FOR THE NEW YEAR: All we want!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2014

Part 1—Capehart’s dream:
Today, at the Washington Post web site, Jonathan Capehart has a dream for the coming year:
CAPEHART (12/29/14): All I want for the new year is the banishment of “post-racial” anything from all social and political discourse. From its first utterance in 2008 to herald the rise of Barack Obama, the concept was misguided and delusional. That giddy moment when Obama won the bitterly fought South Carolina primary and the audience chanted “Race doesn’t matter” is but a distant memory. News, polls and studies that emerged in the last half of 2014 made it painfully plain that race still matters.
Capehart would banish the term “post-racial” from the national discourse. Starting tomorrow, we’ll be revealing our own dream for the coming year(s).

For today, we’ll limit ourselves. We’ll state our frustration with dreams and observations like Capehart’s.

Question: Did anyone ever actually say that Barack Obama’s election meant that our society had entered a “post-racial” state?

We’ll assume that somebody must have said that somewhere. That said, we conducted a brief search a few years ago trying to locate some major pundit who actually made that widely-referenced statement.

We didn’t have any success. As best we could tell, the term “post-racial” wasn’t thrown around by the nation’s intellectual leaders in the aftermath of Obama’s election.

Did anyone ever actually say that we were now “post-racial?” In our experience, this notion has largely been advanced by pundits like Capehart, though they never seem to quote anyone who actually made the claim.

Just for the record, American society isn’t “post-racial” in any obvious sense. It’s perfectly clear that “race still matters” in various ways, just as Capehart says.

Everyone of substance knows that, not excluding Jonathan Capehart, who seems like a good decent person.

Our point today would be different. As far as we know, no major pundit ever said that we were now post-racial. People like Capehart tend to advance the contrary notion to heighten the pathos of current complaints, whatever they may be.

In Capehart’s case, the current complaint may not always be entirely edifying. Before he’s done today, he laments the findings of a new study—a study he makes little attempt to examine or explain.

The study deals with reactions by whites to two different terms: “black” and “African-American.” (Reactions by blacks weren’t elicited.) After encouraging us to read the study, which is complex, Capehart offers a gloomy thought:
CAPEHART: This study alone should dispel any notion that ours will ever be a “post-racial” society. Before that could happen, we Americans first would have to deal with our “current-racial” society. But as I’ve written many times, we would have to talk to each other one on one, face to face, in an intensely personal and uncomfortable exercise.
Will we ever achieve a “post-racial” society? Our own assumption would be that we will, at least to the extent that white Americans now largely live in a “post-ethnic” society.

We have no idea why Capehart thinks that this study, which he probably can’t explain, means that this will never occur. But then, Capehart is one of many frustrating players who help fashion our low-voltage national discourse.

We’ve never met Jonathan Capehart. We assume he’s a good, decent person, as so many people are. We’d also have to say that he can be a deeply frustrating intellectual leader. But then again, can’t we all!

In our view, Capehart has an extremely modest dream for the new year. He seems to want pundits to stop saying something which very few ranking pundits have ever actually said.

Our own dream would be larger than this. It would even require some changes on our own part!

Tomorrow, we’ll start presenting that dream. We’ll be adapting a famous dream from a person of vast moral brilliance.

We think that brilliance holds today, decked out with some adaptations. Capehart is feeling gloomy today. We think he should fill up with hope.

What we (re)read on our Christmas vacation: Decades later, so well-written! Just click here.

97 comments:

  1. I'll keep using it because that's what we are. Libs don't like the term because it means that the old excuses that used to be valid no longer are. The condition of the black community in then US is the result of the behavior of members of the black community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cold truth is African-Americans have it harder than other ethnic groups in the USA. That is a fact. And anyone who denies it is not living in the real world.

      Delete
    2. Translation: Anyone who doesn't share my opinion is a figment of the imagination.

