PDA

View Full Version : Gratuitous Disrespect Edition


Bloggingheads
05-29-2008, 09:13 AM

Joel_Cairo
05-29-2008, 10:32 AM
Another under-circulated article about McCain's posture vis-a-vis Russia is Anatol Lieven's (bhtv, 10/06 (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/115)) "Why we should fear a McCain presidency" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a47e1ac-f9b0-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html) in the Financial Times:


Mr McCain suffers from more than the usual degree of US establishment hatred of Russia, coupled with a particular degree of sympathy for Georgia and the restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He advocates the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and, like Mr Scheunemann, is a strong supporter of early Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Scheunemann has accused even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, of “appeasement” of Russia. Nato expansion exemplifies the potential of a McCain presidency. Apart from the threat of Russian reprisals, if the Georgians thought that in a war they could rely on US support, they might be tempted to start one. A McCain presidency would give them good reason to have faith in US support.

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 10:55 AM
Perhaps Mr Wright is just not promoting the right product Obama Air (http://www.obamair.com/servlet/StoreFront) might be the ticket.

Joel_Cairo
05-29-2008, 11:05 AM
I believe the answer to this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:35:31&out=00:35:39) question is "Yes." IIRC, Buchenwald, while it does have gas chambers, was a "work camp", and not the site of mass exterminations on the level of Auschwitz. I think the prisoners from Buchenwald (which is in Weimar) were moved further East for the kind of really spectacular atrocities that comprise the rhetorical payload of contemporary politicians referencing the Holocaust. I might be wrong though, so I encourage better WWII buffs than I to chime in.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 11:10 AM
What's also unlikely is kidneystones ever admitting that Thatcher and Ghandi won on the merits, and did not spend endless amounts of time complaining about people making sexist jokes, or goading their supporters into doing it for them.

What's also unlikely is kidneystones ever admitting that there could be any conceivable reason for disliking Hillary besides the fact that she's a woman.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-29-2008, 11:11 AM
It's interesting that Lievan portrays Georgia as the "bad guy" in their relationship with Russia. I haven't paid much attention to the situation for several years, but I was always under the impression that it was Russia, rather than Georgia, that was the troublesome instigator.

StillmanThomas
05-29-2008, 11:12 AM
For what it's worth, Auschwitz was an extermination camp located in Poland. Approximately 1-1.5 million people were murdered there. Buchenwald was a work camp located in Weimar, Germany. Approximately 50,000 people were murdered there. Buchenwald was also the site of some of the most horrific "medical experiments" carried out by the Third Reich.

Obama's great uncle, Charlie Payne, participated in the liberation of Buchenwald as a member of the 89th Infantry Division.

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 11:13 AM
I don't know which is worse, the sub camp of Buchenwald, where they were starved and worked to death, or gas in the Chambers at Auschwitz. On might conceivably argue that the latter was more humane as the suffering was over quicker, but I wouldn't be one. Nor do I really believe that one can seriously argue that such level of evil can be ranked.

Joel_Cairo
05-29-2008, 11:15 AM
It's interesting that Lievan portrays Georgia as the "bad guy" in their relationship with Russia. I haven't paid much attention to the situation for several years, but I was always under the impression that it was Russia, rather than Georgia, that was the troublesome instigator.

I think that's more a symptom of Lieven's "big-R Realist" bias for international stability than it is a judgement call on the relative legitimacy of Russia and Georgia's opposing claims.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 11:17 AM
All I can say is that if the right thinks the way to beat Obama is to focus on this sort of thing, they're doomed. For one thing, it a trivial mistake to which most Americans will say, "Eh, he said the name of one concentration camp instead of another. Big deal."

For another, it is easy to rebut by saying: Never mind something that happened sixty years ago; what we care about is that McCain can't keep current facts straight. (e.g. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/mccain-repeats-iranal-qa_n_92349.html))

On the other hand, hearing discussion about this wasn't quite as stupid as asking Mickey what he thinks about immigration.

Joel_Cairo
05-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Nor do I really believe that one can seriously argue that such level of evil can be ranked.

Neither do I, and I don't want to seem glib by even bringing it up. I'm just pointing out the reasons why Auschwitz has more resonance to an American audience (though I freely admit that the bottom-line factor here is famousness and prominence in media, rather than some convulted metric which popular opinion uses to calculate the relative awfulness of death camps)

threep
05-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Blah blah blah Obama blah blah blah holocaust.

Clearly the issue was PBR, and I am the victor.

uncle ebeneezer
05-29-2008, 11:21 AM
Mickey, can you please sit closer to the mic?

Your volume was significantly lower than Bob's on this one. Despite all the ribbing, Mickey, I do like to hear what you have to say (group hug.) (Bob can you pass this along to Mickey since he rarely reads the comments)?

Kidneystones, the HRC Fatal Attraction reference is funny because she resembles the Glenn Close character due to the current circumstances (she's lost and is doing everything in her power to hang on, to the point where to many Dem's she's acting borderline crazy and possibly jeopardizing the general election.) It's an EXTREME hyperbole, but there's just a sliver of truth to it which is why it's funny. It has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with her situation and her personality. She seems like the type of lady who doesn't take "no" for an answer. Thatcher, Ghandi etc., didn't come off quite that way, from what I can tell.

Bob should have been on the FP top 100 list. I mean, Hitchens??!!! WTF?

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 11:25 AM
I guess that's why she was know as "Iron Maggie" or something to that effect. Wikipedia "Iron Lady."

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 11:25 AM
Clearly the issue was PBR, and I am the victor.

And congratulations to you. I now seethe with resentment because Bob refused to mention my original rebuttal. When will elitist beer snobs stop being derided by Bob?

In all seriousness, I think we should mark this diavlog well as a rare moment of Bob making a plausible pop culture tie-in.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 11:31 AM
kidneystones:

And that's just scratching the surface of the list of 'acceptable' ways to crap all who have managed to mother clowns like George Bush, Mike Dukakis, Dan Quayle, Gerald Ford, Spiro Agnew, John Kerry, Dick Cheney but couldn't manage to win

I find your lack of coherence alarming. Is there supposed to be a point in there?

Remember to breathe while typing.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 11:35 AM
Are we to treat the sidebar link (http://tk-tk-tk.com/) for embedding BH.tv clips as a joke?

Pretty funny, if so.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 11:45 AM
Oh, and by the way, bj, the three countries I've lived in each elected female leaders.

[...]

PS: Thanks for making America's failure to elect a female leader all about me!

Sounds like it is all about you, so, you're welcome, I guess.

Joel_Cairo
05-29-2008, 12:15 PM
As the kids say, ROTFLMAO (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:58:10&out=00:58:14)

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 12:30 PM
... some folks burst into tears.

