then why don't you run for president one day and we will all come to your blog site and complain about how horrible you are doing. Sound fair? The way you make it sound is as if Obama cannot do anything right. All you want to bring up is the things he struggles with. I think he is an incredibly brave man to take on such a task and be willing to become president when we live in such a racist country which puts his life at risk everyday. But to hell with Obama, Scott has all the right answers to everything!

    ReplyDelete
  31. One thing that lends Obama credibility in the eyes of the world: he is working his butt off, and he is willing to tackle issues that can (and in many ways is) making him unpopular. It would have been much easier for him to table the issue of health reform for another year or 2 or even for the next guy. But he's not, and for that I think we have to give him credit. He knows to keep smart, experienced people around him and he is taking his lumps while he tries to push this issue through. I know that there are parts of the reform issue that is upsetting everyone, like getting coverage for illegal immigrants. I work hard for my money, and I watch every penny so I know what people mean when they say they don't want to pay for other people's services. But in the big scheme of things, the numbers of underserved AMERICAN CITIZENS are much, much bigger than the total number of illegal immigrants! Many of the underserved work and buy health insurance. These are people who had to get seriously ill before they found out that their insurance wasn't worth a crap for serious illnesses. And that's what insurance is supposed to be for, right? Not for me getting the flu! I'm 27 yrs old with a healthy immune system, I can take some theraflu and drink orange juice. ALl Obama is saying is that insurance should be there for people who pay when they really need to get medical interventions. Otherwise, what are we paying out the premiums for?? I, for one, will get the public plan when it becomes available. I am a nursing student, and I see families that become financially devastated when a loved one gets sick. If I can pay into it while I am young and healthy, I will be able to help other people out as well as myself for the same amount I would be paying to a private company.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Scott L if you think all these presidents are doing such a bad job, then why don't you run for president one day and we will all come to your blog site and complain about how horrible you are doing. Sound fair? "

    EMR, I would be honored if this were the case.

    It is my job, as an alert, watchful, wary citizen, to keep both eyes on our government and question its actions. Had we had this blog going during Bush's presidency, you would have seen many blogposts by me disagreeing with him.

    What Obama is doing isn't brave, its calculated. Its naive. Its voting present.

    Iran has two nuclear enrichment facilities and is testing missiles that can hit Israel.

    The military commander that Obama picked for the job is requesting 40,000 more troops or else, he says, the war effort in Afghanistan will be lost and Obama flies off to Copenhagen to ask for the Olympics. What about our troops in harm's way? What about victory in the one war that liberals supported during Bush's presidency and constantly reminded us was the "real war on terror"? Obama doesn't care about victory, infact, it makes him uncomfortable.

    We just wrapped up a big dictator glamfest at the UN where the only head of state with any cojones was Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who demanded of the delegation, "Have you no shame?" The UN is a total waste of money and time, it has no credibility, yet Obama goes in there and apologizes constantly for America. We caved to the Russians for no reason. Obama is happy to cavort with dictators and thugs like Chavez and Ahmadenijad while denying the true, properly elected president of Honduras his visa to join in the dictator glamfest.

    I mean, these are some very serious problems with Obama's leadership and judgment and vision for America. It would be wrong for me to say nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "One thing that lends Obama credibility in the eyes of the world: he is working his butt off, and he is willing to tackle issues that can (and in many ways is) making him unpopular"

    Obama is liked in the world by the world's dictators and thugs because he is a naive man with such an ego he believes that the power of his personality will bring said dictators and thugs to a sudden realization of their wrong ways. He is being played like a stradivarius and it is getting very worrisome. When Hugo Chavez, Putin, Castro, and Ahmandenijad heap praise on an American president, we ought to be really worried.

    ReplyDelete