      Delete
    3. Translation*: Progressives can build on comments like Bill O'Reilly's, which I quoted above. At cynically tribal sites like the Howler, such comments may be disparaged.


      * Paraphrasing Bob O'Somerby.

      Delete
    4. Dear purveyor of the cold truth: Please explain why 1st and 2nd generation Hmong's have it easier than 15th generation blacks in the US. I've taken your point that it is no fault of blacks themselves, so please explain what it is exactly that makes it harder for blacks. Would they benefit from free re-location services to Liberia where racism and oppression doesn't exist as Abe Lincoln intended?

      Delete
    5. While you're at it, please explain why West Virginia is one of the 5 whitest states in the nation, one of the 5 poorest, and one of the 5 states with the lowest crime rates per capita?

      Delete
    6. "Would they benefit from free re-location services to Liberia where racism and oppression doesn't exist as Abe Lincoln intended?"

      I think we can all agree that Liberia is a shithole. No black person in their right mind would want to relocate there. But there must be some other black-run country that stands apart as a shining example of peace and prosperity. Serious question - if you had to be relocated to a sub-Saharan African nation, which would you choose? (South Africa excluded as too recently ruled by whites)

      Delete
    7. Botswana is poor, but it has a pretty good government.

      Delete
    8. Again, African-Americans do have it much tougher than whites. It's true some cops don't like blacks. It's true historical injustice has affected the black experience in America

      Delete
    9. African Americans have it better than African Africans and have for generation after generation. Those who would occupy minority status here are nevertheless risking their lives to be permitted to live here so that they can be discriminated against in this horribly racist and evil country. What masochists.

      Delete
    10. @7:38,

      Was that snark? With people like DAinCA commenting, it's hard to tell.

      Delete
  2. OMB (Dreaming Largely with the OTB)

    "Will we ever achieve a “post-racial” society? Our own assumption would be that we will, at least to the extent that white Americans now largely live in a “post-ethnic” society." BOB

    "This throwback Irishism would simply be annoying if it weren't so clear that Irishism played a key role in the way the East Coast Irish Catholic crowd went crazy about Bill Clinton's blow jobs, then turned against Candidate Gore." BOB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet there are no longer signs saying "No Irish need apply" or sunset laws telling Okies to stay out of California and no one's family gets upset if you tell your parents you are planning to marry someone of Italian descent. That some enclaves cling to ethnic identity is an exception to this generalization.

      KZ, we all know you have difficulty holding two competing thoughts in mind at the same time. Most others can contemplate thesis and antithesis without getting their panties in a wad.

      Delete
    2. Cats and dogs are sworn enemies and yet cats and dogs live happily together in many households! How can this be?

      Delete
    3. @ 12:49 There are no pet hustlers telling them they are victims. Don't you read Bob's comment box?

      Delete
    4. The Irish have always been an exception to American exceptionalism.

      Delete
    5. 12:39, Somerby didn't disparage all Irish, he singled out a small few, mostly those career "liberals" who whored themselves out to right wing multimillionaire Jack Welch and became high paid operatives for the Republicans and George W Bush. Would be liberals who would condone that behavior simply lack the guts to stand up for themselves and their interests.

      Delete
    6. Cats have long suffered the specist microagressions borne from dog privilege.

      Delete
    7. Why are there service dogs but no service cats?

      Delete
    8. The key word in the quote of Somerby's is "throwback" which refers to the past. Thus there is no contradiction between the two quotes.

      Delete
    9. @4:49P,

      Because the subservience runs the other way with cats..

      Delete
    10. "Expert's research shows cats don't understand string theory".

      "A Psychology Lecturer from Canterbury Christ Church University has found that cats do not understand cause and effect connections between objects."

      Delete
  3. "As best we could tell, the term “post-racial” wasn’t thrown around by the nation’s intellectual leaders in the aftermath of Obama’s election."
    There's nothing "wrong" with that statement. Technically it might even be accurate.
    Bob Gardner
    Randolph, MA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone of substance knows that. That said, We assume he’s a good, decent person, as so many people are.

