home

On race, there are no neutral observers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 11:48:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On Meet the Press, this morning, the Washington bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib, said:

the President carries his own background into race and he's not seen as a neutral observer . . .

Chuck Todd nodded knowingly, and moved along.

It was truly an amazing example of white privilege. To be clear, Seib is a competent reporter who I think has been largely ok with regard to his reporting on President Obama.

But think of the unthinking white privilege he displays in that moment. Those words came flowing without a second thought or a hesitation, and Chuck Todd didn't give it a second blink.

Is President Obama "neutral" on race? Of course not. Guess what, NOBODY is. Indeed, no one is neutral on anything. Jay Rosen has written many a great piece on the myth of the "view from nowhere." In this 2010 interview with Brian Stetler, Rosen explains:

the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance.

This is nonsense on the most banal of issues. We all have views. But it is especially true about race, the most defining issue in the history of the Nation, if not the world. When discussing race, Rosen's analysis seems especially apt:

[The View from Nowhere] has unearned authority in the American press. If in doing the serious work of journalism–digging, reporting, verification, mastering a beat–you develop a view, expressing that view does not diminish your authority. It may even add to it. The View from Nowhere doesn’t know from this. It also encourages journalists to develop bad habits. Like: criticism from both sides is a sign that you’re doing something right, when you could be doing everything wrong.

Today, Meet the Press did everything wrong in that segment.

< Law Enforcement Says Dylann Roof Confessed | "Jihadi John" Reportedly Now in Libya >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On race, there are no neutral observers | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    One of my favorite stories about race concerns the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ragebot on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    Civil War.  Anyone seeing a picture of my paternal grandfather would have no doubt about American Indian blood in my background.  Growing up in the South I was often seen as a typical Southerner.  Fact of the matter is that during the Civil War Indians were not welcome in the armies of the North of the South.

    When asked about the Civil War American Indians would reply "I know of this war, it was about the Northern White man fighting the Southern White man to free the Black White man".  Always got a kick out of that.

    Then it's fairly obvious that ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    ragebot: "Fact of the matter is that during the Civil War Indians were not welcome in the armies of the North of the South."

    ... you've never heard of Brig. Gen. Stand Watie, CSA, who was full-blooded Cherokee. Further, Cherokee Chief John Ross signed a treaty of alliance with the Confederacy, as did all the leaders of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes," who had been exiled to the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) by President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s.

    However, most tribal members refused to support that lost cause, and so there was also the Indian Home Guard -- three full-strength Union regiments comprised entirely of Native Americans from Indian Territory, who fought in Arkansas, Missouri and their adopted homeland. Through their loyalty and service to the Union, they enabled their exiled peoples to retain their lands in Indian Territory following the Confederacy's collapse in 1865.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#35)
    by ragebot on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:04:41 PM EST
    thanks for posting

    Parent
    I thought you'd like that. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 11:38:36 PM EST
    While the necessities of war drove both sides to seek help where they could get it, I think your basic point was both correct and an important one, in that white attitudes toward Indians in this country never really changed despite the ongoing civil war.

    In fact, the biggest mass execution in U.S. history involved the simultaneous hangings of 38 Lakota and Santee Sioux by federal officials in Mankato, Minnesota on Dec. 26, 1862. This followed a failed Sioux uprising in that state that was ruthlessly suppressed by Union troops under the command of Gen. John Pope. This would be the same Gen. Pope who had just had his a$$ handed to him by Gen. Robert E. Lee at the Second Battle of Bull Run (Manassas) only four months earlier.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Interesting story, Donald. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    Related wiki entries:  New Echota and the Treaty of New Echota which led to (one of many) Trail of Tears forced "removals" from the ancestral northwest Georgia (region) home where Cherokees had been living and acculturating until the discovery of gold and President Andrew "$20" Jackson's Indian Removal Act.

    Finally, the story of Sequoyah, who invented an alphabet for the Cherokee language, and the Johnny Cash song that brought Sequoyah to a 1960s America.

    Parent

    My paternal grandfather (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 04:58:12 PM EST
    was Cherokee and my maternal grandmother was Quapaw (I think).  There are other strands off Native American in me.   They also looked the part.  My father even very much looked typically NA.  Straight black hair.  No body hair.  The three boys including me visually got my mother.   My sister more resembles my father.
    My ex used to say he only saw it when I danced.   But I have always felt it.

    Parent
    If anyone could be a "neutral observer" (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    of black-white relations in the U.S., it would be someone with one black parent and one white, who is apparently 100% comfortable in both communities. In this light, Seib's comment is all the more absurd in clearly equating "neutral" with "not black."

    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:39:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Whatever else (none / 0) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:58:25 PM EST

    Whatever else you say about Omama, his record on racial healing is pretty impressive.

    Parent
    Whatever else you say ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:30:05 AM EST
    ... about "Omama" should be ignored.

    Parent
    Autocorrect (none / 0) (#124)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    Where's that autocorrect when you need it?

    Parent
    Slightly better, but still holds (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    Even if autocorrected.

    Parent
    After watching white (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    Republican politicians say they did not know whether the Charleston attack was racially motivated, I am more convinced than ever that Republicans live in a fantasy world of white privilege where racism does not exist--for them.

    This is the same world where climate change does not exist, either.  

    In this week's edition of (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    What Digby Said...her column on Charleston ended with asking just who these Republicans are afraid of insulting if they admit it was a racially motivated attack. I wish one of our intrepid reporters would ask one of them that question.

    Parent
    I don't understand your question. (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:10:14 PM EST
    "...who these Republicans are afraid of insulting.....?"

    Their constituency, of course.

    If you're looking for a logical answer, you should know better than that by now. Did facts, intelligence or logic suddenly become important to them?

    Their leadership (or Rush Limbaugh) tells them that having affordable health insurance, as all civilized people on earth have, would, somehow, be bad for them; End of discussion; Their children can die waiting in an emergency room; If that's the price of sticking it to the Muslim Imposter in the White House, well, so be it.

    Their Leadership (or Rush Limbaugh) tells them they are not racists, then that's it; they are not racists. 9000 blacks in 9000 different locations could be killed tomorrow, but, if the Fat Boy with the Mic tells them, "Folks, I know what you're thinking, you're thinking what the Liberal Media is telling you to think. But, listen to Rushbo people, those were not racially motivated killings." The followers will sleep like new-born babies that night, content in the knowledge that those racial murders had nothing to do with racism.

    I thought this was common knowledge by now.

    Parent

    I believe, primarily, the first, (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:35:00 PM EST
    "..Republican politicians say they did not know whether the Charleston attack was racially motivated..."  is because of their base.

    The second, "..same world where climate change does not exist" is because of their donors.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    Even know if it is that. It is a cultural problem.

    Parent
    Maybe that's why he's also known as ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    BTD: "Chuck Todd nodded knowingly, and moved along."

    ... Mr. Bobblehead. I can glance at a photo of my late grandparents from a half-century ago and gain more insight from them regarding current events, than by watching a month's worth of these gasbags.

    must have been a heckuva show today (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    Chuck Todd Addresses Racist Charleston Gun Violence With Segment About Black Murderers

    My Response To Chuck Todd's Defense Of MTP Segment On Black Murderers

    When you consider the other (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:23:35 PM EST
    segment that aired, it gets worse:

    In the wake of the Charleston church shooting, host Chuck Todd introduced a video on Sunday morning featuring testimonies of convicted murderers, calling the issue "color-blind." Inmates at New York's Sing Sing Correctional Facility opened up about the regret they had after using guns. However, only black prisoners were shown.

    The homogenous racial makeup of the video struck some viewers as inappropriate, especially given the apparently racially-motivated killings by a white man this week of 9 black victims at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

    And here's Chuckie's explanation/defense:

    We've gotten a lot of feedback about the gun video we showed on Meet the Press today. Some were upset it only featured African-American men talking about their regrets of pulling a trigger. All of the men in the piece volunteered to be a part of the video and the larger project it is a part of.

    But the last thing we wanted was to cloud the discussion of the topic.

    The original decision to air this segment was made before Wednesday's massacre. However, the staff and I had an internal debate about whether to show it at all this week. When we discussed putting it off, that conversation centered around race and perception - not the conversation we wanted the segment to invoke.

    We decided against delaying the segment because we wanted to show multiple sides of what gun violence does in this country. We thought the issue of gun violence in our culture and society was an important conversation to continue -- too important to put off for another week. The consequences of gun violence should not be hidden.

    As I say to all audiences, Meet the Press should make all viewers uncomfortable at some point or we are not doing our job. I hope folks view the gun video as a part of the conversation we should all be having and not the totality of it.

    I wonder if Chuck realizes that the "uncomfortableness" engendered by that video is not an indication that he and the MTP staff are doing their jobs, but that they are incredibly, unbelievably tone deaf - possibly because they are so deeply invested in their own importance they can't imagine they could be wrong about something.

    Really, it's a new low in "journalism."

    Ah, I did not see this comment (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 11:08:46 PM EST
    before I posted mine.

    Parent
    Charlie Pierce weighs in... (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    as we knew he would, and he says what most of us were thinking about Meet the Press's harebrained show:

    It was a spectacular failure of judgment. It was a spectacular collapse of simple human decency. It was as lunkheaded a decision as ever has been made by a major television network. A whole lot of somebodies should be on the sidewalk at the moment after having been counseled to seek employment in the fast-food industry. Jesus H. Christ on hiatus, how does your mind have to work to think that the weekend after a racist massacre at an African-American church is a good time to run a segment on African-American convicts?