The only one crying here is you.

Ralph Kramden
05-29-2008, 12:43 PM
was "Johnny Angel".

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 12:46 PM
Yes the wind blows from the right here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==) but there is quite q lot of detail in the wind. My favorite paragraph The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama’s stomping grounds, it found the park he’d helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the “progressive” fashion. Unfortunately, Obama’s Acorn cronies have blocked that solution.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 12:58 PM
I just stopped by a pro-Hillary site ...

Now there's a source of credibility and reasonable thinking that I'm sure we can all admire.

I'll say good-night.

Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please ...

look
05-29-2008, 01:05 PM
I'll say good-night.

Good-night, Gracie.

;)

uncle ebeneezer
05-29-2008, 01:17 PM
Kidneystones, I'm confused. You seem to be equating Bob's Fatal Attraction analogy with sexism. So if he compared her to the Energizer bunny, or the Terminator robot, or the shark from Jaws (IE- something that won't die or go away) would that be sexist too? Is it because Glenn Close is a female? Is it because HRC is a female? What if it was John Edwards who was refusing to bow out at the detriment of the Dem party? Would that indicate Bob's hatred of Southern people, or lawyers, or white people, or men?

The people who call Hillary a bitch or make nasty comments about her BECAUSE she's a woman, show sexist natures. I didn't hear anything like that in this diavlog. Suggesting that Hillary is in fantasy-land if she thinks she can still win, or crazy for still remaining in the race, is something people can view differently, but none of those opinions makes someone sexist.

I second Brendan's point. Hillary supporters have a right to their opinion, but I wouldn't base my view of reality on their steadfast loyalty. Just because a Washington Generals website says they have a shot against the Globetrotters, doesn't mean I'm gonna bet on it.

look
05-29-2008, 01:24 PM
I believe the answer to this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:35:31&out=00:35:39) question is "Yes." IIRC, Buchenwald, while it does have gas chambers, was a "work camp", and not the site of mass exterminations on the level of Auschwitz. I think the prisoners from Buchenwald (which is in Weimar) were moved further East for the kind of really spectacular atrocities that comprise the rhetorical payload of contemporary politicians referencing the Holocaust. I might be wrong though, so I encourage better WWII buffs than I to chime in.
I think the crux of the matter is that he was shopping this story around without having thoroughly vetted it. It's reminiscent of him saying he was conceived at Selma.

tom
05-29-2008, 03:51 PM
harpy, shrew, monster, bitch, slut, slattern, whore, cold, ice-queen, robotic, pig...
And that's just scratching the surface of the list of 'acceptable' ways to crap all over the folks who managed to mother every one of us.

Who called those words "acceptable"? BJKeefe? Bob? Mickey? Someone who has nothing to do with this conversation?
There are some people who think that its ok to use the "N word"; does this fact entail that no reasonable and decent person could oppose Obama on the merits?

Too bad not one woman could ever match George Bush, Mike Dukakis, Dan Quayle, Gerald Ford, Spiro Agnew, John Kerry and Dick Cheney.

Remind me: who said that? Someone relevant to this discussion?


At every instance, Americans looked hard and couldn't find a single woman who could match the stature of these giants. Oh, and by the way, bj, the three countries I've lived in each elected female leaders.
You enlightened souls haven't managed to find a single woman fit to lead in the whole USA. Ever.

Must be Hillary's fault.

Your position - that the deck is stacked again women running for the presidency - is actually compatible with the position that's getting you so upset - that in this particular case, the woman in question does not deserve the presidency, is unfit for the role, is behaving in an irrationally selfish and solipsitic way that is hurting her party, has brought the ire of the left upon herself, and so on.

(And yeah, I know that you're especially steamed about Mickey likening her inability to accept defeat to the sociopathic determination of the "Alex Forrest" character; I'd ask you to rewatch and consider that Bob's reaction to this was more of a "can't believe you're going that far" laugh than a "Zing - good one!" laugh.)

Anyway, until you present an argument that is NOT compatible with that position, nothing you say is especially interesting. It's kind of entertaining though, so don't stop on my account.

David Thomson
05-29-2008, 03:51 PM
George W. Bush is mistaken if he truly believes the severe crackdown on illegal aliens might backfire. Any problems employers should endure---will only be temporary. They will adjust in a very short period of time. I am increasingly optimistic that this problem is getting under control. Politicians of both major parties realize that voters have had enough of this nonsense.

Mickey Kaus substantially agrees completely with me regarding illegal immigration. That, of course, means he has a few brains in his head. Alas, if he agreed with me completely on every issue---then he would truly be brilliant. It's sad that he wasted so many years at Harvard. He may never be able to undo the damage caused by those wasted years.

PaulL
05-29-2008, 03:57 PM
Having failed to sway you with my rigorous and inexorable logic. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:45:39&out=00:45:44)
His arguments against cracking down on illegal immigration were all emotional not logical. How can persecute these people trying to make a living!!!!!!!!

Wonderment
05-29-2008, 04:12 PM
"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen." -- Barack Obama

Obama doesn't go quite far enough. He limits the damage to the hate crimes that are tracked by the FBI.

Racist hatred of people like Dobbs, Limbaugh and Mickey, goes far beyond that, however.

Mexican families are living in terror because of the crackdowns and psychological warfare fomented by the xenophobe right wing. This is evident to anyone who sets foot in a Mexican market, church or workplace and actually talks to people.

Mickey's proposal that Mexicans simply return to a "booming Mexican economy" is also mind-bogglingly outrageous to anyone who has actually been to Mexico and seen the extreme poverty that the economic refugees are fleeing.

Mickey refuses to address immigration humanely. He has a series of specious and disingenuous arguments to dismiss human suffering as trivial, self-inflicted, unavoidable or justified. Bob has answered all these arguments on several occasions, but Mickey continues to pursue his anti-Mexican crusade with a obsessive fervor both here and in his Slate gossip column. It's shameful and disgusting.

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 04:31 PM
"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen." -- Barack Obama

Obama doesn't go quite far enough. He limits the damage to the hate crimes that are tracked by the FBI.

Racist hatred of people like Dobbs, Limbaugh and Mickey, goes far beyond that, however.

Mexican families are living in terror because of the crackdowns and psychological warfare fomented by the xenophobe right wing. This is evident to anyone who sets foot in a Mexican market, church or workplace and actually talks to people.

Mickey's proposal that Mexicans simply return to a "booming Mexican economy" is also mind-bogglingly outrageous to anyone who has actually been to Mexico and seen the extreme poverty that the economic refugees are fleeing.

Mickey refuses to address immigration humanely. He has a series of specious and disingenuous arguments to dismiss human suffering as trivial, self-inflicted, unavoidable or justified. Bob has answered all these arguments on several occasions, but Mickey continues to pursue his anti-Mexican crusade with a obsessive fervor both here and in his Slate gossip column. It's shameful and disgusting.Mr Kaus is correct in his assessment. While Mr Wright's pure emotional appeal, it would be better without some of the shouting, seems compelling; it is the fact that comprehensive immigration reform is not going to be passed until the general populace is convinced that the era of wink and nod era, that Mr. Wright refers to, comes to an end. The words of this many and no more are not going to dissuade the multitude, that wish to come, nor are they going to persuade the general populace; until enough publicity is generated to accomplish both goals. For those caught in the middle it the shits but as Mr. Kaus says "they know they are breaking the law."

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-29-2008, 04:37 PM
According to Bob, it would be immoral to start enforcing our immigration laws because it's not easy (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:43:51&out=00:44:05) for illegal aliens to go back across the border.

Hey Bob, if an illegal alien has difficulty leaving the United States, all he has to do is contact immigration authorities and they'll transfer him free of charge!

handle
05-29-2008, 05:43 PM
The only one crying here is you.
WRONG! (sniff) you got a problem with that?
I just wanted the "fiscal conservatives" to stop dumping our cash down oil wells. A field the Clinton camp has shown great prowess in, I think, is cleaning up oil president spillage and paying off the subsequent debt. Let the wingnuts attack Hillary and Obamniacs should take the high road, that's how his campaign was kicked off anyway. Let's get back to that.
The "fatal" thing was a bit of a low blow, and if you are not now, or never have been a woman, you should probably STFU.

Rich
05-29-2008, 05:49 PM
"Racist hatred of people like Dobbs, Limbaugh and Mickey, goes far beyond that, however.

I'm sorry to go all the way back to the beginning here, but could you dingalink or cut-and-paste some text of Mickey [or Rush, for that matter] demonstrating this "racist hatred?" I haven't heard or read any of that yet, but then again I might just be stupid. Certainly Mickey [and Rush, again] disapproves of open-borders immigration policy, and I've read and hear Mickey's points about the difference between overwhelming immigration from a nation far away versus from a nation that is next door and previously possessed the lands to which that immigration moves. But I just haven't noticed "racist hatred." Educate me, if you would.

graz
05-29-2008, 05:56 PM
The "fatal" thing was a bit of a low blow, and if you are not now, or never have been a woman, you should probably STFU.

You probably don't mean to imply censorship?
Men can't discuss women, or Whites/Blacks or vise versa?

handle
05-29-2008, 06:13 PM
was "Johnny Angel".

Sometimes fate has a huge hand in success...

handle
05-29-2008, 06:42 PM
You probably don't mean to imply censorship?
Men can't discuss women, or Whites/Blacks or vise versa?
No, I think trivializing the effect or existence of slurs implies ignorance. But if one's intent is to appear ignorant, then by all means...

handle
05-29-2008, 06:52 PM
My wind blows with a complex dynamic of intensity, and bouquet. But alas, I am it's only admirer.

graz
05-29-2008, 07:04 PM
No, I think trivializing the effect or existence of slurs implies ignorance. But if one's intent is to appear ignorant, then by all means...

Identifying a slur isn't clear cut. You presume to be speaking for women and telling non-women to shut the fuck up.

I may have lost the bead of the thread, so help me if you will.
Are you implying that Mickey's reference to "Fatal Attraction" was a slur? And further suggesting that anyone not aware of the offensiveness of this is ignorant or something other than a woman?

handle
05-29-2008, 07:16 PM
It's just a hot button (hate button?) issue created by the far right to distract you from the real problem which is the corporate export of our jobs overseas.
The immigration problem is not going away, but interest in it will eventually wain. So a few heads get cracked in the mean time? They asked for it right? As long as we get people fired up about the wrong issues, then the party spin machine gets paid, and everyone else can suck it, right?

handle
05-29-2008, 07:29 PM
Identifying a slur isn't clear cut. You presume to be speaking for women and telling non-women to shut the fuck up.

I may have lost the bead of the thread, so help me if you will.
Are you implying that Mickey's reference to "Fatal Attraction" was a slur? And further suggesting that anyone not aware of the offensiveness of this is ignorant or something other than a woman?

I really don't want to go here, but suppose someone said Obama is acting like an Erkle? If you considered it funny and appropriate, does that make it any less racist? Until recently, most whites wouldn't even entertain the idea that this might have racist overtones. And while saying someone is nerdly might not be construed as a slur, I think the "psycho bitch" reference is.

handle
05-29-2008, 07:41 PM
Long argument short:
White men: take what you are (should be?) learning about race, and apply it to gender. I may be full of crap, so open a discussion with the everyday recipients of rampant sexism. They may be closer than you think. (hello? Mom?)

Anyuser
05-29-2008, 08:08 PM
I understand the basic premise of Bob's argument to be that "we" acquiesced to illegal immigration for so long that now it would be immoral to begin enforcing the laws. I guess that depends on who "we" are. I don't doubt that residents of Princeton, NJ, have looked the other way when it comes to illegal immigration into California. California has been raising holy hell with the federal government for decades about its failure to enforce federal immigration laws (this pretty much came to a stop with Gray Davis). The states are constrained from enforcing federal immigration laws, and moreover federal law requires the states to spend education and Medicare money on illegal immigrants. The California electorate passed a proposition back in '94 that would have cut off most government aid to illegal immigrants, but the federal courts held the proposition violated the US constitution.

harkin
05-29-2008, 08:18 PM
I heard Obama say the other day that all Lou Dobb's does is shout. I've watched him (LD) off and on for years and actually he's one of the calmest voices out there. He certainly isn't as foamingly excitable as Olbermann, Matthews or Abrams. To lie as a tactic to negate Dobb's legitimate arguments should be seen for what it is, an inability to counter. An inability to discuss from the candidate who says he wants to bring everyone together.

I'd love to see Obama do a sitdown with Lou, he'd be torn to shreds with Lou's substance, albeit without any shouting.


Mexican families are living in terror because of the crackdowns and psychological warfare fomented by the xenophobe right wing. This is evident to anyone who sets foot in a Mexican market, church or workplace and actually talks to people.

Completely wrong. Right now illegals in California enjoy health care write-offs, free education for their children (and a cheaper college education than kids from the other 49 states), school systems with imported textbooks (guess where from?) that teach that the southwest belongs to Mexico, a separate latino graduation at many colleges and schools, mayors who offer sanctuary from prosecution for commiting a federal crime, a neighboring state (OR) that will happily issue them a drivers license without a birth certificate, etc etc etc.