      Delete
  4. When blaming the economic crash on the CRA got traction, it was obvious we're still a racist nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because all poor people are black?

      Delete
    2. No. Because it was easier to blame the ni**as, then it was to lay the blame on the actual cause: fraud perpetrated by banks and Wall Street.
      Now, don't get me wrong, it wasn't just the false accusation, it could just as easily been falsely blamed on sun spots. But blaming sun spots got no traction. Blaming it on the CRA OTOH, got lots of traction from the people.

      Delete
    3. CRA had nothing to do with the crash. The housing bubble caused the crash and it had many underlying factors, the most important being looser regulations on lenders and outright corruption by mortgage brokers and even underwriters, working on commission and being under the gun from their bosses.
      The stereotypical scapegoat was the guy that sold his high equity home to buy one he knew he couldn't couldn't afford, put only part of the cash down on an 80-20 ARM, and used the rest to buy a fully-loaded SUV and a six-week vacation in the Bahamas, etc., then went and demanded extended unemployment benefits and SNAP cards.
      (A twenty-first century Welfare Queen, as it were.)
      The politicians and talking heads that claimed it was the poor defaulting on government-forced loans that collapsed the world economy only said the liberals and poor people were at fault.
      (Later, they learned to add that there are more poor White Americans than poor Black Americans.)
      The new Tea Party dog-whistle is "Blue-state urban dwellers."

      Delete
    4. It wasn't putting 20% down - it was putting 0% down, sometimes even putting 0% down and getting money back. It was palpably crazy.

      Delete
    5. @AC/MA

      Or even 3% down. Oh, the palpability!

      "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unveil mortgages with 3% down payment "

      "The idea that you can get a mortgage with just 3% down is something that can get us back into bubble territory," Russell Goldsmith, chairman of City National Corp. in Los Angeles

      http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fannie-freddie-loans-20141209-story.html

      Delete
    6. Fannie and Freddie: Run by corrupt bankers. Like the rest of 'em, they should be in prison.

      Delete
  5. IMHO Capehart raises the idea of a "post-racial" America as a straw man to excuse President Obama's performance. He says Mr. Obama shouldn't be criticized for not achieving a post-racial America, because that goal was impossible.

    However, many of us did expect President Obama's leadership to result in better relations between the races. As it turned out, we now have worse relations between the races, and I believe the President's style of leadership is the reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The latest Fox meme is that Obama is the most racially divisive POTUS ever.
      Like all "worst ever POTUS" themes, Reagan is always #1.
      Cadillac driving welfare queens and strapping black bucks buying steaks with food stamps, people.

      Delete
    2. Reagan's supposed "racial divisiveness" consisted of telling the truth. Slate reported:

      Though Reagan was known to stretch the truth, he did not invent that woman in Chicago. Her name was Linda Taylor, and it was the Chicago Tribune, not the GOP politician, who dubbed her the “welfare queen.” It was the Tribune, too, that lavished attention on Taylor’s jewelry, furs, and Cadillac—all of which were real.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

      Delete
    3. There are millions of her in numbers increasing exponentially because libs have made a work ethic a vice and dependency a virtue.

      Delete
    4. Yes, David. And Linda Taylor was tried, convicted and sent to prison for welfare fraud. In 1977. Before Reagan took office.

      Yet that didn't stop him from using her rather unique case -- for which she was caught, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentence -- as typical of rampant welfare abuse that went on all the time.

      Delete
    5. And to understand how well Reagan's myth of rampant welfare abuse still works, just read 6:03.

      And let the truth be damned!

      Delete
    6. The notion the President Obama has worsen race relations is stupid and unsupportable, wishful thinking from highly dubious people like David in Ca.

      Delete
    7. NBC poll doesn't agree with POTUS Obama on the progress of race relations. How can the POTUS not have an impact, good or bad, on race relations?