    [...]

    To run this segment on this past weekend is a perfect demonstration of what has gone so terribly wrong with the elite political media in this country today. It is frozen in the notion that every issue has two sides and, simply because of that, both of them are worthy of respect. It is paralyzed by its terror of being called biased, specifically being called biased to the left. It is mired permanently in cowardice camouflaged as ethics. And, in case you missed the point, my man Chuck Todd made it completely clear in his response when it all hit the fan after the show ended.

    And in response to Todd's mealymouthed excuse that

    "...Meet the Press should make all viewers uncomfortable at some point or we are not doing our job."

    Charlie responds:

    No, gddammit. NO! If you want to know how one of our two major political parties has gone insane, there's your answer. If you want to know why its nominating process has become the ghoulish farce that it is, there's your answer. If you want to know why climate denial, creationism, and all the forms of anti-science and weaponized ignorance continue to survive in the 21st century, there's your answer. The weekend after nine African Americans are slaughtered at prayer by a racist barbarian is not a point at which to "make all viewers uncomfortable" by running a segment that can do nothing except enable the people who want to make the massacre about anything but race. This was beyond moronic. People should be fired. Programs should be cancelled.

    Pretty sure Chuck still thinks they did a good job...and therein lies a lot of the problem.

    I'd say Pierce nailed it. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    Our family has long since given up watching TV on Sunday morning, with an obvious exception made for the fall, when the first weekly round of NFL games begins at 7:00 a.m. local time. In that respect, I'm proud to say that I once again missed "Meet the Press" yesterday in its entirety.

    Speaking for myself only, MTP has for the most part been remarkably unwatchable for quite some time now. And from my perspective, its long and uninterrupted slide into an ingratiating irrelevance really started with a certain host who is no longer with us -- and I don't mean David Gregory.

    Since Jeralyn frowns upon those of us who speak ill of the dead, as does my mother, I'll let Lewis H. Lapham of Harper's do it for me. From "Elegy for a Rubber Stamp" (September 2008):

    "Many people loved [Tim] Russert, and I don't doubt that they had reason to do so. I'm sure that most of what was said about him on camera was true: that he was a devoted father, a devout Catholic, and a faithful friend, generous in spirit and a joyful noise unto the Lord. I mean no disrespect to his widow or to his son, but if I have no reason to doubt his virtues as a man, neither do I have any reason to credit the miracle of Russert as a journalist eager to speak truth to power. In his professional as opposed to his personal character, his on-air persona was that of an attentive and accommodating headwaiter, as helpless as Charlie Rose in his infatuation with A-list celebrity, his modus operandi the same one that pointed Rameau's obliging nephew to the roast pheasant and the coupe aux marrons in eighteenth-century Paris: 'Butter people up, good God, butter them up.'"

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I do agree...I stopped watching during (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    that person's tenure...one too many week where 'tough questions' were just showing the guest what someone else said about him and asking him to respond. Or showing the guest what he himself said before and asking him to respond. No host brain power needed or expended.

    NBC had a chance to improve the show as a silver lining to his truly sad early demise, but instead it seems to have gotten even worse.

    Parent

    FWIW, (none / 0) (#161)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 12:30:43 AM EST
    these types of political talk shows depend on a large stable of willing, somewhat famous, and/or, provocative guests. The number of "willing" guests, I would assume, would be culled down considerably if they feared being "put on the spot," or, having their "feet put to the fire."
    (I could come up with more clichés, but you get the point.)

    Most of the famous, long-running, shows of this type (Larry King, Johnny Carson, and all those kinds of bland banter programs) had the same type of criticism put on them.

    I don't know the answer, but, you have to assume the Network Brass know what they're doing. With so many millions of dollars at stake, they do what their research and polling indicate they should do. It really sucks for the segment of viewers who want hard hitting, intelligent interviews to help them decide on what policies are promising, and which politicians have a clue.

    The key word is "intelligent," and, matching that word with a large plurality of the American public, well, your question sort of answers itself.

    Sad, but, that's the way Capitalism works. They really do give us what we want. Matching up Intelligence VS Crap, crap wins every time.

    Would you excuse me, I have to go cry now.

    Parent

    Et tu Mississippi? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 08:24:30 PM EST
    Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn said Monday night that the Confederate emblem in the state's official flag has to go.

    We had (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 09:11:05 PM EST
    probably a ten year battle or longer to get the emblem off of the flag here in GA. It started with Zell Miller in the 90's and then went on until the early 2000's. I find it hysterical that MS thinks we did the right thing.

    But having that emblem does make a state look backward. People can't accept that when the Dixiecrats adopted it as their emblem and then the KKK etc. was always hauling it around it was ruined.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    that nobody is neutral on this issue because we all come from a place that only we know. You can be an ally and not fully understand how it feels on the other side so to speak.

    There is however a salient point that comes out that I see in this conversation. It seems to me that Obama is afraid to speak about race. Perhaps he has boxed himself in or he has been boxed in by the Washington media or even our culture.

    That being said I found his statement on the Charleston Massacre disappointing. A moral case could be made about this without even bringing race into it. How many more massacres is this country going to endure before we do something about it? I wish he had not mentioned "other countries" because really other countries are not about what happened. What happened indicates a sickness in our country. A larger problem is the culture of South Carolina where Dylann's statements were largely seen as not a problem.

    The President has publicly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    spoken up twice urging Congress to enact gun control legislation.  

    Parent
    Not SUre If You Saw This (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    "I always tell young people, in particular, do not say that nothing has changed when it comes to race in America, unless you've lived through being a black man in the 1950s or '60s or '70s. It is incontrovertible that race relations have improved significantly during my lifetime and yours," Obama said.

    But he added that "the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination" exists in institutions and casts "a long shadow and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on."

    Obama used the N-word and explained that the absence of racist language does not mean that racism doesn't exist.

    "Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public," Obama said. "That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior."


    LINK

    I tend to agree with you, Obama on many issues is too timid to really say what he should.  His tolerance for the intolerable is bothersome on so many levels.  But that statement above, while pretty benign, is stirring up all kinds of controversy, which is needed.

    Not sure how you discuss a race mass murder without discussing race.

    Parent

    I just (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 09:23:34 AM EST
    saw this a little while ago and I am glad he said this because this sounded completely honest and from the bottom of his heart. I wish it would stir discussion instead of controversy. I don't understand why people can't talk about the fact that we do have race problems in this country. I'm a believer in you can't solve a problem by pretending it isn't there. Pretending it doesn't exist allows it to fester and get worse. Maybe if someone had shot down Dylann Root for his ridiculous statements it would have made a difference.

    Parent
    The moment he became President (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    The South flared, the racists came blatantly out of hiding.  I had a fight with Miss Laura on DailyKos pre Obama about how racist the South still was.  I was experiencing it as watered down, I was a newbie to the South and she says she born and raised.  She was very insulted and evil to me about my perceptions of what was going on around me.  

    Obama became President though and I notice that now even Miss Laura clearly sees that racism didn't go anywhere as long as the black community knew its place and had to eat out of our white hands.

    I think he's correct on how polarizing a race discussion can be, that is if we allow the racists to claim they have a rational and acceptable position.

    The South is having more mixed ethnicity children born in it too, the millenials here are dating and marrying who they want.  That has to have some sort of tend affect.

    Parent

    I've been thinking about what it will (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    mean to have a woman president, in terms of how much progress we'll be able to make on gender-related issues.  Since Clinton's been a long-time advocate for women, I think it will be easier for her to be assertive on these issues, but I wonder if anti-woman animus rears its ugly head in much the same way that racial animus did when Obama was elected.

    I don't want to kid myself about what it would mean, but I can't help thinking there are probably some parallels we could learn from and strategize around if, in fact, she is elected.

    Parent

    Oh it's going happen (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    It's just going to be different degrees of the beast being exposed.  There will be several flat out degrading statements made though that will leave most of us red faced to furious just thinking about.

    Exposure is better than covert in my book.  It's going to be wild and ugly at first.  If she has to take a military action that'll shrivel Conservatives nads of all genders too :). If she's successful at it, the hate will be venomous for some.  A woman? Successfully protecting men?  Hell hath no fury like a Conservative man feeling like we handed him an apron and hid his shoes :)

    Parent

    MT, sounds like maybe you've forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    about all the vile misogyny exuded by white "progressive" men during the 2008 Democratic primaries

    i think we'll see that again on "our" side once things start to heat up

    in other words, you don't have to look far

    Parent

    Oh no, I didn't forget (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:41:44 PM EST
    I just think Fox News and Klan is going to blow all of our minds and everything out of the water.

    I did notice, Bill Maher has toned down.  Whats up with that?  He has also revealed his testosterone is dropping off though too :)

    Parent

    Already (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    seeing a bunch of it over a Kos at least it's not by the front pagers though.

    Parent
    That place (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    Kos says Sanders isn't feasible and......torches and pitch forks again. Let's burn this place down :). I'm still  a little angry about women's studies, but it's a tiny abrasion now. I don't think it'll scar. Doesn't everyone just get tired of being virulently angry?

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    basically the Obama is Jesus crowd again.

    Parent
    Sad little troops :) (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    This is not to say that I don't like Sanders because I do.  But ya know, Sanders is Teh One who ended the F-35 fight. If socialist Bernie Sanders is going to support the F-35 program...you are DONE :)

    Parent
    And the F-35 is gushing treasure (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:39:33 PM EST
    Like a femoral artery :)

    Parent
    Well, no self-respecting ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    ... if otherwise entirely delusional conservative male is ever going to take too kindly to being publicly emasculated. And in that regard, I think that few women were better suited to that particular task than the late former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

    Unfazed and uncowed in the face of her Labour and Liberal Democrat opposition, Mrs. Thatcher was ultimately brought down by the men in her own Conservative Party, political eunuchs one and all who'd long bristled at her repeated demands that they grow a pair to replace the pair she had already snatched up from them the day prior, and then had served to her with afternoon tea.

    ;-D

    Parent

    no, Donald (none / 0) (#118)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    Mrs. Thatcher was ultimately brought down by the men in her own Conservative Party, political eunuchs one and all who'd long bristled at her repeated demands that they grow a pair to replace the pair she had already snatched up from them the day prior

    the Iron Lady grew her own

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    Then I must stand corrected. Off-topic, how's life in Oakland? That was quite the celebration in town the other day for the Warriors, especially seeing the gathering by Lake Merritt. I love that part of town.

    We just relocated to Hilo from Honolulu, and are still settling in to our new house. We hope to get up to the Bay Area sometime next year, and catch up with old friends.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    that part of town (none / 0) (#147)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    is my neighborhood - i walk & bike around the lake all the time

    but i missed the parade & celebration because at at the moment i am in beautiful Seattle, being a caregiver for a friend who just got out of the hospital

    did get to see game 6 on TV, though, & watched a portion of the festivities on the local FOX affiliate - this deeply blue Seattle household is going to be shocked to discover that the TV is still tuned to FOX, but what's life if you can't take a joke?

    Parent

    I remember you saying that a few years ago, ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    ... when we were then on the subject of Greek restaurants. You turned me onto Ikaros, which is on Grand Ave. just above I-580. So while on a business trip to Walnut Creek, I went there with my cousin and his wife (who live on Wesley Ave. below I-580), and it was awesome. In fact, they liked it so much that they've since become regular customers there.

    My aunt and uncle used to live on Beacon St. with their family until I was 18 years old, and we used come up north to visit them all the time. But they sold their townhouse and moved out to Fairfield in 1979, where my uncle still lives. My aunt died of ALS in Jan. 2010. Their eldest, my cousin who's currently on Wesley Ave., stayed put. But I'll always have very fond memories of that Oakland neighborhood.

    I hope that everything is going well in Seattle, and that your friend is on the road to recovery.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    yes, Ikaros (none / 0) (#151)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    around the corner & across the street from us

    Zach and Lavendar are still going strong with that place - we had my father-in-law's memorial at Ikaros a couple of years ago

    Parent

    your aunt (none / 0) (#168)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    Oakland misses its Republican! ;)

    Parent
    So . . . (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:13:59 PM EST
    You were not one of the folks in the Soul Train line this weekend? :)  That looked like fun. Do you hit up the Eat Real Festival in Sept? I've gone the past 2 yrs and plan to this year also. Nothing like good food, sour dough and butcher lessons!

    Parent
    I really want to see how the (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    Fox News Bleach Blonde Squad handles it.

    Parent
    The only (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    advantage she has be it small is that the GOP is somewhat afraid of ticking off women and she's been at the other end of their mud slinging for quite a while.

    The real way to push back is do what people did to Rush Limbaugh after his disgusting attack on Sandra Fluke and that is go after any advertisers that use sexism. Just use your checkbook to speak for you!

    Parent

    Perhaps this explains (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    the user name "Miss Laura."  

    Parent
    I fought (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    that fight back in the day too. Too many people there thought Obama was going to magically erase racism from the planet. I told them having Obama as a president was going to make the lives of Blacks in this country appreciably worse. Google that rant from Kevin Sorbo about Ferguson. He pretty much spilled the beans on how many think about having a black president.

    Parent
    I don't think Obama being President (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    Made things appreciably worse for blacks.  What was appreciably worse to me was two white liberal women arguing on a Democrat website about whether or not the South still had a problem with racism. Obama being President just brought what was covert out, and now it's overt. We don't have to argue about its existence now among Liberals, the beast is exposed.

    There is something they do on the football team too here that drives me absolutely crazy.  Some numbers on the football jerseys are used twice. Last year they sold the player roster at the first football game for $20 cash.  I wanted one, but wasn't carrying cash and planned to get one the next game.  I wasn't prepared for a lot of this football culture, I got into this following the football team around because I have a band kid.  The roster for sale showed up at no other game though and frankly I had forgotten about it.

    Several games into the season though it becomes obvious that number 1 is our top scoring running back.  And football is so serious down here, by game 4 everyone was ready for him and he's just a fast tiny kid getting the crap beat out of him.  Then I find out he's only a sophomore as well and I start worrying about his well being.  I find myself yelling to take him off the field when they've hammered the hell out of him.  Game six, I see a number 1 standing on the sidelines but it isn't this kid, it is a different kid. I say something to the person next to me and I couldn't believe the response.

    In order to save money some numbers are used twice, one jersey on a white kid and the other on a black kid.  So there is white number 1 and black number 1.  I thought I was going to faint.  There is something flat vulgar in the idea in general.  But they told me it's about money and saving money?  That is some Bull$h*t! There is so much money in high school football down here that is positively a fricken lie.  There is something else at the bottom this practice, I may not know what it is yet, but their original reasons don't pass the smell test.

    Parent

    to be honest (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    I think the idea that Obama makes things "worse for black people" is a very white-centric point of view.  Yes, I imagine it brought out racism in certain white/mixed neighborhoods.  But the truth is this country is still overwhelmingly segregated.  And I don't think it made anything worse within the black community, and if anything, the opposite.  I don't think we are at a point in the country where black people's lives are completely impacted by how a certain group of white people view/treat them.  I think it matters more how they view/treat themselves.

    Parent
    I agree with most of what you said (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    Not the last portion though.  Blacks are still somewhat at the beck and call of whites.  If you are black in the military you are guaranteed to have at least one white racist commander in your career and the truth is probably more than one.  You get promoted through your OERs that your commanders write about up on you, and racist commanders write different OERs...it's just covert.  So even in the military, where the institution is consciously constantly challenging racism...if you are black you will still work harder than the white soldier to get to the same place because of the covert racists running the show.

    Parent
    yes absolutely (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    I don't mean to imply that there is no impact.  Just that I don't think it's the biggest impact, or that it was that much "better" before we had a black president, just quieter.  I doubt things were arguably better for black people in the military before Obama.  Yes the racists are louder now, but between a quiet racist and a loud one I'd almost prefer the loud one.

    I'm talking more about kids growing up in black neighborhoods going to black schools with mostly other black kids.

    Parent

    I think things became better for black (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    West Point grads when Obama became President :)  You get to a place where having a black commander becomes no different after it has occurred a few times.  And I still look at the wall of photos when I walk into a military facility, at the front door they have photos of the chain of command and it always starts with Obama.  There for a bit we had General Crutchfield at Fort Rucker so our first two photographs of our chain of command were black.  Repetition, the repeated experience, does change things quicker than anything else IMO.

    Perhaps it is slightly better for enlisted if they feel confident enough to self promote, the military does offer a lot of opportunities to say yes or no to, you can lobby to go to different schools and gain different expertise that will lockdown your career and success.

    Before 9/11 there was a study indicating that the Army was short black warrant officers because black enlisted who had the test scores and all the self discipline required were not self promoting.  You have to turn in a packet and sort of sell yourself to get into warrant officer candidate school.  So the existing warrants were encouraged to mentor the enlisted around them and working under them that were high performing to turn in a packet.  Then 9/11 kicked off, I don't know where the numbers are now.

    You don't think the more isolated/segregated black communities feel the racism and have to deal?  I do.  

    Parent

    I think the positives (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CST on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    are greater than the negatives, not that the negatives don't exist.

    I also think most of the racism was there pre-Obama, just quieter.  The fact that it's louder now also makes it harder for bystanders to sit back and say "this isn't a problem, stop complaining".

    Parent

    Sounds like you were talking to a crackpot (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    Depending on the position they play, football players can only wear certain numbers.  If the kid was a running back, then he can't wear numbers in the 50's-70's, for example, because those are reserved for lineman. High school is a bit more lax since most high schools don't reorder uniforms every year, so the number a kid wears, especially if he isn't a first stringer, is based a lot on what fits.

    Watch any big time college game.  The home team always has duplicate numbers on the sideline because they dress a lot of kids.

    Parent

    No jb (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    The high scoring running back is black and wore 1.  There is also a white blonde 1 on the same team.  Not a crackpot.  When I discovered the white/black number system I began to inventory other numbers.  Other numbers were being repeated as well shared by a white kid and a black kid.  I went to every single football game last year.  It wasn't just two games I went to.  I have a disabled child in the hot sun.  I go to every single game.  I travel to all the away games too.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    Not sure what your point is if you're trying to make this racist.  I can't imagine the racist motivation for having kids wear the same number.  But, every major college does it, sometomes with a white kud wearing the same number as a black kid.  Check out Michigan'd football roster from last year.  Or UCLA's. Or Wisconsin's.  Or Oregon State's.  Or pretty much any other big time football program.  Do you think they have a racist motivation?  What could POSSIBLY be the racist angle at your high school?  (And FTR, I was in band for four years if high school AND college, and went to every game, and I actually understand football.)

    I also know that Alabama, like Texas, where I lived for 6 years, is football nuts, so really all they want to do is WIN, and if it takes a green kud with pink stars on his skin to do it, then they will cheer him on. How they treat him after the game may be a different story, but they want to win.

    Parent

    You see nothing wrong with it? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    I do!  First of all, there is plenty of money for jerseys.

    Parent
    No. I don't (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:54:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Well you're just creepy then in my book (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    If there is no need to make white/black an identifier then nobody needs to be using it.  Some people down here are wayyyyy too comfortable having it be a constant identifier, further enables segregation.

    Where else have you ever seen football players sharing numbers based on the color of their skin?  It's icky

    Parent

    I think you are misinformed (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    Who, exactly told you this nefarious racist plot?  You think the coach can't tell the difference between his white running back and his black running back?  (Would certainly be HARDER under Friday Night Lights if they wore the SAME number, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it make more sense if the coaching staff is so racist to have DIFFERENT ranges of numbers for the black kids so they could easily overlook someone they don't want to play??) Do the black kids not get to play or only when the score is run up so high there's no hope for a comeback by the other team? Do all the white kids have a corresponding black kid that wears the same number, or just a few?

    In other words, your comments make absolutely no sense.

    So, no - it's not "creepy" to think that kids are not being "sorted" based on their skin color by wearing THE SAME NUMBER, when in fact, duplicate number wearing is done ALL THE TIME at both the high school and college levels (even some pro teams).

    I think what's creepy is your outrage at this when there are bigger and REAL things happening that are based in racism, not this made up nonsense.

    Parent

    And I just went and read about it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    It isn't as common as you say.  Seemed to be becoming more common but creates too much confusion, so is being walked back.

    Some of it seemed to be about players keeping numbers they wanted to keep, and that isn't the case here, you get the number you are given and as I said before there is plenty of money for jerseys.  As you stated, this state is football nuts, there is so much money in football they have no excuse for white/black jersey numbers except that they hope it doesn't bother anyone. Well it does.

    Parent

    I' m not sure (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:35:11 PM EST
      why I even bother to wade into this craziness, but is part of your crackpot theory that it's cheaper to order 2 jerseys with the same number than 2 jerseys with different numbers?

      As has been explained to you, only single a double digit jerseys are issued and certain number ranges are associated with certain positions. Thus, it's simply  a numbers thing (pun intended).

      The rule is you can't have 2 players with the same number on the field at the same time, so the duplicate numbers are usually worn by players who don't play much and usually only when the starters are out the game (blowouts). Sometimes 2 guys who both play a lot might get the same number because they both want the same number and one plays only offense and one plays only defense.

      A rational person having been told of a racial motive for duplicate numbers would likely ask what racist goal could possibly be furthered and answer themselves with none.

    Parent

    It's not MY THEORY (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    It is what I was told when I asked about the repeat numbers.

    Parent
    Seems to me that sharing desireable numbers (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    (like #1) equally among the different races would be the opposite of racism.

    Parent
    I know, because players never (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    Identify with their jersey number.  Their fans never identify with that single number on a team either. Someone's individual dedication, skill, and practice can never and is never equated with their jersey number......sigh

    Parent
    did it not occur toy you that (none / 0) (#104)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:42:12 PM EST
      either you were speaking to a nut or you were speaking to someone who was amusing himself at your expense?

    Parent
    No, because it was a football parent (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:46:05 PM EST


    Parent
    And having a child (none / 0) (#108)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:47:26 PM EST
     who plays football is a guarantee that one is neither a nut nor someone who likes to amuse himself with tall tales to the clueless?

    Parent
    I wouldn't think someone (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    Just wants to screw with the crippled kids mom for shits and giggles. I spend a lot of time volunteering for all sorts of menial chores that need to happen too, so no...I don't think someone would get cheap thrills like that.

    Parent
    afaik, multiple players wearing the same number (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    is accepted as long as both players are not on the field at the same time.

    Parent
    Also, fwiw, the number 1 in football usually (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    means you're one of, if not the, best skills athlete on the team. iow, high praise indeed.

    Parent
    That is Not True SUO (none / 0) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    In the pros, which are presumably the best of the best, few wore '1' in high school.  I am guessing that maybe one in ninety-nine wore a '1', just kidding.

    THIS is unrelated, but it has the best high-school players for each jersey number.  I was trying to find the most popular jersey numbers in high-school, but could not.

    But what I did find, is the better the team, the cheaper the jerseys, some even getting them for free, which would make the cost argument for better teams not possible. LINK

    At most schools, a uniform is meant to last at least three years. Varina, however, gets new uniforms every year so players can keep them as mementos. Without the school's fundraising and Nike contract, that might not be feasible.

    Last year, Hermitage entered into an agreement with adidas. The company gives the school discounts on uniforms and merchandise. In exchange, Hermitage agrees to look to adidas as the first option when purchasing new uniforms.

    When the Panthers were chosen to play on ESPN in August, the company gave Hermitage new blue uniforms and red pants free of charge. The jerseys have adidas' signature three white lines on each sleeve.



    Parent
    Two in ninety nine in MT's HS. :-) (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    The concept that football jersey suppliers will give you a "volume deal" on 2 x #1 jerseys vs 1 x #1 and 1 x #2, or whatever, is entertaining.

    To add to the number confusion, my son, for example, had his football equipment bag stolen during the season, so he was given a new jersey from what was left over. That new number had no relation to the position he played.

    Parent

    I was being rhetorical (none / 0) (#129)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:00:41 PM EST
      Obviously, jerseys of a certain quality all cost the same regardless of the number on them. It's the number of jerseys not the numbers on the jerseys that dictate the cost.

      As for preferences, I and pretty much everyone I ever knew has a favorite number. Often, it's because kids want  the number of a favorite player. It might  be just a "lucky number" or the number a relative wore, or whatever. In any event, cost has nothing to do with anything, and duplicate numbers being worn is simply a matter of limited numbers being available.

      That's why it's only an issue in football. Football teams have the most players and as stated, certain number ranges are associated with certain positions.Football isn't more racist than the other sports.

       Other sports simply have fewer players and any position can wear any number.  Some numbers are not allowed in basketball -- any with 6-9-- but basketball teams are small enough this does not require any duplication. (Note: the limitation in basketball is not a racist or political conspiracy. It's just because the refs need to be able to make hand signals to the scorers table identifying players and refs only have 5 fingers)

    Parent

    my soccer team had different issues (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    We only had enough money for 1 set of home jerseys and 1 set of away jerseys for the entire school.  So the boys team got the away jerseys (colored) and the girls team got the home jerseys (white), which meant the girls team had to wear pinneys for all the away games.

    I never understood why they didn't just order 2 sets of away jerseys.

    We all had our own numbers though.

    Parent

    My HS football team (none / 0) (#134)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    didn't have so many players it was ever necessary to duplicate. When more than one person wanted the same number (common), the first rule was the older player got first dibs. If 2 guys in the same class wanted a certain number, the coach would just have a coin flip or an eeny meeny game to decide. the other factor was just the size because the jerseys were not ordered with particular guys in mind so you might be too big or small for certain numbers.

      Thus, the low numbers and numbers in the 80s were usually smaller. 30-40s in the middle and 50-70s the largest. Even if it wasn't a "rule" like in the NFL certain numbers were associated with certain positions.

    Parent

    Hmmm. That should start a (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    new topic:  eeny, meeny, mint, mo.  

    Parent
    I never heard about the racist (none / 0) (#139)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:23:50 PM EST
     version of the chant or had any idea of its existence until I was an adult. We always said "tiger."

    Parent
    For those who have HS age football playing (none / 0) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 05:07:28 PM EST
    sons:

    If your child's number is the same year that he is a Sr. (eg. 15, this year) there's a good chance his in-uniform photo might could end up in some prominent positions in that year's yearbook.

    Also, for any HS student: be friendly with the yearbook staff.

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    They separated the girls from the boys by color?? Why that's sexist AND racist!!

    <snk>

    Parent

    eh (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    more like broke.  I imagine it was cheaper to get home and away jerseys for 1 team than 2 sets of away jerseys.  And yes, it irked a bit that the boys got the "good" jerseys.  Not really sure what race has to do with any of it, although I've got plenty of other stories there.

    Parent
    Please provide proof (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    That kids are being sorted by skin color to wear the same number and explain why this is a good sorting method.  Ease also explain what reason would be behind giving kids the same number as someone of a different race - what is the purpose?

    Parent
    If I had proof (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    I'd be in court.  My child isn't a player though.  If my child were I would be at my attorneys addressing it.  I would have been there last year.  Things are changing here.  Some player who has parents with moola for an attorney will fix this.  

    Parent
    How do the coach and/or equipment manager (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    explain this?

    Parent
    So, we're back where we started (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    Someone told you some crazy story, you don't know anything about football (by your own admission), and so your high school football team is blatantly engaging in overt racist acts by making kids of different races look.....the same.

    O-kay.

    Parent

    Eek. Typos. (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:54:23 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess you're so perfect after all (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:24:54 PM EST


    Parent
    JB... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    ...I would also add that in high school generally the better kids play numerous positions.  So a receiver might also be a corner back and the kicker, making numbers virtually useless.

    I would find it racist, if they are using race to differentiate between shared numbers.  Unlike the pros, there is generally no limit on the number of people on high school teams.  But the odds of the numbers working out would mean you would have to have the same number of black and white students for certain position, positions wouldn't change, only shared numbers for positions with black kids, and/or not account for new kids, injuries, quitters, and kids leaving as you generally keep the same number throughout school.  It could be done, but damn it would be a lot of work and at some level you would need luck with the numbers.  Just seems like an awful lot of work to do something that is about as low as you can get on the racist meter.

    There is always the possibility that it's simple coincidence.  Of all the teams sharing numbers, even with no logic, some team is going to end up with a even split.  Someone would have to purposely take note to ensure it's not done, which would mean giving kids different numbers just to make sure you don't appear to be splitting numbers by race.

    Parent

    Thank you for some rationality (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 12:43:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Only the NFL enforces (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    the numbering system for jerseys that you speak of.

    College football is thoroughly scrambled, with huge defensive lineman wearing jersey numbers in the single digits.  It has become a fad of sorts...Single digit jersey numbers used to be kicker and quarterbacks and a few running backs....Hornung from eons ago comes to mind.

    High school.....that could well vary quite a bit....They tend to follow the college fad....

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    what I am seeing that is worse is that apparently people feel free to take out their frustrations or hatred with Obama on African Americans.

    The racism has come to the surface and that is a good and bad thing. The good part of it is you know exactly who they are. The bad part of it is that people are now acting on that kind of mindset because it is spoken aloud. When it was whispers it still hurt but people were afraid to act on it.

    Parent

    That is true (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    I am hearing people say jaw dropping things. Or deliberately hoping to incite a fight with someone who supports Obama.  They are losing though.  And it is hard for me to not chuckle, but I need to grow up and not chuckle because this is very serious.  I think I chuckle because I perceive the other side as so childish, and then one of their homegrown show up and murder a bunch of the most innocent and gentle of people.

    A battle has developed on post and it is being carried forward a little more everyday here.  A general schedule employee on a military post or base must observe good order and conduct too, just like soldiers, they cannot incite insubordination.  What about contractors?

    We had a contractor on Fort Rucker, who had a fleet of vehicles driving around, putting anti-Obama bumper stickers on his vehicles.  He was the first one everyone who cared took on, and he was the most difficult because he was a contractor who only had to abide by his contract.  He was about to lose it though and had to remove the bumper stickers.

    But we had GS employees with less abrasive anti-Obama bumper stickers and those must go too and they all already know why.  And we have this wonderful GS employee who when she sees one immediately calls the MPs and she stays there while you remove the sticker.  The vehicle can't move until the bumper sticker does.  She carries with her everything anyone needs to safely removed a bumper sticker from their car too.

    She told me she is now lobbying for this rule to extend to past Presidential campaign stickers.  The election is over.  Your Romney bumper sticker driving all over the post is now a form of insubordination.  I love her :). She has Chutzpah and a firm grip on what constitutes covert insubordination :)

    Parent

    It also (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    makes the good guys stand out too which is a positive!

    Parent
    Unless you were to tell me that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    there's a white team and a black team, and it's not a case of players subbing in and out for each other one-by-one, but that all the white players come out and all the black ones go in at the same time, I don't see how a white player and a black one having the same number means anything, particularly.

    I could be wrong, but as football crazy as they are down there in Alabama, I'd guess that whichever players are on the field are the ones the coach thinks give the team the best chance to win.  

    I have to say that I don't get the whole it-costs-less-to-have-two-jerseys-with-the-same-number  thing v. two jerseys with different numbers - I'd think the bulk of the cost is in the jersey, not in the number, but what do I know?

    Parent

    Couldn't tell you for certain Anne (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    Without us knowing who they order uniforms from and being able to check out their pricing policies.  And if I had a football kid I would have done that :)

    As it is we lost the band director for being abrasive and abusive.  I never had a run in with him, but my child is limited in what he is involved in! so very few scheduling conflicts.  I guess if there were schedule conflicts the old director couldn't be bargained with giving up even one day of practice...even to attend your Lt. Col. father's retirement ceremony.  

    Also, the band boosters raise as much money as we can and he was singularly overseeing all the funds.  Another parent spotted that and got an attorney involved, very illegal.  The band director was furious when he had to create a board and boosters had to vote for or against his proposed spending.

    I get this vibe that some schools in the South were violating all sorts of laws until recently.  When we first moved here everyone was frightened to challenge the schools, frightened that your child would be singled out.  It has been very quiet about who and when certain policies and procedures were challenged.  I only know they were, and things are changing dramatically.  Might even come down to one single attorney being someone that you can hire and who will challenge the school and the school board.

    When they tossed the guy that did so much abuse to our daughter he publicly stated that the school board had become a bunch of dictators.  I thought that was such an odd thing to say for someone who lived like a dictator :)

    Parent

    It's so much harder to be a parent with (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    a kid in school - talking with my friend who has one going up to middle school and one still in elementary, she has been driven nearly round the bend trying to get straight answers out of these teachers.  It's like a secret society where the members have pledged to never reveal how placement is determined.  A kid can get 100's all year and be refused placement to G & T because she's just "average?"  But then they get all weird when you ask if that means the grades don't mean anything (the ones who got in are all children of class volunteers or other teachers...I'm sure there's nothing fishy there, right?).

    Anyway, the extracurriculars can be brutal - no one wants to just have fun, it seems, it's all about winning.  Some of these programs treat the kids like they're playing professional sports - it's awful.  

    There's no excuse for abusive coaches, none; bullies count on you being too afraid to push back, but when you do, often they back down and become afraid of you!  I'm dealing with a work bully, and decided I'd have to set some boundaries early if I was going to be able to get this particular task done.  Now, she's crazy enough that she may be plotting ways to "get" me, but I think what she knows now is I'm not rolling over.

    I wish you the best with school stuff - it's exhausting.

    Parent

    That's awful, the volunteer's child (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    Preference thing.  I have seen some of it too. Not experienced it with Josh, but did with my daughter.  She had always been in choir, and all of her past choir directors were exceptional.  We moved here and they had a show choir already chosen and all those parents seemed to have befriended the choir director along with their child being chosen.  There was also a women's choir, but they sang the same four songs for the different performances each year.  He never worked with them, they could use that class as a study hall for all he cared. My daughter was heart broken and furious.  And during that class female members of the show choir were frequently in his office with the door and blinds closed.  He had parents sucking up so hard it was painful, I hope they didn't end up enabling something really horrible. He disappeared like smoke in the gap between my children attending high school.

    I saw at the last band meeting that volunteer parents becoming a little institutionally incestuous is becoming an issue in the band too.  At least the booster board is aware and open to talking about it, that it has come up as an issue.  It's wonderful to have the free time, but if a working mom gets a day off let her ride on the air conditioned bus to an away game and get in the game for free and have a day of being involved too.  There are volunteer hogs for all the fun less grueling jobs :)

    Because Josh could need to come home more swiftly I always follow the buses, but my husband noticed that all the chaperone slots on the very nice rented buses were filled by the same five people before the rest of the parents even had a chance to look the schedule over.

    Parent

    Where is BTD when we need him (none / 0) (#154)
    by ragebot on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 07:41:22 PM EST
    Lots of teams, HS, college, and pro give the place kicker #1 as he kicks extra points worth one point.  Sometimes the kicker is given #3 if he is an great field goal kicker since a field goal is worth three points.

    For quite a while the QB was #12 and RBs were often #44.  This has changed to some extent since some teams have retired numbers of their greatest players.  There is also a dispute of sorts about unretiring numbers.

    I went to a big HS, over 1200 in the graduating class (1964) and we always dressed over 99 players for home games with duplicate numbers.  The rule I was aware of was one duplicate number was given to an offensive player and the other to a defensive player as a precaution that both would not be on the field at the same time.

    I find it hard to believe two running backs would be given the same number since under some circumstances the coach might want both running backs in the game at the same time.

    Racism is a sad fact of live, but I have seen less of it playing sports than any other activity I engage in.

    Parent

    Sad fact of life (none / 0) (#155)
    by ragebot on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    not sad fact of live

    Parent
    We don't have over a 100 varsity players (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    If you add the Jr. Varsity football team in, then we have over a 100 football players. The H.S. also instructs 9th graders.

    Parent
    As I posted earlier (none / 0) (#159)
    by ragebot on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 09:35:43 PM EST
    #44 is the most coveted number for a RB.  There are rules about specific numbers being assigned to certain players playing certain positions.  When the offense runs specific plays out of specific formations players may be required to report to the officials if they are eligible receivers since their number may not be a number given to receivers.

    It is possible that at lower levels the officials don't always enforce rules.  But I find it strange that a team not dressing more than 99 players would assign the same number to two players.  Even stranger that two RBs would be assigned #1.

    Parent

    Ga6th: The "boxed in" aspect (none / 0) (#25)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:54:16 PM EST
    To begin with, the President has spoken a number of times about race and about gun violence ... and, in the opinion of many, he has done so eloquently.  In the matter of Charleston, the slaughter more & more obviously grounded in racial hatred, President Obama's first comments did seem dispirited, indeed; and, as some have noted in the national news, that may derive from the fact that there are 14 major statements, observations, talks that he needed to make following episodes of lethal shootings with multiple fatalities.  In that position, as a black man, one can only imagine the emotional pain that he must feel with the ongoing violence, the rejected calls and work for responsive legislation, and the abominable slaughter in that AME church.  For a few hours--like so many sentient human beings, like all of us--he let his face show that punch-to-the-gut that had been delivered.  <By Friday, both the President and Hillary Clinton spoke as the fighters that they are.  Strongly, forthrightly, and with very genuine passion.<p> As for "boxes": One thing that I have never forgotten was how Mitch McConnell pledged to see the President kicked out/gone within 24 hours of President Obama's first inauguration.  He spoke with unusual vehemence and anger, and far earlier in opposition than I can recall about any other new President.  Then, I remember that it was not unusual for people to try the stereotype on him ... e.g., being black, he surely must have the style of the pugnacious Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, or the scary black on the streets. Or the widely-distributed cartoons portraying him and Michelle as monkeys, and widely circulated as well. The challenges for any President are many; but, the "boxes" devised by political enemies for this President went directly to race. You see, that well-known (and used) stereotype formed part of the trap ... if a plausible argument could be made by Repubs that he fit the stereotype.  OTOH, to elude the trap of being portrayed as the "angry black man" so that this first black president could be seen to govern for all the people could result in being afraid.  We know now that is exactly how the Repubs played it ... and, as evidence for it, consider the number of occasions where they offered--almost simultaneously--that he was acting like a dictator (the immigration executive action, e.g.,) while also exclaiming that he was weak (not fully bombing Syria, e.g.)  

    I think that the example of the comment on "Meet the Press" cited by BTD is not only an extension of White presumption, but also a stereotypical side-of-the-box where Black-White conversations are concerned.  Given the sheer number of accomplishments defining this Administration to date and given that President Obama still moves forward, his grit, tenacity, and strategic direction should be regarded as commendable plus.  Brilliant even.  That will be the stuff of history books.

    Parent

    Apropos of nothing, it would be (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:20:20 AM EST
    so helpful if your comments could be broken up into paragraphs; these great big blocks of unbroken text you're posting are hard to read.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    know. I guess he seems so dispassionate when talking about it.

    What you're essentially saying is that a black person can't be president because they can't get angry. I've heard this a number of times. I reject that notion. I have seen John Lewis get mad plenty of times when a moral wrong happens and he doesn't seem to scare anybody.

    I understand the GOP and how they operate probably more than I wish I knew.

    But Obama isn't the only one. Plenty of mealymouthed statements came from Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham too.

    Maybe I am too close to this particular event. This happened about three blocks from where I lived for three years. It happened in a state I grew up in.

    Parent

    No, I'm saying that the trap (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    set by those who did not want to see, could not countenance a Black President in the White House pushed from both the "he's too harsh, brash, preachy" and the opposite "he's too weak, not smart enough (the old stereotype of a he's to slow) to be a real leader.  I firmly believe that (1) Barack Obama has been bombarded by overt as well as gentile racism since the day he set foot in office.  I did not believe it would be that way at first ... perhaps, it coalesced for me with the language that was used for this President even in Congress (recall the S.C. congressman yelling "you lie" loudly during an early State of the Union. As you have so often testified here, the people that promote this bull-roar resistance are serious, if crazed in their ignorant belief ... you know more than most, I'm guessing, how they believe this man is a usurper.  Why? Because he is Black ... and, what about that CSA flag, after all.  (2) Barack Obama has outmaneuvered and out-smarted these types in legislative results that, ultimately, provide a measure of an administration and in terms of overall acceptance as President, as witness his convincing win in 2012.  IMO, one of the reasons that President Obama has been able to do that is the reality or the impression of the reality that he rises above the race-baiting ... he looks forward and doesn't get trapped in blaming by race ... AND, it is that very exceptional calm, patience, and exceptionally smooth but firm delivery that has been his help and strongest political weapon.  

    I understand that you and I have been strong supporters of that other strong leader, Hillary Clinton.  But, one doesn't negate or detract from the other--not anymore, anyway.  While they are very different in style, they do supplement each other very well.  It is to the country's benefit.

    Parent

    This really (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:43:37 PM EST
    isn't about Hillary. It's about Obama and I really wish he had gotten around the GOP the way you seen to describe. I really do.

    You have to remember he is the one that naively campaigned on working with the GOP. That one just made me want to bang my head on the table. Thank God we are past that one.

    If he had hung around Washington longer before running I think he would have realized what he was up against with regards to the GOP. I mean they will not wear their mask forever. He must have missed the dog whistles sent out by people like George W. Bush is all I can guess.

    It just befuddles me. As you see he has behaved in the way they expect him to and he still gets hit with junk. To me whatever the GOP says or does should be considered not relevant and you should just go ahead and do what you're gonna do because you can't let them define the debate.

    Parent

    Where we may differ on the (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:26:53 PM EST
    matter of style/approach of President Obama vis-à-vis the Repubs in Congress is that I consider him to be unusually savvy about politics and appearance and what he needed to do for the audience of the American public both to hold the trust to get re-elected in 2012 and to extricate from the Reppub Congress what he could in terms of strategy.  The President learned from the best in political hardball savvy--the Daley crowd, the Chicago crowd.  They are not push-overs.

     In the case of the Obama administration, it may be that your expectations were higher than mine.  For me--considering the real-life votes, competing interests in the states in play, etc.as well as the drama of racism underlying so much of the Repub strategy and nationwide attitudes about belief systems, I believe that President Obama has accomplished more than I ever expected.  We may have started from different expectations and evaluations, as I say.  When all is said and done, I expect that reflection in years to come will offer more perspective--for all of us--as we move away from the almost pitch-battle polarization that seemed to culminate in this recent time period.

    Parent

    "gentile racism"? (none / 0) (#42)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:51:56 PM EST
    I take it you haven't seen the joke about Obama by the wife of Israel's Vice Premier and interior Minister.

    Parent
    Yes, I saw it (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:16:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I think christine meant ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 10:18:02 PM EST
    ... to say "genteel racism," rather than "gentile." At least, that's the way I read it.

    Parent
    I had to laugh at myself, Donald (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    after re-looking at my spelling slip.  Thanks for the save.

    Parent
    "The president carries (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    his own background into race and so he brings his experiences and special expertise to racial observations."    "Chuck Todd nodded, unknowingly."   Fixed.

    cluelessly is the adverb you're looking for. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 02:43:01 PM EST


    Parent
    This is my view too, KeysDan (none / 0) (#62)
    by Green26 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 07:51:34 AM EST
    Obama does have special knowledge/views on the subject. While I understand why he would want to be careful in this subject area, I thought he would speak out more on race matters during his presidency.

    While I understand BT's point, if it is true that everyone is not neutral in race matters, I'm not sure why saying Obama is not neutral is an inaccurate or inappropriate statement. Wasn't Todd at fault for not saying "so what" and pushing on with the line of questions?

    Parent

    Heretic! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Redbrow on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Everybody knows the POTUSA is infallible.

    No, that is not the point (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 02:51:01 PM EST
    White people also have racial baggage.....

    Parent
    Especially if his last name (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    begins with a R.  👽

    Parent
    I've yet to see/read a discussion on race (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    that did any good.  Most of these "discussions" focus on black/white issues.  It's as if other races don't exist or aren't important.

    One of the reasons why I voted for Obama in 08 was I thought he would have a positive impact on the black community. I haven't see it yet, but it might be something that takes several years to manifest..... a role model effect.

     

    Oh, really. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    McBain: "One of the reasons why I voted for Obama in 08 was I thought he would have a positive impact on the black community. I haven't see it yet, but it might be something that takes several years to manifest..... a role model effect."

    And exactly what sort of "impact" were you expecting President Obama to have on the black community with his election?

    Were you expecting African-Americans to say "Hallelujah!" and then be satisfied? Should they have become passive and accepting of their longstanding status as second-class citizens?

    Further, would you have expected John McCain to become a similar role model for the white community, had he been elected in '08 rather than Obama?

    African-Americans may be presently compelled by circumstances to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats -- and that could change, if Republicans ever decide to pull their heads from their rears on issues of race -- but they are otherwise no more a monolithic community, than are Irish-Americans or Latinos.

    At best, your statement above is terribly patronizing. I suggest that you clearly think through what you are about to say on the subject, before you say it.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, didn't you (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    anticipate African-Americans who live in the U.S. might benefit in some way if Barack Obsma was elected President?  Why else did he campaign to AA crowds in his AME preacher persona and encourage call and response?  And haven't AAs, along w/many others, benefited from expansion of Medicaid, the ACA, and rising employment numbers, reduction of US military in the ME, CHIP, etc.?

    Parent
    No, I didn't. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 11:17:08 PM EST
    I thought that the symbolic value alone of Barack Obama's election as our first non-white president would be a vitally important milestone in our country's history, and I still feel that way.

    Now, there's a profound and substantive long-term benefit to be derived from Obama's election and re-election. He proved to African-Americans and other people of color in this country -- and a substantial number of white voters, too, for that matter -- that race and ethnicity aren't necessarily the career-limiting impediments in national politics that they once were. He said what he needed to say in order to harness the black vote as part of the greater Democratic coalition which ultimately elected him.