The immigrants who actually are living in terror are the ones from central and south america suffering from the hypocritical and brutal immigration laws in MEXICO. No trial, immediate prison or deportation and arrest if the perform any form of political protest.

Secure the borders, keep immigration regulated to the citizens of Mexico and other countries who are willing to follow the rules and not cut in line. If the Amnesty Act in the 80s had also kept the promise of securing the borders, Los Angeles might not have 95% of its outstanding murder warrants and 66% of it's fugitive felony warrants targeting illegals. (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)


I do apologize for substituting substance for hate!

graz
05-29-2008, 08:21 PM
... but suppose someone said Obama is acting like an Erkle? If you considered it funny and appropriate, does that make it any less racist?

I honestly don't see the Erkle comment as racist. I am not just trying to be argumentative or obtuse. Sadly, I do have visual recollection of Erkle and his mannerisms and don't see the Obama connection. But if someone could make it, what makes it racist?

The "Fatal Attraction" example is more clearly a stretch, but I get the shorthand connection. Because I am of of mind that candidate Mrs. Clinton as a politician is fair game for characterization, caricature and excess. Boo-hoo to anyone who cries foul or unfair.
I will listen to your complaint and honor your wishes for restraint - but not preemptively. How could I?

graz
05-29-2008, 08:26 PM
Long argument short:
White men: take what you are (should be?) learning about race, and apply it to gender. I may be full of crap, so open a discussion with the everyday recipients of rampant sexism. They may be closer than you think. (hello? Mom?)

1 - I love, respect and honor my Mom.

2 - I believe you are being sincere - not full of it.

3 - But I don't need or respect your presumption about the state of my views on race and gender. It assumes much too much.

harkin
05-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Bob's horribly flawed logic would be hilarious if it were not so sad. He's advocating correcting a failed amnesty policy by repeating it.

Bob, please.........the ONLY WAY to enforce it is to SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST. You don't pass the exact same amnesty/border policy that failed miserably the first time.

Secure the border first, secure the border first. BUT....when you do that, you're going to have to start deporting people from day one.....I know that's exactly what you said, but forgive me when I say that people like you will never follow through.

Wonderment
05-29-2008, 08:42 PM
demonstrating this "racist hatred?"

Mickey does this every time he opens his mouth on the subject, which is maniacally often.

He continually refers to undocumented worker families and economic refugees as "illegals" (Dobbs and Limbaugh do the same thing).

Mickey has several times referred to a conspiracy of irrendentist Mexicans who want to take over the Southwest. This is analagous to spreading rumors that Jews kidnap and bake Christian children for their Passover celebrations. In other words, it is racist garbage.

Mickey is also obsessed with the immigration issue, finding excuses to change the subject to immigration (like Dobbs) at every turn. Last week, for example, in his Slate column, he went into a long tirade about Sen. Dianne Feinstein's alleged "quickie last minute amnesty sneak play." This is but one example of the bizarre nonsense and vile anti-immigrant propaganda he regularly publishes.

Again, he reminds me of Nazi hacks who would relate virtually every topic to the Jews. Something wrong with health care? Must be the Jews. Something wrong with education? Jews. Something wrong with the economy? Mexicans, oops, Jews.

handle
05-29-2008, 08:45 PM
1 - I love, respect and honor my Mom.

2 - I believe you are being sincere - not full of it.

3 - But I don't need or respect your presumption about the state of my views on race and gender. It assumes much too much.

1. Good for you, does everyone else treat her with respect?
2. Good for me.
3. If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it. If anybody wants to wear the shoe, be advised, it's going out of style. I'm just saying, it's a good idea to find out, before you go out.

Wonderment
05-29-2008, 08:48 PM
Mickey Kaus substantially agrees completely with me regarding illegal immigration.

I rest my case.

KingFish
05-29-2008, 08:50 PM
Mickey is clearly the PBR, while Bob is just nuts.

handle
05-29-2008, 08:50 PM
Bob's horribly flawed logic would be hilarious if it were not so sad. He's advocating correcting a failed amnesty policy by repeating it.

Bob, please.........the ONLY WAY to enforce it is to SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST. You don't pass the exact same amnesty/border policy that failed miserably the first time.

Secure the border first, secure the border first. BUT....when you do that, you're going to have to start deporting people from day one.....I know that's exactly what you said, but forgive me when I say that people like you will never follow through.

I think you responded to the wrong thread... but I'll take the bait, how much is a reasonable figure to spend securing the borders?

handle
05-29-2008, 09:16 PM
I honestly don't see the Erkle comment as racist. I am not just trying to be argumentative or obtuse. Sadly, I do have visual recollection of Erkle and his mannerisms and don't see the Obama connection. But if someone could make it, what makes it racist?

The "Fatal Attraction" example is more clearly a stretch, but I get the shorthand connection. Because I am of of mind that candidate Mrs. Clinton as a politician is fair game for characterization, caricature and excess. Boo-hoo to anyone who cries foul or unfair.
I will listen to your complaint and honor your wishes for restraint - but not preemptively. How could I?
It's racist because there IS no connection and some one making it is basing it on race, and using it as an insult (It's a weak example, 'cause I don't want to make a usable one). If it's OK to characterize an oppressed group negatively, by way of characterization, and the only real connection is race or gender, then boo hoo I cry foul. But I'm not saying you or anyone else can't do it. STFU is just advice, and I didn't make that clear. Is clarifying the same as back pedaling? Don't answer that...

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 09:23 PM
So if some one compared him Pee-Wee Herman would that be racist?

graz
05-29-2008, 09:32 PM
It's racist because there IS no connection and some one making it is basing it on race, and using it as an insult (It's a weak example, 'cause I don't want to make a usable one). If it's OK to characterize an oppressed group negatively, by way of characterization, and the only real connection is race or gender, then boo hoo I cry foul. But I'm not saying you or anyone else can't do it. STFU is just advice, and I didn't make that clear. Is clarifying the same as back pedaling? Don't answer that...

I am with you, in that I think we are both hopeful that people aren't discriminated against - of course, sometimes they are. But sensitivity to injustice is far more selective. I am not suggesting to give up the fight -whatever form it takes - against the negative sources. I just want to leave room for imperfection and disagreement.

Fwiw: The "Fatal Attraction" reference strikes me as shorthand for the indomitable spirit of the Clinton campaign - in other words, you can't kill it.

handle
05-29-2008, 09:34 PM
So if some one compared him Pee-Wee Herman would that be racist?

Never thought I'd miss whutfur

handle
05-29-2008, 09:37 PM
I am with you, in that I think we are both hopeful that people aren't discriminated against - of course, sometimes they are. But sensitivity to injustice is far more selective. I am not suggesting to give up the fight -whatever form it takes - against the negative sources. I just want to leave room for imperfection and disagreement.

Fwiw: The "Fatal Attraction" reference strikes me as shorthand for the indomitable spirit of the Clinton campaign - in other words, you can't kill it.

Both points taken.
I just didn't like the idea that you can't kill it 'cause it's crazy!

graz
05-29-2008, 09:49 PM
So if some one compared him Pee-Wee Herman would that be racist?

No, but are you calling my candidate a perv and a clown?
Dems fightin' wooyds.

rcocean
05-29-2008, 09:49 PM
So once again Mickey is being accused of "hate Speech". (Or is it Lou Dobbs) Why not accuse Bob of the same? Doesn't he allow Mickey to spew his "hatred" ?

Comrades, I call for the arrest of Bob and Mickey for the crime of hate speech. They will be tried by comrades of BHTV comment section. if found guilty of counter-revolutionary thought, the site will be shut down.

BHTV comments = comedy gold

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 09:57 PM
No I just always thought Erkel was the TV presentation of Pee-Wee Herman. But now that you mention it...

Whatfur
05-29-2008, 10:17 PM
-asx- said "Dude, your funny." (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:05:20&out=00:05:40)

handle
05-29-2008, 10:24 PM
I heard Obama say the other day that all Lou Dobb's does is shout. I've watched him (LD) off and on for years and actually he's one of the calmest voices out there. He certainly isn't as foamingly excitable as Olbermann, Matthews or Abrams. To lie as a tactic to negate Dobb's legitimate arguments should be seen for what it is, an inability to counter. An inability to discuss from the candidate who says he wants to bring everyone together.

I'd love to see Obama do a sitdown with Lou, he'd be torn to shreds with Lou's substance, albeit without any shouting.




Completely wrong. Right now illegals in California enjoy health care write-offs, free education for their children (and a cheaper college education than kids from the other 49 states), school systems with imported textbooks (guess where from?) that teach that the southwest belongs to Mexico, a separate latino graduation at many colleges and schools, mayors who offer sanctuary from prosecution for commiting a federal crime, a neighboring state (OR) that will happily issue them a drivers license without a birth certificate, etc etc etc.

The immigrants who actually are living in terror are the ones from central and south america suffering from the hypocritical and brutal immigration laws in MEXICO. No trial, immediate prison or deportation and arrest if the perform any form of political protest.

Secure the borders, keep immigration regulated to the citizens of Mexico and other countries who are willing to follow the rules and not cut in line. If the Amnesty Act in the 80s had also kept the promise of securing the borders, Los Angeles might not have 95% of its outstanding murder warrants and 66% of it's fugitive felony warrants targeting illegals. (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)


I do apologize for substituting substance for hate!

Factiods that are usually included in an email usually attributed to the LA Times, that the Times themselves refuted here:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/04/may_day_mythbus.html

And here is the response by the times to your "substance":

"Fact" 2: 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
LAT citations: May 15, 2005 — "According to Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, 95% of the hundreds of outstanding homicide warrants (and 60% of outstanding felony warrants) in L.A. are for illegal immigrants."
Similar citations: January 19, 2004
Factual basis: An outstanding warrant is quite a different beast than a regular warrant, so this "fact" left out the key word. We did some more checking on the outstanding warrants point itself. MacDonald stated this in a 2004 City Journal article, and in testimony before the House of Representatives in spring 2005, noting that this came to 1,200-1,500 warrants. One LAPD officer cited the same factoid in the National Review earlier this year, saying that it's specific to "the first half of 2004". But Jane Robison, press secretary for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, told us that the D.A. does not keep track of this number; a representative with Detective Headquarters said the same.

Your kung fu is weak my student. And your hate is thinly disguised.

handle
05-29-2008, 10:31 PM
-asx- said "Dude, your funny." (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:05:20&out=00:05:40)

I believe Carl Rove said something to the effect that if you are explaining, you are losing.

uncle ebeneezer
05-29-2008, 10:41 PM
Good analogy.

PBR- strikingly low-quality, though people pretend it has substance. The more you consume, the more confused you become. Leads to misguided rants of delusion.

Nuts- a nutricious dietary staple that doctors claim are usually underestimated in their hidden benefits.

graz
05-29-2008, 10:44 PM
Good analogy.

PBR- strikingly low-quality, though people pretend it has substance. The more you consume, the more confused you become. Leads to misguided rants of delusion.

Nuts- a nutricious dietary staple that doctors claim are usually underestimated in their hidden benefits.

Ah ha ha ha

handle
05-29-2008, 10:47 PM
Good analogy.

PBR- strikingly low-quality, though people pretend it has substance. The more you consume, the more confused you become. Leads to misguided rants of delusion.

Nuts- a nutricious dietary staple that doctors claim are usually underestimated in their hidden benefits.

Exactly how I took it... Doesn't saying Bob IS nuts make it a metaphor?
ARE nuts? HAS nuts? You're right, I'm confused...

look
05-29-2008, 11:14 PM
Secure the borders, keep immigration regulated to the citizens of Mexico and other countries who are willing to follow the rules and not cut in line. If the Amnesty Act in the 80s had also kept the promise of securing the borders, Los Angeles might not have 95% of its outstanding murder warrants and 66% of it's fugitive felony warrants targeting illegals. (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)

Linda Chavez addressed these figures in this (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UxNmQ0NDBjYmU3MjkzYzc1ODAzMzFhYmY3ZjFlNTc=) article.

This is not the first time Mac Donald has played fast and loose with her facts. In an article she wrote in 2004 for City Journal, “The Illegal Alien Crime Wave,” Mac Donald asserted, “In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.” The problem is, the statistic is entirely bogus — and worse it has become one of the most ubiquitous factoids used in the debate on immigration, cited in congressional testimony, repeated ad nauseum on cable news and talk radio, and has even been picked up by some otherwise sensible voices in the immigration debate. The Los Angeles Police Department does not gather information on the legal status of those arrested, much less on people — those who have outstanding warrants — that by definition they can’t find, which I confirmed in repeated conversations with the LAPD public-information office. Moreover, in 2004, the year Mac Donald wrote the piece, there were a total of 518 homicides in L.A. Now unless every murder was committed by at least three illegal aliens, none of whom was ever apprehended, Mac Donald’s 1,200-1,500 figure should have leaped out at her as obviously problematic — the 95-percent claim alone should have set off warning bells. I contacted her after Snopes.com, the Los Angeles Times, and others had debunked her assertion. She told me “The LAPD fugitive warrants section gave me that figure.” When I asked her how she explained the 1,200-1,500 figure when there were only 518 homicides in 2004, she said, “As you know, warrants are cumulative; they do not derive only from the current year. Outstanding warrants are not the same as the murder rate.” But she did not add that qualifier to her original statement — and, besides, it wouldn’t much matter if she had since the information on illegal aliens who are the subject of warrants simply isn’t available no matter what her source in the LAPD told her.
Do you have a favorite article that talks about illegally-present Mexicans who wish to re-take the Southeastern US?

scted
05-29-2008, 11:15 PM
As I recall, the first pictures we saw out of Plains, GA of brother Billy showed him sitting at his gas station in front of a wall of stacked cases of PBR ... putting it solidly in the white hick demo.

look
05-29-2008, 11:19 PM
Yes the wind blows from the right here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==) but there is quite q lot of detail in the wind. My favorite paragraphThis is pretty good, too:
According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those foundation boards, “allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants” to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, “whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.” As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and “non-partisan” arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.

Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its “non-partisan” registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes’ account, Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of “non-partisanship.”

Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.

In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, “Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?” which includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once resided. According to Bechtle, “It’s clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome,” and reading Foulkes’s case study of Acorn’s role in Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, one can’t help but agree.
Good find, pisc. Great 527 fodder, if proven true.

piscivorous
05-29-2008, 11:22 PM
Are you sure that was PBR? I thought it was "Billy Bear." From which PBR is a definite a step up.

scted
05-29-2008, 11:33 PM
Are you sure that was PBR? I thought it was "Billy Bear." From which PBR is a definite a step up.

Billy Beer came later when the invading explorers tried to capitalize on the endearing ways of the Plains people.

jh in sd
05-29-2008, 11:37 PM
Handle, You might want to consider joining On and On Anon.

jh in sd
05-29-2008, 11:47 PM
As long as we are discussing statements that can be construed as sexist, I will add this comment, which is totally unrelated to this particular diavlog but does relate to bhtv 'heads.' I HATE beards!!! Any way, Bob, that you could make shaving a prerequisite for appearances here?

Happy Hominid
05-30-2008, 02:24 AM
...that his positions on immigration are not just antithetical to liberals and moderates (which he supposedly is, right?) but actually mirrors rather accurately the position of the most regressive thinkers on the issue? He always says that this is what good, hard working Americans (WHITE Americans?) are thinking. I'm sure there really is a segment of America that is as hung-up on this as he is. Too bad Mickey insists on being one of them.

Wonderment
05-30-2008, 03:30 AM
Psychologist James Waller wrote a book about xenophobia called "Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Murder." He talks about the creation of a "culture of cruelty" as one of the preconditions for genocide.

In a Salon interview mostly about the Holocaust and the Rwandan violence Waller explaines the propaganda model followed by hacks like Mickey, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh:

The victim groups get depicted as the enemy of all things good, and "if we don't get rid of them, they're going to get rid of us." To me, this is one of the odd paradoxes you see in a perpetrator behavior. On one hand, they're saying that the victim group is stupid, immoral, lazy and can't do anything. On the other hand, the victim group is preparing to take over the world. The Nazis were the worst at this. Unfortunately, I think that's a very easy thing to incite.

harkin
05-30-2008, 11:06 AM
I think you responded to the wrong thread... but I'll take the bait, how much is a reasonable figure to spend securing the borders?

And here I thought I had moved it to the correct thread.......[perplexed]

No bait being laid here, just trying to show Bob the light. He looks at people who immigrate illegally and while justifiably emoting over their desire to live and work here, ignores the problems (see southern california crime rates and illegals) that in many cases could be solved by border screening. If Bob was consistant, he would feel at least as much sympathy for legal citizens who are victims of illegal's crimes (gang-related drug crimes, fraud, murder, assault, ID theft etc) as he would the decent people who are just seeking a better home. The fact that Bob even makes it clear that deportations of people who are guilty of crimes is too cruel shows an utter lack of any regard for crime victims (or for that matter, common sense). Knowing who is coming into our country is not a bad thing. Nor is rejecting criminals.

Come live in Los Angeles' illegal enclaves Bob and tell the natives they just are too mean.

As to your (handle's) question of what is 'is a reasonable figure' to spend on securing the border......well...lol...I'm a conservative so I never look at a tough problem and gauge a solution budget-first. I find effective solutions first and then look for the most economical version of what actually works. Looking at a problem and throwing money at it is one of the reasons our schools and the welfare solution to poverty are failing.

Rich
05-30-2008, 12:08 PM
He continually refers to undocumented worker families and economic refugees as "illegals" (Dobbs and Limbaugh do the same thing).

I hate to be a stickler here, but does this really count as "racist" language? Are they not illegals?

As to his views about the Reconquista, I think those are informed by the proliferation of such materials at the May Day rallies in LA that he's witnessed. I don't think there's any danger in holding a different opinion from one another, but accusations of racism totally derail discourse. By making those claims you're attempting to disallow his opinions from being heard, or at least that's the way it seems.

handle
05-30-2008, 12:41 PM
Is it dangerous to break wind in an echo chamber? Oh, I forgot, this isn't your echo chamber, so I break wind in your general direction...

Anyuser
05-30-2008, 02:52 PM
I hate to be a stickler here, but does this really count as "racist" language? . . . I don't think there's any danger in holding a different opinion from one another, but accusations of racism totally derail discourse. By making those claims you're attempting to disallow his opinions from being heard, or at least that's the way it seems.

I felt that way at first, but then when Wonderment likened Mickey to Nazis and Hutu genocidaires, it all came clear to me. Mickey is the kind of man who would gas Jews in an extermination camp, and therefore the US immigration policy should be . . . . Well, I'm a bit fuzzy on that last part. No matter. What's most important is shrill demonization of those you disagree with.

After employing comparisons to Nazis and genocidaires, where can Wonderment go from here? Comparisons to Satan? Godzilla?

Now that I think about it, Rich, your vicious and bigoted slur of Wonderment mean you're probably a Nazi, too.

Wonderment
05-30-2008, 03:10 PM
I hate to be a stickler here, but does this really count as "racist" language? Are they not illegals?


Yes, when you refer to a group of people with a pejorative adjective like that you dehumanize them. It's like referring to Jews as "the circumcised." Are they not circumcised? Or to blacks as "the darks." Are they not "dark?"

Wonderment
05-30-2008, 03:18 PM
I felt that way at first, but then when Wonderment likened Mickey to Nazis and Hutu genocidaires, it all came clear to me. Mickey is the kind of man who would gas Jews in an extermination camp, and therefore the US immigration policy should be . . . . Well, I'm a bit fuzzy on that last part.

Hey, I know. How about building a giant wall in San Diego to push the migrants out into the desert where thousands will die of starvation and thirst? Oh, already did that.

How about an ultra-nationalistic group of armed vigilantes named the Minutemen? Oh, did that.

Okay, how about an ICE law enforcement policy called Ultimate Solution? Oops, I mean Endgame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Endgame). Oh, already trying that:

Operation Endgame is a plan under implementation by the Office of Detention and Removal Operations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain and deport all removable aliens currently living in the United States by 2012.[1]

The objectives of the plan are described in a memorandum from the director Anthony S. Tangemann to the Deputy Assistant Director of Field Operations dated June 27th 2003:

"The DRO provides the endgame to immigration enforcement and that is the removal of all removable aliens. This is also the essence of our mission statement and the "golden measure" to our succsess."

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Hey, I know. How about building a giant wall in San Diego to push the migrants out into the desert where thousands will die of starvation and thirst? Oh, already did that.

I think any adult who willingly walks through a friggin' desert bears the responsibility for the consequences, just as he would if he chose to run across a busy highway or play golf during a thunderstorm.

Rich
05-30-2008, 04:26 PM
Or, here's a nutty idea. Let's build a national border! And let's defend it whether it's in a desert, a tundra, or anywhere else.

Rich
05-30-2008, 04:35 PM
Yes, when you refer to a group of people with a pejorative adjective like that you dehumanize them. It's like referring to Jews as "the circumcised." Are they not circumcised? Or to blacks as "the darks." Are they not "dark?"

Well, there's several angles here. First of all, I think that Jewishness and blackness are qualities that inure to one without choice [laying aside converted Jews for the moment, and since the Nazis used blood-lines to determine Jewishness, I think that's reasonable], whereas one's status as an illegal immigrant is a matter of choice. Whether or not you agfree, I think it is clear that "illegal" doesn't carry a racial weight at all. There can be illegals from any nation, even if you think of Mexicans as a race, which seems...silly.
Second, do people not use the word "black" to describe a group of people? Is it racist to talk of the black vote? Of the African-American community? It's a debate we can surely have, but if it is, then Bob's as inveterate a racist as Mickey. Or anyone else on bhtv or the regular tv who uses such a phrase.
I just balk at calling someone who seeks to push their gov't to enforce not just any laws, but laws long considered standard to maintaining sovereignty of this or any nation, as a racist. If the Canucks were flooding into Washington state the argument from Mickey's point of view would be identical: a foreign group, unassimilating, moving illegally into land that used to be considered their own, is a problem to the territorial sovereignty of America. Granted, some Mooseheads might pacify THAT population, but still - it'd be a problem.

pvaldesolo
05-30-2008, 06:25 PM
I agree that sporadically enforcing a 1986 immigration law by locking up immigrants who were received by this country with generally open arms is an unreasonable (and, perhaps, "immoral" way) to deal with illegals, but I dont quite understand why Bob insists that the only "humane" thing to do is to pass a new law and enforce it from day one. It seems that the inhumanity comes from the inconsistency with which the law is enforced and the mixed messages that immigrants receive. Couldn't the inconsistency be resolved and the message clarified by simply beginning and continuing to enforce the 1986 law? Certainly this will be unfortunate for those first immigrants who get arrested thinking, understandably, that this is just more political posturing. But why would they think differently if a new law were passed? History would suggest that any new law would be enforced as much as any old law, that is to say, in no meaningful way. The humanity of the situation relates directly to the clarity of the message delivered to the immigrants - granting them the ability to make an informed choice about the risks entailed in crossing the border. This message can be delivered by the consistent enforcement of either a new law or an old law.

Wonderment
05-30-2008, 06:30 PM
If the Canucks were flooding into Washington state the argument from Mickey's point of view would be identical: a foreign group, unassimilating, moving illegally into land that used to be considered their own, is a problem to the territorial sovereignty of America.

"Canucks?" Ok, whatever. In any case, I sincerely doubt that Mickey's POV would be identical. Canadians generally speak English, are of a similar educational level and skin tone to white Americans, and they generally share a common Anglo culture.

I do not believe those factors would trigger Mickey's rabid xenophobia.

Mexican immigrants, on the other hand, tend to have darker skin, speak a "foreign" language, are poor and have low levels of formal education. In other words, they are clearly differentiated. They can be easily scapegoated, disparaged and demonized as "illegals" or "aliens"; or people can make up crackpot Reconquista conspiracy theories about them.

There are legitimate ways to discuss immigration reform and how best to enforce immigration law. Hopefully, we will see a rational discussion of the issues in the 08 campaign.

Obama has taken a good first step by saying the hate speech of Dobbs and Limbaugh (and by implication Mickey) is out of bounds. I fully expect John McCain to take the high road and not pander to his xenophobe base. In that case, we might make some progress with immigration reform, no matter who wins the election.

Anyuser
05-30-2008, 07:04 PM
I do not believe those factors would trigger Mickey's rabid xenophobia.

He's a Nazi Hutu and he has rabies? That swine!

Mexican immigrants, on the other hand, tend to have darker skin, speak a "foreign" language, are poor and have low levels of formal education. In other words, they are clearly differentiated.

Perhaps we'd all be better off if they assimilated? Just asking.

There are legitimate ways to discuss immigration reform and how best to enforce immigration law. Hopefully, we will see a rational discussion of the issues in the 08 campaign.

Obama has taken a good first step by saying the hate speech of Dobbs and Limbaugh (and by implication Mickey) is out of bounds. I fully expect John McCain to take the high road and not pander to his xenophobe base. In that case, we might make some progress with immigration reform, no matter who wins the election.

Unlike the illegitimate, irrational, hateful, low road crap we get on BHTV. Although it seems like it would be rather a one-sided debate. No doubt the right side. The good side. It would also seem to give short shrift to the ginormous percentage of the electorate that wants to enforce laws against illegal immigration and promote assimilation of Latinos. Too bad. Fuck those bigots.

Rich
05-30-2008, 07:41 PM
"Canucks?" Ok, whatever. In any case, I sincerely doubt that Mickey's POV would be identical. Canadians generally speak English, are of a similar educational level and skin tone to white Americans, and they generally share a common Anglo culture.

I do not believe those factors would trigger Mickey's rabid xenophobia.

Mickey's a racist, and the proof is that you are sure he wouldn't hate Canadians because they're white? I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

Mexican immigrants, on the other hand, tend to have darker skin, speak a "foreign" language, are poor and have low levels of formal education. In other words, they are clearly differentiated. They can be easily scapegoated, disparaged and demonized as "illegals" or "aliens"; or people can make up crackpot Reconquista conspiracy theories about them.

Uh, again, here I go sounding stupid, but Spanish IS in fact a foreign language, right? Otherwise those college kids oughtn't get their foreign language general education requirements met by taking it, at a minimum.

There are legitimate ways to discuss immigration reform and how best to enforce immigration law. Hopefully, we will see a rational discussion of the issues in the 08 campaign.

Obama has taken a good first step by saying the hate speech of Dobbs and Limbaugh (and by implication Mickey) is out of bounds. I fully expect John McCain to take the high road and not pander to his xenophobe base. In that case, we might make some progress with immigration reform, no matter who wins the election.

"[O]ut of bounds." Well, there we are. While Obama's setting the boundaries of public debate, he may want to limit the speech of a handful of religious figures from the Chicago area as well. And why segregate Mickey here? Only "by implication?" Clearly he's a foaming-at-the-mouth Mexican-killing lynch-mob-instigating racist! Hate to see how awful Rush and Lou Dobbs are...

And the idea that McCain's at risk of pandering to those racist Republican Nazis is a hoot. If only! He's too busy tossing them under the bus for being racists! Hey...wait a minute. Has anyone noticed that you never see Johnny Mac and Wonderment in the same room at the same time?

Wonderment
05-30-2008, 08:33 PM
Uh, again, here I go sounding stupid, but Spanish IS in fact a foreign language, right?

No. No es una lengua extranjera para mi. Es lengua materna para millones de estadounidenses.

Spanish has been spoken here for centuries — long before there was a USA -- which explains why we have states named Florida, Arizona, Colorado and California. What's foreign about it?

Hey...wait a minute. Has anyone noticed that you never see Johnny Mac and Wonderment in the same room at the same time?

Very suspicious indeed.

Rich
05-30-2008, 09:17 PM
Spanish has been spoken here for centuries — long before there was a USA -- which explains why we have states named Florida, Arizona, Colorado and California. What's foreign about it?

This is a part of Mickey's concerns about the Reconquista, isn't it? [And since I speak Russian and read Latin (equally poorly, mind you), does that make them not foreign too?]

Speaking of Reconquista, since our discussion - our out-of-bounds, racist discussion - has wended away from that topic, here's another rabid racist website featuring, no doubt staged, photos related to the desire of some to reclaim land illegally stolen via a peace treaty following the Mexican-American War of 1848: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/03/27/welcome-to-reconquista/ . Again, I'm certain these are just more rabid photoshopped racism-inciting ploys of the Minutemen, so you needn't respond to them. I'll be reporting for re-education in the morning to make sure this discussion remains in-bounds.

Tom Wittmann
05-31-2008, 06:32 PM
Mickey's Fatal Attraction insult was dumb. So was the taser talk. Women have been called irrational and hysterical for ages (etymology of hysteria is to hyster, the womb, see hysterectomy). Irrational hysteria is a common sterotype for women, and smart people do not play into negative sterotypes. Especially when they want a rift to heal.

Bob & Mickey's banter about Glenn Close and tasers was tone deaf. It will predictably piss off already angry people we really do not want to aggravate.

Bob in particular very strongly feels we ought to avoid pissing off Muslims with needlessly inflammatory tone-deaf statements. Why can't he apply this same good judgment to HRC, whi is well-loved by many Democrats.

I am neither a woman nor an HRC supporter. I just think cracking jokes about tasers and Fatal Attraction belies a tin ear. Democrats need to get it through their heads that HRC nearly won. HRC has a lot of very devoted supporters who are not taking her loss lightly. Democrats need to unite, and that means we avoid rubbing salt in fresh wounds inside the Democratic coalition.

Bad Mickey. Bad Bob.

graz
05-31-2008, 07:39 PM
Mickey's Fatal Attraction insult was dumb. So was the taser talk. Women have been called irrational and hysterical for ages (etymology of hysteria is to hyster, the womb, see hysterectomy). Irrational hysteria is a common sterotype for women, and smart people do not play into negative sterotypes. Especially when they want a rift to heal.

Bob & Mickey's banter about Glenn Close and tasers was tone deaf. It will predictably piss off already angry people we really do not want to aggravate.

Bob in particular very strongly feels we ought to avoid pissing off Muslims with needlessly inflammatory tone-deaf statements. Why can't he apply this same good judgment to HRC, whi is well-loved by many Democrats.

I am neither a woman nor an HRC supporter. I just think cracking jokes about tasers and Fatal Attraction belies a tin ear. Democrats need to get it through their heads that HRC nearly won. HRC has a lot of very devoted supporters who are not taking her loss lightly. Democrats need to unite, and that means we avoid rubbing salt in fresh wounds inside the Democratic coalition.

Bad Mickey. Bad Bob.
Towards solidarity I would like to agree completely. I would even concede that uniting is in order. Yet, I am stupid or stubborn enough to want to fight the concession. I would argue that the feelings of the Clinton supporters is no more or less important than calling a spade a spade.
I am not a Clinton supporter - in fact critical of her scorched earth campaign. Is that assessment incendiary? Not conciliatory? Yes and yes probably.
But, I wish to separate out what is good and necessary for the Democratic Party in 2008 from the fight between the Obama and Clinton camps. Rampant sexism and unrelenting racism have been integral to this race. I have even engaged in enjoying some of the spectacle when it flattered my inclinations. I take issue with your equating Bob's call for sensitivity to Muslim ears as similar to the needs of Clinton supporters. That is simply not how party infighting works. As irrational as it is at times, loyalty is the overriding ethic.
Conciliation comes at the end of the contest. And as this contest is still ongoing - all is fair. This is politics, not playground coalition building.

While I would grant your historical perspective on the negative portrayal of "female hysteria," I don't agree with your prescription.
I don't view placating or massaging Clinton supporters as empowering for either camp. Especially in light of the real - if disputable - numerical advantage that Obama holds.
I do not share your optimism that they just want to be thrown a bone or have their popularity flattered.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/31/235239/925
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11372?in=00:21:58&out=00:22:38

artoad
06-01-2008, 08:11 AM
I too enjoyed the references to the pop cultural realm, specifically Blue Velvet/Johnny Angel. As far as Dennis Hopper being a Republican, it's part of a tradition of civil rights heroes drifting rightwards. Think Frank Sinatra, Charlton Heston, say even Bob Dylan. I know both Dennis Hopper and Marlon Brando were in Selma in 1965. It might have been a bit impromtu, but it was a genuine involvement in American progressive history. I thought Bob and Mickey's discomfort at Hopper's Republican connection a trifle jejune.

sdkramer
06-03-2008, 11:16 AM
In which we find out why Mickey and Bob aren't in the top 100 most influential intellectuals.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11436?in=00:43:35&out=00:43:47