      STEVE INSKEEP: "Is the United States more racially divided than it was when you took office six years ago, Mr. President?"

      POTUS Obama: "No, I actually think that it's probably in its day-to-day interactions less racially divided. But I actually think that the issue has surfaced in a way that probably is healthy"

      http://www.npr.org/2014/12/29/372485968/transcript-president-obamas-full-npr-interview

      "Poll: 57 Percent of Americans Say Race Relations in U.S. Are Bad "

      http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-57-percent-americans-say-race-relations-u-s-are-n269491

      Delete
    8. Blacks' view of race relations was very positive after Obama was elected. After white liberals, Al Sharpton, and Obama got through with lying about the Trayvon Martin case, that outlook had been destroyed and reversed and blacks were back to feeling miserable about being black in America. But it's only because libs care that they invent these "issues."

      Delete
    9. Anon 6:07, if you think welfare fraud is "rare" you are the most ignorant person on the planet. It is rampant, a way of life, and not even recognized as wrong much less criminal. Work in "the system" sometime and you'll become educated quickly.

      Delete
    10. Yes, those polygamists in Southern Utah are supporting their large families on government aid, committing major welfare fraud. They really know how to work the system.

      Delete
    11. Greg -- I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your words didn't come out quite the way you meant them. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I wish race relations would worsen, just because that would reflect badly on the President.

      Delete
    12. IMHO there's legal welfare abuse and moral welfare abuse. Legal welfare abuse, like the case of Linda Taylor, is dramatic, but it's not the biggest part of the problem. The big problem is able-bodied people who live on welfare dependency. People who don't consider welfare a gift for which they should be grateful, but rather an entitlement. People who have no particular desire to get a job and get off welfare in order to be self-sufficient, who are not embarrassed to be on welfare.

      To his credit, Bill Clinton (pushed by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans) modified the welfare system so that it wouldn't be a permanent lifestyle. To his shame, President Obama reversed this policy.

      Delete
    13. Most welfare in this country is corporate welfare.

      Delete
    14. And you would support ending both of them, yes?

      Delete
    15. “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

      “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

      “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

      “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

      Delete
    16. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

      ATTRIBUTION: Chinese proverb.—The International Thesaurus of Quotations,

      Delete
    17. cicero,
      No. Just corporate welfare.

      Delete
    18. Cicero,
      Meant to add this,
      Business: tax 'em, regulate 'em, tell 'em to STFU.

      Delete
    19. @ Anonymous 3:37 PM,

      How will they manage to pay you $15 an hour with that attitude?

      Delete
    20. If they can't afford labor, they can't afford to be in business.
      No worries. If they offer products or services of value, someone else will swoop-in to offer them with a better business model.

      Delete
    21. They can afford labor. But at $15 an hour they will have a better selection of candidates. They will also require fewer employees who are able to do more things. Be careful what you wish for.

      Delete
  6. In the sense that Capeheart fears it, yes, we are becoming post racial. And that is mostly a good thing. More and more people are coming to see that the economic disparity is the real problem, and it disproportionally affects blacks because they are disproportionately on the bottom rungs. If some people want to ignore the fact that one of our two major political parties is still supported by idiots of a pretty much Jim Crow mindset, just because we have a black President, well, that's a problem but a fairly minor one. And it's O.K. for white people to start talking back some. If you insist on an answer for Brawley/Sharpton, O.K., but you must provide an answer tor Central Park 5/Trump. On balance, Americans are learning to lose the obsession with race, and that drives race obsessives on both sides a little crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Americans are learning to lose the obsession with race? Have you seen the news lately? "Racism" is at an all-time low but race hustling is at an all-time high. So you have one phony racial story after another, all of which depend on the willingness of the journalistic community to lie about the facts until such time as no one cares what they are, and they are happy to oblige. There are few race obsessives remaining on the right, and there is nothing except race obsessives remaining on the left.