    But otherwise, no, I didn't anticipate any immediate benefits for African-Americans with his presidency. I had also hoped that I would be wrong in that assessment, but I wasn't. Rather, my biggest fear was that there would be a racist backlash against him and African-Americans by a certain unreconstructed segment of the white community, were he to be elected -- and sadly, I think that's what has come to pass.

    But now that this backlash has materialized, I believe that it can only wane over the long run, because the evolving dynamic of population demographics in this country won't sustain white identity politics in presidential races any longer.

    25-30 years ago, a GOP presidential nominee who got over 60% of the white vote in the general election would win the election in a walk. These past two presidential elections, both John McCain and Mitt Romney received 60% support from white voters across the country -- and yet they both lost to Obama by fairly significant margins.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Anticipate benefit (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    is rather a loaded way to phrase it.

    I don't think they benefited from those things any more than did the larger population of poor whites.

    And honestly I think the bit about "preacher persona" is also a bit loaded.  I would say he is comfortable talking to a black audience and understands how to do that.

    Why is that bad?

    Did they "benefit"?   IMO they did to the extent that black children can now believe they can rise to the highest office in the land.  Other than that.  Not so much.

    Although his Brothers Keeper program seems to me to be an admirable and helpful way t go about doing what he can.   I also suspect he will be more involved in such things, perhaps much more, when he is a former president.

    I also don't think that is bad.

    Parent

    I wasn't suggesting a quid (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    pro qui of I vote for you and I get something from you in return. Also, to me the preacher persona was brilliant and fascinating to watch. And I am convinced President Obama helped AAs. Not exclusively, of course. But the program's I mentioned were not designed for the 1% or, except for the ACA, the middle class. This is a good thing.

    Parent
    He is a democrat (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:17:51 PM EST
    contrary to what you may have read here.  Policies of the party, when implemented, tend to benefit the less financially  fortunate.

    I'm sure you didn't mean to say the ACA was for the 1%.  Did you?

    Parent

    I don't think I stated the ACA (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:25:52 PM EST
    was passed for the benefit of the 1%. Certainly didn't mean to!

    Parent
    I think the truth is (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:34:42 PM EST
    the man has had to walk a very fine line.  He can't do to much for people of color because there are vast numbers of right wing pundits waiting for any tiny evidence that he is "favoring" people of color.   He has already been accused of hating while people and pretty much every lesser "black offense" down to the terrorist fist bump.

    IMO if you take a step back from your own circle of concerns you almost have to be amazed by how skillfully he has been able to navigate this.  

    Parent

    I actually (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    anticipated things getting worse for them generally. I knew this country was not mature enough to accept an African American president and especially the south was not. I knew that there would be people all over the country taking their hatred of Obama out on the nearest African American.

    Yes, like Howdy says the main thing is that now we have seen an African American can be president but not a whole lot else has gotten better and in a lot of cases it has gotten worse.

    Parent

    There a million reasons (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:39:45 PM EST
    they have gotten worse.  Obama is not one beyond the fact that he had the audacity to run for president and win bringing out the not very buried resentment you mention.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:54:27 PM EST
    to wonder if he really realized it was out there like it has been. I mean he grew up in Hawaii which is I would imagine a lot different than the rest of the states. My cousin lives there and says it's America but not America at the same time.

    Parent
    I suspect he was (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 06:59:32 PM EST
    a bit gob smacked.   I was.  I expected it to an extent and I imagine he did.  I did not expect what has happened.  The Muslim thing.  The birth certificate thing.

    Let us all take a lesson.  The insanity of the American right can not be overestimated.   Probably a good thing to keep in mind going into the next election cycle and the next administration.

    You know what.  I doubt if Hillary was surprised.

    Parent

    The birth (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    certificate thing did surprise me. The Muslim thing did not because of his name.

    Yeah, I'm quite sure Hillary was not surprised at what the GOP did.

    The only thing that has surprised me is the fact that they have been so vocal about what they are doing. I pretty much expected it but I expected to be done by elves like it was to Bill Clinton. But no, they come out and scream that they think Obama is a Muslim instead of trying to imply all kinds of stuff.

    Parent

    There was (none / 0) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:46:18 PM EST
    a huge wave of "he's not our president" started from day one. Implicitly and and explicitly from the barstools in redneck bars to the shouters at Fox, all the way to the top leaders of the GOP and they never stopped.

    The Clinton's surely warned him what he might be facing but no one could predict it would be this intense and pervasive. Obama, perhaps buying his own visions of being "transformative", thought he could reason with the political equivalent of a pack of mad dogs. Most likely Hillary would have started counter punching quickly and hard, very hard.


    Parent

    Obama made (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:23:27 PM EST
     two fatal mistakes IMO. One not realizing that it wasn't Bill Clinton that was the problem back in the 90's. The second one being that the only thing the GOP understands is fear. They interpret being nice and trying to work with them as weakness. One thing you have to do is tell the public how crazy they are every chance you get. I think Obama realizes now that his beliefs back in 2008 were foolish but you can't go back and redo it and here we are.

    Parent
    Pres. Obama pent a fair amount (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:30:17 PM EST
    of time in Chcago too.

    Parent
    He understudied Chicago politics.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:30:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Chicago (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:42:16 PM EST
    politics does not understand Republicans. It only understands how to get rid of other Democrats. Which he seems to be very good at.

    Parent
    And remember, Obama grew up in Honolulu. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    Hawaii's pretty good at that, too. As in Chicago, the GOP out here is thoroughly marginalized.

    Parent
    This is the attitude that has bought us (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 07:41:02 PM EST
    The Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina statehouse.

    And it is a false statement as well.  This is what those who desire the status quo to remain posit , they attempt to hide their true agendas behind it too.

    Parent

    And on the subject of the Confederate flag, ... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 05:07:33 PM EST
    ... perhaps the Charleston tragedy is actually providing a sense of denouement for some white Southerners. Jack Hawkins, talk radio's "Southern Avenger," appears to have had a rather profound change of heart on the subject, given recent events not only in Charleston but also in McKinney, TX:

    "I spent a decade defending the Confederate flag that is yet again the center of so much controversy. I said the flag was about states' rights. I said it stood for self-determination. I said it honored heritage. I argued the Confederate flag wasn't about race. I believed it. Millions of well-meaning Southerners believe it too. I was wrong. [...] [T]here is something at stake far more important than this symbol. Heritage might not be hate. But battling hate is far more important than anyone's heritage, politics, or just about anything else. We should have different priorities. I now have different priorities."

    Well, good for him -- and you know what? I just have to give a shout-out to 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as well, for deliberately putting his fellow Republicans on the spot with his unequivocal call for that damned flag's removal from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds altogether.

    Because just a few hours ago, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley held a press conference in which she finally echoed Romney's sentiment and called for the Confederate battle flag's retirement from the state's official public life, after a week of noticeably holding her moistened finger up in the air to gauge the political winds. Welcome to the 21st century, Governor. Better late than never.

    (I also find it ironic to see how the Confederate flag controversy, a wedge issue which once worked so well in the GOP's favor down South 15 years ago, has now returned to haunt southern Republicans big time. Were the circumstances that prompted its revival not so tragic, I might have otherwise enjoyed a real sense of Schadenfreunde here.)

    In the immediate wake of the Charleston massacre, it's much too soon to say definitively that the event will prove a watershed moment in the struggle for racial equality in this country, one of those times like the Birmingham church bombing 52 years ago, when people across the board were finally compelled to examine their own consciences in light of an obvious atrocity and take a personal moral stand.

    But a guy can hope, can't he?

    Parent

    Great Article... (none / 0) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    ...Agreeing to remove the Confederate flag isn't courageous. It's just politics

    For all the congratulation Haley will doubtless garner, she still tooted the whistle of southern Lost Cause rhetoric loud and hard enough to send a few terriers home with burst eardrums. After meaningless puffery about South Carolina being voted "the friendliest state", Haley said:
    For many people in our state, the flag stands for traditions that are noble. Traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry.

    Ah, the traditions of heritage. The legacy of inheritance. The folkways of culture.

    For a single word, "heritage" does a lot of heavy lifting with the racist crowd, since "HERITAGE NOT HATE" has been a decades-long weasel explanation for venerating a flag carried by armies that kidnapped free blacks and burned their homes while waging war against the US government, which was carried by Klansmen who bombed churches and killed civil rights volunteers to prevent blacks from exercising the franchise, and most recently was carried about town for selfies by Dylann Roof before allegedly emptying five magazines of tradition into a number of pious, African American churchgoers.


    LINK

    Parent
    Fair and balanced (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    i think there is a difference also in presenting a point of view, as FOX does, while going out of your way to convince your viewers you are presenting a fair and balanced view of the world.   That seems the worst to me.  Blatantly presenting propaganda while helping your consumers to fool themselves into thinking they see the whole picture.
    MSNBC offers a left leaning perspective.  But they, mostly, don't try to deceive about it.  Scarborough make no bones about being a republican and Rachel makes none about being a liberal.   Hayes, Lawrence and Harris-Perry are pretty straight up about what the think and the view their reporting is coming from.
    The networks, ABC, NBC, CBS and to a much greater extent than the two previously mentioned, CNN fall over each other in silly attempts to "present both sides".  Which is a large contributor to the sorry state we find ourselves in on things like climate change and evolution.
    Todd is IMO perhaps the worst of the lot.   I can't stand watching him.

    Many issues havn't "both sides" (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    It's a case of evidence based reasoning vs. a bull$$$t based imitation of reason.  Scientific thought vs. applied idiocy.  

    And underneath these faux debates is a strong current of Green vs. Greed.

    Parent

    John Dickerson, the new host of ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 04:26:46 PM EST
    ... CBS News' "Face the Nation," needs a chance to get his sealegs. Once he gets into the swing of things, I bet that he'll soon give Chuck Todd a real run for his money as the most insipid Sunday morning host.

    Parent
    More importantly ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 05:16:06 PM EST
    in the context of the contemporary mainstream media, the phrase "competent reporter" is even more problematic.

    It's an industry that can be found lying on a daily basis. And, both when it is and isn't lying, it is always serving the interests of the main power structures in this world.

    So what is a "competent reporter"? The best liar? The most effective shill? The most easily bought?

    Or the one who will do all these things without being bought?

    And all this becomes even more oxymoronic when the reporter works for such a transparently phony organization as The Wall Street Journal.

    Few journos risk losing their comfy seats (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    at White House Press conferences.

    It's all about content.  Journos have to fill their alloted slot in the media feed.  

    Websites work on the same principles.  Content is everything and content is amoral.  I mention that in case you've ever wondered why the internet hasn't saved Democracy from the political parasites, why the World Wide Web so quickly devolved into a World Wide Lie.

    Parent

    Chuck Todd got even worse (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    After some discussion about Charlestown, he then played a video of Black men talking about their regret in engaging in gun violence. Every single person who was profiled in the video was African American.....

    What an insensitive idiot.  The shooter in Charlestown was white.  But that still did not stop Todd from using the Fox playbook of broadcasting the latest installment of scary Blacks behaving badly.

    The reaction was apparently so ferocious and immediate that Todd noted the complaints on Twitter and Eugene Robinson's (he was on the panel) before the show ended.

    Todd has been hanging out and currying favor with the likes of Hugh Hewitt, on whose radio show he regularly appears....

    Despicable and stupid.

    site violator (none / 0) (#57)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:16:48 AM EST


    I don't see how anyone can be (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:37:40 AM EST
    neutral on the issue of race, any more than we can be neutral on the issue of gender.  

    What we can do is listen to each other and try to learn from each other.  And try to right the wrongs we know exist.  

    A lot of white people are never, ever going to understand what it feels like to be a person of color, because the things that happen to people of color don't happen to us.  Store clerks don't think I'm going to steal anything.  No one crosses the street when they see me coming.  No one ever doesn't get on an elevator when I'm the only passenger.  I'm not afraid of getting pulled over because I'm a white person.  I've never not been hired because of my race.  

    I don't know what that feels like, but I also don't know how to change that.  How do you get people to change the way they feel?  

    One thing's for sure: it doesn't happen through the efforts of shows like Meet the Press.  It doesn't happen when you show people video of a bunch of black murderers in prison.

    Well (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:54:31 AM EST
    maybe if shows like MTP quit doing the garbage they were doing some hearts and minds might be changed. But like you say Anne they really are part of the problem.

    For some there is no changing the way they feel. They are past hopeless. I have to believe though that there are some people who can rethink this kind of thing and change. I've even seen it with some acquaintances over the years.

    Parent

    A unique view of the Confederate flag (none / 0) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 09:57:43 AM EST
    from Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism:

    "The Appropriation of Cultures"
    by Percival Everett



    Gov Haley's Press Conf/S.C. Flag (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    Once in awhile, when so much seems to have been sad news & stories of hate, a positive note can be heard.  I just heard the South Carolina governor, at a press conference, call for the South Carolina flag to be removed from the statehouse/government grounds and retired.  Among a number of other officials, she was joined on the platform by Repub Senator Scott of S.C. and Senator Graham.  (Side note: L. Graham appeared to be quite somber.)

    In view of the caught-in-between position that she found herself in, she made a fairly direct and decent statement.  She called for legislative action by exercising her right to call a special session in "extraordinary circumstances."

    Don't get me (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    wrong I'm glad she's doing but if she had any cojones to stand up to the neoconfederates in SC she would not have defended it when she ran for reelection.

    The reason this is happening is the national GOP has come down on her head and demanded that she get rid of it because if she doesn't it is going to haunt every GOP candidate.

    Remember just a few days ago she was fine with the flag.

    And apparently 61% of the residents of SC are just fine with that flag. So you know left to her own devices she would never had done anything sadly


    Parent

    Ga6th: I agree with you (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 03:51:25 PM EST
    And, for her, acceding to the party's plea to get them out of a losing spot, she may also have been thinking about future national office.  (If you locate the press conference clip, you might want to look at it ... not only for how she rather adroitly walked the tightrope, but also--imo--how downcast or something that Lindsey Graham seemed.)

    Parent
    Going (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    by the comments on facebook to Graham it is going to kill him in the only state he had any hope of winning in the GOP primary.

    No, she's dead as a national candidate. You can't be for that flag and then decide it takes 9 people being killed to do the right thing. And this has enraged the GOP base because they see it as "caving to liberals" and the "road to extinction for the white race" in America.

    And the long knives are out for Tim Scott over this one too.

    All this has done is thrown another time bomb into the GOP civil war.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    The steering wheel of the clown car was being passed around like a hot potato.  Oh, what to do, this is there base, after all

     Lindsey (it is a part of who we are), Jeb! (a decision of the state), Rubio (what Jeb! said, although as a state senator he co-sponsored a bill to keep that old flag a fly'n), Rand Paul (no comment), Scott Walker (refuses to take a position), Huckabee (too little of an issue to talk about), Santorum (when he thought it was down with the Confederate f8gs he was OK with it --;), but when it was Confederate flags it became a matter for the states),  Cruz (sees both sides), Trump, for once, had nothing to say.

    They have all been evolved.  A new species--like coming out of water unto land.  

    Parent

    All For Nothing... (none / 0) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    ...considering it will take a 2/3rds majority to take it down, and you mentioned 61% of residents are cool with it.
    Under the terms of the compromise, it would take a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to undo the deal placing the flag in front of the Statehouse.
    LINK

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    but she says it is coming down this summer and I seriously doubt she would say that if she did not have the votes rounded up to get rid of it.

    But you never know. Those neo-confederates in the legislature could decide that keeping their job is more important than helping out the national GOP in a presidential year and then they are going to have to deal with their constituents.

    And your governor said the shooting was "an accident". All of a few weeks in the running for president and he's doing it again. Somebody needs to have a word of prayer with him and tell him he's never going to be president so quit wasting everybody's time and money.

    Parent

    I think it's coming down (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    republicans are already patting themselves on the back for their multiculturalism for taking down the freakin confederate battle flag from the state house grounds.  In 2015.

    Congratulations guys.

    I think the truth is they don't want this to be an issue in an election year.

    Parent

    He Apoligized for the 'Flub'... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 04:35:38 PM EST
    ...after, I assume, someone explained it to him using pictures and maybe crayons.

    And for the record, Texas' governor is Greg Abbott, Rick Perry is currently unemployed.  Not much better, he is the guy who mobilized the Texas National Guard over SEAL training.

    Parent

    It's probably a good thing for Texas that ... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:02:10 PM EST
    ... the governor's office in Austin is actually weaker politically than those of corresponding chief executives elsewhere. That said, I must give your adopted home state props, because I daresay most other states would have wilted under 21 successive years of ignorance, incompetence and ineptitude as personified by Govs. George W. Bush, Rick Perry and now Greg Abbott.

    I love the deep-seated paranoia that drove the Texas legislature to recently establish the state's own gold bullion depository, the first of its kind anywhere. And of course, Abbott signed it into law. My late former boss used to tell me that you can't legislate demons, but Texas is sure trying to prove otherwise.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    should have said FORMER governor. Something about Texas produces crazy. Maybe it's the hot sun has fried their brains.

    Parent
    I Just Read Today... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    ...Perry actually meant to say 'incident' instead of 'accident'.  Really, that is his excuse, seems to me like the pain pills might not have been last run's problem.

    Parent
    FWIW, Todd Has Changed Course (none / 0) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    Yesterday:
    "We decided against delaying the segment because we wanted to show multiple sides of what gun violence does in this country. We thought the issue of gun violence in our culture and society was an important conversation to continue -- too important to put off for another week. The consequences of gun violence should not be hidden," Todd wrote.

    Today:

    "We've heard you. We clearly got it wrong and we are sorry,"

    This is infinitely larger that, 'Ops, our bad.'

    Straight out of the (none / 0) (#171)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    better-to-ask-forgiveness-than-for-permission school of...something.

    I have a feeling there has to be at least one person on the MTP staff who is saying, "I told you this was going to blow up in your face."

    Seriously, anyone with a brain could have told Chuckie this wasn't going to hit any of the right notes.  

    I don't know how much they pay Todd, but it's way too much; any 10 or 15 people who comment here could run rings around him without even working up a sweat.  

    Parent

    Chuck Todd... (none / 0) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    ...reminds of the oodles of corporate minions we have running around, who are OK at their jobs, but get promoted again and again because they don't rock the boat even when it should be.  

    Then at some level when is glaringly obvious they are in way over their heads, nothing happens because the people above them would have to admit errors in judgement and demote the people they have been promoting.

    So they remain in positions they are not suited for making judgement errors that most would not.

    Parent

    On race, there are no neutral observers | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment