"History's verdict is all we have left.  And when tomorrow calls today into account, some of us want to say we stood up.  We called out.  We were not silent."
--Leonard Pitts, Jr., "Gestures of Conscience Bring Solace," Baltimore Sun, March 19, 2006

SILENT HOWLS

Print the article

This entry was posted on 9/27/2009 4:00 PM and is filed under uncategorized.

"Let me say this clearly so there are no misunderstandings: some of the protests against President Obama are howls of rage at the fact that we have an African-American head of state. I'm sick of all the code words used when this subject comes up, so be assured that I am saying exactly what I mean. Oh, and in response to the inevitable complaints that I am playing the race card—race isn't a political parlor game. It is a powerful fault line in a nation that bears the scars of slavery, a civil war, Jim Crow, a mind-numbing number of assassinations, and too many riots to count. It is naive and disingenuous to say otherwise.

"So when Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell jokes about hunting the president or South Carolina GOP activist Rusty DePass calls an escaped gorilla one of Michelle Obama's ancestors, it's racist. Which, in case of confusion, is the "ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group." (That's from the Oxford English Dictionary, but leave the Brits out of this.) When "Tea Party" leader Mark Williams appears on CNN and speaks of "working-class people" taking "their" country back from a lawfully elected president, he is not just protesting Obama's politics; he is griping over the fact that this country's most powerful positions are no longer just for white men. No, I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. But racists do exist in this country, and they don't like having a black president."

 

When Raina Kelley wrote those words in Newsweek in her powerful essay, "Play the Race Card," her words were, in themselves, a howl of rage.  And they spoke to me, not just because I agreed with them, but because they'd been spoken, yet again, by an African-American writer.

Ms. Kelley's words joined those of many other of my favorite op-ed writers who happen to be black, like Bob Herbert and Charles M. Blow of the New York Times, and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, among others.

I wondered if maybe some of us who were white were wandering around, wondering WHAT to say, in a state of the way I felt just then, as if there were silent howls going off in my head.

And even as I was busy accumulating all kinds of links and passion and outrage so that I, too, could join the fray, it was an African American friend of mine who made me think about the issue in a whole other light.

My friend, who I'll call Anne, and I grew close during the Obama campaign and its aftermath, when we learned that we had so much more in common than not, and our frank and funny discussions about race have drawn us closer still.  The long miserable heated days of August upset us both deeply, with the "Obamacare" witch-doctor viral e-mails, the "monkey-see, monkey-do" signs, the "African lyin' in the zoo," and the other unmistakeable manifestations of racism rearing their ugly heads at meetings ostensibly set up to discuss health care, of all things. 

When men began to attend the presidential venues openly sporting loaded firearms, and a congressman thought it just fine and dandy to call a sitting president a liar on national television while he was speaking in front of a joint session of congress--and proceeded to raise nearly two million dollars off the naked insult from folks who thought that was a good thing--my friend and I talked about how we were "wandering around in our heads," filled with despair that, to her, it was 1968 all over again; but to me, it was the early 90's again, just before the Oklahoma City bombing, when I'd been researching right-wing rage and paranoia for a book and had known it was leading up to something terrible.

Either way, it was bad.

And either way, neither of us had dreamed we'd be seeing the likes again.  Not like that.

I told her that I had written about this subject before and that I had this sense of hopelessness that it seemed to make no difference, that here we were, all over again, that nothing ever changed, that the hatred, if anything, was worse--and in a measurable sense. 

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are more than 900 active hate groups in the U.S. today--up from about 600 just a couple of years ago, and militia groups themselves, of the kind I was researching for my book, ORDEAL, have come raging back, with a vengeance, including one which is made up exclusively of former military and law enforcement officers.

The subsequent threats against the first African American president are very real.  According to Ron Kessler's new book, IN THE PRESIDENT'S SECRET SERVICE: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect, threats against Obama's life have gone up 400% just since he took office in January of this year.

Now, in all fairness to right-wing nutcases, they hated Clinton too.  Oh, Lord how they hated that man and his wife.  They accused him and her of murdering Vince Foster and covering up the crime--didn't just accuse them in some rant or other, but kept up the heat so convincingly that Ken Starr actually dedicated TAX-PAYER DOLLARS AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FEDERAL AGENTS INVESTIGATING THE CLAIM before FINALLY DEBUNKING IT--which, of course, did not convince them.

(Years later, I actually saw a guy on TV say that he didn't think the matter had been investigated thoroughly enough.  Well, mister, if Ken Starr ain't thorough enough for you, then I can't help you, man.)

They accused Clinton of running drugs in Arkansas, of using state troopers to procure women for himself, of killing off all his rivals, and God knows, they kept one poor innocent woman in federal prison for, what was it--sixteen months?--because she refused to lie and claim that he had some sort of nefarious thing to do with the whole Whitewater mess?  They spent $65,000,000 taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Clinton and then wound up impeaching him for a blow-job, but I digress.

Obviously that had nothing to do with the color of his skin, so right-wing hatred for anything Not Right-Wing clearly knows no bounds.

But in the Clinton years, FOX news did not yet exist.

Now, Obama has to deal with an entire "news" network that spends, literally, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, attacking him, mocking him, denigrating him, delegitimizing him, smearing him, making up conspiracies about him, and whipping up public frenzy about him.

Toss THAT into the racist pot and see what you get.

It's one thing to refuse to air any of his news conferences.  It's quite another to refuse to air a speech to the joint session of congress.

What they do is, they refuse to air the speech in its entirety, but starting first thing the next morning, they cut-and-past, edit-and-clip little splices that they can put together in the worst possible light, so that they can attack and mock and be outraged at those looping clips for the next week or two.

Then whine like crybabies when he refuses to be interviewd by Chris Wallace.

With Glenn Beck insisting that Obama is racist, that he has a deep-seated hatred of white people--as if his own mother was not white, as if he was not raised by his white grandparents, as if his closet advisors were not white--and with every FOX anchor on their daily line-up encouraging their audience to keep their kids home from school rather than let the president of the United States even speak to them on the first day of school (something which seemed to disturb even Laura Bush)--this is not just racist, it is CORPORATE-SPONSORED RACISM.

And then comes the claim that Obama did not even write DREAMS FROM MY FATHER.

It seems this has been going on since the campaign, a myth begun by both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, that not only did Obama not write this incredible, soul-searching work, but that Bill Ayers, a casual neighbor in Chicago he sat with on a couple of education boards, did.

If I was not already deeply offended from a purely racial standpoint, this...THIS...literally made me recoil, as if I had been physically struck.

As an author, I find this so repugnant, so offensive as to be almost beyond my capacity for comment.

How.  Dare.  They.

What?  The black boy's not capable of writing his own book?  Is that it?

Or is it something deeper?  Is it more along the lines of pure JEALOUSY?

Sometimes, someone will streak across the cosmos like a comet, someone who seems to have everything; looks, athletic prowess, intelligence, Ivy League education, charm, wit, success, even, as in Obama's case, a happy marriage and great kids. 

And when that happens, well, the nasty lit-tle people of the world just have to find something somewhere they can make up or dig up that will make them feel bigger.  Superior.

In this case, these two boneheads were so certain that Obama's and Ayers's two books were soooo similar that they sent carefully selected segments of them to Dr. Peter Millican, a philosophy don at Hertford College, Oxford, who has designed a computer software program that can detect when works are by the same author by comparing favorite words and phrases.

They offered him $10,000, money which was raised by the brother-in-law to Chris Cannon, a Republican congressman from Utah.

First of all, he told them that it was "very implausable" that the two works were by the same author, and that if he were to compare the two books in their entirety as requested, he would have to go public with the results, even if the results were not, er, what they wanted.

So they dropped their little gambit, since it was pretty obvious they were wrong.

Which has not kept Rush Limbaugh OR Sean Hannity from repeating the lie that they now know is not even true.

Okay, so now, I'm wandering around the house in a bloodlust; a red-eyed author's rage.  I mean, Obama's mother was still alive, but had been diagnosed with cancer, when he wrote that book; he got the contract just out of law school because he'd been the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.  He was barely 30 or something when he wrote it.  He wasn't even in politics yet.

Reading that book, I could see that this was a journey of the spirit that is what had given such a young man his beyond-his-years wisdom; it was exactly the kind of soul-searching that George W. Bush NEVER had.

For the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh to slap the authorship onto not just a white man, but THAT white man, so they could couple it with some sort of "radical education" meme of the day or whatever the hell they were after on their hate-rant, made me ill.

Like I told my friend Anne, "I'm already sick of this and it's only been six months.  You guys have been dealing with it for CENTURIES, and far worse, to say the least."

And then she said something that caught me up short.  Something full of grace and light and wisdom; something I think we should all heed, and something I think President Obama would appreciate.

She said:

He is letting us see that he "ain't scared" and we shouldn't be either.  The silent majority is on the side of truth and fairness this time, just like during the campaign.  That's why he was not about to call Joe Ass-hole Wilson a racist.  It would have only made the bigots even more zealous and it would not have done anything at all to convince anyone who didn't see that for themselves. 
 
He is scheduled to be on all five Sunday morning talk shows and David Letterman on Monday.  No one can rally the troops the way he can and he is signalling the troops to spread the word and to keep the faith.  We can't let him down. 
 
 
I thought about what my friend had said, and that is why I posted my blog, MY GRANDMOTHER'S CORSET and ALL THOSE EMPTY LIBRARIES, on how we needed to concentrate on getting health care reform passed and not get sidetracked on what Limbaugh or Hannity or any of those Morons of the Day were saying, because Anne was right.  By letting them set the agenda, we WERE getting sidetracked, whether by racism or whatever other issue, but what Obama needs us to do is get this passed.
 
But.
 
That racism thing.  It's still there.  And it shouldn't be just the African Americans who have to keep speaking out about it.  We of other colorful or not-so-colorful persuasions should not just be silently howling in our heads.
 
As Raina Kelley writes in Newsweek:
 

I get it. Race issues are scary. There are few souls brave enough to say what they think about race relations outside the privacy of their homes or the anonymity of the Internet. But rather than deal with the discomfort of talking about race, we've continued to follow outdated rules about what words can be said by whom or, even worse, to stay silent. As if not speaking of racism will somehow make it go away. Silence, even the well-meaning kind, rarely wins an argument. It just allows the lunatic fringe to fill the vacuum in the public debate. And this reluctance doesn't help the effort to achieve racial equality, it hurts it.


But maybe silence isn't, after all, so silent.

For example, I raised my kids in the bastion of red-state conservatism, as did my good friend Linda, who hails from South Carolina, State of the Embarrassing Statesmen (I'm from Texas; I can relate.) 

And we both taught our kids to respect everybody based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the culture of their background.  Kids of all colors were welcome in our homes--even if it cost us friendships with adult whites in our respective areas.

And it wasn't just us.  Obama has pointed out--rightly so--that this issue is, in many ways, a generational one.  It does not mean that there are not young bigots running around, but it is just as true that the children of racists do not necessarily grow up agreeing with their parents, as was so movingly pointed out by African American blogger, Keli Goff in her Huffington Post blog, "Why I'm Grateful for Joe Wilson and the Fury of Racists":

Because the reason some people's racism has been brought to the fore is because the America they thought they knew and loved is becoming a different one before their very eyes; an America in which a Black man can get elected president and a Latina can become a Supreme Court Justice. But most of all an America in which their very own children applaud both. This is what really has racists in a tizzy. Every study shows that most of their children do not share and will not pass on, their legacy of intolerance and hate, but instead may end up dating or marrying an Obama or Sotomayor of their own one day.

You know what else gives me hope? The fact that even in a state like South Carolina where the Confederate battle flag still flies near the entrance to the capitol, citizens have seen fit to punish Congressman Wilson in the polls for the lack of respect he showed our president, who as we all know, is Black. If that's not proof of progress then I don't know what is. So let the racists wail. Let freedom ring and let progress come.

My friend Anne said something very similar in an e-mail to me:

Maybe the history that needs to be stressed right now is not the part that went wrong, but the part that went right. Maybe we should talk more about the white heroes of the abolition movement and the civil rights struggle.  Maybe we should be talking about how everyday there are white Americans out there reaching out to people of color through all kinds of  charitable organizations. 

White America was just as outraged about what happened in New Orleans as black America and many opened up there homes to displaced New Orleaners of all races.  Brad Pitt is building houses down there even as I write this.  Maybe we should fight back with the truth about the harmony that exists among the races, even while acknowledging that there are still problems.  It's kind of like when you were a little kid.  You didn't mind getting yelled at if you did something bad, if you got a "way to go kid" when you did good. 


Now, please don't get me wrong, Dear Reader.
 
Especially to my friends of color who are reading this--please PLEASE don't think I'm using this as some kind of excuse to pat all us white folks on the back for Job Well Done!!!
 
Because clearly we're not doing such a great job.
 
What I'm trying to say is that, there are things that we can all do, things that may not be so readily apparent on the outside, things we can say to our kids at home, for example, that can combat these horrific racist attacks that we see on TV, things that we make clear we will not tolerate in our home.
 
There are boundaries we can make clear that we will not cross, say, in the workplace, when e-mails make the rounds.
 
We can send them back.  Say, This is not funny.  It is offensive.  Do not send these to me.
 
We can, for the thousandth time, NOT LAUGH AT RACIST JOKES.
 
I mean, I know this all sounds so elementary and maybe patronizing but goddammit, the stupid stuff keeps coming up, doesn't it?
 
The thing is, there really are people out there who do not realize that a viral e-mail may not be true, or that a joke may not be funny.  I know that sounds ridiculous, but many of you reading this live in predominently liberal areas and this may seem self-evident, but when you live in predominently conservative areas, honestly, there are innocents out there who pass a thing along without thinking. 
 
They don't mean to offend anyone; they're just not thinking about it.  You can make them think without lecturing or hurting their feelings.  Sometimes they are glad to know the truth--I've been told that many times, as long as I do it in a respectful, and not angry, tone.
 
We don't have to howl, silently or otherwise.
 
But we can speak up.
 
I'm putting it in a lame kinda way maybe, but Chip Berlet, in an amazing piece that was posted October 1, 2009 in AlterNet, "Why Right-Wing Demagogues Are Trying to Peddle Ludicrous Conspiracy Theories," put it far better:


These are the three R’s of civil society: Rebut, Rebuke, Re-Affirm: Rebut false and misleading statements and beliefs without name-calling; rebuke those national figures spreading misinformation; and re-affirm strong and clear arguments to defend goals and proposed programs.

That’s exactly what President Obama did on in his nationally televised address Sept. 9.

While keeping our eyes on the prize of universal, quality healthcare, we must also prevent right-wing populism as a social movement from spinning out of control. Since Obama’s inauguration, there have been nine murders tied to white supremacist ideology laced with conspiracy theories. It is already happening here.


I like those three "Rs," because those are things that we can do just to respond to viral e-mails that cross our desks, even from well-meaning co-workers, friends, or family  members.

And we can remember that even though it may sometimes seem so grim, that progress IS being made.  As President Obama joked on Letterman, "I was black before I was elected."
 
Millions of white people voted for Obama, as did millions of Hispanics and millions of Asians.
 
And yes, I know personally, African Americans who DID NOT vote for him because they disagreed with his politics.
 
I think young Ms. Goff, writing in HuffPo, was actually on to something, in that, when titanic change is underway, then those most vehemently opposed to it are going to put up the biggest fight.
 
They are going to make the loudest noise.
 
BUT that does not mean that they make up the largest number.
 
When Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his glorious dream that one day his children really would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, just think about this:
 
Had he not been assassinated, and had he been allotted a truly long life by the Good Lord, it is conceivable that he could have lived to see a black man take the oath of office as the president of the United States of America, as did a number of the men and women who marched with him back in the day.
 
Imagine what he would have thought about that.
 
There were haters then, sadly, and they took away his chance to do so, but they did not take away his dream, did they?
 
That day has come.
 
Let's not let the howls distract us now.
 
We overcame before, and we shall do so again. 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 10/5/2009 1:21 PM Regina wrote:
      I'm sending a link to this post to everyone that I know. Not only does it contain well reasoned commentary on the issue but also links to other well-written and well thoughtout posts. I think that it does us all good to have our minds flushed of the virulent feces of hate with the fiber of intelligence. This post offers that in abundance. God bless you Deanie.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/5/2009 3:32 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Thank you so much for that my friend.  It means more than you'll ever know.  (Or maybe you will!)
        Reply to this
    • 10/6/2009 12:48 PM Nigel wrote:
      >>>That's from the Oxford English Dictionary, but leave the Brits out of this.<<<

      Pourquoi? You use "our" language but don't like our tea??

      >>>in all fairness to right-wing nutcases, they hated Clinton too.<<<

      I didn't mind the blowjob episode, it was the porkies afterwards that got up my nose.

      >>>Sometimes, someone will streak across the cosmos like a comet, someone who seems to have everything; looks, athletic prowess, intelligence, Ivy League education, charm, wit, success, even, as in Obama's case, a happy marriage and great kids.<<<

      Me, Me, I did walk 10 miles for charity last Friday (then another half mile to the pub for a pint before walking home), Grammar School at least, Me, well at least half, Me and finally Me.

      >>>That racism thing. It's still there. And it shouldn't be just the African Americans who have to keep speaking out about it. We of other colourful or not-so-colourful persuasions should not just be silently howling in our heads.<<<

      Yep. But as I said in a previous post I wish people could bring themselves to be just "plain" Americans. I honestly believe that your countrymen (I include ladies too) should stop calling themselves Irish-American, African-American as I believe that such self naming is divisive.

      >>>I know this all sounds so elementary and maybe patronising but goddammit, the stupid stuff keeps coming up, doesn't it?<<<

      I've been told at school that I'm not allowed to cull eedjuts.

      >>>But we can speak up.<<<

      Be a crime if we didn't.

      Nice one Deanie.
      Nigel.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/6/2009 3:06 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Nigel my British friend, it's always good to see you here.

        Although I am in no means qualified to speak for the African American community, since you have mentioned this more than once, I shall attempt to answer your question as to why they prefer to be called African American.

        Originally, they were called Negro, which lent itself to easily to the "n" word.  Or, they were called blacks and we were called whites, and I think we all grew reluctant to label someone by the color of their skin, so someone came up with this bright idea and it seemed to catch on.

        Some African Americans don't care for it anyway because their ancesters aren't even FROM Africa, but are from the Caribbean or whatever, but it is a term of respect, in America.

        Then, the Indians decided they wanted to be called Native Americans because, after all, Indians are Indians, from India, right?  So, Native Americans they are.

        Most Americans ARE Americans, and you're only an "Irish American," for instance, if you are first-generation, usually, like, say, Mexican American.  Mexican Americans wanted to be called such because to call them Mexicans would imply that they weren't citizens, which they were.

        Yes, of course, they should have ALL just been called AMERICANS.  You are right in that regard, I do not argue with you on that my friend, but actually, it seems it is the ethnic groups themselves who thought up their own appellations in an attempt to gain respect that they felt they had been denied.  (And in some cases, they were right.)

        Does that help?
        Reply to this
    • 10/7/2009 1:43 PM Nigel wrote:
      >>>Does that help?<<<

      Nope . Young Master Padhiar at school describes himself as an English Hindu Guitar Player. A black lad I used to lock up every now and again was having an argument with some white idiots in town one night when I strolled up with my pointed head on. "Nige, what nationality am I?" "Where were you born?" He gave the name of a part of central London. "You're English." "See, the Bobby says I'm English." My uniformed presence prevented the argument from continuing. As an aside, I was on patrol out in the sticks one day when I saw a yellow van drive past. I checked it on the computer and it showed as white. I tugged it and went to speak to the driver. It was the black lad above. I explained why I had stopped him and his black passenger was giving me the evil eye, which I ignored. Wayne explained that his boss had just had the van painted, "No problem, make sure he gets the log book changed." Knowing him, I then said "'Ere Wayne, you're black, have you got any drugs in the back?" "What, apart from the 'nabis, you mean Nige?" At this, the passenger looked apoplectic. "That's right, had I better search?" "Be my guest." We both looked at the passenger's face and had a good laugh because he just could not comprehend that a black bloke who had previously walked on the wild side and a white Policeman could share a joke. I notice that Wayne is black in the same way that I notice someone else has blonde hair or brown eyes. We are all hooman beans inside and that is what we should be concentrating on, making life better for all of us.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/8/2009 12:01 PM Regina wrote:
        Nigel,Deanie's response was as good as any that I have heard as to why racial ethnic groups in this country prefer the use of hyphenated terms to describe their ethnicity. As an African American, I would add that the fact that America is what has been called a great "melting pot" has a lot to do with it. Rightly or wrongly, anyone who is not of the same ethnic origin as the founding fathers is considered an "other", for the most part, and that "other" is often referred to by some derogatory pejorative which maligns that persons race or country of origin. As you might expect, the "others" are not often inclined to accept being called n----r, mick, kike, dago, wetback, spic, chink, etc., lightly. So, it made sense that in order to maintain civility in the pot, it was necessary that there be a way to refer to these "others" in a way that the "others" found acceptable. You, having grown up in a country which had its origins in a racially homogeneous people might have trouble relating to this. But in this country, if you want to be assured that you are not being disrespectful to a fellow American when you speak about race or ethnic origin you use whatever designation they prefer coupled with "American". This is very simplistic, I know, but its an everyday average American explanation.
        Reply to this
    • 10/9/2009 1:11 PM Nigel wrote:
      Regina,
      We've sort of briefly discussed this before and I respect your "argument." But you say >>>I would add that the fact that America is what has been called a great "melting pot" has a lot to do with it. <<< This fact should mean that the ingredients should mix well and I reckon that part of the problem is this "labelling" (correct spelling for us English speakers ) thingie you have going on. Three hundred years ago, the percentage of black folk in England was higher than it is today and "racial tension" did not seem such a problem. That may be because there was no TV/radio to highlight it or hopefully it may be because people got along better. At some point in the future, you and I are are going to have to meet so that we can work out how to knock some sense into our compatriots who unbeknownst to themselves are bigots.

      When I was working, I learned that "treat others as you would like to be treated" was the wrong approach. "Treat others as they want to be treated" is the way to go. Having said that, sometimes this approach has its problems too, when dealing with politically correct numpties.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/9/2009 6:14 PM Regina wrote:
        I like your style, Nigel. A meeting would be great! Keep up the straight talk on your side of the pond and Deanie and I will give it our best efforts of this side.
        Reply to this
    • 10/15/2009 2:57 PM Jack wrote:
      "Now, Obama has to deal with an entire "news" network that spends, literally, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, attacking him, mocking him, denigrating him, delegitimizing him, smearing him, making up conspiracies about him, and whipping up public frenzy about him."

      To quote Representative Jim Wilson, "That's a lie"!
      Reply to this
      1. 10/15/2009 5:21 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        It is not a lie.  It might be an inadvertant exaggeration, but for sure, in the morning until at least 10 am and then from about four pm until late at night, that is what it is at FOX, and as for "news" coverage, they refuse to run presidential news conferences, which they never did when a Republican was president, and then they refuse to run an address to joint sessions of congress???  Do you think they'd've done that if Bush had sheduled a talk?

        FOX uses GOP talking-points as its news talking points.  This is fact.  On news crawls, the same typos have appeared in both versions at the same time, more than once.  It is ridiculous.  So for them to pretend that they are anything LIKE a legitimate news organization is a joke.

        I get my news from CNN and I avoid the talking-head back-and-forths, the fake debates between left and right that gets set up 15 minutes or so into the broadcast.  When they start doing that stuff, I hit "mute" and read the crawl.

        I don't watch Olbermann, Maddow, or Schultz, or Matthews.  I pretty much rarely watch MSNBC or network news or morning news programs.

        I read multiple newspapers, from all over the world.  I usually read three or four versions of the same news story, to make sure I get facts that are not slanted.

        People who only watch FOX news and only read WorldNetDaily as their news sources are getting biased news, and are deliberately seeking out voices who only agree with their narrow points of view and present cherry-picked "facts" to back them up.

        I read George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Kathleen Parker, and other conservative voices.  I have YET to meet a conservative who EVER reads even a MODERATE liberal voice of ANY KIND.  All they do is forward me viral e-mail crap and shout about junk they read on WorldNetDaily and crap they see on FOX or hear from Beck or Rush Dobbs or some other source so powerfully slanted and narrowly cherry-picked that they wouldn't know an actual FACT if it bit 'em in the ass.

        They should watch Jon Stewart sometime.  Many conservatives appear on his show--repeatedly--because they know he is fair, and because he makes fun of Obama as much as anyone.  He is incisive, and shows the idiocy of what passes for news these days.
        Reply to this
    • 10/16/2009 1:20 PM Jack wrote:
      You say, “Now, Obama has to deal with an entire "news" network that spends, LITERALLY, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, attacking him…”, and then you claim that,” It might be an inadvertent exaggeration” You can’t have it both ways! Please tell me why then that Fox News is the highest rated cable news channel of ALL the other cable news channels combined! The public watch Fox because they know that is where they CAN get the fairest and most balanced news reporting. All you have to do to hear any liberal voice, moderate or not, is to watch any other cable news channel. I watch Fox, which of course you would not be surprised at, all the time and I find that they give the fairest reporting then the other channels that I occasionally watch. Everyone knows that CNN is in the tank for Obama. CNN also uses the White House’s talking points in their shows. There is only one Fox show that is completely biased and that is Hannity and he is unabashed in saying that he is a Reagan Conservative and you know what you are going to get from his show. So, don’t watch it as he is completely, diametrically opposed to your extreme leftist views and you know it. The other Fox shows like O’Reilly and Beck are fair in their reporting and while the other news channels would not broadcast the news about ACORN or Van Jones, a self-described communist, Beck broke the stories about this corrupt organization and man. The other news outlets didn’t run these stories until weeks later. I would like for you to tell me what Beck or O’Reilly has reported that was not true. I have never heard Beck call Obama a racist nor have a deep seated hatred for white people. You tell me to watch Jon Stewart who in two different interviews called Americans stupid. I don’t believe that I’m stupid – do you?
      Reply to this
      1. 10/16/2009 3:15 PM Deanie Mills wrote:

        <All you have to do to hear any liberal voice, moderate or not, is to watch any other cable news channel.>

        This is balogney.

        <Everyone knows that CNN is in the tank for Obama. >

        "Everyone" meaning, "Every conservative I know."

        Jack, it is so tiresome when you claim I have "extreme leftist point of view."

        If you only knew how silly that sounded from an actual, real-true, liberal, perspective.  When I post blogs on Huffington Post or Talking Points Memo, you should see how I get scorched by REAL liberals.

        My point of view happens to be left of center, NOT "extreme leftist liberal."  In fact, when I wrote a blogpost on Afghanistan a month or two ago, I was attacked BY the left-wing of my party, BY liberals who claimed I was writing "war-porn."

        The fact is that YOU are so far to the right, and it has been so long since you have bothered to actually LISTEN to an alternative point of view that you ascribe to me all these extreme leftist points of view that I don't even hold.  You don't even know what a moderate IS anymore!

        You say you have never heard Glenn Beck call Obama a racist?  If I really cared about this enough I would Google it, because I'm sure the clip is up over at YouTube; I've seen it a dozen times.  I've seen the clip over and over again.  It was not on his own program.  He said it on a FOX news morning program.  He said Obama had a "deep-seated hatred of white people" (you know, like his mother and the grandparents who raised him) and that Obama was a racist.  It has been shown repeatedly on television.  If you have not seen it, that shows just how narrow your viewing habits really are, and how carefully you screen your viewing to adhere ONLY to your own point of view, to validate your opinions as ALWAYS RIGHT.

        Beck has said so many things that are not true that it would take me so long to go into it that I would run right off the edge of the computer screen, as your rant has done.  The way this software works is, if you run on long enough, it goes right off the edge of the page.  Keep that in mind when you are telling me how right you are and how wrong I am.

        Oh, you want one example from Beck?  Beck said that the Vancouver Olympics had lost, and I quote, because I saw the clip on television, "like, what, a billion dollars?"

        Turns out, uh, no, Vancouver did not lose a billion dollars in the Olympics because they have not HAD the Olympics yet.  Vancouver is slated to hold their Olympics in 2010.

         

         

         


        Reply to this
        1. 10/16/2009 4:41 PM Jack wrote:
          Your software does not work in the manner that you state on my computer. It just scrolls straight down.

          I found the quote (video) you cite from Beck and I disagree with it. I do not agree with everything that any pundit says and that includes Beck. Your example of Vancouver is minuscule in all the information that Beck puts out. Everyone makes a misstatement.

          I call you an extreme leftist because you are the most liberal person that I converse with. I'm, as you know, from the southeast and we all tend to be conservative and republican down here. A moderate to me is someone who doesn’t know which way to believe until he or she finds out what the majority believe. I certainly don’t believe you belong in that category.

          I do believe that you are a true American I truly respect and that has hard beliefs that you spend the time to research and produce your beliefs to others. You are not always wrong in my eyes and I have learned a lot from reading what you write. But your left leaning writing all the time, giving no credit to the right for doing anything right is just wrong to me. I do listen to what the left says and probably more times than you’d believe, agree with what they are saying. But I believe, and I know this is tiresome for you to hear again, that the individual (conservative) can run his life much better than the government can (liberal).

          Finally, your statement about Fox, I thought was totally wrong and that precipitated this discussion and I felt I just had to say something. I believe that you should spend some more time with especially O’Reilly and also Beck. Tell me where I can go on TV to listen to your side (besides Jon Stewart who thinks I’m stupid). My mind can be opened. Can yours?
          Reply to this
          1. 10/16/2009 6:16 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
            <A moderate to me is someone who doesn’t know which way to believe until he or she finds out what the majority believe. I certainly don’t believe you belong in that category.>

            I appreciate the compliment, my friend, but your definition is completely incorrect, and this is part of where the problem lies with politics today.

            The reason our government no longer functions is because there ARE so few moderates IN our government any more.  Moderates ARE NOT people who don't know what to believe until they see how the majority feel and then go along with it.  Far from that. 

            Moderates are people who simply reject extremist opinions on EITHER side.  They are pragmatists, who believe that the only way to get things done is to be willing to work across the aisle, to compromise, to give and to take.  They try to take the best ideas from both sides and reject the worst, they try to be flexible and tolerant, they try to be willing to sacrifice some of what they want as long as the other side is willing to do the same, so that in the end, there is a bill.

            This is how civil rights legislation was passed, and it was done in segments, over time, with give and take.  This is how all our greatest laws were passed.

            Extremists on either side are ideologues.  They think it is virtuous to cling to a rigid belief system at all costs, even if it means that the greater good is sacrificed on the altar of their own strict values system--they are the Puritans, the sect who believe it preferable to cast out anyone who refuses the strict adherance to the narrow and doctrinaire interpretation of that system.

            For example, for your sake, I'll use a liberal cause: peace at any cost.  A true peace activist does not believe that war is justified for any reason, at any time, ever, period.  They want us to pull out of Afghanistan now, or as soon as is reasonably feasable.  They think that, say, the Peace Corps and agriculture aid and things like that can do the job.  If you try to point out that those Peace Corps volunteers will wind up beheaded without our troops to protect them, they simply brush past those arguments, say something like, fine, we don't need to be in that part of the world anyway.  They put on blinders.  They won't listen.  You can't talk to these people.

            But the hawks, over on your side--I'm talking the real warmongers over there (not you, my dear)--the crazies who say, for instance, that we need to send 200,000 troops over there without the slightest idea WHERE THOSE TROOPS WILL COME FROM, for instance, without a draft, or how we'll pay for them all or where we'll get the materiel and so on, well, you can't talk to them either.  They'll drop into rhetoric and say stuff like, "We should just nuke 'em all."

            Yeah, that's helpful.  Create millions MORE enemies worldwide than we already have.  More environmental and humanitarian disaster from the nuclear holocaust that would follow--that kind of thing.  But they don't think abuot that.  They won't listen.  You can't talk to these people.

            Moderates, they look for a middle ground somewhere.  As much as I know you don't want to believe this--Obama is a moderate.  You should really pay attention to all the howling and screaming he has to put up with from the left side of his own party.  I'm not kidding. 

            The liberals are all over him.  The gays are pissed at him because he's not moving faster on Don't Ask Don't Tell.  The universal health care people are pissed at him because he didn't just ask to extend Medicare for EVERYONE.  The peace activists are pissed at him because he's already sent more troops to Afghanistan and may send more.  The people who hate Wall Street are pissed at him because he helped the big banks more than the Little People.  HE IS NOT A LIBERAL.  It's the truth.  If he really was a liberal, the liberals would LOVE him.  Instead, they bitch about him all the time.  They bitch about him on all the liberal talk shows and all the liberal blogs.  (I saw one liberal talk-show guy say that if we didn't get a public option in the health care bill, the liberals should just form a third party!)   If you paid attention to that stuff, you would know that.

            He is a PRAGMATIST.  And this is what a moderate is.

            I used to be an Independent.  I voted for Reagan.  I voted for the first Bush.  I voted split-ticket on state and local offices many times.  But Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove changed all that.  What they did, especially with redistricting, particularly here in Texas, was a CRIME.  The systematic way they DELIBERATELY ran off any moderate Republican they could, redistricted, and then rammed in conservatives in their places--including getting rid of my own beloved conservative Democratic congressman of 25 years, Charlie Stenholm, (who founded the Blue Dogs under Reagan) was criminal, and it has hurt your party deeply.

            Look at the mess it's in now.  You have them to thank for it.  Your party is in desperate need of common sense moderate voices.  These shrill ideologues have hijacked it and it's scaring the Independents and moderates--common sense people--which is the majority of the American people.  Joe Wilson shouting at the president offended them.  They're sick of crap like that.

            As a former Independent, I would listen to a moderate Republican with some sense.  But I will not listen to an airhead like Sarah Palin.  If she is the voice of your party, you are in serious trouble, my friend.  I know conservatives love her, but most Americans do not take her seriously and she would not be a serious party leader.  When I read conservative comments about her, that she's a "good mom" and a "sweet lady" and that liberals are "mean to her," that does not mean that she would be a good president, you see?

            I have listened to all the people on your side, from Bill O'Reilly on down.  I find them smug, arrogant, and in Beck's case, over-emotional and fast and loose with the facts.  He says he checks them out but I would like to know where he goes to do his checking.  The Drudge report?  Puh-leeze.

            On our side, Rachel Maddow has a doctorate in Political Science from Oxford.  She is as smart a whip as there is on television today.  She is always meticulously prepared.  But really, she's liberal, even for me.

            The truth is, Jack, that I do not get my opinions from opinionators--I've said this over and over again.  I do not watch bloviators and opinionators.  I do read op-eds but I read the thoughful writers, the THINKERS, on both sides.

            But I don't get my opinions from them.   I never have.  What I do is, I read straight news from all sources and make up my own mind.

            There is an article on Afghanistan, "Stanley McChrystal's Long War," by Dexter Filkins, in the New York Times magazine, and this is exactly what I'm talking about.  He just reports what is happening over there, what the generals are thinking, what the troops are seeing, what is happening, what the village elders are saying.

            You are asked to make up your own mind.  This is what I do on health care, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on EVERYTHING.

            If I watched those opinion-mongers on television, I'd be screaming at the TV all day long.  If you are watching those guys on your side, then no wonder you feel the way you do about things.  Don't let them feed your fears or your rage.  Make up your own mind.
            Reply to this
      2. 10/16/2009 3:26 PM Jack wrote:
        "You tell me to watch Jon Stewart who in two different interviews called Americans stupid. I don’t believe that I’m stupid – do you?" My question should have read, Do you think you're stupid?
        Reply to this
    • 2/19/2010 4:02 PM JNagarya wrote:
      I think you must recall Linda Thompson, and her stirrings of the hornet's nest, especially with the tagline on her posts which referred to some of the OK City bombing casualties as:

      "Those weren't infants. Those were Feds."

      And perhaps her posting of the "warrant for arrest" -- as she claimed -- of Koresh, when in fact it was a warrant for search of the compound.

      Recall, that is, all the deliberate lying that the gullible had no presence of mind to question. I too saw OK City coming. What amazed then, and amazes now, is the number of extremists who knowingly lie; and the number of gullibles who unquestioningly swallow their every word.
      Reply to this
      1. 2/19/2010 5:49 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        There was a scientific study done recently in which two sets of people were lined up--liberals and conservatives, and a lie was fed to them both.  One was a liberal lie  and one a conservative lie.  They tested the groups to see if they believed the lies.

        And of course a majority of the conservatives were quick to believe the liberal lie and vice versa.

        Then, they went back and told the truth to the two groups.  And in both cases, but interestingly enough, it was much worse with the CONSERVATIVES--an even BIGGER majority of the people in the test group flat-out REFUSED to believe the truth!  They simply felt that enough information had not come to light yet to reveal what they now believed was going to happen.

        In real life, for instance, a majority of conservatives actually believe that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq DO exist, and that Saddam Hussein somehow got them out of the country and hid them someplace like Syria.

        In other words, even when all evidence to the contrary DISPROVES WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, they STILL REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT. 

        This was glaringly true with the Branch Davidian tragedy, and then, as you pointed out, people who stood to gain from telling lies quite simply told them.  I sat there in that audience on that day and heard them do it.  Soldier of Fortune was a respected venue; the speakers had resumes that sounded impressive.  This guy was a two-time special forces Vietnam vet who'd been badly wounded.  He was a compelling speaker.  And a bodacious liar.

        If I had stood up and called him out right there, I don't know what would have happened to me in that crowd but it would not have been pretty.  But I do know this:  One reason Timothy McVeigh gave to friends for his growing rage that led to OkCity was what happened at the Branch Davidian complex.  And he was in the audience that day.

        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.