      Delete
    2. The people with a "Jim Crow" mentality today are miles different than those during the actual period of Jim Crow. Failure to admit that progress has occurred is harming race relations in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. I do not agree that economic disparity is the real problem. Consider Larry Ellison, who founded Oracle Corp. He's the 3rd richest person in America. He recently bought one of the Hawaiian islands -- the entire island of Lanai, just for himself.

      Now, am I hurt by Ellison's wealth? Are poor black people hurt by Ellison's wealth? Would poor blacks be better off if Oracle Corp. failed and Ellison lost most of his money? I think you can see that the answer to all these questions is "no."

      In fact, we benefit from having a successful business nearby. E.g., my daughter and many other people owe their jobs to that company.

      Delete
    4. And Larry Ellison isn't looking for tax breaks? Good on him.

      Delete
    5. What does one man need with an entire island?

      Delete
    6. Everyone needs a private space of their own just to relax and contemplate their existence.

      Delete
    7. Dean Baker comments on a WaPo column [LINK]:

      ****[QUOTE] ...[The aforementioned] is not the only error in Samuelson's piece. He also mistakenly argues that because most government benefits go to the poor and middle class:

      "it is not possible to pretend that the whole superstructure of government has somehow been turned against the middle class. This is not just a distortion of reality; it is the converse of reality."

      In fact the government has structured the market over the last three decades in ways that cause most income to flow upward. For example its trade deals have been focused on putting less educated workers in direct competition with the lowest paid workers in the world. This has the predicted and actual effect of driving down their wages. At the same time, highly paid professionals, like doctors and lawyers, are largely protected from international competition.

      The government has also had longer and stronger patent protection, causing middle class people and the government to pay hundreds of billions more for prescription drugs than would be the case in a free market. [Baker skips mention here of the issue of copyright.] The benefits from these forms of protectionism disproportionately go to the wealthy.

      The government also has adopted more anti-union policies in the last three decades, substantially reducing the ability of workers to organize effective unions. It also gives huge subsidies to the high six and seven figure salaries of top officials at non-profits like the Gates Foundation.

      And the government gives free too big to fail insurance and special low tax status to the financial industry. It also gives them special exemption from criminal law, giving special meaning to Samuelson's comment:

      "The fact that the upper classes can better shield themselves against its [the economy's] upsets naturally breeds resentment."

      Of course the public is angry because the upper class were able to use their political and economic power to not only gain the huge subsidies in the form of below market loans from the Fed and Treasury, they were also able to shield themselves from criminal prosecution for fraudulent activity in the housing bubble. This fact does breed resentment.

      Addendum:

      Larry made a good point in comments that deserves mention. Samuelson based his claim that the government serves the middle class on the fact that the United States is "a democracy in which politicians compete more for votes than for dollars." While politicians do need votes, they get them with dollars. If Samuelson thinks that a politician could win even a seat in the House, much less a Senate seat or presidential race, without the support of a substantial number of one percenters then he is even more out of touch than I realized.

      Essentially we have a two phase election process. Candidates must convince a substantial number of rich people that they share their views and/or will serve their interests. If they can get enough money from the rich then they get to contest for votes, but no one is going to be able to run a race on the contributions of $20-$50 that they can expect from the bottom 90 percent. [END QUOTE]***

      BTW DiC, why do you think the wealthy invest so much money in political messaging and campaigns- to level the playing field? Are we there yet?

      Delete
    8. David in California re-educates:

      ...we benefit from having a successful business nearby. Eg., my daughter and many other people owe their jobs to that company.

      Let me guess, Larry Ellison doesn't owe his fortune to anybody or anything but his own hard work and brilliance unlike your daughter who owes her job to a company, at least for as long as her own hard work and competence keeps your daughter employed as the cheapest, reliable unit available to generate the profit she generates for that company. It's an economy of the deserving rich, the undeserving poor, and the lucky to be laboring at all. Or have I latched on to the wrong definitional sense of owe than the one you intended?

      Delete
    9. Well, you got me. CMike. My daughter doesn't "owe" her to job to Oracle. Her own hard work and competence do indeed keep my daughter employed.

      However, yesterday I was chatting with a friend who owns a (useless) parcel of land in Montana. If we lived in Montana, my daughter's hard work and competence wouldn't be enough to get a job like the one she has, because those jobs don't exist there. That's all meant.

      Delete
    10. @Anonymous 9:59 PM
      "What does one man need with an entire island?"

      Liberals have a difficult time grasping the concept that in a free society "need" is not a prerequisite in determining acquisitions. Such sentiments were the hallmark of political ideologies in East Germany and currently in China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

      Delete
    11. Most of the overpaid corporate execs are the undeserving rich who underpay their rank and file, most of the social welfare dependent consist of people who wouldn't take a job if one were handed on a silver platter and neglect or abandon their children, and who are the undeserving poor. Why is that so hard to understand?

      Delete
    12. David in Cal,

      I looked it up, Oracle has major campuses in Redwood Shores, outside of San Francisco, Markham, Ontario which is within the greater Toronto metro area, and in Reading, an hour from London. If Oracle had tried to recruit top talent to Montana, how do you think it would have done over the years in pulling that off? I'm thinking had Ellison run things out of that state all his hard work and brilliance wouldn't have had near the return to him that he got from locating his operations in and around those specific metropolises.

      Delete
  7. The fruit continues to grow from the tree Bob planted two years ago, and has nourished since with his wilful perversity. At our most empathetic, we hope he enjoys the taste of it.

    That being said, this current tack of his is better than his "empathy" ridiculousness, and better than attacking nobody bloggers and letters-to-the-editors writers, pretending they represent anyone but themselves. We wonder if he can keep it up, and if he can stomach and keep some of his hard-worked for fans without looking like he shares their attitudes. Like all things Bob these days, all bets are off.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The fruit continues to grow from the tree Bob planted two years ago ..."

    Strange Fruit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Conservatives' attempt to scapegoat poor and working class blacks regarding the financial meltdown was a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless Barney Frank is the one doing the scapegoating, it was his mishandling of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that was instrumental in the financial debacle.

      "New Study Confirms Economy Was Destroyed by Dem Policies"

      "A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy."

      http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-confirms-economy-was-destroyed-by-democrat-policies

      Delete
    2. That link is to an opinion piece, not the NBER piece. For a link to that see here:
      http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609

      According to the abstract, they found that the CRA lead to riskier lending. Not that the CRA caused in whole or part the 2008 crises. Perhaps main text of the article blames CRA for the crises, if so please let me know (with quotes).

      Here's a discussion on the CRA and the crise by Barry Ritholtz. He calls it the "big lie."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story.html

      "The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a favorite boogeyman for some, despite the numbers that so easily disprove it as a cause.It is a statistical invalid argument, as the data show.

      For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

      What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA."

      Mr Ritholtz also offered to bet $100k with anyone who can win a debate with him.

      http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/100000-cra-challenge/

      Delete
    3. More on the topic from Mr Ritholtz: First a thought experiment on what the crises would look like if CRA were to blame.
      http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/

      and his "Who is to blame." An interesting and nonpartisan list.

      http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/who-is-to-blame-1-25/

      Delete
  10. Anom at 7:25... you wish. The old south, whites who vote race as the first and last issue, pretty much stands and you can through in Texas, though obviously there are hostilities to other non white races thrown in too. The other party has a solid black representation, works and interacts with black people every day. On the right, you have people like David in Ca quoting the likes of Thomas Sewell, an obvious nitwit who has seen everything he ever wrote about economics disproved time and time by reality, as if the W meltdown of the world economy never happened. Like Clarence Thomas, Sewell was created in the race revenge labs of the Conservative think tanks years ago, but only an aging white racist would take him seriously. We have moved on, in that sense, we are post racial. A disgusting ploy the right got some mileage out of, but is over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg -- I might add that the facts don't support your claim that, "The old south, whites who vote race as the first and last issue," Louisiana's Republican, non-white Governor is very popular. He is considered a possible Presidential candidate. South Carolina just elected a non-white Republican Senator by a landslide. Texas elected Will Hurd, a non-white Republican Congressman.

      Delete
    2. @Greg Interacting with black people by stoking discord and discontent through lies about specific incidents and magnification of relatively insignificant problems, while minimizing more important fundamental causes, is nothing to boast about and the party that does it is the primary culprit in blacks' miseries including the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Trayvon Martin was just raging with black discord as he walked back to his father's house from the convenience store, hoping that a pussy with a gun would stalk him.

      Somerby, your blog continues to evolve into just one more gathering spot for right wing fruitcakes and racists.

      Congratulations on your contribution to the "american discourse."

      Delete
  11. Greg -- I thank you for not being anonymous and for stating your views so frankly. You've got the tribalism down pat, but there seems to be some gaps in your knowledge.

    Take Thomas Sowell. You don't know how to spell his name (Or, are you misspelling it as a form of mockery?) Are you aware of his impressive educational achievements? How many of Sowell's books have you read? Do you know about his studies of the impact of ethnic preferences in other countries? Have you dispassionately evaluated his economic beliefs against actual data? E.g., Texas, a state with relatively low regulations and taxes, created more new jobs than the rest of the country combined this year.

    BTW it sounds a bit racist to claim that, "Like Clarence Thomas, Sewell was created in the race revenge labs of the Conservative think tanks years ago." The comment appears to imply that these two black men were incapable of making their own political judgments.

    Here's a suggestion. Read some books by Sowell and Thomas and make up your own mind. I recommend Thomas's autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son." Sowell has written so many thoughtful and original books that it's hard to choose just one. Perhaps, "Basic Economics" would be a good place to start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Libs are only comfortable thinking of blacks as acting with no volition, like lowly creatures. They assume as much, which is why they do not believe in accountability for blacks.

      Delete
    2. 12:45, I suspect you listen to a lot of right wing talk radio. When Roger Aisles pitched Rush Limbaugh radio show for sydication it was sold as "confrontational radio... without guests". The "confrontation"? A strawman- "liberals think this", "liberals want that", pure self serving nonsense that doesn't speak for anyone. You are obviously highly impressionable and a fully indoctrinated tribal stooge.

      Delete
    3. "You listen to Rush" is your counterargument to the tragic reality of black social negligence and liberals' encouragement of it?

      Delete
    4. When an assclown pretends that he's speaking for me, I'll tell him straight up that he's full of shit.

      Delete
    5. Still, you can't bring yourself to articulate an acknowledgement of black social negligence and remedies, nor point to any liberal publication that does so with any regularity that cannot be shown to be absurdly rare given the magnitude of the problem, thus proving my point.

      Delete
  12. Heidi Stevens is offended by Geraldo Rivera's suggestion that LeBron change his Tshirt message to "Be a Better Father." She complains it absolves whitey from responsibility for police misconduct. In fact, black parental negligence is by far, by a thousand-fold, more consequential to blacks than is anything whitey does, including police misconduct. The focus on police and ostrich behavior on black parental negligence is the absolution through deflection to racism and "police brutality" that is responsible for the fact that blacks will forever remain the group that is poorest, most dependent, and most criminal.

    Telling black men to simply be better fathers ignores the very real cultural and economic obstacles in place for many families today. And, worse, it absolves the rest of the nation from addressing those obstacles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering the problems with the Cavs, the King needs to change his Tshirt message to "Don't Be Careless With Possessions." Perhaps that message translates from the court to the crib.

      Delete
    2. Blacks can't breathe, and whites can't see.

      Delete
  13. See jit go ham in the Dollar Store. This is a future Mike Brown. It's all whitey's fault.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrqH3zaMco4

    ReplyDelete
  14. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  15. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete