Rage, Racism And American Unreason

Hi Pam, Walter, Mary, Onofrio,

I'm back from a week in Florida, refreshed! It looks like I have some catching up to do. Wednesday is my best day this week. Unfortunately time is not as abundant as in the summer months.

I tried sending a post before I left on the 17th, both on Susan's previous forum and the other you directed me to Walter, but nothing took. I could not post on either.

Hi Mary - I welcome your perspective, and support in what we do agree on, the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

PS. Are you Canadian?

"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life
itself.whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the
victim. [the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other:
[the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined
is subjugated and may be killed."

- The Second Sin. New York: Doubleday, 1973

BTW, Stephen J. Helmsley, current CEO of United Health, has unexercised stock options in the neighborhood of $700 million cooking up. He used to be a Managing Partner at Arthur Anderson (yep, the firm that surrendered its license because of its conviction of criminal wrongdoing in the Enron fraud).

A recent WaPo article says the for profit insurers are paying about 3,000 lobbyists to keep Congress on good behavior. Makes you wonder what their average salary is, doesn't it? One thing sure is that they don't come cheap. The cost of that army might well run upwards $500 million a year.

Now there's some medical ethics for you.

Arminius,

Collins also exemplifies the non-extremist viewpoint. His section on medical ethics covers issues coming up in the area of personalized genomics, as well as stem cells, cloning and the like. And yes, every new capability we develop moves more into the range of ethical consideration. He also does an elegant job of dispatching arguments oft cited for Intelligent Design on the one hand, and Dick Dawkins on the other.

It seems to me that the commercial ethic simply won't cut it in this new environment. For example, can you picture United Health insuring people with genetic diseases that often involve slow and expensive declines like Hawking's Lou Gehrig's? No. No. No. The likes of William McGuire need back dated options to pump up 1.6 billion dollar bonus payments, so they can't afford to cover such folks. After all, why waste good money on people too sick to enjoy it?

Here's an allied view of 'breathe' in a religious milieu that is distinctly non-western. And it is still more curious that the Tibetan word for breathe is 'lung'. Breathe control is a fundamental part of many yoga-based traditions.

Here the idea of internal 'winds' is a profound characteristic of the very subtle body - seen as the true and essential part of every living creature.

This is our most elusive and durable self, and is viewed as the essence that survives death and moves on endlessly from one manifestation to the next, eon after eon, until the moment of enlightenment arrives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_(Tibetan_Buddhism)

Farnaz,

"I've posted on Collins, several times, in fact, in an effort to show that one could believe in God and accept science. Pretty good evidence for that position, Collins is."

Well, since I also believe and God and accept science, that reinforces my urge to read Collins.

I've posted on Collins, several times, in fact, in an effort to show that one could believe in God and accept science. Pretty good evidence for that position, Collins is.

Collins was recently appointed as director of NIH. I can't think of a better choice.

Time to sign off for the night. Perhaps tomorrow, we can resume.

Moderate,

Just put Collins' work on my list of books to get. Thanks.

BTW, have you read Francis Collins' The Language of God? He grew up Atheist and then came to a different view as he thought things through. It is a great read, and he actually read the audio book version that I listened to during my commute.

"Sewanee - I'm class of '65. Forever engraved on my heart. I had no idea you were ever into theology!"

I think you can count yourself lucky, my friend. And yes, I have made an extended study of it. I have many good friends from the classes both taken and mentored. I have an extended dialog between philosophy of science and of religion in my circle of friends.

Often, these blogs are too rough-and-tumble to really get to the point. And, like you, I have a bit of a temper and will go a little too joyously into battle. I think Onofrio admits to this too, And certainly Farnaz shares this trait.

Moderate,

Sewanee - I'm class of '65. Forever engraved on my heart. I had no idea you were ever into theology!

Arminius,

"Sewanee - did you go there? When?"

I didn't actually go there. But I did take a four year theology class offered by the Sewanee School of Theology by extension, and then I taught it for ten years after that, so I have a place for it in my heart and an extended presence on my book shelves for the readings. Beautiful place.

Moderate,

Sewanee - did you go there? When?

Arminius,

"pneuma is also breath."

Yes. Pneuma also represents the Holy Spirit, or the thought of a person formed in words made with breath or at some level of abstraction by her spirit. If I remember my old books from Sewanee, Boltman's Theology of the New Testament has a lengthy discussion of psyche, pneuma, and nous, and their senses. Pneuma can be used to refer to the self as "a willing and knowing self" or "the self regarded as conscious or aware." Intertwined with this is the doctrine that Man's pneuma is in the image God's as seen the Pneuma (Holy Spirit). So it is actually kind of hard to disentangle these things completely.

The term ruach is also of richly tapestried related meanings meaning.

Interesting note you wrote on Homer's use of the term and is evolution. Any more thoughts on that?

Schaum,

Thanks.

pneuma is also breath.

psyche is pronounced 'psuche', the 'p' is pronounced, and the 'e' is like English long 'a'.

My major in college was Classics - Greek, Latin, History. Long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....

Arminius, you appear to be right. I've been looking through a dictionary of ancient greek that I have...why I bought it I can't recall, since I've never studied Greek, or even been interested in it...

spirit = πνεύμα
soul = ψυχή
mind = μυαλό
psyche = ψυχή

The word for soul is the same as for psyche. No suggestion as to how it is pronounced.

sokumina,
re: 10 commandments:
i thought your point was that 10 commandments are some kind of "sacred" document to the u.s., or that you thought our laws were "based on" the 10 commandments or something.

re: "measuring" souls. i would agree that our observing/measuring capacity is limited.

the difference between gravity/electricity and something like a soul, is that we can measure the effects of gravity/electricity. granted, we can't (yet) see the electrons flowing throught the wire and so forth. but, we can't measure the effects of a soul (as distinct from brain processes).

sorry in advance if i misunderstood again...

Hmmmm....well, there's psyche, and then, of course, there is Psyche.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupid_and_Psyche

Walter you have to much free time and totally missed my point. However, according to your comments, would you not also agree that the truth of the universe is limited by a human beings inadequate perception of reality? We can not "measure" because we do not have the mean to do so and our brains lack the capacity. Prime examples are gravity and electricity, we can measure them and know what they DO but we do not know what they ARE.

Arminius, your exception is noted.

Schaum,

psyche does mean the soul in the spiritual sense. In fact, in Homer, it meant only the departed spirit after death. It later acquired more meanings.

A different spin on the use of the term 'psyche'. By none other than the inestimable Carl Jung, of course!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology)

Arminius:

'Psyche' does not mean soul, in the spiritual sense. It means soul in the sense of personality, as in 'the nation's consumer psyche'.

WalterIFC:

"ha! better safe than sorry. who knows the havoc inhaling a soul could wreak! mixing souls could be dangerous. and what if the whole soul weren't inhaled and a partial soul was left floating around."

Truly!

* Main Entry: as·phyx·ia
* Pronunciation: \as-ˈfik-sē-ə, əs-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, stopping of the pulse, from a- + sphyzein to throb
* Date: 1778

: a lack of oxygen or excess of carbon dioxide in the body that results in unconsciousness and often death and is usually caused by interruption of breathing or inadequate oxygen supply

'persiflage,
wow! the brain. evolution is awesome!'

Yes Walter it is - especially in the way that all of the quarks and leptons line up just so, by their own accord! Or is it superstrings and quantum gravity?

At Plank limits, it's really just anybody's best guess - but we see Roger Penrose mentioned here again, mirroring Moderate's earlier recommmendation. The guy is a serious heavy-weight as a thinker.

This is where the metaphyics of science really begins to build a head of steam!!

"thought those teachers out there might like that."

I'm not a teacher (although the teacher in the problem was the tip-off), just a lowly technical writer, often editing the work of others. I hate admitting that, because I sometimes post in haste, and without proofing, so mistakes happen (no, they don't "happen" - I make them). I know I'll get extra scrutiny now. :(

persiflage,
wow! the brain. evolution is awesome!

my saying, "it's only our talking about it that makes it exist" doesn't mean "it" is not important. souls "exist" in the same sense that "courage" and god and memories exist: as concepts. concepts are important, but not physical, measurable entities. they don't really exist out there in the world outside our brains.

pam,
can't get one by you. thought those teachers out there might like that.

Here's a link for brain enthusiasts. It's estimated that the number of functions required for even the very simple act of raising one's arm requires as many as 10 trillion interconnected events in order to make that happen - thus we have the idea of the quantum brain.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1808

"they're talking about 'i', 'me' - that entity 'driving' my body, telling it what to do."

Funny, I always called that the brain.

Schaum,

Actually, asphyxia means 'no, or bad, heartbeat', which describes what happens, and it is from the Greek. The Greek word for soul, spirit is psyche, from which we get psychology, etc.

John, while Joe had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

:)

'but i thinks it's only our talking about it that makes it exist.'

Of course proponents of ch'i would maintain that nothing happens without the fundamental energy that this concept represents - including the 'talking about it'......

One can never tell...as science increases in it's ability to study the exceedingly subtle processes and invisible forces from which our material reality arises, they may find more merit in this archaic concept!

regards -

you guys were earlier talking about grammar and punctuation. using just "regular" punctuation marks, can anyone make this phrase make sense?

John while Joe had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

oops, sorry, i meant to address that to "Schaum".

pam:
"...lest they inadvertently inhale the departing soul and trap it within their own bodies."

ha! better safe than sorry. who knows the havoc inhaling a soul could wreak! mixing souls could be dangerous. and what if the whole soul weren't inhaled and a partial soul was left floating around.

WalterIFC:

"if it's lighter than air, as might be indicated by its rising up, possibly to heaven,"

As an aside, and as you probably already know, the ancient Greeks believed that the soul -- the asphyx -- left the body with the last exhalation of breath, and were extremely careful not to be within breathing distance of someone exhaling that last breath, lest they inadvertently inhale the departing soul and trap it within their own bodies. From this comes our word 'asphyxiation'.

sokumina:
"Look above in the Supreme court room you'll see a glaring monument to our roots in there, the 10 commandments."

if you actually do look up there, you'll see other "monuments to our roots":

Menes (c. 3200 B.C.) First King of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt.

Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.) King of Babylon credited with founding the Babylonian Empire.

Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver, and judge of the Israelites.

Solomon (c. 900s B.C.) King of Israel and renowned judge. His name, meaning “figure of the wise man,” has become synonymous with “judicial wisdom.”

Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.) Legislator of Sparta. Lycurgus is credited with being one of the reformers of Sparta’s constitution.

Solon (c. 638 - 558 B.C.) Athenian lawgiver.

Draco (c. 600s B.C.) One of Solon’s legal predecessors in Athens.

Confucius (551 - 478 B.C.) Chinese philosopher whose teachings stressed harmony, learning, and virtue.

Octavian (63 B.C. - 14 A.D.) or Augustus. First Emperor of the Roman Empire.

Justinian (c. 483 - 565) Byzantine Emperor from 527 until his death.

Muhammad (c. 570 - 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an.

Charlemagne (c. 742 - 814) or Charles I (the Great). King of the Franks and Roman Emperor.

King John (1166 - 1216) born John Lackland.

Louis IX (c. 1214 - 1270) King of France who was canonized as St. Louis in 1297.

Hugo Grotius (1583 - 1645) or Huig de Groot. Dutch scholar, lawyer, and statesman.

Sir William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) English law professor and jurist.

John Marshall (1755 - 1835) Fourth Chief Justice of the United States, from 1801 to 1835.

Napoleon (1769 - 1821) Emperor of France from 1804 to 1815.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

Moderate,

The math quote from LL still makes me laugh. Obviously it is an exaggeration, but math, at least the bare essentials, is a necessary life skill. Calculus, on the other hand, has limited daily use for most of us.

pam:
"I'm not talking about any mystical continuation of consciousness, but rather of the potential energy represented by a dead body that can be used to fuel some kind of kinetic energy - crematorium flames, scavengers...

others here are talking about a mushy soul kind of thing, that exists independently of (but temporarily resides in) your body. they're talking about "i", "me" - that entity "driving" my body, telling it what to do.

i remember reading somewhere of someone trying to prove we had souls. he weighed people just before death and after death. it turned out his patients lost an ounce or something which he attributed to the soul leaving the body. others attributed it to some kind of natural outgassing resulting from death.

of course it's still possible that a soul departs body upon death. maybe our presuppositions (hi peter) are wrong. really the crucial issue in terms of weighing a soul would be its density. and if it's lighter than air, as might be indicated by its rising up, possibly to heaven, a body would weigh MORE without its soul. :-)

btw, have you heard any updates on the "how many angels on a pinhead" debate?

*laughs hysterically then pauses and continues laughing*
Race, race, race, race, race all this talk is just perpetuating the problem.
I have nothing against the fact that the president has African American blood heck I have one forth Native American blood and we are the most oppressed minority. However, his race doesn't change the fact that this man is twenty year to early to be in office. His glaring negligence with the budget and his perpetuation of the infringement of states rights are my problems with him. It is all ignorant people who want to pick a reason other than the truth to rationalize all the dissent targeted toward the president. Besides, taking God off the money, heck no! Look above in the Supreme court room you'll see a glaring monument to our roots in there, the 10 commandments. Obama lost my trust the moment he slowly started taking God out f the equation, everything else they say is history.

persiflage,
thanks for the qi link. those eastern thinkers are much more poetic about "religion" than the western cartoon religions, with our characters and plots. i design houses for a living and think "feng shui" suggestions about spacial arrangements almost always turn out to be good. the "life energy" or qi or whatever is a nice concept and an often-useful way of talking about things, but i thinks it's only our talking about it that makes it exist.

Schaum:
"So I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the 'loose' christianity of the episcopal church."

well, i guess i was comparing it to the "strict" christianity of literal fundamentalists - who seem closed-minded.

I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say "energy," nor even "life energy."

I'm not talking about any mystical continuation of consciousness, but rather of the potential energy represented by a dead body that can be used to fuel some kind of kinetic energy - crematorium flames, scavengers...

Just like Walter's hamburger (potential-energy steer muscle) that fuels your kinetic energy while living. You don't think steer thoughts after eating it. (Grass! Give me grass!)

An embalmed (or mummified) body does still decompose bacterially, but at a much slower rate, and not completely. Some of it hangs around as potential energy for a very long time.

WalterIFC

"many people, despite the apparent impossibility of it, are able to believe what they want."

To be Episcopalian is to be Anglican. And what they believe is stated in the Nicean Creed, and is the same as all catholic denominations. So I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the 'loose' christianity of the episcopal church. But you are right, most people believe what they want.

I would love to believe that death is a survivable event, that there is a god somewhere who is in control of everything, that we all live eternally. Unfortunatly what I would like to believe, and what is supported by facts, are two different things, and so I do not believe them. I believe what I see -- and I know that is the worst kind of evidence! -- but it works for me. I"m an amateur astronomer, and I've spent a lot of time looking at the universe, and I see no evidence of a god. A creator, yes, but not a god. Life, the evidence suggests, is an accident.

Hey Walter,

For your perusal - a non-material reality we can all believe in! Just when you thought nothing meant nothing, it turns out to be something.....

regards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi

Schaum:
"I too am, if nominally now, an Episcopalian."

i guess you're "episcopalian" in the sense that farnaz is "jewish" and richard dawkins is "anglican". it's a cultural thing, not a belief about "the nature of it all".

btw, i did notice that you said, "...prefer to think..." regarding our "life energy". i took that to mean that that is what you think. many people, despite the apparent impossibility of it, are able to believe what they want.

"He told us that during the Vietnam era, he received bomb threats because he would not stop teaching his class in protest of the war."

Wow, way to change the subject, Publ1us!

I'll be the first to agree that there are whack jobs on the right and the left - I have no love of animal rights nuts, for starters. But, funny thing, I thought we were talking about Congress and presidents. No way have you made your case that booing policy statements (after the statement - not interrupting it) is the same as a personal slur. For all your "critical thinking."

PS. As a liberal, I'm taking personal responsibility for the spelling problems with 'violence'....and here I'm accusing
republicans of not being able to spell!

Shameful.....

Publ1us sez:

'Historically speaking, Liberals are far from being in the clear. I was at dinner with one of my favorite professors who has taught at my University for decades. He told us that during the Vietnam era, he received bomb threats because he would not stop teaching his class in protest of the war. Instructors who valued education were afraid to start their cars. Those using intimidation were liberals.'

I was in that particular war, and I protested it afterward. The threat of violence at any time for political purposes is a step away from legitimate protest and a step toward terrorism - although we didn't identify it as such back in the day.

There are domestic terrorists/political activists that would do violence on both sides of the political spectrum, and there's no point in denying it. Ideology without compassion is a dangerous brew and knows no political limits or boundaries.

We do tend to see violant/lethal protest much more from the right these days, particularly regarding the issue of abortion and abortion rights. I'm pretty familiar with guns, and the guns rights wackos and NRA sycophants are a potentially dangerous breed as well.

This is a simple matter - terrorists are those politically motivated individuals that would do violance to others, when their own lives are not directly threatened. The natural law of self-defense is thereby violated.

Carrying concealed weapons en masse is not a reasonable response to the very remote possibility of an isolated threat of deadly force by a solitary maniac. Such a mass movement by disparate brothers in arms, is far more likely to spawn lethal results.

That said, I live in South Carolina, and Joe Wilson is an horse's ass of the first rank.....if he's somebody's hero, he sure as hell ain't mine.........

Arminius,

BTW, What did you think of the aphorism from Lazarus Long you posted?

Farnaz,

"Thanks for the Lakoff book recommendation. I suppose you know he's one of the giants of research on metaphor. It's on my list, and I will get to it."

Yes. I do. Of course his book on math approaches it from that point of view. Why I think his work has value is that he is working on making the metaphorical aspects of mathematical reasoning clear. Often, the abstract subjects have lost contact with the basic insights that started the fields. So I am enjoying Lakoff's analysis as he moves to reconnect it.

Still, I have little familiarity wit the rest of his corpus. So if you could recommend any particular parts of his work I would appreciate it.

Pamsm:

You're correct, it is funny that I used a credible source to present a factual event! I've been pondering the irony of it all evening!

Is critical thinking a special skill? I didn't use to think so, I once thought it was a fairly standard expectation for anyone graduating from high school. But after working on the Hill, I realized that it's not a criterion for serving in Congress. How much less to write on the WaPost's comment boards!

Of course Wilson apologized as a result of pressure, but he certainly did not have to. South Carolinians do what they want, and many of his constituents would have supported him without his apology.

Now, back to you, Susan. In your second paragraph you try to shift both recent and historical blame away from liberals for being "uncivil." I think my article proves that President Bush encountered his share of rudeness from the joint sessions. I really fail to see the difference, except that one man yelled at President Obama and a chorus yelled at President Bush. Twice! No apologies!

Historically speaking, Liberals are far from being in the clear. I was at dinner with one of my favorite professors who has taught at my University for decades. He told us that during the Vietnam era, he received bomb threats because he would not stop teaching his class in protest of the war. Instructors who valued education were afraid to start their cars. Those using intimidation were liberals.

The blame lies on all sides, but the Liberals are unable to accept any responsibility.

Publ1us: "...but Rep. Wilson offered an apology."

Under duress. His party leaders told him he must after Rahm Emanuel demanded it.

Publ1us: "You see, I can dissect an article instead of totally agreeing or disagreeing. It's called critical thinking."

Well, isn't that special. Seems odd to me that you would offer a link to support your position that the Democrats were just as bad, when the article you linked to desn't agree with that. Just sayin'...

Pamsm:

I read the whole article. The author and I evaluate the same evidence with different conclusions. To me, yelling, "You Lie!" is just as inappropriate as booing or especially chorusing, "No!" The difference to me is that an individual can be held accountable in the first instance while responsibility is diffused in the latter. Both were uncivil, but I don't remember any apologies from the chorus, but Rep. Wilson offered an apology.

You see, I can dissect an article instead of totally agreeing or disagreeing. It's called critical thinking.

WalterIFC:

Yes, you are right. I am not religious. Gave up on organized religion a long time ago. I practice buddhism as a philosophy, not as a religion. And christianity just doesn't work for me. I observe creation, and infer a creator...of some kind. I do not believe in god. Nothing new here.

Schaum,
that sounds more like philosophy than religion. more like unitarianism.

"The "Chatanooga Choo-Choo", no doubt."

Not quite! It is at the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, a tourist railroad. But it is not a bad designation at all.

Arminius:

Yes, a very small world. I can remember when hunters were allowed on the reservation to pick off the excess deer...until they realized there was radioactive contamination!

"The operating steam locomotive is in Chattanooga"

The "Chatanooga Choo-Choo", no doubt.

WalterIFC:

"is it "thomas jefferson's jesus" (jesus the non-miraculous moral teacher) that you believe in?"

Exactly.

Schaum,

Small world, I grew up in Oak Ridge.

The operating steam locomotive is in Chattanooga, where I lived for 15 years before moving to the Atlanta area.

"an operating steam locomotive in East Tennessee,"

I was born and raised in East Tennessee (Jefferson City/Knoxville) and I had no idea there were operating steam locomotives left there.

Schaum,
i said, i was "surprised to hear you admit of the mythical nature of jesus/osiris the godmen."

you said, "Really? Why is that?"

well, i just thought that belief in jesus as the son of god, his death on the cross, and his resurrection were central tenets of christianity - even christianity as "loose" as episcopalianism. no?

is it "thomas jefferson's jesus" (jesus the non-miraculous moral teacher) that you believe in?

Persiflage,

"Just write 'Dad' on the top of lid with a Sharpie and we're done :^)"

Nicely done! My wish is for my ashes to be thrown into the hot firebox of an operating steam locomotive in East Tennessee, to be spread about, out of the stack of that beautiful machine, into that part of the world that I love the most.

RE: Cremation -

My daughter still keeps the ashes of her last two family dogs on the mantle in the original cardboard boxes - straight from the pet crematorium.

I would like to think she'd at least give me the middle position, and possibly trade up for a coffee can or maybe a mason jar - I feel that I deserve the added panache.

Just write 'Dad' on the top of lid with a Sharpie and we're done :^)

"Indeed it is! It is the (to me welcomed!) death rattle of an old order that is passing into deserved oblivion."

Let us fervently hope that the degenerate remnant of the republican party consumes itself with its own hatred and despite.

But let us also fervently hope that a decent and vibrant group arises to replace it. The dynamics of America, as set forth in our Constitution, needs two parties that can, yes, quarrel, but still talk to one another and move forward. Or at least not backwards, which is what the republican party rump now demands.

Publ1us,
You need to read the headline and the last three paragraphs of the article you linked to to see the difference.

The Democrats may have booed Bush's ideas, but they didn't yell out ad hominem slurs.

Publ1us:

"You're right, it is more than incivility!"

Indeed it is! It is the (to me welcomed!) death rattle of an old order that is passing into deserved oblivion.

Pam,

"If you get embalmed...ugh."

I totally agreed. Cremation for me, for sure. And to others, I know full well that it is "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return." To dust I shall return, in the form of ashes. And my dying curse be on anyone who pumps garbage into my dead veins.

Oh please, Susan, use reason for a change! I thought that's what Atheists are all about. I quote the beginning of your post, "Incivility is much too mild a word for what has been going on in our country for the past few months."

You're right, it is more than incivility! But it has been going on for more than a few months. Another example from recent history? President Bush Jr. booed in during a joint session in 2004, along with another chorus and some "NO!'s" in 2005. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Dems_heckled_Bush_but_Wilson_was_different.html

Come on, Susan, it was observed, documented, and repeated! Scientific Method to the max!

WalterIFC

"surprised to hear you admit of the mythical nature of jesus/osiris the godmen."

Really? Why is that?

PamSM.

"If you get embalmed...ugh."

Quite right! I'd prefer to be dumped, unembalmed, in a hole dug near the root system of a nut-bearing tree.

WalterInFallsChurch:

" i thought the physical ressurection of jesus was pretty much belief #1 for christians. no?

nice theory about energy going somewhere after "death"... but not really supported by facts. while "alive", your "life energy" is fueled by the bits of the greater energy you ingest as hamburgers and so on. no calories, no "life energy". ashes to ashes. sorry."

Yes, belief in the resurrection is kind of top of the list for christians. However, they were not, by far, the first to promulgate the idea of resurrection.

As for the life-energy thing...if you read my post carefully, I said "I prefer to think..." I did not say it was established fact.

Schaum,
"We know that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. At "death" that energy goes somewhere, becomes something. I prefer to think that it returns to the greater energy by which the universe(s) was/were created."

episcopals, as far as i can see, seem perfectly harmless, and accomodating of modern science and morals. i admit i'm kind of surprised to hear you admit of the mythical nature of jesus/osiris the godmen. i thought the physical ressurection of jesus was pretty much belief #1 for christians. no?

nice theory about energy going somewhere after "death"... but not really supported by facts. while "alive", your "life energy" is fueled by the bits of the greater energy you ingest as hamburgers and so on. no calories, no "life energy". ashes to ashes. sorry.

"At "death" that energy goes somewhere, becomes something. I prefer to think that it returns to the greater energy by which the universe(s) was/were created."

It does. We're all composed of elements, and those keep getting recycled. Much depends on what sort of disposal you choose for your remains. If you dropped dead naturally above ground, your energy would be converted to the flesh of vultures, bacteria, and flies (via maggots), then to the birds that ate the flies, the foxes and cats that ate the birds...on up the food chain and back to step one. (If you drown in the ocean you cycle through fish and crabs.)

If you choose cremation, most of your energy is converted to light and heat. Some carbon and other minerals are left.

If you get embalmed...ugh.

Hi, Schaum,

I guess the best connection I have with another religion is with the Pagans. These wonderful people, still persecuted, by the fouler types of so-called 'Christians', hold to the utter beauty of Creation and the interconnectedness of all life. They are wonderfully tolerant and accepting.

Well, for me, the idea that God is unnecessary is a null statement. I know that God IS. No, cannot be proven, no, not a burning shrub or a light on the road to Damascus. All the product of a spiritual experience after over 30 years of being a non-believer. And no, I will not try to explain.

Yeah, Paul had his problems. But I Corinthians 13 pretty much redeems him, because that is very close to the true heart of Christianity, at least as I know it.

We all see through a glass darkly.

Arminius:

"Is it a mirror of how all life is connected? "

For me the beauty of buddhism (as a philosophy, not as a religion) is that it teaches that everything IS connected. It does not suggest that everything is explanable, at least in this life. The connectedness of everything strikes a very deep chord in me...I intuitively think it is true. The universe(s) is/are a mystery. I cannot think that there is only one truth. I suspect that no religion, or philosophy, has it all right. We physically operate on electricity, a force of energy. We know that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. At "death" that energy goes somewhere, becomes something. I prefer to think that it returns to the greater energy by which the universe(s) was/were created. For me, god is not only untrue, he is also unnecessary. For me, only a creator (of some kind or other) is necessary. And for me, 'energy' is a satisfactory explanation of/about that creator.

St Paul was a very disturbed man.

Schaum,

I follow my chosen path - or was it chosen for me? - but do not deny the truth of others. Perhaps all religions are connected into a fantastic mixture, and we cannot figure it out. Is it a mirror of how all life is connected? I do not know. Too many mysteries.

I understand what you believe and follow Arminius. I too am, if nominally now, an Episcopalian.

The whole story of Jesus is, to me, merely a christian retelling of the story of Osiris -- son of god, murdered on earth, resurrected, ascended to become a god himself...it was a very popular religion that was one of christianity's principal rivals. For me, the stories are too identical to be mere accident. And I don't see how one can escape the fact that the god of the OT is also the god of Jesus and the NT.

Walter,

I hold that there is but one God, and we all view him, as Paul said, through a glass darkly.

It is a terrible and bitter conundrum. I have no answers, but I keep seeking.

arminius3142,
"The God that Jesus taught, the God of love, is much different than the God of vengeance that appears in the Hebrew Scriptures."

it's the same god, right? both christians and muslims claim the jewish god as their own. no doubt the n.t.'s better than the o.t.. for christians, he's (you've) just evolved, morally. i guess for muslims he evolved into the peace-loving jesus, then devolved back into joshua's war god as revealed to muhammad...

Walter and Schaum,

The God that Jesus taught, the God of love, is much different than the God of vengeance that appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. This has always bothered me. Needless to say, I follow the God of Jesus.

"But I think they would have had better success with a movie about Wallace even though few people have heard of him."

They made the movie about Darwin because it's the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, The Origin of Species. November 24, to be precise.

Schaum, you said,
"...the god of the bible...is the worst of all criminals."

the idea of him helping the israelites invade canaan is morally repugnant, yet exalted in the bible. bin laden likes the muslim versions those kinds of verses. when atta crashed into the wtc, he was doing god's work, he thought.

Walter in Falls Church:

"if you believe in a god who would intentionally flood the world to kill "every living thing" except noah et.al., well...you've got a mean god who could justify just about any moral atrocity."

Agreed. I've said for years that, if the god of the bible exists, and as described, then he is the worst of all criminals.

pam, you said,
"Sometimes I think I live in the most benighted country in the world. :("

indeed. it's appalling. evolution is not even controversial among scientists. it's just the best explanation we have for the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

in that movie trailer someone told darwin he had "killed god" and that evolution shows that god didn't have a "plan" (for us). of course evolution doesn't kill ALL gods, logically speaking. but, it does kill the cartoon god of the literalist bible. and literalism is the real problem. to be a literalist one has to be intentionally ignorant. they develop a distrust of smarty-pants scientists and moralists (humanists especially).

if you believe in a god who would intentionally flood the world to kill "every living thing" except noah et.al., well...you've got a mean god who could justify just about any moral atrocity.

Smallmoderate:

Here's a thought -- try a vacuum pump.

Onofrio:

"Schaum,

According to the lurking faux Dan, we are idiots both. So you're probably quite Heinesque yourself :^)"

Ha. I'm much too profane for that, I'm sure. Though faux Dan has placed me in good company, for which I am grateful. Still, I learned long ago to live with the disapproval of inferiors.

Ah, the ever-fearful Moderate, frightened of everything he cannot control or influence. I bet you suffer from small man syndrome...and probably with good reason.

Pamsm, I just went to the movie you gave a link to--the Darwin movie--and they had a little voting area which asked would you see the movie or do you think Darwin was a moron or have you not heard of him and I voted I would see the movie. After I voted the results so far of the voting popped up and 75% of people said they would see it and that 21% (if I remember correctly) think he is a moron and 3% never heard of him. So maybe there is hope for the movie in America. But I think they would have had better success with a movie about Wallace even though few people have heard of him. If about Wallace they could have pushed it to be about being out in the wild and people could learn about both Wallace and Darwin. What I mean is Wallace's life was more exciting than Darwin's--in fact was a really exciting life, which lends itself better to film.

About proposing a particular poetic form--such as the sonnet--and having people try their hand at it, I would not attempt at all because I have tried in the past and failed utterly. The only time I can write something somewhat passable is by having an idea and just letting it find its own form. I think people that can flesh out a particular form--confine themselves deliberately to such--are probably the best, most true poets, because it means they cannot be constrained by a form imposed on them. But maybe I just think so because I cannot do it at all.

"Yet it is absolutely wrong to assume that because some people have poor writing skills, they are unintelligent. The converse applies, as well, needless to say."

This is true - I know a few very intelligent people who are absolutely hopeless at spelling, syntax, punctuation...

Still, it's difficult, when reading that sort of writing from people you don't know, not to picture them as drooling and dragging their knuckles.

Harder still when they practice random capitalization and can't manage subject-verb agreement.

Onofrio,

You know I couldn't write a limerick to save my life - let alone a sonnet! (:^U
-----------------------
Not so, I'm certain. But screw your courage to the sticking place, etc. You could write in either form, I've no doubt. (I don't think I'm ever wrong about this sort of thing although frequently about much else, I do err.)

Moderate,

Glad you rejected the Lazarus Long pronouncement. A colleague once proclaimed that no one who was not well acquainted with Joyce's "The Dead" could call himself/herself educated. While I sympathize, having no small fondness for "Dubliners," the silliness of this sort of claim soon becomes apparent.

The same is true of equating bad writing with stupidity. I live day to day with some of the most egregious assaults imaginable on the English language. This is the case for anyone anywhere in the US, including the ivy league colleges, who teaches composition and/or literature. Yet it is absolutely wrong to assume that because some people have poor writing skills, they are unintelligent. The converse applies, as well, needless to say.

Farnaz,

You know I couldn't write a limerick to save my life - let alone a sonnet! (:^U

Farnaz,

"A maverick how?"

Swears *like a trooper*, ignores dress codes, eschews due jargon, takes psychologists seriously...

I should count myself fortunate that Susan J. is not of the I-told-you-so variety. Awhile ago, I suggested we all take up writing formal poetry, beginning with the sonnet. This was after the Great Limmerick Outpouring of yore, before the advent of Onofrio, when the thread was suffering from lack of verse.

Susan posted requesting that we forgo muse pursuit lest leaden lyrics proliferate across the web. Well, there was quite a response with some accusing SJ of an anti-poetry bias. :

I still think that trying one's hand at formal poetry is a good idea. Anyone can do it, and, over time, acquire skill. That is not to say we can all become Onofrios (or Heines), but we can develop some ability.

That is one of the things I'd like D12 to try, just for fun, to enjoy himself.

Schaum,

According to the lurking faux Dan, we are idiots both. So you're probably quite Heinesque yourself :^)

Onofrio,

She is a registered psychologist, working in what's called a Mobile Assessment Team in central Sydney: a species of the outpatient model Persiflage mentioned. She has 20 years experience in this setting. Unusually for a psychologist, she works mainly with cases of schizophrenia. The psychiatrist who oversees her unit often defers to her judgement - but he is something of a maverick.
-----------------------
Interesting! A maverick how?

Hi Moderate,

Thanks for the Lakoff book recommendation. I suppose you know he's one of the giants of research on metaphor. It's on my list, and I will get to it.

I've got to tell you, though, I don't hold out much hope. There appears to be neither rhyme nor reason for what I readily grasp of math and what I struggle with.

Persiflage,

Thanks for sharing your grand-daughter's situation. Good to learn that the diagnosis offers hope :^)

Farnaz,

You to Persiflage:
"Btw., I'm not surprised that it was a psychologist who correctly diagnosed your daughter. I think psychologists are better diagnosticians and better therapists than their MD counterparts."

I'll pass that one on to my wife :^)

She is a registered psychologist, working in what's called a Mobile Assessment Team in central Sydney: a species of the outpatient model Persiflage mentioned. She has 20 years experience in this setting. Unusually for a psychologist, she works mainly with cases of schizophrenia. The psychiatrist who oversees her unit often defers to her judgement - but he is something of a maverick.

Just found this article about a movie that I've been looking forward to since I heard about its debut at the Toronto Film Festival: http://tinyurl.com/kwqlry

Typical. Sometimes I think I live in the most benighted country in the world. :(

Schaum,

"Daniel, are you a masochist? That would explain why you so enjoy humiliating yourself in public by posting this crap. Better stuff can be found on the walls in bus station men's rooms."

You project into the mirror, and see... Yourself.

Arminius:

""Anyone not familiar with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman that can be taught to feed and clothe himself, and not make messes around the house."
- Lazarus Long"

Why yes, I am well familiar with that aphorism of Lazarus Long, and all of the others as well. I considered it at some length, and its invitation to a sense of structural superiority. A brilliant 1940's science fiction writer though he was, this is an unnecessary divide among people of talent and good will. So after due consideration I rejected the aphorism. What do you think of it?

A fake Daniel12. Interesting.

Anybody heard from CCNL lately?

Onofrio:

Truly, you are a Heine! You can make a song out of anything. I am jealous.

Farnaz, here's a wiki review of oppositional defiant disorder as typically diagnosed in teenagers - my granddaugter has shown many of these symptoms since an early age, however.

I visited a couple of weeks ago after two years, and she can be exceedingly loud and abrasive, and occasionally physically destructive - and fortunately quite smart (but with virtually no insight at age 15).

My daughter didn't have these qualities, so the origin of the condition seems to be completely psychological in nature, rather than 'organic'. The prognosis for improvement is hopeful, but is by no means ironclad.

And in the end, it's impossible to lay blame for this condition on any one causal source, bringing us back to the nature vs nurture conundrum.

The condition is increasingly being seen across a wide population of teenagers, and the acting out is very often limited to immediate family members - seldom with peers and other outsiders, although this social expansion of conflict could emerge at any time later on.

Obviously text book definitions kind of fall by the wayside when it's your child - but the description is nevertheless quite accurate.

Outa here for now - may catch up tomorrow although a thread change is coming.

regards, Persiflage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Persiflage,

Should have written "your grand-daughter."

Persiflage,

What is oppositional defiant disorder?

Btw., I'm not surprised that it was a psychologist who correctly diagnosed your daughter. I think psychologists are better diagnosticians and better therapists than their MD counterparts. Unsurprisingly, Szasz received more encouragement from psychologists and social workers than he did from his colleagues.

Persiflage,

More....

There is, as you know, often a detectable "heredity" factor. I knew a man whose mother was schizophrenic. At thirty, so was he.

The hospital you worked at sounds exceptional. When I was in college, I worked at one, myself. It was a warehouse. Doping patients was the order of the day. There weren't enough psychiatrists, and many of the aids and orderlies should have been shot. Ditto the nurses.

In a way, though, I can't blame them. It was and is the system.

Persiflage, I think the treatment of the mentally ill is a disgrace. Gigantic asylums had and have problems. People are released into halfway houses long before they are ready, and, as you say, there are frequent staff changes, just to mention one problem. Homelessness is one outcome of this.

Schizophrenia are also known to skip medication as are psychotic depressives. When a schizophrenic is fortunate to find the right medication, s/he can be greatly helped. But, then, there is tardive kinesia, etc.

T

continued…….

My granddaughter was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder about a year ago, and had been under heavy medication for several months. My daughter had previously worked as a psychiatric nursing supervisor, and did not second guess the psychiatrist's diagnosis.

On another medical friend's advice (because the symptomology/behavior did not seem to meet the criteria for bipolar disorder) my granddaughter was re-tested .... negative for bipolar and positive for oppositional defiant disorder with depression.

She's still a handfull, but now lives with a condition that she's likely to grow out of, and with a much more promising future (for everyone involved).

Of course the outpatient model is everywhere, and hospitalizations are generally brief. I'm indirectly acquainted with the care of the mentally ill in my work, and while group therapy is in place (mainly for socializing, I'm convinced) medication is the heart of psychiatry.

Yes, medication does reduce suffering and makes mental illness manageable for many - and has been shown to be very effective in the long-term treatment of depression.

But as you say, there's virtually no collegial cooperation, no cross-fertilization of ideas and discoveries within the field. Everyone's turf remains a highly protected, impenetrable, and personal domain. This is no where more true than the eternal rift between psychiatry and psychology.

I've seen the same thing enduring conflict between ophthalmologists and optometrists. Most of this unwillingness to share originates with physicians and a pervasive attitude of superiority that must be part of the early training.

BTW, the person that correctly spotted my granddaugter's mis-diagnosis happened to be a psychologist.

And so it goes....

continued…….

My granddaughter was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder about a year ago, and had been under heavy medication for several months. My daughter had previously worked as a psychiatric nursing supervisor, and did not second guess the psychiatrist's diagnosis.

On another medical friend's advice (because the symptomology/behavior did not seem to meet the criteria for bipolar disorder) my granddaughter was re-tested .... negative for bipolar and positive for oppositional defiant disorder with depression.

She's still a handfull, but now lives with a condition that she's likely to grow out of, and with a much more promising future (for everyone involved).

Of course the outpatient model is everywhere, and hospitalizations are generally brief. I'm indirectly acquainted with the care of the mentally ill in my work, and while group therapy is in place (mainly for socializing, I'm convinced) medication is the heart of psychiatry.

Yes, medication does reduce suffering and makes mental illness manageable for many - and has been shown to be very effective in the long-term treatment of depression.

But as you say, there's virtually no collegial cooperation, no cross-fertilization of ideas and discoveries within the field. Everyone's turf remains a highly protected, impenetrable, and personal domain. This is no where more true than the eternal rift between psychiatry and psychology.

I've seen the same thing enduring conflict between ophthalmologists and optometrists. Most of this unwillingness to share originates with physicians and a pervasive attitude of superiority that must be part of the early training.

BTW, the person that correctly spotted my granddaugter's mis-diagnosis happened to be a psychologist.

And so it goes....

Gee, Daniel12, you're correct. You know, your post was reminiscent of Spiderrman's, but I don't think he would have taken things that far. (Wonder whatever happened to him, btw.)

At all events, good you brought it to everyone's attention. Signing in has helped with "impostors," I think, certainly with the multiple anonymi, but I guess nothing is foolproof.

Farnaz,

My parents both worked in the state mental health institution, and I spent many an hour around the mentally ill over a number of years while growing up. They never seemed extraordinarily different to me, for that reason. Music therapy and gardening were common parts of the treatment regimen.

At maximum capacity, that particular institution held over 3000 patients - and then the outpatient model of mental health care was instituted in the 1960's and many of these patients, sometimes lifelong residents, were literally put out on the street - living in half-way houses and managed primarily by ever-changing dosages of powerful medications. As you say, the side effects can be as bad as the condition they're prescribed to treat.

Case management became the domain of social workers, and still is. These days, a good many state mental health facilities have been razed, and the outpatient model of care continues apace - because it's vastly less expensive in every way, for one thing.

On the positive side, many patients with mental illness can be reintegrated into family and community life, as long as they stay on their meds - which manic depressives historically do not like to do. And then there's the mis-diagnosis syndrome that often afflicts psychiatric diagnoses and following treatment.

Daniel12,

No one deserves to be the butt of such treatment.

I will look out for that extra _

OK, Daniel12, I will retract my comment.
Damn, people, do we have more imposters here? This is really a septic-tank tactic.

Attention to everyone here. Someone is using my screen name and speaking as if me--an imposter in other words. But you can tell the difference because it is not completely my screen name. The person between Daniel and 12 has an underline, namely _ Go back and look. That person is trying to make me look completely and totally like a vainglorious fool. The person wrote that my poetry is worth two books of anything you other guys and gals can write, that Farnaz is a drug addict (and how can anyone know such a thing unless Farnaz were to say something?) and other stuff. But I guess I brought it on myself. I guess we can safely say that when a person starts to make himself a fool that others will help him.

On Thomas Szasz:

Szasz's critique was and is useful, although he takes some arguments too far. With respect to diet, for instance, there is evidence that schizophrenics whose condition is caught early enough can benefit from special nutrition programs.

In his assumption that in "treating" the mentally ill, we serve only our own purposes, he gives insufficient attention to the suffering their condition engenders. I have known persons diagnosed as bipolar and have seen enormous pain up close and personal.

Surely, we have a long, long way to go in providing effective treatment for the "mentally ill." The side effects of some medicines are worse than the conditions they are meant to treat. Some drugs work well for a while, but then cease to be effective.

Alternative and complementary therapies, e.g. music therapy, diet, etc., should be explored further. One problem, common to many social domains, is specialization. New treatments come up, greeted like threads out of the labyrinth, make money, and disappear. Or, they continue on as more cutting edge approaches surface, but the knowledge gained by one group of practitioners is not shared with others.

D12,

You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice.

--Shakespeare, "Measure for Measure"

Arminius,

Per your observation, self-delusion is beyond the reach of any known legitimate Rx.

Too bad LSD is no longer on the books...it's been known to have remarkable transformative effects under controlled conditions - no kidding.

Check out it's history in wiki if you're interested.....

I believe we can now safely close the book on Daniel12 once and for all.

Although Szasz is seen as something of an anarchist in psychiatry circles, he does have a point regarding the entropic state of psychiatry - curing nothing, living by it's own unquestioned definitions of madness, and controlling 'chaotic' mental behavior almost exclusively through the use of drugs.

The pragmatic and artful management of different dosages/menus of suppressive anti-psychotic meds is why they get paid the big bucks. Lord knows the pharmaceutical company sales reps must maintain permanent quarters just down the hall.

Is it art,science, allopathic magic, or just another lucrative medical specialty?

Psychiatry could use a major breakthrough about now.......

A moon-addled moth,
willing the pane a portal,
beats his wings to dust.

Onofrio, you and Schaum are both idiots. One page of my poetry is worth two books written by both of you. And Farnaz is a complete phoney. I don't think she is even a teacher. She knows nothing about genius even when it is in front of her. She is probably a drug addickt.

Schaum,

In this Szasz is right *I think*, though I can't agree entirely with his take on psychiatry.

You can see I've been Wikid :^)

The mollusc shelled in our skulls oysters this mote we infest.

Farnaz, Onofrio, Persiflage:

Never mind. I remember it now....

`The battle for the world is the battle for definitions.` - Thomaz Szasz

Thanks anyway.

Farnaz, Onofrio, Persiflage:

I partially remember a quote from sometime in the past, trying to find it and the attribution-and I can't find my Bartlett's.

'all the universe is fight over definitions' or something like that.

Does this ring a bell?

A few posts back, someone said about liberals:

"If you're a republican you're a racist for disagreeing with the President"

That is not what I believe. I believe that if you diagree with Presidebt Obama on policy matters, then you are only a racist if you are also holding up a sign that says "Obama, go back back home to Africa, you Jungle-Bunny."

I think this should set the record straigth.

To just a comment from Daniel. Thank you for replying. I wish I had not written that unfortunate sentence because immediately after posting I realized how silly it was--for at least a couple reasons. One, I should have not been so dramatic about the killing God thing. I meant we have come to disbelieve in God before we have come to understand justice.

But even saying that is silly because then it would read every fool knows we have come to disbelieve in God before, etc. etc.
Really no one is a fool on this problem. This problem is really difficult. And I wish I had explained further or not said anything at all.

But here goes...We have come to disbelieve in God before we have come to understand justice, and really over all of human history we have not understood because along with believing in God we have believed in an absolute justice from God. And we have come to understand we do not understand justice by not believing in God and wondering if there is absolute justice at all--which seems impossible without God. In short, it seems justice is relative, but this is not to say humans in not understanding justice have been totally ignorant--on the contrary, every human society has struggled with determining justice. In fact it seems for all relativity of justice there are certain things humans agree on so profoundly it seems as if there is an absolute justice. But even those profound things are up in the air now for we really have no idea how much we will remain as we are now or change into something which has a different understanding of justice.

Hope that explains things. Sorry for the dumb sentence.

Daniel12,

You: “Unfortunately, even the fool knows we killed God before we ever learned the meaning of justice.”

Me: How can anybody or anything kill God?

God more likely doesn’t exist. If he/she exists, he/she is supposedly without beginning and without end, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent… It looks to me it’s hard to kill an entity like that, if something like that exists. Do you believe that God is as described above?

Was Jesus God or 1/3 of God? Still, how 1/3 of God can die? Even if God him/herself wants to die, what for he/she may want to? What exactly is the difference for humans before and after 1/3 of God death?

Do you believe in God because you have a factual proof that he/she exists or just because you have faith?

Daniel, these are not rhetoric questions. I don’t believe in God but if you present me a factual proof that God exist, I’ll believe. By factual I mean a proof that at least can pass through a critical thinking process.

P.S. Should you feel like helping me with these questions, please keep your comments short (no pun intended).

Daniel12,

Impossible - impossing - imposing ... just following your lead

To just a comment, I liked your poem--at least it seems a poem to me, even if the form came from elsewhere. A synthesis...but now for its analysis...

Your words: "An imposing (you spelled imposing wrong, but join the crowd, I know nothing of spelling) feeling, a nude beauty I dread to be dreaming....

Close, my friend, close. But I have no problem doing the dreaming--the meeting, talking to, and trying to start a relationship is the problem. I have no idea about that and do dread it. I have pretty much given up. And at my age--45--the opportunity for something closes more rapidly each day.

As for the rest, a lost man? I am found only too well. I know exactly where I am, and I think I have a pretty good idea of the world I stand in. The notion of "finding oneself", that was gone long ago. In fact I wonder how it was that I did not know myself. Or rather I do know--I had to find myself because there was absolutely no help from others. Not that they are at fault. I can understand why they never knew--and still do not know--who I am.

As for the higher nobility part, I like that. Read Baudelaire and his notion of the dandy. As for bad man, I think you know that best. One of the Godless--most probably--and even the religious are a little too Godless these days--all that is left is for oneself to be the judge of man.

Unfortunately, even the fool knows we killed God before we ever learned the meaning of justice.

Daniel 12 ................................Daniel12 Version 2.0

Minute after minute.................Minute after minute
an impossible feeling .............an impossing feeling
could it possibly be beauty......possibly a nude beauty?
I happen to be stealing?..........I dread to be dreaming

No, I am a bad man................Yes, I am a lost man
I cannot possibly.....................from the higher nobility
be stealing beauty...................even if I am naughty

Only the good man can...........As only a bad man can...

Probably the simplest and most obvious thing one can say of politics these days is that most people just hate what the other is doing, nothing more. Life in our great Republic.

Whatever party we happen to be in all of apparent history apparently supports and obviously little of history is apparent other than lessons in selfishness.

There is really nothing positive to say about the average person engaged in politics. There is nothing new, nothing original said--no real scheme apparently which can really solve something or we would be doing it.

Everyone rushes to buy an obviously working piece of technology; in our great
Republic there is great invention and no one has qualms about buying something decent from somewhere else. I have a Japanese car and always go with Sony stereo. And I like Toshiba computers.

But are solutions such as our day to day inventions evident in our politics? Rarely apparently, because it seems no one can agree on a solution. Each person thinks his solution is correct but obviously the other person does not matter.

But why exactly is it solutions are so difficult to arrive at in politics? Could it possibly be that there invention is quite difficult? But that never crosses the minds of people. They think precisely there things are easy--in fact that anyone knows "the obvious solution". But just try designing a cell phone or a computer or even one of my favorite inventions these days, those little plastic toothpick/teeth flossers one can buy 90 to a pack at the drugstore--floss picks they call them.

Not so easy when one is pressed in such fashion--but no doubt that is an uncomfortable thought. Better to just turn back to the assh*les on television, radio, because we always know the problem is THEM.

I suppose it would be too much to ask why so much television and radio in the first place, try reading a damn book and learning something rather than listening to the know-it-alls of the right and left.

Pathetic. I would dearly like to see our politicians try to invent even the simplest object, or compose some poetry which apparently I write so badly. Not so easy when one has to sit down and APPLY ONE'S SELF ONLY to a task.

Much easier to gather in a group and "know everything", even though apparently what the groups know best is how to make the other feel like sh*t. But that is what people can do best. Even an A-hole such as myself knows that.

Life in our great Republic.

Hail Onofrio,

As above so below - your own mirthful self Down Under gives us yanks north of the equator and other allies battling the Dark Force, many a joyful moment ... thanks for that!

Here we can agree with Thomas Hobbes, Daniel's latest read - without governance man is destined for continuous war and never-ending conflict, although with his recommendation of monarchical oversight, not so much :^)

Methinks the idealism of the Age of Enlightenment is truly a thing of the distant past.

I'm preparing to waltz out to my own private billabong just now, to see if the fish are biting and the creeks are rising....

I think the slithering minions of the night have been contained for now.

as ever, Persiflage

Today, the police are out protecting our homes in some neighborhoods. In one, secular, young men are sitting on the stoop, biceps prominently displayed. Lookin' bad-assed. Walked by them earlier. Grim young fellas, they looked antsy. Had a kind of make my day look.

Don't think much of anything will happen this year, though. Maybe next year, if we have to deal with racist, lunatic threats yet again. (We will.)

CCharles1's parting shot (pun intended):
"Peace, im done with this line of posting"

Peace????!!

arminius3142: you said you shoot back? or shoot first? Why would you shoot at USA Goverment troops? Thats what they will be called. Our Civil Army. or better yet, our militia.

What a colossal heap of horse poop that is. I will shoot at white-sheeted bigots, not army troops. Never at army men, I am a vet.

You may deny being a bigot, but anyone with more than just a few brain cells to string together knows otherwise. You are only fooling yourself.

Well, i still have not heard one thing that Obamas has done that can be called good for the american people. This is the problem... not his race.

Why call me a racist? Its those kind of unfounded type of comments that make all of this racist.

Yeah those guys in Somila are protecting there Home, they are the "militia" and i guess there navy is the pirates. Keep thinking that way, it justifys it all.

arminius3142: you said you shoot back? or shoot first? Why would you shoot at USA Goverment troops? Thats what they will be called. Our Civil Army. or better yet, our militia.

I suggest some of these people look and investigate for yourself. Look at the facts, not the rethoric. If you can point out one good thing Obamas done.. then maybe you may have something other then Racism to talk about.

persiflage: And your correct, it may take several years to see what works and what didnt.

I will say this. We have lost control of Isreal. We have made them, and armed them. Soon we will reap what we have sown. Then the picture will drastically change. Wont be any more talk... it will be left up to you to survive. Then the time for talk will be over and you will have to make a stand. We shall see if your stand is as strong as your words.

Peace, im done with this line of posting, You all have a good day, later.

As to the Obama effect, we'll know more in 3-4 years, or more likely, 8 years.

When leadership in the private sector fails due to greed, mis-management and lack of federal oversight, as just occurred in the USA and elsewhere globally, then government has no choice but to step in and attempt to save the situation & mistakes will no doubt be made.

Why was any of this even necessary in the first place? Well for one thing, the government turned a blind eye to what was happening in the financial and real estate sectors, including their own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federally insured mortgage programs, until it was too late.

So now we have that dreaded government intervention - the great 'socialist' threat, a completely disingenuous but effective distortion of the truth the panders to the incipient hysteria of the masses - and oh so easily excitable they are! Liberal elitism? Nope, just plain fact.

Regarding the issue of national healthcare and 40 million uninsured citizens - must be yet another socialist plot by a leftist government.....or more scare tactics from covert operatives on the right?

That this is being orchestrated by pros is no myth, no whacko conspiracy theory. And where the hell is Karl Rove these days anyway? Hiding in plain sight on Fox News.

The RNC really does think it's present (and hopefully future) republican supporters are that stupid - because it's proven out almost every day in Town Hall meetings, Teabagger rallies, and elsewhere, across the nation. A groundswell of support .... but for what?

The republicans have nothing but the same old same old - more religion and less government. What century is this anyway??

The next thing you know, home schooling will qualify for government education vouchers - then we're really in trouble. Let the brainwashing begin......

Get real, all you anti-Obama types. It ain't gonna happen.

Dear Daniel12,

I wrote no.6 in my
Encouragement
that you did not post doggerel on the blog. Guess I'll have to remove that point.

Poetry really has no place on a blog unless it has some application to the object of the discussion. Then it can add a little. Chris Everett (when I was active a couple of years back) used to post some good lines, and I had fun responding.

Find your favourite poets. Then try to see what appeals to you and what works for them. For example: my favourite is Yeats, the greatest lyric poet of the 20th century and certainly the greatest Ireland ever produced--and there are some great poets there. I love his lyricism, his ease with the rhythms of words. I love the way his poetry moves . Try The Curse of Cromwell for movement. The Four Ages of Man as well and the latter in 8 lines only!

I like Eliot too, but poetry should sing to me, Eliot's language can be too intellectual, although Four Quartets is probably the greatest religious poetry of the 20thc. and Murder in the Cathedral the best play..but evenso much of his poetry is incomprehensible. That is probably what makes me unhappy with Onofri's poems, too tangled and complicated. They don't move..

I read your work, I can't say very much about it. Your prose is capable but your poetry is very uninspired. Unbelievably I am in agreement with Farnaz here. I don't think it's poetry. Anyway, I would keep trying with your prose but leave the poetry alone for a while.

Best,
MC

Looks like we have recently suffered an invasion of rabid sewer rats.

The comment of "...a group of armed blacks riding in the back of a 4x4 driving through your niegborhood[sic]. Then you might get the picture." got my attention.

I get the picture, you don't. Those blacks are the local militia, formerly known as the neighborhood watch. They are protecting their homes and the homes of their neighbors, including me, from an invasion of bigots like ccharles1, who will be all gussied up in their newly-washed white sheets, intent on burning a cross. What ccharles1 does not realize is that there are a bunch of liberal honkies like me who will shoot back. Hell, sometimes we even shoot first.

Needless to say, conservatism is inherently negative (see William F. Buckley's founding motto and mission statement for the National Review: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop"). But since President Obama's election, the conservative nabobs have been yelling STOP before anything even starts. They have truly fulfilled William Safire's colorful alliterating appellation for overbearing naysayers -- "nattering nabobs of negativism."

I went and read the link. Sorry, but i dont really see much there. Normal goverment stuff.

so im waiting for something good that Obama has done good, and had a nice ending?

Those things i named.. those was purly his decision and only by his pen he has changed alot.

As for the Stimulus Package... personally i think that was a failure. The numbers are still coming in, but dosnt look good.

Kinda went the way that the "Clunkers for Cash" deal. It was a well intentioned deal, but was poorly concieved and executed. I think the Stimulus will end up the same way.

What about his 37 Czars? How much is that costing the taxpayer? You can bet it is in the millions.

It dosnt really matter.. we are in for the ride together. When it comes down to it, parties will matter very little.

America's voice will not be denied!

As to the national/political divide, this polarization has been there for decades and no one, least of all Obama, expected it would disappear with his administration.

Trying to rectify the multitude of deep-seated problems brought on by the previous 8 years of functionally maladroit executive adminstration otherwise known the 'Bush Effect' is daunting, without a doubt. It is taking a monumental corrective effort, and these are not without certain risks.

For example, there's the recent economic/fiscal free-fall - kind of like sky-diving with parachute failure, and hoping like hell the reserve shoot will open in time...

What the operatives of the RNC and republican party are doing, given their complete lack of a constructive agenda, is effectively whipping the expected anti-Obama sentiment into a negative voter frenzy ..... always hoping against hope that they can once again ascend to the throne of power.

All of this without offering anything in return. And I do mean anything at all. The political divide has become more like a bottomless chasm, if you ask me.

Daniel12:

"Minute after minute
an impossible feeling
could it possibly be beauty
I happen to be stealing?

No, I am a bad man
I cannot possibly
be stealing beauty

Only the good man can..."

Daniel, are you a masochist? That would explain why you so enjoy humiliating yourself in public by posting this crap. Better stuff can be found on the walls in bus station men's rooms.

TheBloddletting,

"Enjoy your angst and your anger. It'll eat you alive! :-)"

Mine will eat you first - you wee vol-au-vent.

:^)

Curious about one thing: what does Bloddletting mean? Is it supposed to be Bloodletting?

See, the reason for good grammar and correct spelling is to eliminate confusion about your ideas/intentions in the minds of people who read what you have written.

TheBloddLetting,

"Ne'er-do-wells gather thee to their bosom"

A saucy prospect, and devoutly to be wished. I'll gladly be gathered to a dusky, wrong, hell-warmed bosom, certes.

Bloated bloodyblonde be blogblowed...

"No more republicans - no thanks. "

Indeed!! God save the US from another republican administration.

What you are, CCharles is an independent racist, so clearly indicated in the part of your post that I excerpted about Somalia, et al. They're out there, and you're one of them - live with it.

Bloodletting - I expect the substance of my post went sailing right over your head (or maybe left over your head) - bad spelling is the least of your worries.

The incessant nastiness of the tone coming from the right is only consistent with their take-no-prisoners politics....a republican rally has all the political complexity and subtlety of the 'running of the bulls' at Pamplona, or maybe a soccer stampede - people can get killed that way.

And imagine their current heros being none other than Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin!! May the gods/non-gods give us their eternal non-presence in Washington, D.C.

But wait - they didn't even show up for the big non-rally! Our non-prayers have apparently been answered.........

Check out the link below for more on the new President's first 100 days - and what it is taking to pull us back from the precipice of a national disaster created by past republican administrations over a couple of decades.

No more republicans - no thanks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

TheBloddletting wrote:

"This country is quickly dividing and taking sides, and to me, that's the scariest thing of all."

Thou sayest a true thing.

"Van Jones was an archtype..."

Is it possible that you are trying to say 'archetype'? Actually, you mean 'archetypal'. You should study spelling and grammar with Daniel12.

Here! Can we just clear this up once and for all?

Here is the Left's version: "If you're a republican you're a racist for disagreeing with the President"

Here's is the Right's version: "If you support the President, you're a commie pinko fascist".

Guess what? Talking about it will not change a damn thing. In fact, it will further harden the opposing polar opposites. You can subtly, and slyly state that it must be racism for this reason or that...doesn't matter. You can slyly state that it must be communism, socialism, or any of the other "undesirable" -isms you'd like...again, doesn't matter.

This country is quickly dividing and taking sides, and to me, that's the scariest thing of all.

Literacy can be dangerous in the unskilled hands, and absolutely dangerous in the skilled hands.

Enjoy your angst and your anger. It'll eat you alive! :-)

What has he done that is good for america?

please just answer that. I'll wait around for a little bit to see if any one responds. Keep your personal attacks on me. They dont bother me. The Above question is the only thing that matters to the American People!

Interesting. The last few posts suggest that On Faith has been infiltrated by relatives of Daniel12. I wonder how crossed their eyes are.

CCharles1 writes:

"Well im an independant. "

You can't even spell your beliefs: its 'independent'. But I'll grant you this: the idea of a racist independent is not complex, and is certainly one which you appear capable of handling.

onofrio: At least your literacy shines through! Sling thine arrows and pummel thy fists at the clouds of right-eousness. Ne'er-do-wells gather thee to their bosom and cry in their never-ending depths of hell of victim-hood.

Persiflage

"right-wingers are chronically bad spellers"

That sort of comment could get you labelled a spellist (:^U

It simply reeks of write supremacy.

I beseech you, spare a tender thought for all those poor Rightworthies - ignorant through no fault of their own - whom you are forcing to learn victimology, putting them on a par with sallow gripers, dusky whiners, and AK toting hoons from Somila.

For shame.

persiflage, really? That's the best you can do is to attack someone based on their spelling?

Pathetic. Yet typical of the liberal persuasion. I expect nothing better. Do you see? This is how the level of discourse grows more horrible by the day,a nd you contribute to it, yet you will never admit your failings.

And look...I just contributed too. Siiigghhh.

Well im an independant.

Your worried about my spelling? Yeah thats what you should be worried about.

Van Jones was an archtype Black Panther, what did you miss? They say it was a smear campaign. But call it like it is. And maybe Black Panthers is ok with you, and that your tax dollars go to funding that organzation. (which tax dollars are going to)

The bad part, is that when all this was brought public. Not One question was answered. I understand why, there is no plausible reason why he was there.

This also showed the media bias. It was unmistakable and clearly seen by millions

And your Pro- Obama... give him his props. What has he done that has been positive for americans? Giving Gay Partner rights to Federal Benifits? Opening up a Cuba for free travel to the USA? Demanding the Honduran leftist ousted president be reinstated?

Any thing good would be cool. I havnt seen any good yet. All I have seen him do is sidestep our voice and do what he wants that to me is "Anti-American"

So get off his Race and state what he has done that benifited the USA.

And when you cant find the good, and your in a indefensible position, then play the race card. No biggie, we are use to it!

Dont worry, i think the future holds some big twist and turn, and you will have to hold on tight and actually stand up for what you believe. Be interesting to see how that goes. :)

My pet peeve:

Our most recent virulent anti-Obama posts by threaders of the republican persuasion leads me to one inescapable conclusion -
right-wingers are chronically bad spellers, so it's really no wonder they can't think straight.

This is a problem that goes way beyond the occasional spelling glitch, and in my experience is consistent from blog to blog.

Mis-spelled thoughts and mis-spelled words - which comes first, we might wonder?? And as to racism......

CCharles sez:

'When the USA looks like Somila and you have a group of armed blacks riding in the back of a 4x4 driving through your niegborhood. Then you might get the picture.'

Now how can that possibly be mis-construed as a racist statement? I see these republicans have been completely misunderstood after all.........

I think you missed the point. For all of your nice pose, you have basicaly said nothing but promoted racism.

As for Obama... if any thing he has done been sucessful, then maybe the american public would be more "pro" Obama.

Never did i think that a president could change so much with a stroke of his pen. I thought almost everything went through congress and is a majority rule. As we learn that isnt true.

I dont agree with the Czar appointment. Not any of them can pass a confirmation hearing. Once you investigate them it looks crazy. Van Jones is the example. And the questions of Van Jones was never answered!!!!

So it isnt a Black/white thing. We are proformance driven, and his proformance has been dismal at best.

When the USA looks like Somila and you have a group of armed blacks riding in the back of a 4x4 driving through your niegborhood. Then you might get the picture.

I looooove how the left is all of a sudden noticing the level of discourse at an all time low.....guess what turds? You strated it when Herr Clinton was getting BJ's and people wanted him held accountable. Since then you've been shrillingly clamoring for the heads of republicans. Now that you're in power, the repub's doing the same exact thing as you. Now you want to feign surprise at how bad discourse is?

Stupid tards. Republicans and Democrats are BOTH bringing this nation down.

Racial whining has become de rigeur it seems. So long as there is gain in keeping the pot stirred, the mealy-mouthed who hang their own failure on racism will keep it going. Victim is the only identity many want to promote.

Minute after minute
an impossible feeling
could it possibly be beauty
I happen to be stealing?

No, I am a bad man
I cannot possibly
be stealing beauty

Only the good man can
and there are so many
of them

Would that they would break
the bank and show us
a bit of poetry

But no, they save themselves
for the merely self-congratulatory

Which they hide so well
in mutual flattery

Again, I speak of poetry
of which I know nothing

Where is it among my friends
who are paragons of morality?

Alas, beauty love the good man?

Not necessarily

Too many bastards have created
art over all of human history

One of those sad facts of life:

Being good does not necessarily
translate into leaving
a beautiful memory

Farnaz:

""The current nauseating use of "impact" as a verb..."

Mine is substituting 'infer' for 'imply', and vice versa.

Moderate, thanks for the Penrose book tips.

He is an extraordinary fellow. The nature of consciousness is one of my big interests - here's Penrose on quantum consciousness; for anyone willing to swim in water over their head. It takes the Tao of Physics to another level!

regards -

http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/penrose/penr.htm

Farnaz,

Thee:
"The current nauseating use of "impact" as a verb..."

Ain't it the truth! This one especially brings out the hobby-horsing, fulminating pedant in me.

Turns any context into a car crash.

Strews cripples and corpses everywhere.

Deplore, deplore, deplore...

Bless you for nailing it :^)

Farnaz,

Thee, of your malversifying ami:
"At all events, my pal, loves his miserable creations, fully aware that they are horrific, always attaching hilarious commentary to them."

And thus he redeems himself and his work. Most salutable :^)

We had a comedian down here who turned his bad poetry to shtickfodder. It was excruciatingly, magically hilarious.

For some, it's a short step from the ridiculous to the sublime.

If I had a pencil
I would paint
your face

It would have to have
a trace of color
unnamed

Or you would
not admit
me to your place
of family

You want your beauty
and you want
everyone to know
the secret history

You want it to be
the name of God

Even though your God
is bleeding

You want me to be careless
trace your laugh

And your cheeks do have
a plump familiarity

But I turn away
and pretend to know
that I have seen
only nothing

So you can laugh
and say my face
is lying

And I can smile
and say we both
are warming

And then we kiss

And say that was
really something

And we know we have
all the morning

To trace the lines
of the coming day

A teardrop

It tells the tale
of the price of living
the pain received
and even worse
the pain of causing

One brushes it away
but it might as well
be a salt sea

The King of Kings only
can part the waves

The drift is best we all
can seek, between
the tears down
our face

Some say we live only
to love and be loved
in return

Some say there is a heart
that can be won

Others talk about jewels
others are polishing

But no one knows
the least believing

We all dream and hope

We all wear rings
of an ill-disguised fortune

We all speak in tongues
of the snake weaving

And we all think we know
everything

Proof is in the tongue

And we hide it while kissing
or roll it in the mouth
of another person's being

We turn and walk away
only to return
to our forever ever dying

And some say it was nothing
but a dreaming

Where shall the tears
lead us to today?

Another person's arm
that we hold as if a holding?

Tears down the face
and some call it ecstasy

There is no place to be

We all live and know
the salt of our sea

Farnaz,

"Frankly, my math brain is a bewilderment to me. There are concepts I grasp easily, and some, which, for no discernible reason, I struggle with. I have spoken with mathematicians about my peculiar math conceptual apparatus, and they have been unable to explain it to me."

My wife has said almost the same. Having tried for decades to help break that block with little success, I am happy that my son seems better equipped to help. He recommends George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez' book Where Mathematics Comes From as a fresh source of metaphorical analysis of math concepts. Sounds like a pretty good read and I have added it to my list. Definitely worth a look.

Evening, Moderate,

Are you familiar with this?

"Anyone not familiar with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman that can be taught to feed and clothe himself, and not make messes around the house."
- Lazarus Long

Persiflage:

"Moderate - I grappled with the Penrose book, and it's worth the struggle although very difficult in places for a non-mathematician such as I :^)"

To be honest, even with a career in applied math and systems engineering going back near four decades now I find the book slow going too. For me, it is a book to put in the bath room and work through over a period of a couple of years. Still, it rewards the effort.

I would recommend two of his earlier books, The Emperor's New Mind, and Shadows of the Mind. Neither is as intensely mathematical, as The Road to Reality. Both give his insights on the methods of knowing in modern science and mathematics. Much easier reads, and worth the trouble. I found them great fun, and it is possible you will too.

Is it worth the effort? I think so, because the progress of physics and mathematics have always been inextricably linked. Also, statistical hypothesis testing has become linked in a fundamental way with epistemology.

D12,

Should have written "'hopefully,' as a sentence adverb."

D12,

On language: English is very flexible at the word level, admits coinages more and more freely, the movement of words from one part of speech to the other less so, but it happens.

The current nauseating use of "impact" as a verb, "famously" to mean either celebrated or notorious after the fact, "hopefully" as an adverb, etc. Some skilled writers make them up as they go along.

Changes in morphology and syntax, however, are generally quite slow.

Daniel12,

You could profit well from reading carefully Farnaz' latest post directed to you. Look, dude, forget the poetry critiques, it is your ego trips that are a major turn-off to all here, and your not-so-subtle racist lines are really repugnant. Are you incapable of learning? You are reaching no one here, only pissing them off, and that includes me.

D12,

It isn't that I dislike your poetry, but that you are unable to write poetry. That doesn't mean you cannot learn to if you so desire.

Onofrio, on the other hand, can and does. Why attack him for that? Why not appreciate his word play? Word play is what poetry is, word and rhythm play.

You are getting a lot of attention simply because, I suspect, you serve as a diversion. That is not a compliment.

You cannot use this thread for ego gratification and expect to get a serious response. Insanity about "race mixing," a Blond Beast obsession with genius does not win friends and influence people.

Pam,

All true, especially about the nature of language.

Yes, I wrote off Daniel12. I am having a mild guilt trip about that. Maybe, to make a really big stretch, I feel rather like Frodo about Gollum, that perhaps he might be saved from his ignorance and whatever it is that weighs him down. To be sure, some things that he posts here are really bad. Maybe I really am a hopeless idealist at heart. Probably I am wasting my time. I have tried it before with CCNL and Spidey, obviously with no positive results.

Indeed, Arminius, language does change. It evolves, for better or worse. This happens very rapidly in languages that are only spoken, much more slowly in written languages, and slower still in written language where spelling and grammar have become standardized and dictionaries exist.

Daniel12's petulant disinterest in learning when to use "that" and when to use "which," does not represent an evolutionary step in English.

You are more patient with him than I, although I recall you saying last night that you were done with him. I find his bigotry repugnant, and his megalomania certifiable.

Farnaz, if you dislike my poems write some of your own. Onofrio too. The both of you talk about poetry virtually every week. Give us some beauty.

About Aristotle and the Scholastics and contemporary Christian theology--your advice on such to me, I have no idea what you mean. All I did was reply to your question in a joking fashion. Nothing more.

Daniel12,

Good luck with your genius. Must be off. Word to the wise: medieval torturing of Aristotle by Scholastics does not inform contemporary Christian theology, not for the most part, at all events.

At all events, so much for genius. I'm contented with what little oneness my thoughts can bring me.

The first time I heard Itzak Perlman play, I thought there most be no shadow between his idea and reality. But we all have moments like that. Once he said that he valued teaching above performing since "a teacher does not know how far his influence may extend."

Onofrio,

Again, I misread. You are wholly right. Scary, moi. Also Paul. Too bad he is no longer with us. I would like to have heard him speak.

I have a friend who writes the worst verse I've ever read, except perhaps, for that of Daniel12. At all events, my pal, loves his miserable creations, fully aware that they are horrific, always attaching hilarious commentary to them.

Farnaz,

Re Paula: apparently she was based on the late Paul Neil Milne Johnstone, a peer of Douglas Adams (RIP).

To Farnaz on Aristotle, I forgot where exactly I read it--unmoved mover in Aristotle--but when I googled it it said he discussed it in his metaphysics. It just jumped into my mind when you asked can God create a rock so heavy even he can't move it. It jumped into my mind of course by the very words unmoved mover. In other words God creates the rock but does not move. In fact Aristotle would say God was never moving in the first place, does not need to move to take action, because he attracts everything or repels everything by non-physical action. Below is a cut and paste from Wikipedia showing Aristotle's argument for the existence of such.

Aristotle's argument for the existence of the unmoved mover progresses as follows:

1)There exists movement in the world.
2)Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3)If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4)Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5)From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6)From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

I was making a joke more than anything else, not defending Aristotle let alone the existence of God.

Just a joke. Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift? Yes, he can, for he is the unmoved mover. Sorry if everyone feels there was no wit to it.

Wow. Strangest conversation I've ever seen. For the record, I am Scots and do golf, but only at cheap publics and always walking, and playing exclusively found balls. Not much elite about all that. Except for my sweet used Titleist irons, bought for a song on Craigslist. Just tonight hit the 3-iron 235 yards, straight as a string, stopping one foot from the edge of the protective water hazard I never dreamed I could reach. What else in life is so sweet?

That being said, here are my two points:

"Btw., If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so large and heavy that even He can't move it?" - But why assume your conditional? There can certainly be a god who is not triomnic - omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. None of that is the least bit necessary. Such a god might indeed invent a rock too big for him to lift - and I suspect has, many times, one of them being human nature. What, indeed, if god is just a stranger on the bus, trying to find his way home?

Second, as a privileged member of society in every stripe who has worked with those who are not, I can say with full conviction that racism is thick in America, almost thicker than ever for being the thing nobody can every admit and discuss honestly. We're lousy with it.

Wow, this is as dumb an article as I have read in a long time. It will serve as the bar by which other articles will have to measured. Let's see what the House and the Senate look like after all these racists red necks (aka citizens) vote in 2010. There was over a million of them in DC recently. Lots of violence reported right?

Always my pleasure, Onofrio

Thanks, Schaum, for clarifying. I don't recall Aristotle on God, the bulldozer, but one never knows.

DANIEL12,

I have read Aristotle. Perchance thou might'st
let us glow from your glorious light. Chapter and verse, please.

Onofrio,

Byron on Southey: exquisite choice, and a graceful bullseye!

Salutes galore.
---------------
Merci, but Paula was the bullseye. Does the real Paula still dwell among us? Is the lass matrimonially unencumbered? Might she be interested in our lone threading versifier? What say?

We might play cupid to the Promethean virtual.

Farnaz, scroll down and read! That was Daniel12's answer to your question to him about god's ability to make a rock he couldn't move!

Shaum,

Don't recall recommending Aristotle to you....Are you confusing me with another blogger?

Primum mobile? Prefer La Dona e Mobile. More sensible.

Btw., Aristotle via?

"Yes he can Farnaz, that is as good a reason as any why he is called the unmoved mover, try reading the very Aristotle you recommended to me."

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Farnaz,

Byron on Southey: exquisite choice, and a graceful bullseye!

Salutes galore.

Daniel12:

Although I did not approve of Fermi's politics, I will say this for him--he was literate.

I don't know that mathematicians cannot understand one another's fields. I've worked in interdepartmental programs and haven't found that to be the case. They may be uninterested, but that is a different matter.

As for me, I don't understand, never have, why what some consider difficult is simple for me, what some think easier, more difficult.

Math/music are closely related. Read Leonard Bernstein. Artists are generally good mathematicians.

Joyce is to Cummings as clouds are to spaghetti.

Btw., If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so large and heavy that even He can't move it?

Schaum,

Thank you for your kind words. You are always so nice to me. I am at a loss.

Persiflage,

Mon frere

Thee:
"Tilting at windmills is a sport for philospher kings"

And for addled beanpole dons on scrawny nags :^) (yours truly)

Thee:
"The things a foot soldier has to do in order to spare themselves further embarrassment in defeat - know when you're beaten, stay down, maintain a respectful silence, and next time ... try getting a horse first."

Alternatively:
A longbow stills the tally-ho and muddies the heraldry real quick. "Aim for their horses", twang, down goes the fleur-de-lis.

It does take a keen eye, though, and a steady arm.

Glad my wordplay tickles the most serene prince.

If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so large and heavy that even He can't move it?

Yes he can Farnaz, that is as good a reason as any why he is called the unmoved mover, try reading the very Aristotle you recommended to me.

Farnaz, I really liked your observations on yourself concerning math. Someone said, I forget who, that even great mathematicians possibly have at best an individual style, like a master musician does, able to play really only by particular style, turning everything as best as possible into the particular style, because unable to alter personal style. In fact mathematicians often specialize in a particular area of math and are incapable of grasping other areas. What makes it even more convincing is that mathematicians notoriously are incapable of original work after the age of 35. One of the exceptions was the guy some years back that proved Fermat's last theorom--Wylie his name. In other words it seems the great math gift is something natural and does not require any life experience. A particular style of one's brain. Yet by these particular styles entire new areas of math are opened--its language literally developed in a new direction. If we were to take all this with respect to writing, we would say people like Cummings and Joyce--people working their way to a different usage--are equivalent to these mathematicians with individual style and the rest of us users of language are mere peons, the equivalent only of the average mathematician who has a superficial view and nothing more. Pretty humbling to consider math in relationship to what everyone considers sole language, the typical babbling whether in the street or the office of the pretentious English teacher.

Farnaz, thats the best laugh I've had in days! Thanks.

"Language does NOT change as the result of the uneducated misusage of one ignorant buffoon."

Yet language will change because of a big number of ignorant buffoons, just as it changes because of a lot of good writers. We're all in this mess together, and the core of language is what is spoken, just as much as what is written.

Daniel12,

If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so large and heavy that even He can't move it?

"...perhaps the highest act of writing is to invent a new language to communicate better what we think."

Yeah, that'll work! Great idea! Have at it.

And Pam prefers to just go back to the grunting of cavemen. No, wait, that would take too much work. Better to just stick with the commonplaces of today--especially because all of human history has been working up to the modern liberal.

Persiflage,

Agree the jury is still out on genius, in general, although, locally, perhaps not in specific.

:]

Yeats had a monumental ego, mythologized himself in his autobiography, was riddled with insecurities. Joyce was different. Beckett was the bet of the lot.

Moderate:
For Farnaz, it is a pretty serious look at Penrose' philosophy of science. It has an interesting discussion of the interplay between physical, the mental, and the Platonic mathematical worlds. By my lights he one of the best people writing on it today.
-------------------
This, I think, might be better reading for Persiflage. Frankly, my math brain is a bewilderment to me. There are concepts I grasp easily, and some, which, for no discernible reason, I struggle with. I have spoken with mathematicians about my peculiar math conceptual apparatus, and they have been unable to explain it to me.

I regret it, since I enjoy that math which, for whatever reasons, I grasp readily, and envy such as you.

To Persiflage from Daniel. I have no idea to what extent Hobbes is influencing me. I never read Hobbes before the present day. I am just finishing up his Leviathan. I really like him when getting past the middle part of his book. Much of the first part is a discussion, actually his recommendations, of how a government should work, and many of the details seem somewhat strange and difficult to understand from the modern perspective. But once one gets past those parts one arrives at a clear presentation of what he thinks Christianity is--he discusses the history and what it should be to the man of his time. He goes into the Bible and interprets this and interprets that. One of the interesting things he says is that the concept of the trinity--father, son and holy ghost--is actually foreshadowed by the whole history of the Bible and Christianity. He said Moses' relationship to God stands for the father: Jesus is of course the son; and the holy ghost is the spirit of Christ living in the apostles and those they baptize into Christ. I suppose such an observation is a commonplace among practicing Christians, but it was new to me so I found it interesting. I read too many books to know exactly how I am being influenced. But I can tell you my perspective on the possibility of being influenced to the point of plagiarism. What I say, concerning my writings, is that if anyone suspects an idea of having been plagiarized, then go ahead and consider it plagiarized whether I have plagiarized or not. Furthermore, and to decisively break free of, well, we know what kind of people, I say take all of my work and consider it not mine--all of it. Furthermore anyone is allowed to take anything inside my work and use it as they wish--although I suppose people will first check to see if the idea is really mine, because they would not like to plagiarize from a plagiarist. In fact anyone is allowed to publish the entirety of what I have written under their own name. These are the types of decisions I make to just get beyond, well, again, we know what kind of people...the unoriginal, the petty, the carping, the typically modern right and left wing political. Just another one of my attempts to try a different way of seeing things.

Arminius,

Of course language changes. It changes because groups of people, segments of society, make changes in usage, usually through conversation.

Language does NOT change as the result of the uneducated misusage of one ignorant buffoon.

An interesting website - with commentary on Joycean prose e.g. Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake, etc. Could just anyone pull this off, or would it take someone of singular talent and insight? Probably yes .......

http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=45

Pam, let's face it, language changes, and that includes grammar, punctuation, spelling, word order, and what have you. Otherwise, we might still be speaking Elizabethan English - which is a shame, in a way, since it was, IMHO, the apex of the English language.

I would submit that writing is the same, and I learned this in a somewhat related field, calligraphy. Our teacher told us that the rules of calligraphy are ironclad, that we must learn them by constant practice, and abide by them utterly. Once they are engraved in our minds, our hearts, and our souls, and are automatic.... then, and only then, may we start to break the rules and be really creative.

The problem with Daniel12 may be that he has not yet grasped the rules of writing, composition, etc. I am no expert on that, so may not judge. I have problems with him, but cannot criticize his spirit and will to strive.

PAMsm:

"Surely we haven't posed any questions that he can't answer.."

Ask him if his all-powerful god can make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.

Pamsm wrote:

"Do whatever the hell you want. Few are reading your whiny screeds anymore, so it doesn't really matter.

For grins and giggles, I invited my "mixed race" (half white, half black) house mate, who is completing his doctorate in English Lit., to read several pieces of Daniel12's drivel. He read, shook his head and spoke one word: "Crackpot".

"...perhaps the highest act of writing is to invent a new language to communicate better what we think."

Yeah, that'll work! Great idea! Have at it.

Walter,
Still no sign of Peter at the other thread, I see.

Perhaps tonight, or has his vacation already begun? Surely we haven't posed any questions that he can't answer...

To Schaum from Daniel. You took issue with this and said I am the most ignorant person you have ever encountered:

"Language changes and incorrect usage does not automatically mean poor usage of language."

There is another ignorant person you might want to encounter Schaum, his name was James Joyce and most people who know literature have judged him the greatest writer in English of the 20th century.

That is, we call it English but the debate is open on precisely the book for which he is considered great: Ulysses.

Try reading that book Schaum and tell me what you think. Is that correct usage of English? Is that correct usage at all? Joyce's point--among many others: We do not have to accept the "rules" of our language, in fact perhaps the highest act of writing is to invent a new language to communicate better what we think.

People here have been talking a bit about mathematicians. What is it to be a great mathematician? none other than that one invents one of its parts of language--a language which is still being invented. A great mathematician does not merely use the mathematical language he is born in, he invents literally a new vocabulary, syntax, etc. Before analytical geometry there was no such thing. It took Descartes to bring it into being. He literally invented a new and better way of describing things.

Newton and Leibniz the same thing with the calculus. Would that a writer would have the courage for that. Joyce did. So did E.E. Cummings. But I suppose it is much easier to just look for a misplaced comma, incorrectly using "which" for "that", or whatever. So easy to be a high school English teacher. Or rather not so easy. One can hardly get anyone to read a book.

Language changes, eh, Daniel - so no reason to observe any rules of grammar?

Why not drop your punctuation, then, and leave out the spaces between words and paragraphs? Why even try to spell things correctly?

The sole reason for language to exist is to get your thoughts across to another human being. Agreeing on rules facilitates same. Throwing rules out the window inhibits same.

Do whatever the hell you want. Few are reading your whiny screeds anymore, so it doesn't really matter.

Walter:
"then there's ALL THOSE OTHER shots where you're far short of perfection...that drive you crazy."

One man's Mede is another man's Persia, I suppose. When I want to be driven crazy, I try to rebalance the reflecting mirrors in my telescope.

Persiflage,

I have been on a golf course exactly twice in a long life.

The first was in college. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon, I was bored, and a friend invited me to come out to the course and watch. So, when it was his turn to tee off at the first hole, I was standing 50 feet directly to his right. When he smacked the ball, it passed about 3 inches in front of my nose at a horrendous speed. I decided that golf was much too dangerous, and left.

The second time was some years later, a different place, in the winter, after a snowstorm followed by a moderate ice storm. A bunch of us got together some sleds, and headed for the golf course, which was hilly. We had a grand time, and the people who had to repair the damage must have cursed us mightily!

well, i see many of you are not golfers...

Schaum, said,
"What AM I missing? I seem to be the only person on earth who is not into golf."

well, there's hitting the sweet spot on the club. there's noting like it. the pure transfer of energy is spectacular, and when done properly, effortless. many people talk about the comeraderie and the scenery and so forth, and that's all nice, but for me its the 5-8 "perfect" shots i hit in a round. it is absolutely astounding how far that tiny little ball goes. where a baseball home run is on the order of 350 feet, tiger hits it 350 yards. even i, a relatively high handicapper (crappy golfer) hit it 270 or 280 when i get a hold of one.

then there's ALL THOSE OTHER shots where you're far short of perfection...that drive you crazy.

arminius3142 you said,
"golf...comes across as elitist."

i understand your saying that and there is a lot of pretension in certain high-falutin clubs. most places aren't like that. on the "public" courses i play there seem to be a lot of regular joes.

--away for the weekend--

Arminius, I don't play golf but my son-in-law is a fanatic - even works at a local pro-shop. An expensive, tedious, and time-consuming pasttime if you ask me.

If you don't like contending with a host of other golfers playing at a near-infinite variety of skill levels and speeds, don't ever get on a public golf course.

I recently visited his pro-shop, and he had to step away in order to break up a reported and rapidly developing fight between twosomes - from my vantage point, the altercation appeared to be between an older man and an older woman.

I'm not sure who had the advantage in that particular stand-off, but middle fingers were flying. I'll bet they don't do that down at the Social Security office!

I used to like pool in another lifetime....

PS. I'm having to sign in virtually every time I leave this website and return - very, very annoying! Maybe it's just my computer......

Schaum,

Golf as a mandatory course is a violation of the constitution, it is a 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Solid proof of man's inhumanity to man.

When I was in High School, phys ed made golf mandatory in the senior year. I was forced to play it...I just could never see the point. Somebody said a game of golf is the waste of a good afternoon. I agree. But it certainly is popular.

"Thank god. Another human who doesn't play."

Schaum, we are not alone! Both my best friend and I are of direct Scottish descent. I once remarked to him that golf was invented in Scotland. He replied, "Yes, and I have never quite been able to forgive them for that." I must have laughed for five minutes.

Arminius:

"Schaum, I do not play golf, I am too grass-roots to do that. I do admit that is a difficult game, but comes across as elitist."

Thank god. Another human who doesn't play.

Schaum, I do not play golf, I am too grass-roots to do that. I do admit that is a difficult game, but comes across as elitist.

Also, regarding the benighted and beleagured Daniel12 - he is right about language, it certainly does change, and I am sure you realize it. I am beginning to think we are being a bit to harsh on him, and I am guilty as any, since he is too easy a target. I am beginning to think that he needs to be helped, not bashed, but I'll be damned if I know quite how to help.

Daniel,

Here's the Hobbes link from a website that I've recommended in the past. How does your writing and/or thinking reflect your immersion in Thomas Hobbes? This is not at all obvious.....

Personally, I like what David Bohm has to say about reality - quoted on the same page. Hobbes had kind of a dour and dark view of man, no?

By the way, your last couple of posts had a clarity that is conspicuously lacking in in long and rambling multi-part posts of the recent past. Most of us are not writing for posterity, but are merely expressing opinions.

Posterity is what published works are for...

regards -

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Thomas-Hobbes-Leviathan.htm

WalterInFallsChurch:

"...and to drive yourself crazy, there's golf..."

What AM I missing? I seem to be the only person on earth who is not into golf.

"Language changes and incorrect usage does not automatically mean poor usage of language."

You win, Daniel. You are without question the most invincibly ignorant person I have ever encountered. There is not even the flickering candle flame of understanding or art within you. You cannot write; you cannot think; you are content to be what you are. You are utterly empty. You are a wasted human. I will not invest another minute in you.

To Schaum from Daniel. I have a long history of retracting what I say? I am not honest? What a load of B.S. It is precisely because I really do strive to understand, to communicate myself and all the things that interest me--virtually everything--that bothers everybody. It is precisely because I am who I am that people can see, judge and either accept or reject me. You apparently feel you see me correctly, which is why you have judged me. You did not arrive at your judgement because YOU BELIEVED I AM LYING BUT BECAUSE I AM COMMUNICATING ALL TOO CLEARLY AND YOU DISLIKE IT. At least have the courage to admit the obvious. But I think we know now which of us is the prevaricator.

Language as I know it really has no rules. I have not been able to discern any rules except the most obvious and straightforward. Language changes and incorrect usage does not automatically mean poor usage of language.

One would think especially an atheist would know this, for the atheist holds no word as sacred. But even the atheist flounders when it comes to the true word, what is language. A clue for the rigid in usage of language: read many previous writers in one's native language.

Take Hobbes for instance, in his book Leviathan the modern has trouble at first because the modern comes to a pause at the semicolon. But for Hobbes the semicolon is often used exactly as if a comma, and if one does not know this one flounders, incapable of making sense of the writing--for the rhythm is broken, our day to day.

And I am not even going to get into a discussion of correct word usage, for new words appear daily. Language quite simply is an always becoming--whether forward or backward, left or right, or just different. We think our thoughts and they change our words, but a natural change--no matter how strange--in words slowly leads us to another way of speaking, writing, thinking.

We should know by now language changes us. It remains for us to really begin to change language. But for that one needs a higher or different or worse thinking,--but of course the higher thinking to perpetually change language, no life for the worst.

We should try our best. Therefore my rule for language: let the thinking dictate the writing.

arminius3142, you said,
"Chess is an ideal. However, poker is a mirror of life itself, combining skill, luck, and being clever as a fox."

...and to drive yourself crazy, there's golf...

http://www.ehow.com/how_2135530_italicized-text-simple-html-programming.html

Schaum, I've never seen opsys code either. On thinking about it, this is strange, because UNIX is pretty much open source. C can be terribly Byzantine, even to an experienced programmer, especially if it is badly documented, or not documented at all. So you are probably correct, it would be very difficult. Programming an opsys is an arcane art, true rocket science.

"Where do you come off judging me?"

All authors are judged by their readers. Thats one of the results of presuming to place yourself before the public eye. If you can't live with it, tough.

As for you not being mixed race? We have only your word for that...and since you have a long history of retracting and reexplaining yourself and what you say, ....well, you aren't the epitome of credibility, are you.

As for your fear of being published...yes, its cowardice. I doubt that you'd ever find any publishing house willing to risk the expense and public ridicule of attempting to publish any of your drivel. But there is always the vanity press. My guess is you'd lose your shirt.

Don't like being judged? Stay away from writing!

Walter,

Chess is the ultimate example of a game of skill. Did you ever read Steinbeck's "Sweet Thursday"? Doc proves that it is impossible to cheat in chess.

Chess is an ideal. However, poker is a mirror of life itself, combining skill, luck, and being clever as a fox.

Also, don't look for me on your chess site, I ain't that good!

To Schaum from Daniel. Who are you Schaum? Where do you come off judging me? I cannot recollect you even posting infrequently here. What makes you even more ridiculous is that not only, apparently, you know nothing about me, but you have gathered somehow--I know not how--that I am mixed race. I am not mixed race. All frequent posters here know that. And there is nothing I have written on this thread which says anything like that. So where does that leave you? The ignorant one. Truly ignorant because probably not having read anything I have written on other topics here on on faith, and stupid too because somehow deriving I am of mixed race when I am not and never said anything of the sort. Perhaps you can ask everyone here if what I say is true. Thanks for being my judge after having arrived at your decision from nothing. Try not to have anything to do with a court of law.

As for holding people hostage with my posts here, and that I should try to get published to demonstrate my courage, no one has to read my posts here. All they need to do is treat them like any book they dislike and move on. But unlike everybody here I have the courage to admit when someone says something correct, namely you are quite correct about me being afraid to publish--in fact I am terrified. I can see quite easily that I will be despised, and I would hope that everyone has in turn the courage to say it is not anything to do with the art of writing by which they despise me, but everything to do with what I say. Quite simply everyone disagrees with what I say and therefore in their petty minds I am nothing--I cannot possibly be a writer, an artist.

Never mind that George Will of the Wash. Post wrote an article a couple days ago in which, upon speaking of the National Endowment of the arts--the liberalism of it and its attempts to work hand in hand with the liberal government (so much for art taking the independent high road!)--he pointed out that one of the reigning tenets in art these days is that ANYTHING IS ART, EVEN PEOPLE'S DAY TO DAY BEHAVIOR, THAT SUPPOSEDLY PEOPLE ARE SO SOPHISTICATED NOW THEIR DAY TO DAY LIVES SHOULD SERIOUSLY BE CONSIDERED AS ART.

That is, their lives, not my life no matter how much I struggle with the best books, strive to think and write--no, my life is not art at all, I have no talent...no talent to be a liberal.

Arminius, I've used Unix and Xenix both, and knew C was a primary component of the operating system. But I've never seen source code for the OS and can only imagine what it looks like! I know nothing about Java.

Schaum,

The neat thing about C is that it is like assembler, you can do anything in it, including writing operating systems and compilers. A good deal of Windows and also UNIX is in C. Actually, C was invented largely to rewrite UNIX. C++ is a superset of C, with a pretty awesome organization overlaid on it. I was an applications programmer, and loved working with user interfaces. When I left the workplace - retired due to being laid off - Java was the language of choice, due to the internet.

chess is the best game ever invented. dice and cards involve luck. in chess, it's all you.

i play as "IvanTheTerrible" at
http://www.chesscorner.net/mainmenu.php

come find me if you'd like as a**-kickin'!

Interesting, Arminius. What kind of programming did you do? I've played with C+, but never seriously studied it. I'm lazy...COBOL is so easy, I could do it in my sleep. Had to use assembly with CICS though, and that was a major pain. My background is mainframes. Never had much experience with micros. I'm learning though.

Shaum,

I used C and C++, on the PC itself and also on the server using UNIX. I did some HTML, and am familiar with Java.

Don't be stupid, Mary. How does what I wrote disagree with you? You are not very bright are you.

Don't be stupid Schaum, read: I wrote the opposite of >.

So
1) the v rotated clockwises
plus
i
to open.

the opposite to close. That's the best I can do.

(If it gets rid of all--well, some at least--of the caps I'll consider myself as contributing a small bit to the harmony of the blogosphere, maybe even the universe.)

The opposite of > opens the italics, but it will not print here. It is also the mathematical symbol of less than if that helps (it wouldn't help me!).

Actually > is the logical symbol for GREATER than.

Arminius:

The opposite of > opens the italics, but it will not print here. It is also the mathematical symbol of less than if that helps (it wouldn't help me!).

let's see: a 'v' rotated clockwise, that's better.

Or you could look up html symbols.

No more from me here.

Arminius:

What language did you use? I was heavily into COBOL, and into CICS internals.

Ender2,

The old Ender?

As for Farnaz and Onofrio, the answer is that they often appear without the other. I went through the same thought process a few months ago. In fact, there was a furious fight about the whole thing. I now contend that Onofrio is his own person. The jury is still out on multiple personalities here, but I will not go there.

Oh dear, the opposite of > didn't come through. Well, I tried.

Walter, I will be happy to post with you and Pam anywhere, but not here. Too many taunting teachers for this Irishwoman.

Ariminius: Not to say the Irish invented irony, but, well, it's a weapon of the weak and we have been on the wrong side of history for much of, well, most of our history. So I know irony and satire, Cool one's unfortunately was very badly done.

Now here is irony. A poet by the great anon, and not a word too long for the unwashed public to miss:

Lord, confound this surly sister,
blight her brow with blotch and blister,
cramp her larynx, lung and liver,
in her guts a galling give her.
Let her learn to earn her dinner
In Mountjoy with other sinners.
In thy judgment Lord don't tarry
I am your faithful servant

Máire

For those unappreciative or unknowing of the Irish form of irony, the satire occurs in the last line: "I am your faithful servant".

FYI Máire in Irish rhymes with Harry. Mountjoy is a prison in Dublin..

Best to all, even the taunting teachers.

Ender2:

"Coincidence or just the same schizoid poster?"

There are, indeed, schizoid posters here. Farnaz and Onofrio are not among them.

MC,

I consider myself computer literate, since I programmed them for several decades.

But this defeats me:
Press
add (inside) i
Press >

add?
(inside)?

Please explain to this mere mortal, thanks.

Dear WIFC,

To use italics rather than caps:
Press
add (inside) i
Press >

That for the beginning.

To end:
Press
add (inside) /
add (inside) i
add >

Add it all together and,
voila!

Don't say I ever gave this Forum anything.

Best,
MC

The christian 'faith' provided all of the justification for slavery the south needed. It is from that same line of religiously founded bigotry and racism that the 'uncivility' of the Reich Wingnuts pours onto the halls of Congress, across our TV screens and into their cup of TEA.
Why is everyone beating aroung the bush? This isn't just 'uncivility', its the call to hate crimes and race war.

BTW, is it my imagination or do Farnaz and Onofrio always arrive on this board concurrently then flame their mutual admiration. Coincidence or just the same schizoid poster?

Onofrio,

Persiflage said "defender of the King's English!"

That is the nicest compliment anybody could pay you, I think, and it is well-earned. Congrats.

Hail Onofrio, illustrious knight of the realm and defender of the King's English!

Tilting at windmills is a sport for philospher kings, but a horse is essential - and I did warn about foot soldiers jousting with proven warriors astride mighty destriers and carrying very big sticks. Defeat is inevitable, not very pretty, but apparently unpreventable.

The things a foot soldier has to do in order to spare themselves further embarrassment in defeat - know when you're beaten, stay down, maintain a respectful silence, and next time ... try getting a horse first.

Moderate - I grappled with the Penrose book, and it's worth the struggle although very difficult in places for a non-mathematician such as I :^)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting

Daniel12 admits:

"Oh, thanks Pam for telling me there is a difference between "that" and "what"--I will make sure to ignore it, because for all your language you have no originality."

Well, that does it for me. I have no sympathy left for you. You are not original, you are ignorant. You deliberately choose to remain ignorant, not to learn or better yourself. You hide your laziness behind the label of what you imagine to be 'originality'. You are dull-witted and verbal.

Tell you what...instead of using a blog forum to hold people captive for your "writing" and "poetry", which they must go out of their way to avoid, why don't you get yourself published. In that venue, you'd be able to determine, by the cash income from the earnings of your "writings", exactly what people thought of your "originality". Its one thing to hold people hostage in a free electronic environment...its quite another to put your neck on the line with published works that they can purchase and read if the WANT to. It would make you less of a coward, don't you think, to risk finding out whether you really have talent, really have anything to say worth reading?

You are not despicable because you are a mixed race. You are pathetic because you are wilfully ignorant. Original? Delusional!

I agree 100 percent with Farnaz on race. Race is a subjective illusion, which has more meaning in the observer, than in the one observed. Race in America is a little like the caste system in India; in America, a person's status in the caste is linked to basically one genetic trait: skin color. This is pretty simple. I think the inability to understand something so simple is indeed related to intelligence.

For Daniel12, I never like it when people say "read this book, or read that book" because I am probably not going to do it, because I just read the things that come to me in my own journey, not someone else's.

But in this past year, I read a book called "My Antonia" by Willa Cather. It is a novel set in nineteenth century Nebraska. Part of the story is about the influence of immigrants on the formation of the America of today. At times, it seemed amazingly topical. All those foreigners, who speak broken English, or no English at all, coming into our country, taking over everthing. But at the same time, how it all worked together in the daily flow of life. There is no dramatic plot line, no spies, no murderers, no aliens from outer space, just a bunch or ordinary people leading ordinary lives. Yet, one of the characters in the story was the "written word" itself, so beautifully, that sometimes I had to go back and re-read certain parts, just to hear the words ring in my mind.

Anyway, just go ahead and keep writing as you have been. If people don't like it, just never mind them. They are just giving their opinions. If they don't like your writing, then, there is nothing you can do about it.

I agree more or less with Arminius, that I often lose interest when trying to read your long posts. You cannot be mad at me for that. I think you are trying to cover to many thougts at once, or your subject is too broad for a setting such as this, which only provides for short comments, at best.

Daniel12:

Perhaps you could find employment writing for rappers....

Daniel,

I am slowly reading The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. It is a bit over a thousand pages and has quite a bit of math, so it does not read like a novel. But I would highly recommend it to you anyway. A couple of breezier reads Mlodinow's Euclid's Window, an Livio's The Golden Ratio.

For Farnaz, it is a pretty serious look at Penrose' philosophy of science. It has an interesting discussion of the interplay between physical, the mental, and the Platonic mathematical worlds. By my lights he one of the best people writing on it today.

A stolen speech from Democrats
clenched teeth: We are everything!
How prophetic! The right is dying
and race means nothing!

We love everybody, black and white
green and red, all we need to do
is dislodge white privilege!

We are biracial, multiracial, mixed race
call us anything but do not call us white!
For we all know white mixed with anything
is another color and every color seeks the light!

A multihue we chew our shoes gnash our teeth and are all generosity! Never say a word about our faith because our faith is nothing and revenge is everything!

Another day, we get our way and talk about the proper grooming. The way to play, as they say, except for those to receive the stoning!

Dead and white? Fools delight. We save our best for the white and living! Another night we go our way and it can only be a better morning!

Remains to say should we weigh the price of our own becoming? Fools delight! Rush ahead or we might be nothing!

Part one.

I know the Jared Diamond thesis. Pure pleasing liberalism. Every difference between every civilization--especially the difference between Western civilization and lesser attributed to nothing of particular genetics, but particular environment, particular advantage of such,--which of course adds up to Western man not at all different from any other people. Certainly with no genetic superiority. All we have to do is bring those unfortunate to have had a bad environment into the heights of civilization and then they will perform spectacularly. Except they have not. Nothing more than a white man trying as hard as he can to elevate nurture over nature, to somehow explain the difference between himself--a man that can write a book--and all those cultures which prefer ethnic, religious, tribal--name it--fighting.

Oh, thanks Pam for telling me there is a difference between "that" and "what"--I will make sure to ignore it, because for all your language you have no originality.

Part two.

And you say I lack such as well? THEN AGAIN SHOW ME MYSELF IN ANOTHER WRITER, is that too difficult to ask? AGAIN, I WOULD HATE TO WASTE MY TIME ON WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. And I try to avoid literature recommendations such as yours because there is absolutely nothing controversial--not even a rewarding idea. Bad science-fiction writers routinely demonstrate more imagination than all the "serious writers"--that is the serious writers of today. The liberal and Republican and--worst of all--the libertarian ilk, those sham cool and enlightened people have destroyed thinking. Politics. The last fifty years has led to artistic success in only music.

George Will, conservative of the Wash. Post yesterday wrote an article on how the National Endowment of the arts is scrabbling for money. Will, bless his heart, brought up an observation of Ted Hughes back in 1980: that the art schools in America turn out every five years more people than lived in Florence back in the time of, well, we know who. More people than the entire city--and not a single artist worth mentioning let alone remembering. Modern day liberalism--sheer cowardice when it comes to valuing. All is the same, God forbid one would discriminate in anything.

Onofrio, said how nice it is I respect the Vietnamese--after all those people had to die in the war. I say how nice it is the modern liberal feels he or she does not have to value at all, in Western civilization which arose upon painful decision after painful decision, life absolutely dependent on careful observation and yes, discrimination in every way. Must be nice, liberals, to not value anything. That going too far? To value one must discriminate, say which is quality and which is not. The modern liberal has courage for nothing. All is pleasing pleasing pleasing.

But perhaps I know nothing of controversial ideas. Please show one to me--one arrived at by liberal thinking.

Thanks for the book recommendations. I have read many of them, but more than few I have not. I have not even heard of Hadamard. Mimesis is on the floor--one soon to get at. Jurgen Habermas I have read--Hadamard makes me think of him.

My critics...
I must be taught to think, write, speak
At the moment I have no language
no sense of its handling
I need a teacher to teach me to write
to repeat a word over and over
and then the easiest lines in sight
everybody's...

I need to see what everyone dreams
and make them happy. Never mind
they dream their dreams without me
every night. But they like me to repeat
the same things--their variety.
Their hopeless love of every cliche
political party whether they stand
at the left or at the right

Familiarity leads to happiness
and they are happy with even
a familiar enemy.
Beware the strange friend let alone
the strange enemy, not a word in sight
can do that duty.

So where does that leave the invention
of the light? Shining over a contemptible city.

A blank sheet of paper
smooth as a baby's bottom
spank it, bring it wide awake
with the first breath
eyes which stare and know
all they will ever be knowing
for no one knows anything
not even at the point of death.

If only paper had limbs
I would caress them
as a mother caresses
her baby's arms, legs, head
and breast, squeezes every part
of the baby which judiciously
can be squeezed to feel
little hands and feet
which have already grappled
with everything, for they have
felt the womb, the place
we have already been and would
like to come to rest.

There remains little to be said
other than that paper is worse
than a baby, for it can be crumpled
and no one really cares, not even
if the paper is unread.

Daniel12,

Read Byron, "The Vision of Judgment."

http://byron.classicauthors.net/VisionofJudgment/VisionofJudgment1.html

Read and take heed (the verses on Southey). If you don't stop while there's still time, this could happen to you, or, more specifically, to your soul.

Daniel12,
You continue to embarrass yourself. I am embarrassed for you. You should have taken my advice (and that of others) many posts ago, and shut up. Your "poetry" is *not* (to put it as kindly as possible).

You want to know of modern writers who best you? Nearly every one published (and I've been exposed to your posts for the whole time you've been in this forum). But for a couple of fiction writers who have a particularly beautiful way with the English language, try Bruce Chatwin, "On the Black Hill" (and others), and Diane Setterfield, "The Thirteenth Tale."

You should also read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" not so much for the literary craftsmanship, but to find out why civilization happened when and where it did. Hint: It had nothing to do with white superiority.

And - back to schoolmarm - learn the difference between "that" and "which."

Then try getting over yourself.

Daniel12,

Here is more info. on a book I mentioned earlier. There is a recent translation of Hadamard's classic work. Pay close attention to the pages on Poincare.

Jacques Hadamard. "The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field."

Arminius,

"Chess, yes. I played a bunch when younger, but was only mediocre."

Same for me, Arminius. Yet I love the game. I daresay Farnaz and Moderate would rout us on the chequered plain.

Arminius,

I played a lot of chess too. I won 81 and drew 2 at first board for four years of high school, but alas was probably no more than a USCF B-player, from my results in he town chess club, while I was doing it. No genius there, I guess.

Got to sign off now for some rack time. Talk to you all soon.

Moderate, dear, it was past your bedtime years ago.

Night night Schaum.

Chess, yes. I played a bunch when younger, but was only mediocre. (Interesting how the word 'mediocre' has appeared here so much lately.

It is said than mankind has created four great games: chess, go, bridge, and.... poker!

"Did Fisher psyche out Spasky?"

It did look that way to me. I remember getting the games from the paper. The old "Knight on the rim is dim" move in game 3 seemed to offer a come-and-get-me-if you can kind of provocation. It seemed to me that Spassky began to loose it after that. Impossible to tell what effect that had on Spassky's inner chess player, but it was a truing point. Fisher would not collapse, and he could win in his unconventional ways.

Themoderate....

"When you approach Thomas Edison's level of mediocrity do let us know, son."

Hmmmm...even more insecure than I thought. CCNL also repeated himself often. The results were similar.

Farnaz!

"In my youth, said the sage, I beat the chess champion of New York, but, alas 'twas only in a living room."

Triple Zesta! :^)

I'm delighted to learn you're a chesshead - it seems so fitting.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you insecure."

When you approach Thomas Edison's level of mediocrity do let us know, son.

Moderate,

Nh5, indeed. But here's the question. It isn't as if no one had opened that way before that match. So, what happened. Did Fisher psyche out Spasky?

And what on earth became of him? How did that happen? My mother says she saw films of him playing twenty or thirty people at one time.

I remember studying Fisher's Game of the Century shortly after it was played. Amazing what he did in that game. It made the world seem limitless to me at the time.

Themoderate:

"Call me when you have attained such a level of mediocrity as Thomas Alva Edison did."

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you insecure.

Yes, of course, Bobby. Poor Bobby. Another flame that burned brightly before, too soon, falling to ashes. Nh5!?. Amazing.

Hi Onofrio,

"Are you into chess then?"
-----------------------------
Into it I am, and once it was into me. Of late, I've had little time to play. In my youth, said the sage, I beat the chess champion of New York, but, alas 'twas only in a living room.

"Notice how Onofrio in responding to me had to get a female poet to help him out. What next? Am I going to have to fist fight his wife?"
----------------
Alas, gray or brown beard loon, he chose wisely. As for matrimony, if Paula is with us still, she might for you be a fitting mate.

Word to the wise: Lay down your weapon. Leave off the albatross.

Daniel12 writes:

"Everyone here wants you to win, put me in my place."

Poor, delusional Daniel. Onofrio won the instant you pressed the ENTER key and posted your poem. You have only yourself to blame.

Farnaz,

Are you into chess then?

Daniel12,

"Notice how Onofrio in responding to me had to get a female poet to help him out. What next?"

Try Googling Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings, or Vogon poetry.

I do consider chess a rump species of mathematical talent.
------------------------
Bobby Fisher. Have tape of the Fisher-Spasky match. (Mother got it somehow, when she went to college here.) Have watched it hundreds of times.

It's old and a mess, but I love it.

Auerbach, "Mimesis."

Jedrothwell1,

I am a man of the South, and old guy. What you have written here is, sadly, all true. I remember it all too well, and, like you, still see it.

Plato (everything), Aristotole (everything) Adorno, Horkheimer, Franz Rosensweig, Levinas,
Benjamin, Freud (everything), Lacan, Judith Butler, Maimonides, Milton (everything), Shakespeare (everything), the Romantic poets, Chaucer (everything), Homer, Yeats (everything), Auden (everything), Hafiz (everything), Yunis Emre.

Just glanced at shelves. More to come.

Daniel12,

"I love living with my Vietnamese roommates. I chose them deliberately."

Lucky them. Did you *choose* them mainly for their tasty hot nuts? Or because they still kick ass? Or perhaps so they could walk with you, like Christ's Twelve, and witness your greatness.

Like your roomies, we WaPo folk have been smacking down your arrogance of late. I suppose several million of us need to be slaughtered in a war and then cook for you before you will take any notice.

"Stephen Hawkins"

Sorry, it is getting late. sed s/Hawkins/Hawking/

Farnaz,

"Is this list, in part, a response to the request of Persiflage and me for your input on genius in math?"

Yes. It is. Of course there are prodigies in other areas, but this my chosen profession so those come to my mind. I do consider chess a rump species of mathematical talent.

That last line should read "inspire you". Got to go now.

Daniel12: Read this book: "The Psychology of Mathematical Invention."

Notice how Onofrio in responding to me had to get a female poet to help him out. What next? Am I going to have to fist fight his wife? At least try composing a poem in response. Everyone here wants you to win, put me in my place. Go to it man, I might even inspire to become a great poet.

Daniel,

"Collect all I have written here for a couple years, then show me a modern writer that can match it for length and breadth of ideas. I want to read him. I care about only the best. Pick wisely."

A few presently on my desk here are G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, Peter Drucker, John W. Campbell, Roger Penrose, Albert Einstein, Mario Livio, Peter Kreeft, Stephen Hawkins, Joseph Campbell, and George Lakoff. I would say that you have a lot to learn from any and all of them. I am sure that others here can help you with more ideas. Come on in, the water is fine.

Good luck.

"But back to comments here toward me."

Maybe not. How about choosing a different subject?

I am white and have lived in Washington DC and Atlanta all of my life, and like Jimmy Carter I know darn well that racism is still widespread.

A white person with a slight southern accent sees this because other white people often assume you agree with you, and they say things they would NEVER say to a black person or an "outsider." Of course there are many nice people, black and white, who I sincerely believe have no trace of racism in them. There were wonderful 70-year-old Southern Belle-style white women working at the Obama headquarters. But there are many others who openly and proudly hate, hate, HATE Obama and all other blacks, and casually make jokes about how great it would be to kill or enslave them again. They say the Civil War was not about slavery, and the blacks did better as slaves than they did free, and they loved their masters. I have heard that time after time from young and old. Anyone doesn't believe this does not know the South. Any southerner who denies it is a liar.

Moderate,

Is this list, in part, a response to the request of Persiflage and me for your input on genius in math?

Keats, one of the greatest English poets who ever lived, died at twenty-four, Thomas Chatterton at seventeen. Both are arguments for the existence of genius. By today's standards, both were also highly educated, lived in the midst of a great movement in poetry, etc.

I love living with my Vietnamese roommates. I chose them deliberately. They kicked our asses in the war and therefore they are confident, open, not like all those other jealous, envious, resentful, petty minorities. I can laugh with them easily. No matter how arrogant I get they can always respond that they kicked our asses in the war. We all are happy.

But back to comments here toward me. I asked for you all to show me some writers I can read. What about it? How am I supposed to take seriously your criticisms that I know nothing, that so many others know better, when you cannot give me some names? I even asked you to get modern writers which can put me to shame. Name some names. I like reading good books.

Moderate,

Thanks for the maths genii (amazing folk, all), but I think you meant this for Daniel, no?

Farnaz, you kindly said,

"A couple of bloggers here have written accomplished verse: Onofrio and Arminius, for example."

I am close to speechless. To be put in a sentence of praise with Onofrio is a high honor indeed. My thanks.

Onofrio,

A couple of examples:

Évariste Galois (1811-1832) died at age 20 after developing a theory of which polynomials can be solved by radicals. This problem had remained open since the time of Euclid. To do it he laid foundations for modern abstract algerbra. He gave this theory in his teens.

Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920) who grew up in a village in India without formal training made major contributions to number theory, infinite series, and mathematical analysis. He was doing original research by age 17, and later moved to Cambridge to study there. He was inducted as an F.R.S before his untimely death in his early thirties.

José Raúl Capablanca (1888-1942) world champion at chess from 1921 to 1927 is another example. The story goes that he learned chess by watching his father and was correcting him by age four.

There are others, of course.

So yes, it does happen rarely, some seem born with remarkable talents. I hear tell that people at Cambridge are still working through Ramanujan's note books. The sources of his huge numbers of original results are not yet fully understood. Stay tuned, but these things sometimes take centuries. The European math community spent a couple of centuries chewing over the results of Newton and putting them under a rigorous footing.

The rest of us can only watch in wonder at this. In math, you know if you will be one of these very early. If you haven't made a mark by your early twenties, the best you can be is a workhorse, which does after all have its pleasures too.

"Collect all I have written here for a couple years, then show me a modern writer that can match it for length and breadth of ideas. I want to read him. I care about only the best. Pick wisely."

Daniel12, with that post, you just lost any support here at all, including mine. From this moment on, I will bypass all your posts, the same way I bypass CCNL's posts.

Prose is one thing, poetry another. Show some respect for the English language. A couple of bloggers here have written accomplished verse: Onofrio and Arminius, for example. THEY'VE ALSO READ IT.

And played, practiced, fiddled. There are a couple of decent books on versification, but you've got to read poetry, lots of it before you turn a page on how to write it. No vers is libre for the man who wants to do a good job. If you can tell me who said that sans google, we'll talk. BUT, we'll talk in depth about who began vers libre, where it has been, is going, etc.

Otherwise, start with meter, prosody. Advise you start now.

My God, Onofrio, master of the sarcastic you are, but you are also totally shameless! I was much kinder, but your words will be noticed, not mine, and that is perhaps just.

You are blowing off a great deal of empty froth, also full froth.

You are clearly frothful.

"Collect all I have written here for a couple years, then show me a modern writer that can match it for length and breadth of ideas. I want to read him. I care about only the best. Pick wisely."
----------------
Good nonGod, God, gods.

Enjoy your nuts :^)

The response of a king
Onofrio my dream

word after word, not meaning
but juxtaposition of this that
and everything--secret of his facility

A developed thought?
No, separate words adding up
to no creaming

I wish I could blow off
the empty froth of his own believing

But there is nothing to blow
only the beer of his own drinking

And that is the law among those
who feel like winning (the common)

Cowardice held up by drink.

Collect all I have written here for a couple years, then show me a modern writer that can match it for length and breadth of ideas. I want to read him. I care about only the best. Pick wisely.

Ask Susan Jacoby to help you. She should by now know a few names. I do not know any. I spend my time reading only the best--and those are writers of years past. I do not waste my time with most of the writers over the past forty years. Most are nothing. Just left or right wing B.S.--just as all of you here are no more than left and right wing B.S. I am my own man.

I know no one here has read anything like me in our modern day. Unless you care to show me the man like me. Please show me. I want to know those like me and better. I have been tired all my life of people like you. I would even want to meet someone who totally destroys me in thought. At least I would have someone to respect.

As for my getting out more, meeting people of different races, I am going to get up now and go into the kitchen where my Vietnamese roommates are cooking. They are superb cooks. I think they might have steamed peanuts in the shell for a snack if not anything else.

Daniel12,

Re your poetry,

My eyes are still smarting from the tears, and my belly laughs have sculpted two extra abs. Or are they hernias? (:^U

Thankyou for the hilarity.

I think you've outdone the Vogons, and could well challenge Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings. A sample of her work:

"The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.
They lay. They rotted. They turned
Around occasionally.
Bits of flesh dropped off them from
Time to time.
And sank into the pool's mire.
They also smelt a great deal."

Keep at it, tiger. At the tail tip is the gaping maw.

Persiflage,

Thanks for the post and link. Agreed about input from Moderate.

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz,

Of course prodigies are a product of their environment, and like all of us, are beholden to a particular social milieu.

Whatever their given background, their exceptional talents and accomplishments do tend to go down in history and are somehow recorded for posterity (at least the ones we know about).

They typically don't exist in splendid isolation as you say, but their individual qualities are what we're talking about here, and this is what sets them apart (see how genius thrives in an environment devoid of any notable associated stimulus when it has to, below).

One wonders about undiscovered genius - a probable but speculative quantity. Per my usual compulsive habit, see a couple of notable and widely divergent examples of mathematical genius below :^)

Input from Moderate would be very helpful here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_prodigy

http://www.3villagecsd.k12.ny.us/wmhs/Departments/Math/OBrien/ramanujan.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

Schaum,

"And regardless of what you may have read earlier, Thomas Alva Edison was not a genius. In fact, he was something of a mediocrity."

Call me when you have attained such a level of mediocrity as Thomas Alva Edison did.

Daniel 1:2

"Fiddle with the words. There might be one or two, for reasons known only to the digital dictator, that should not be posted."

She is right. I tried to post a short equation recently and it was rejected by the edit script. I guess here were too many symbols for times, divide, plus and such so the edit kicked in because it counted up the same as cartoon profanity character strings. Lots of things are simply bounced by this kind of things. It has screens against phrases like "frack you" spelled a bit differently, too.

Arminius 3142 says:

"The same goes for almost all major accomplishments in human history. Even literary and artistic wonders draw from the past.

Yes, I am emotional, I freely admit it, and I am aware of the pitfalls."

No argument with either comment.

Daniel12,

I must agree with Farnaz about your well-meant but badly received poetry. In no way do I claim to have the ability to do better. But we all must start somewhere.

Schaum,

I repeat my quotation from a recent post:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
- Isaac Newton
The same goes for almost all major accomplishments in human history. Even literary and artistic wonders draw from the past.

Yes, I am emotional, I freely admit it, and I am aware of the pitfalls.

Arminius3142 says:

"How can someone with 1,093 patents have accomplished nothing?"

You are a creature of emotional extremes. Nobody said he accomplished nothing. It is a matter of record that most of the inventions and discoveries popularly attributed to him were in fact the work of others who were in his employ. Note use of the word MOST.

Daniel12,

Sorry, but even the most patient, among whom I do not figure, have a breaking point.

Poetry is very hard work. Onofrio has talent, but he has worked at developing it regardless at what he may say to the contrary, and he may say nothing. If you want to write verse, study.

Study, study, and study some more.

Shamelessly critical,

Farnaz

"Thomas Alva Edison was not a genius. In fact, he was something of a mediocrity."

So, then, define 'genius' and give three examples. Or is that just one more thing you do not believe in? How can someone with 1,093 patents have accomplished nothing? What does 'accomplish something' mean, anyway?

Persflage,

Mathematical and musical geniuses seem striking because they often exhibit their natural abilities spontaneously, at an early age. There are any number of examples
-------------------
Math and music may be exceptions, but consider whether Mozart would have become Mozart if he had been born in the third century, or in rural Mexico. How many other Mozarts have there been?

And if Shakespeare after the theaters had been closed....

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
- Isaac Newton

Daniel12,

I read through your recent three part offering with care. A couple of things struck me.

One, you can write pretty well. Don't sweat the spelling corrections, but learn from them.

Two, you are being very defensive. I suppose I must not blame you, since you have been pretty thoroughly beat up of late. But if you can reach out a hand to converse and to learn, we all might profit.

Three, you still need to be more concise, and state your purpose for the post clearly.

Fourth, it is obvious to me that you are searching for something, and searching rather desperately. I do not know what that is, and I'm not sure that you know.

Daniel12:

"Try going back through a couple years posts here and collecting all the essays I posted. Such as the beginning one I posted here."

No, Daniel. You do not write essays. You write tirades, and they are not particularly well-written. If you want to make yourself understood, learn to handle grammar, complex sentences and spelling. Then, even your tirades will make some kind of sense.

And regardless of what you may have read earlier, Thomas Alva Edison was not a genius. In fact, he was something of a mediocrity. He invented almost nothing. He was smart enough, however, to put a number of scientists/inventors who DID have a bent of genius in themselves under contract to his company. Therefore, the fruits of their labors were his property, because they were developed while on his payroll, and he could claim them and have them patented in his name. Its an old trick. It works in many areas of "genius". Perhaps you could make it work for you.

You are a very angry man. You are not a genius. Stop trying to convince yourself that you are. START doing the hard work: learn to manage the language; study logic; read highly regarded writers. Do some of the things, if not all of the things, that Farnaz has suggested.

Above all, deal with your isolation. If you are isolated as a matter of choice, that is one thing, and you can deal with that because it IS a choice. However, if isolation has been forced upon you because of your circumstances, whatever they are, you need to break out of it and make some friends in the real world. And you need to work to overcome your racism. It CAN be overcome. Many good people, of all colors and mixed races, have done so.

And so I write another poem...

Onofrio, a delicate home of the best poetry. A dog which sleeps with ducks of its own wetting.

A Frenchman speaks. Onofrio knows his meaning. Superficiality of the French who never live up to their own geniuses.

Cezanne? Matisse? No, a clown, a mime which mimics only his own vanishing.

A cream, a sky, a bird wings, drops its droppings. A poet speaks--but no book of poetry.

A snappy wink designed to please the most arguable city. A note to say? A string pops. So much for brilliant tuning.

Onofrio speaks and the laziest minds
are in captivity.

Just a word and all know his astounding meaning: there is nothing but us and our beliefs.

Meanwhile the cat drinks the water of its own choosing...Evian...

Not all the French are born to stink--just the men who think they know Paris city.

And Onofrio is one of them. Let Oscar Wilde sleep with him and perhaps he will know the length of dreaming...

And put it into words for our delecting.

Daniel,

I don't think my point was complicated, but I will admit that like all human concepts, 'genius' is a relative term and subject to different interpretations. You can apply it to yourself if you wish.

I'm betting that most geniuses do not rest on their native abilities, because there is surely plenty of sweat equity involved in their singular achievements - but there was probably never any lack of motivation or direction.

Like anything, their efforts were realized in the fullness of time - by others that appreciated and benefitted from their creative accomplisments and in many cases, their peers.

Mathematical and musical geniuses seem striking because they often exhibit their natural abilities spontaneously, at an early age. There are any number of examples.

When we speak of genius in the commonly understood sense, it's likely that certain representative historical figures come to mind - these individuals can be found in many different fields e.g. mathematics, science, music, literature, philosophy, medicine, economics and yes, even religion.

Their contributions are often seen as something fundamentally new - singular, ground-breaking, even exalted, by all standards of excellence....and often leading to greater things beyond the moment.

These giants no doubt worked incessantly and relentlessly in the employment of their gifts - because their destiny was never in doubt. They are essentially born to do what they do best.

I'm arguing that 'genius' represents a certain kind of individual with specific and uncommon gifts. The magnitude of their abilities and accomplishments may or may not be recognized in their lifetimes.

My observation is not meant to intimidate, but merely to put a concept in a particular context. Was Newton recognized as a genius at an early age?

Today and by popular consensus among scientists and science historians alike, he and Einstein occupy the pinnacle of scientific genius - although a good case can be made for Darwin as well....now there's a trinity we can all believe in!

Finally, I personally feel that genius is rarely if ever a self-ascribed quality - but that's not to say that such individuals eschew recognition for their work either, and personal flaws are in abundance.

It could be that genius is an irrelevant concept, as Farnaz says. I agree that folks often use the term, but when pressed to define what they mean, are at a loss.

I'm just trying to tie up loose ends here.

regards, Persiflage

This site ripped me off. I wrote a challenge piece to Onofrio--a poem--and it said it would be considered by Susan Jacoby. Jacoby, put my poem up. There was nothing vulgar about it--not a single word. What a ripoff.

Posted by: daniel12 | September 17, 2009 7:51 PM
----------
She doesn't censor anything. If it was too long, try submitting it in two parts.

Fiddle with the words. There might be one or two, for reasons known only to the digital dictator, that should not be posted.

This site ripped me off. I wrote a challenge piece to Onofrio--a poem--and it said it would be considered by Susan Jacoby. Jacoby, put my poem up. There was nothing vulgar about it--not a single word. What a ripoff.

Daniel12,

You should not be attempting to make yourself into a genius. You should not looking to others to so designate you.

You should pursue whatever calling you have, perfect it. The poet, Elizabeth Bishop, had a calling. She didn't sit by herself and wait for the muse. She studied and worked, took classes with John Berryman. Why? He was, at the time, the better poet. He knew a great, great deal. She was intelligent enough to know that. I have never seen anything in their writing that suggested they considered themselves geniuses.

Flannery O'Connor studied at the same school. She knew she had a gift, and protected it like a mother protects an infant. On the other hand, she was smart enough to know that she needed tutoring, so smart, in fact, that she was willing to put up with the bewilderment of her professors who visibly struggled with her Georgia accent.

Einstein was caught up by certain notions. They captured his imagination. Nowhere does one find in his letters either the desire to be a "genius" or the idea that he was one. The Moderate might say more on this.

Ditto Joyce. Ditto everyone else.

More on US slavery: After the well of indentured servants dried up, the AngloChristians (sorry, that's what they were--professing Christians) first attempted to enslave the native Americans. When it became obvious that they could not, they looked abroad.

And Farnaz says genius is made, contrary to what Persiflage says. Farnaz and Persiflage should get in a discussion of whether it is inborn or made.

And yes, Farnaz, apparently I have made a mistake. Genius is made, but I should not be trying to make myself into one. I should be waiting for everyone here to make me a genius...Right...Yes, Farnaz, I should have been born into the proper environment if I wanted to have any chance at all of being a genius. I should have been born in a little community composed of everyone here, then I might have had a chance...Or perhaps I chose the wrong historical period. Wait, that is the environment of you all and more like you. You should not insult yourself Farnaz!

And to Langenscheidt, how do you know my capabilities as a writer? How long have you been coming to this thread? I have never seen your name before. Try going back through a couple years posts here and collecting all the essays I posted. Such as the beginning one I posted here. Then read them. Then tell me what you think. But you will think nothing. You will have no idea what to say because I have done true work. And that does not compute with a person that reads no books. Yes, you read no books. I can see that immediately from your writing. There is absolutely no trace of insight from great writers.

Race

Let me come at the problem again. There ain't no such animal.

Historically, the word originally referred to nation. One reads of the English race, the Irish race, etc. (Engels refers ad nauseum about the Irish race, as does Mary Shelley. Some English folk still do.) It was not until the Renaissance that European anti-black prejudice began to develop, the result of conflict with African ethnic groups.

Racism against blacks took on force with the perceived need for slaves in the US and England. However, even then, it was slow going. Believing blacks to be inferior to whites took decades. At first, it was sufficient for slavers to explain that without slavery there could be no competition with Europe. (I kid you not.) Later, as attacks on the "peculiar" institution grew, the justification of inferiority, etc., became necessary.

In the 1920s, in New York City, for a brief period, Jews and African Americans were admitted to restaurants where the Irish were not.

In South Africa, the Japanese were high on the racial totem pole, the Chinese way down.

Race is a historical construct.

Historically, modern anti-Judaism began with Christianity, anti-semitism, arguably at the same time, as the "NT" indited "the Jews"--all Jews--for the death of Christ, the Messiah and Son of God. This was the basis for all medieval antisemitism.

That the Jews control the economy, the congress, governments, the weather--these were developments of the nineteenth century. However, they all included the rhetoric of the "NT", St. John of the Cross, among others.

Jews are the locus classicus for race mythology. They are at the borders of race, nation, and religion within the Christian imaginary. Are we a race? I am brown. My mother is white, Jewish. Ethiopian Jews are black. Southeast Asian Jews, "yellow." They are all "the Jews"--Period.

Race: Yes, some get sickle cell anemia while others don't. Some get Tay Sacs disease while others don't. (Who does? Some Greeks, some European Jews.)

Since some get sickle cell anemia while some don't, shall we say race exists?

Q: Why do we not say, some persons of African descent get sickle cell anemia? Why do we refer to such persons as black?

A: History.

Racist... I knew I would smack myself in the forehead when you told me, but it just didn't click. Thanks.

All this talk of Genius. I think Thomas Alva Edison, the creative genius who earned 1,093 patents, got it right:

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

The one who is arguably the greatest genius of all, Sir Isaac Newton, put that this way:

"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been due more to patient attention, than to any other talent."

So why obsess over it? Get to work and take ownership of it if you can.

Daniel12,

Did you read my post? Or the Moderate's? Or Mary Cunningham's?

Not everyone feels the same way, including those whom you mention. There are nuances. Struggle is essential neither to genius nor wisdom, the far greater gift.

Hi MOderate,

The R word = "racist."

FArnaz

What I dont' understand about Daniel12 is his ideas on race.

I believe that racial categoriation is basically arbitrary, based on the predominnce of a collection of separate traits in groups that have devleoped for a long time in isolation from other people. But, it is not really biologically sound because there are many, many indivicual people who do not easily match up to a race.

In addition, race can be almost entirely diffused, and dissolved, in but a single generation of intermarriage. So, who even cares? It is not a problem except for people whom it bothers psycholoically. There is nothing that can be done about, even if it is a problem.

Sex happens and babies get born, some of them are white, some of them are black, and some of them are neither, nevertheless, the progress of each generation of man continues, in its repeating pattern.

Farnaz:

"the R word"? I am sure I should get that, but a little help, please?

Part one.

So let me see what we have here, from Pam, "geniuses never use flat out three times in as many paragraphs"...nice to know that is how one identifies a genius...also Pam, thanks for the spelling lesson on "breathe"--as if spelling means anything (and no, that does not determine a great writer from bad--find out for yourself). What an old school marm you are. If a writer makes a mistake here and there in the utterly trivial the writer is completely dismissed--no consideration at all is taken of his thoughts. I suppose it would be useless to say that virtually every attempt to innovate struggles with overcoming being crude, for to depart from the school marm is all too often to break from the thinking of the school marm which is dressed up in "correct writing style". In other words, the teachers tell you they are teaching you how to write but more often than not they are telling you what to think--and the more obvious the thought the easier it is to write it, and of course teach it. So much for the school lesson.

Moving on, I should not challenge Onofrio to writing? Why not? I have no problem losing if the losing is truly losing. Better to find out what one is made of than allow oneself to be determined by the petty comments of others--and as for those calling me turgid, not concise, etc., your tiny posts say nothing, you have not even begun to develop a line of thought. All your comments are are precisely that--commentary. Or rather, the definition of commentary allows too much to you. Comments in the least sense possible is a better description. And do not confuse your mere comments with concision, the lack of the turgid.

Part two.

To Pam again, you ask how I can know none of you here have ever dared anything in life? The answer: I can read you have dared nothing. Your entire thinking processes are conventional. Unless you want to speak of physical daring or something like that. But that physical or other daring which has nothing to do with words certainly has not affected your words--not made them commensurate to whatever daring you may have made in life.

The brave writer tries to develop a line of thought and of course the danger is the turgid, lack of concision--and many other dangers. But that is a fact of the writer's life. Not a fact of the mere commentators lives (commentators in the lowest sense possible). It is so easy to write when the thoughts are obvious, accepted by most everyone. All one has to do is write it out. Writing is difficult, writing begins, by trying to say what no one else has said. Then one finds that for all facility that one has had, one did not know how to write at all. Every jackass can walk. Not every person can learn how to fly. And trying to fly is often mistaken by the jackasses for not being able to walk. So they laugh. But their laughs are really only brays.

Back to the subject of Onofrio, he seems to take the brief, very brief and somewhat poetic, and supposed to be witty, as his specialty. But where is a collection of Onofrio's best lines? What memorable line to at least resemble Wilde, who really did succeed in what Onofrio tries to succeed? What epigrams?--And so on. I see nothing. What I do see is clever attempts to do nothing but put another person down. He rises to the occasion nine times out of ten only when he feels like making someone look ridiculous.

Part three.

A court jester and nothing more. But that would probably be allowing too much. I have no problem challenging him in his specialty--if you want to call it that. The only problem I foresee is that my entire imagination would come into play and much would be said which is vulgar, sexual, inventive in cussing and so on. I might triumph, but at the price of breaking every Wash. Post rule on writing here. So I suppose Onofrio will have to win. Unless I work around it...And I might apply some thought to that.

And to Persiflage, nice to know you think genius is essentially genetic, that people are just born that way. Maybe now we can dismiss that farce called education and just begin locating the more intelligent people and financing them even if most come up with nothing. A much better use of money than trying to educate people, make them more than what they are genetically capable of. But that is not what you meant right? No, most people mean nothing even when they do happen upon an interesting path...

Is genius genetic? Does it really show up early as you say Persiflage? Nice to know modern man is so intelligent that he not only knows a genius when he sees one--which all of human history has had a dismal rate of success at--but that modern man can even recognize genius before it has even really begun to produce that by which it gets its name genius.

I should have met you as a child Persiflage so I could have learned I am not a genius. I would have instead attempted to do...what virtually everyone else is already doing and needs no more hands at. What we do need people to do is the difficult--even the absurd--for the sake of us all. But I suppose that idea died in the minds of the secular as they dismissed religion. No God, no need for saviors apparently.

I've been reading all this commentary swirling around Daniel12, and of course his postings which provoke it.

I am disturbed by two things: his racism and his evident sense of isolation.

I have two or three questions for you, Daniel12: 1) are you of mixed race? Have you been mistaken for a person of mixed race? Do you feel that it somehow makes a person intellectually inferior to be of mixed race? Has your intellect ever been impugned by others?

Onofrio,

I wish I could sympathize with you in light of the attacks you sufffered from Mary Cunning Ham.

But, alas, I cannot, since you decimated the Irish broad. No great surprise, there.

As for her confusing you with me, t'is possible. She suffers from CCNL1 disease and has accused me of being everyone from Moses to Psuedo. However, in this case, I think not. She tends to assume bloggers are female, not unusual among women. (Men often assume that threaders are male.)

Old wordly friend, consider with whom you are dealing. This is a woman who "OTs" at every available opportunity, who "opines" on "the Jews," endlessly, who assumes the Catholic parochial school girls who attacked my daughter might just as well have been called "latino" (sic).

Wit, knowledge, she has none. I still recall with interest, her Cunning observation that Maimonides was a Platonist.
Lotsa ham in her language barrel. Fat, no substance, no principle.

Moderate:

"It seems possible that a lot of his comments on race are really focused what he construes the rhetoric of his opponents to say on the topic..."

I think that this may be true of many who posted on this thread. Racism is deeply layered; it requires some time to know whether someone has or has not carried essentialism to that point.
The extent to which it may generalize is also at issue.

So, is it racist to assume that Catholic parochial school girls who attacked a Jewish student, a "Christ Killer," as a blogger put it were "latino" (sic)? Probably, but it is useful to see evidence that the accuser, any accuser, has consistently denied the subjectivity, self-understanding of Others, etc. One does want to be careful about using the R word. However, one does not wish to be too timid.

One does not wish to base conclusions on what Maureen Dowd metaphorically heard.

Schopenhauer:

Die Veldt ist meine Vorstellung. "The world is my representation."

NonGod save us all, rescue us at once from the legacy of the German idealists, no offense meant to anyone but them, including the horrifically racist, misogynist, Schopenhauer.

NB, Daniel12, nota very, very bene.

Hi Daniel12,

I think you'll agree that I have been encouraging of you. That does not man I don't have a hard time with this "genius" notion, finding in it, not you, misguided elitism, biologistic mystification.

There have been very, very few Promethean solitaries, perhaps, none. Moreover, brilliance is made, not born. There may be some specific inborn propensities--one thinks of families such as the Huxleys--but without the proper environment, historical period, etc.--"genius" will not out. Consider the many who have been celebrated long after they have died, the many whose celebrity dwindled after a few decades.

Further, I'm unaware of many now canonical figures whose all-consuming wish was to be considered a "genius." I can think of those who focused with hyper-intensity on their crafts, professions, etc. They wished to write the best Finnegans Wake, as it were.

As for debate, with respect, I disagree with my co-bloggers. Disagree, take on, whomever you wish, even that great wordsman Onofrio. He doesn't mind, I strongly suspect.

But do also consider what we, in our different ways, have said. I suggest, once more, that you think about how much joy your unique gifts could bring to you, to you. No one else need acknowledge them for them to hold significance for you.

Moderate, You say:
"It seems possible that a lot of his comments on race are really focused what he construes the rhetoric of his opponents to say on the topic... You should experiment with reading it from that point of view to see what is looks like... As usual, lots of folks have guns drawn and blazing before they even understand what their opponents are saying."

I feel justified in calling Daniel12 a racist based on his own statements. To wit:

"For convenience sake, let us call this the racist white path, the path which I am on..."

and

"You mean whites with all our civilization are more racist than certain minorities who cannot even build a worthwhile civilization in the first place?"

Arminius:

"But he is very hard to read."

True that. Just food for thought. I doubt that Daniel12 considers himself a racist, though.

Right you are, Persiflage. I especially like the Schopenhauer quote from your link:

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."

Hi, Moderate,

Agreed. I'll try again. I will give him, and have given him, the benefit of the doubt. But he is very hard to read.

Arminius:

In re: Daniel 1:2

"I am not sure what he is actually trying to say - his multi-web-tome offerings are things of confusion,..."

Often, I am not sure what he is saying either. Once in a while there is an interesting sentence or paragraph, but often it is opaque.

It seems possible that a lot of his comments on race are really focused what he construes the rhetoric of his opponents to say on the topic. This is a different matter from race itself, especially viewed across the left-right divide. You should experiment with reading it from that point of view to see what is looks like. It is not the whole of his turgid prose, but I think it is an aspect. As usual, lots of folks have guns drawn and blazing before they even understand what their opponents are saying.

Personally, I like to understand someone's views, and THEN I disagree with them. :-)

Persiflage,

Very decent post to Daniel12, who really seems to be very confused.

And as for Onofrio...
"That said, we do have some pretty darn smart folks here. As to verbal jousting with Onofrio, my unsolicited advice: Don't ever take a knife to a gunfight. And that would probably apply to any of us here.

The man has a gift :^) "

Hey, dude, even a rabid Celt such as myself has second thought about taking him on! Not that I have any reason to do that. A claymore against a howitzer? Yikes!

Daniel12

"Everyone" here hasn't called your writing nonsense, just a couple of people. Arminius and I said that we don't what to make of you. You can't be mad at us for that, can you? Mary C has offered you a little encouragement. You are exagerating your critics.

So, don't be so sensitive. If they are getting to you, just take a break and com eback later.

Daniel 12

First hand knowledge of "people" would mean what you find out about someone within earshot, or who is close enough for you to touch, or that you even to touch, by patting on the shoulder, or shaking hands, or hugging, or kissing, for example.

I would call second knowledge of people anything you have read, or heard about or seen in movies or on TV.

There is nothing wrong with second-hand experience with people, just that if that is all you have, you are liable to think of people as stereotypes, and not ever be able to realize more subtle truths.

That is all.

Most of what you write about "people" does not coincide with my own personal experience. So, as I said, I consider you a curiosity.

Daniel,

I offer a neutral comment - you use the term genius frequently and this is both confusing, and very different from the concept of 'striving to be the best that you can be' and which I take to be your underlying point.

People don't claim genius - savants are simply born that way through a genetic quirk....in the same way that eidetic memory cannot be acquired (life is unfair - genius intellects are often blessed with this attribute as well).

The pseudo-savant e.g. the Dustin Hoffman character in Rainman, is also born with singular talents (often having to do with prodigious counting and calculating abilities) - but otherwise falls far below average in overall intelligence.

I personally was acquainted with just such a person - his spontaneous math abilities were simply astounding, but he could barely utter a coherent sentence.

While some geniuses are discovered later in life (thinking of Einstein here)their remarkable abilities are usually evident from a very early age. The link below says it all. We are what we are, and very few of us meet the definition of genius.

Arguably, these rare individuals are accomplished beyond the mere qualifiers for Mensa membership ..... quite beyond.

That said, we do have some pretty darn smart folks here. As to verbal jousting with Onofrio, my unsolicited advice: Don't ever take a knife to a gunfight. And that would probably apply to any of us here.

The man has a gift :^)

regards -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius

"What is most amusing is how easily everyone here takes themselves as judges of the exceptional in word even though they have dared nothing in their lives."

And how, pray tell, did you determine this? What do you know about any of us?

Genius, Daniel12, is born, not made. And people who write with genius, don't use terms like "flat-out" 3 times in as many paragraphs; especially not twice in two sentences.

Counterww talks about black people like they are bugs under a glass; things in a lab to be analyzed; a problem to be solved; an obstacle to get around.

This is a diabolical way of thinking about other human beings.

This is the same way that Conservative Christians think of gay people; just, and only, sinners, to be cast in the Lake of Fire, which they do not want to happen, but, nevertheless, which God is going to do; with no more thought than we could give to stepping on a bug.

This is the way that these people talk about "illegal aliens," which they prefer to call "ILLEGALS," as though their very existence is illegal, and against God and against nature. But they are not "illegals;" what they are is "undocumented immigrants" who vary from "normal" people only in that their paperwork is not in order. Will that count against them when they try to enter Heaven? Of all of the Christian hypocrisy running wild in the world today, I suppose this is the example that bothers me most of all.

Will Jesus require proof of American citizenship before allowing anyone into Heaven?

Perhaps the way in which Counterww regards black people is not really racist; it is just the standard way that people like him regard anyone who is not in their circle of conservative Rebpulcan white people, like bugs under a glass, not worthy of even simple human regard.

DUDE!

Daniel ITLD,

As for Daniel12, I don't know what to make out of him either. I am not sure what he is actually trying to say - his multi-web-tome offerings are things of confusion, and I find in them stuff that disturbs me.

Perhaps if he could be much more concise, identify the problem/topic at once, and offer his points in fewer words. He seems to be making mountains out of molehills for sure.

To Daniel in lion's Den, I grew up travelling around the world, getting things "first hand" as you put it. But then when I really started reading--tackling the greatest writers in the world--I learned that what most people call first hand is really second hand--literally, for they approach great books by at best by way of the teacher in school--and that the first hand is located where genius is located. But I suppose that would be second hand news to you.

How flat out pathetic my critics here are. I flat out state my views as clearly and as logically as possible and everyone responds with nothing but petty attempts to tear me down.

What is most amusing is how easily everyone here takes themselves as judges of the exceptional in word even though they have dared nothing in their lives.

I flat out state that I strive for genius every day. That alone sets me apart unless someone can name someone else that has declared that to be his goal. And be careful, do not give the name of a genius.

Tell me, which is more arrogant, me striving to become a genius or you declaring you would know a genius if you saw him although the entirety of your lives is nothing like preparation to recognize such let alone accomplish such?

If I had depended on the views of people like you I would never have even opened a book in my life except to read the junk most people feast on. And when I reflect on all the books I have read--great writers--and weigh all the effort I have put into writing as originally and as clearly as possible, and then when I compare that to virtually everyone saying "no, no, no" to me--all you people who have made no effort to really understand a variety of fields all to the purpose of synthesizing an individual viewpoint--I can only go with myself over people like you.

And to Onofrio, I do not fancy what I write "contrarian brio". I am not a child reflexively taking the opposite of what people think to bolster a fragile identity let alone presenting it with an obvious attempt to be humorous. I think that describes you more than it describes me.

As for my attempts "to compare myself to the Bard" as you put it (Onofrio), if everyone followed your advice, listened to your discouragement, there would never have been a Bard in the first place. I believe such as the Bard can come again. And I believe some people at least must strive for such.

But what do you care about that? You do not believe in God. And do not have the sense to know that if not believing in God one must believe in the possibilities of man. You better hope in your Godless world at least some people are striving to be geniuses, because if all are taking your course we will probably shipwreck and turn back to God.

But why not get to the true point? You (and by you now I mean everyone here critical of me) say what I do is nonsense, nothing, meaning really that anyone can do it. Then show me you can do the same. Write a developed piece as I strive to each week which is clear, logical and insightful. I wish I could say that below is a piece in the style of Onofrio to show I can do the same, but my first two attempts ended up being quite vulgar, nasty little poems.

But I might spend some more time writing a few things in the style of Onofrio to show--prove--what he does is not really that exceptional. Or maybe not. In fact probably not. I want to write something and not be frivolous.

I don't really know what to make of Daniel 12. He oftem seems to simmer at a low grade anger, from what cause, I do not know. But he is not usually very mean (although he called me "squeamish" because I am opposed to torture, which I felt was a little weird, and a little mean).

He has acknowledged that he does not socialize much, nor know many people, so I think that he gets most of his ideas on humanity and human nature "second-hand."

WHEREAS, I think, I hope I get most of mine from actual real people that I know. I am not too worried about race, because in my experience with people, it simply does not matter very much, period. It just doesn't.

In fact, I find the company and aquaintacehsip of people from ethinic groups other than my own (WASP) to be fun and interesting. Is it just me?

So my opinion of Daniel12 is that he vastly over-thinks simple things that are not very important, at least not to me. And so I often have a hard time reading and understanding what he has to say.

Having said all that, I am not particularly angry with him, either, though.

mary said,
"And why shout..."

you've inspired me...

"I want my time to live and breath and aspire to be more than time and space. Nice line that last, tell me, who can match it living or dead?"

Too many to list, o hubristic one. And it's "breathe", Daniel.

I take a breath in order to breathe. I bathe when I take a bath.

Sorry - pet peeve.

It's beyond witching hour here, so I'll bid adieu.

Arminius,

"Might she be confusing you with Farnaz?"

She might, which bemuses me. Farnaz is deep, clever, challenging, and very knowledgeable - a formidable debater. I am all fey japes and foolery.

Mary C,

Thee:
"English, cool one, it’s what we speak. (Even in Australia)."

English is only my second language. There is no first.

Where I live we'd say "English, cool one, is what we speak."

I know; it's to be expected from colonials.

Onofrio,

"If Mary C thinks me a she - slight or mistake - I care not"

Good one, there. Might she be confusing you with Farnaz? I made that mistake once, but no longer.

Arminius,

Thee:
"(Note to Onofrio: Mary C calls you 'she'. True or false? You can ignore the question if you wish, of course.)"

If Mary C thinks me a she - slight or mistake - I care not :^|

Mary Cunningham,

Thee:
"And why shout in something the rest won’t understand?"

If they care to, they can Google it. Takes about five seconds. Otherwise they can just ignore it, which, no doubt, most will.

If you want to endorse a quack obsessed with miscegenation and his own *genius*, good for you. And if you're a fan of his turgid trilogies and tetralogies, enjoy!

And I'll respond with whatever utterly twee, pretentious, multilingual prattle I please.

Thee:
"criticizing someone’s blog style should only be done by the very witty or the very wise and how do the above qualify?"

No qualification necessary, Mary, just a button labelled *Submit*. I don't give a flying duck that you find me unwise and unwitty :^)

Thee, re Dan-le-Douze:
"I haven’t said anything about the content of his postings. And I won’t."

Wise move, Mary. You get to keep your face.

Mary_Cunningham,
kind, classy, constructive criticism for daniel12.

you said,
"And I won’t continue here..."

do you mean posting AT ALL (sorry, don't know how to do italics...), or posting on the subject of daniel12's posts? it would be a shame if you stopped posting altogether.

Mary C,

The first part of your post was pretty good, actually.

About all caps, though - I do this to emphasize a word or phrase, and I think that is OK. I can't use italics, or I would do that instead. Any post that I see that has a great deal of caps or all caps I skip over.

As for the lines cited from Onofrio - can't you recognize satire when you see it?

(Note to Onofrio: Mary C calls you 'she'. True or false? You can ignore the question if you wish, of course.)

Langenscheidt,

Dan-le-Douze is a case study in the perils of DIY erudition - an autodidact deluxe, brimful of lumpen gruel that he fancies contrarian brio.

He reminds me of that mediocre Vienna watercolourist, writer of rambling rants, who raved his way to the ruin of millions.

An encouragement for Daniel12

I would like to urge you to continue your argument. You should try to help your readers (the sincere ones, that is) by setting out what you want to say firstly and afterwards listing your supporting points.

My contention is that you deserve to continue writing:

1. Your views are often in opposition but you take time and care in stating them.
2. You do not disparage your opponents by calling them names like “racist’ ‘sphincter’ and ‘waste of space’.
3. You do not engage in frenzied insults and mass name-calling known as “blog slams”.
4. You number your thoughts so, should they so wish, your opponents can easily refer to them.
5. You write in clear English, you do not use French, Spanish, Latin, or other pretentious, difficult-to-understand (for an English speaking audience) words.
6. You refrain from writing doggerel.

Some examples of bad writing that Daniel12 refrains from:

From the cool one:

the bold threefold iteration of *great* - an allusion at once both forbiddingly Hermetic and winsomely genealogical - gathering to a semantic cadenza, mischievously counterpointed with the disarming naïveté of a cliché.

Unbelievable! So utterly twee. Whatever can she mean? Does she mean to say you used ‘great’ three times? Why couldn’t she say it? English, cool one, it’s what we speak. (Even in Australia).

From a malevolent marionette (?):
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH...now THAT is funny. Imagine this stupid little racist attempting to pass himself of as an educated writer!

In my humble opinion anyone who uses CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THE ABOVE is, well, an uneducated boor.

Again the cool one:
Your last words will be QUALIS ARTIFEX PEREO, no doubt.

Latin plus CAPITAL LETTERS. Caps are shouting you know. And why shout in something the rest won’t understand?
I don’t want to go any further. But criticizing someone’s blog style should only be done by the very witty or the very wise and how do the above qualify? I haven’t said anything about the content of his postings. And I won’t.

And I won’t continue here, but the above examples are awful Are you English teachers? Poets? Physician, heal thyself, to mix the metaphor if not the message.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"And really I have to laugh that everyone here criticizing me actually believes I really thought my words are going to last centuries."

Joke's on us then. Your daring new form of irony passed clear over our dunce caps. Really, actually, really...

Thee:
"If you laugh at me you surely must be laughing at Shakespeare because there is no Shakespeare other than kings and queens and knaves and all his other...characters? Himself?"

Hear ye! The new Bard is among us! The darling of the Muses has scintillated, and we had not the wit to combust. We are not worthy...

Thee:
"Apparently no one has an education in literature or it would be understood that the truly great difference between great writers and the lesser is that great writers can imagine themselves being virtually anyone or anything."

See here, the bold threefold iteration of *great* - an allusion at once both forbiddingly Hermetic and winsomely genealogical - gathering to a semantic cadenza, mischievously counterpointed with the disarming naïveté of a cliché.

An august bronze in a public square is the very least we can do. And his keyboard should go straight to the Smithsonian.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"I want my time to live and breath and aspire to be more than time and space.
Nice line that last, tell me, who can match it living or dead?"

Since you are your very own standing ovation, encore, and apotheosis, any further praise is redundant, surely.

Thee:
"Perhaps it can be matched. In fact even the best can be matched. But the mark of the best is that none can surpass."

Your last words will be QUALIS ARTIFEX PEREO, no doubt.

Dear Daniel12

Am I the "Left?" I do not feel that I am. I am just me. Do my ideas trend left? Maybe. But it is by no plann of mine to be the "left." I am not a hypocrite. On a personal basis, I am not very worried about race.

I have a friend whose mother is black and father is white. He is neither. He is racially blended. In just one generations, the "race" of central Africa and of Scandanavia has been obliterated. That should tell you an insubstantial thing race is.

This guy, my friend, looks like he might be Italian, if you had to guess. His skin is brown, his hair is brown, with large loose curls. He is good looking, healthy, friendly, and kind. He is actually sort of Obama-esque.

People of mixed or blended race have a problem, because they are racially not recognized under the old-timey racial paradigm, even though they do exist in large numbers. Often a mixed race person will ressembe one race a little more than another, or will choose a racial identity which then becomes his race.

But other than that, who is going to interview a mixed race person in a social setting, to pinpoint EXACTLY their racial heritage, so that we can all KNOW him better?

Not practical, not going to happen.

I have never said we are beyond race. I said that race, is a biologically unsound concept. Therefore, I personally do not buy into the currently held racial paradigm, but I understand, and make referene to it in my ordinary speech, so that I can be understood.

All I get from you is that you feel personally threatened by dark skinned people. I do not feel that way. It is your problem, not mine. That does not make me a hypocrite.

Counterww

By the standard that I go by, your comments to me are racist. But of course, you don't see that, do you?

As far as you are concerned, black people are "written off" and gone from the conservative movement and the Republican Party. That was my whole point, that in America, by definition, to be conservativce is to be white, and if you are not white, then you are not welcome or wanted among conservatives.

Obviously, you don't get it. And it doesn't matter does it? People like you are the ones who taint every argument with your racism. But that is your problem to figure out, not mine.

Correction: fourth paragraph from last (in part three) should end in "time and space", not "time and place" as I wrote.

Another correction: in the third paragraph in part two it should read something like "if the left were to gather everyone in a round table and say we all should give up our respective races and ethnic groups all would recoil--in fact one could not get even the left to say such let alone act on such.

Part one.

To Langenscheidt (and others as well). My very words:

"The left says it is beyond race but it has not invented any term--racial term, racial category--to describe mixed race people other than to say mixed race."

Meaning the left has not invented any term to describe mixed race people other than to say mixed race--meaning the same old familiar "mixed race"--meaning no invention at all. Sarcasm friend.

But the left does not really stick to saying biracial or multiracial or mixed race, no, the left has white people when mixed with especially Hispanics or Native Americans or Blacks--such minorities--called anything but white.

Again--I say it again--and I want to hear the left say where exactly I am wrong: If all white people start having children with especially blacks, there will be no white people because everyone will call the children black. We know why the right wing does, for it is obviously racist, but the left wing tells us it is beyond race.

What hypocrisy. I say it again: the left has not invented any term to describe the future mixing of America--no new racial term--which even remotely can satisfy anyone,--except I suppose blacks and Hispanics because according to the left interbreeding with them results in anything but white.

I say it again: Make this thought experiment. Tell me left wingers what Americans will become if all whites have children by blacks. Answer, according to the "beyond race" left: the children will be black. Meaning the complete elimination of the racial category white in America.

I can tell the left right now that it had better start getting inventive and come up with a racial categorization which describes mixed race to the satisfaction of everyone--and no, the clumsy, mixed race or biracial or whatever is not going to get it. It would be nice though if all race dissolves into something of ignorance about race and everyone says human race.

Part two.

The problem is everyone is being sly, one way or another keeping their race or ethnic group alive at the expense of others. Of course we have blacks mixed with anything resulting in black. We have Jews mixed with anything resulting in Jews. We have whites (right wing) resisting mixing with especially certain minorities because it cannot easily say the children are white--really, white people have no history of saying that when they are mixed with others they can be only white.

Whether one is aggressively racist (right wing) or passive aggressively racist (left wing slyly calling white mixed with anything else anything but white) it all is racism. And that should not surprise anyone.

At the best the left wing has the best, most generous people among us. But the left is too idealistic. It says stuff about being beyond race but does not grasp that if everyone in America were to gather around a cyberspace round table--let it just remain metaphorical--and say we all should just throw our respective races and ethnic groups to the wind, everyone would recoil. Blacks want to remain blacks. Hispanics want to remain Hispanics. Jews want to remain Jews. And the white race--well we all know the white race wants to remain white.

Please left wing, some methodology. But I suppose it is easier to jump on me about it. And really I have to laugh that everyone here criticizing me actually believes I really thought my words are going to last centuries. Apparently no one has an education in literature or it would be understood that the truly great difference between great writers and the lesser is that great writers can imagine themselves being virtually anyone or anything.

Part three.

It is a commonplace in poetry to speak from the perspective of God or Devil or animal or flora--it really goes on. If you laugh at me you surely must be laughing at Shakespeare because there is no Shakespeare other than kings and queens and knaves and all his other...characters? Himself? Who knows--but he imagined himself anything and going anywhere, and you know, he is becoming everything and so far is going everywhere whether in time or place.

And perhaps I will too. I can certainly tell you I have quite a lot written and that I am in no rush to publish--because I really have striven to write to last. And if you want to laugh at that, tell me, what better way to spend all the time we are granted in modern civilization than to try to become a genius?

You mean I should not laugh at the way no doubt you people spend your time? That is an improvement on my trying to become a genius? But go ahead and laugh. And you might as well laugh at anyone who dared something. I want a life to live, not pass the time. It horrifies me when people say "let's kill some time". I want my time to live and breath and aspire to be more than time and space. Nice line that last, tell me, who can match it living or dead? Perhaps it can be matched. In fact even the best can be matched. But the mark of the best is that none can surpass.

When a guitarist passes a certain point he is right up there with the best--all equal but with individual style. That is something of what I want to do with writing. Zero emphasis on the craft of writing. All emphasis on original insight forming the writing as it wishes. But enough about me. Try interesting me with your words.

It is true that the White House rejected Carter's "analysis."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32869276/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Carter should try to stretch himself beyond Maureen Dowd. Alternatively, he might spend his twilight years Eldering, far away, perhaps, out of reach of phones, computers, etc.

Oh ye Carter defenders, I shan't take up sword against you. The old guy ain't in office now, and Iran is what it is.

There is quasi-institutionalized racism all over the map. Arguably, however, the South has recovered neither economically nor politically from slavery and Reconstruction. It continues to give priority to states rights, suffers ongoing economic distress, both of which have reinforced classism and racism.

A different approach is called for. We are long overdue in examining, rectifying regional economic disparities.

Counterww,

Insomnia, dude?

GOP or DEM: WWJD? I understand he rode an ass, not an elephant.

DILD-

You say again "It seems that Conservatives who do not think that they are racist should at least ponder this a little. Don't you ever wonder why all of you are white, and none of you are black?"

Why are blacks Democrats? It's because Dems have been playing the race card of- "we'll help you poor disadvantaged blacks to get out of your morass that those awful whites have caused you to be in - we'll even the score. And although racism did exist, it is basically GONE. Even the white house has refuted old kook carter in his comments.

If you can't argue the issues, pull the race card. It's the left's wild card they play every time things get dicey.

SOOO transparent.

Pam,

Thee, re the misprised savant:
"Re writing for "eternity," somehow I doubt that your posts will last anywhere near that long."

I was going to suggest he devise a system of universally legible pictograms (simple enough for a genius), and carve them on the wall of some remote cave. Then the spacefolk who stumble upon our ruins shall be able - after epic searches - to descry his precious prescience, and shall exclaim, in their Sirian tongue: "Ah, truly, we have not seen his like in a thousand worlds!"

And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth among the WAPO shades, burning in our own insignificance, eating out our spectral hearts...

One more thing, Daniel12, as long as I'm piling on...

Re writing for "eternity," somehow I doubt that your posts will last anywhere near that long.

One fine day, the WaPo will get tired of hosting this forum, and of giving server space to the archives, and *POOF!*, all will be gone.

Daniel12,
Do, please, shut up. You're digging your grave deeper with every post. You are appallingly racist.

How about if we don't characterize people by race or color at all? Unless we're describing a criminal on the loose, there's really no reason for it. Content of their characters, and all that.

That's the word from the "left."

Walter,
Indeed, JJ is the fish guy - a complete looney.

Archarito is new to me - first time I've seen him on one of Susan's threads, although I haven't seen them all. He's the frothing-at-the-mouth Bilderberger conspiracy theorist who posted (or shouted) at 2:27 AM.

Spidey, I'm sure you must know.

Arminius,

Thee:
Of course the Mines of Moria!

"And they call it a mine...a MINE!"

"This isn't a mine; it's a tomb."

....

"Be on your guard. There are older and fouler things than orcs in the deep places of the world."

Farnaz,

"But whom do we thank for racism among the godless?"

I think you've coined a koan, Farnaz.

Onofrio,

Of course the Mines of Moria!
"Let them come! There's still one dwarf in Moria who still draws breath!"

"Thank God for racism."

Posted by: thebump
---------------------
Interesting. But whom do we thank for racism among the godless? How do we explain Chinese attitudes toward Tibetans?

"Let them come!"

Arminius,

I had Khazad-Dûm in mind :^)

Onofrio,

If ye stand on Balin's tomb, then ye be in good and proud company!

I oughta know, certes. Yet I stand on Balin's tomb.

Be specific man! Tolkein's Balin, or the Balin of Arthurian legend?

Langenscheidt,

I have tried. I'll leave him to the consolations of his own genius.

Arminius,

I oughta know, certes. Yet I stand on Balin's tomb.

Evening, Onofrio,

Ya outta know better than to deal with trolls. The sorry bastard should return to his hidey-hole under the bridge.

TheBump, go suck your gun.

Thank God for racism.

DITLD wrote:

"Everything about your tone was pretty ugly and rude. What do you think you are accomplishing by this tone?"

Ummmm....he's a republican. What were you expecting?

arminius3142,
i understood that. i just meant that this "jj" obviously has some "talent" or "passion" or "attention to detail" or "something". but he wastes it on drawing a fish with your name in its mouth.

OKAY Globalone,

I guess you told me a thing or two. But you didn't really reply to what I said.

Everything about your tone was pretty ugly and rude. What do you think you are accomplishing by this tone? If you win the argument, what do you think you have won?

Alot of the hostility against Obama is obviouisly bsed on the color his bronw skin, and nothing more. And you have not said anything that relates to this at all.

Walter, you said,

""you will find my handle in the mouth of one of them."

what a waste of something."

I am confused. I meant that my handle here, 'Arminius', was being eaten by one of JJ's fish.

arminius3142, you said,
"you will find my handle in the mouth of one of them."

what a waste of something.

"Can't you make a convincing statement that Obama's brown skin is not the basis for your opposition to him."

I'm not in opposition of HIM, I'm in opposition to a whole host of his policies.

Issue One ~ ILLEGALLY handing over GM to the labor unions. So much for "Change we can believe in" right? Give me your votes and money and I'll provide you with a majority stake in an auto manufacturer. But Mr. President, if GM goes into bankruptcy protection, won't the secured creditors get first bite of the apple? Screw them. They want to own it? They can write me a check and guarantee me some votes. The Creditors are crooks anyway. Oops, strike that. Spoke to soon. Give them a call and we can sit down for a beer and clear the air.

Issue Two ~ Trying to ram universal health care down our throats and THEN holding town hall meetings when it fails miserably. Speaking for myself, I agree that changes need to come about for health care to be more efficient and effective. But why do we need to get a $500 billion project completed all at once? (And excuse me if I don't buy the $500 billion price tab but your health coverage won't change at all bull) Why not go after the low hanging fruit first and then tackle the tougher items? The ONLY reason is so that the Democrats have something to hang their hat on come election time in 2010. It has more to do with keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.

Finally ~ Because he has absolutely no experience playing at this level, I have to live with the "learning" mistakes he so frequently makes. Like passing legislation to "reign in" the credit card companies. Yeah, sounds like a great idea to all of his supporters (lemmings) whose knowledge is limited to whatever the headline says. But who's complaining now? The same people who had low rates and excellent credit but saw their rates jump 10%+. Good one Mr. President!

I'm positive he'll get some things right, every President does. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider the ability to speak eloquently as the most important part of the job. (See Harding, President Warren).

Walter,

Thought about it - there may have been an 'A' guy, I don't remember, and I have been here for quite a while. The guy with the fish is definitely JJ.

Walter,

It's the same guy. His names, first and last, start with 'J'. If you look at the fish, you will find my handle in the mouth of one of them.

arminius3142,
well "jj" must be posting under some name again because i saw one of those drawings recently. also, i don't think i've even been posting here a year, so there must be another guy. for some vague unattributable reason i thought his name started with "a"?

I never said the left invented the term mixed race--and how would anyone be able to determine the origin of such? I said the left at best uses the term when describing white mixed with another race--or even better, says of the mixed race that they are just human race--when not saying white mixed with (for example black) is black and not white. And what does it have to do with anything I said this question of whether the left invented the term "mixed race"? Nothing. Unless you can explain why you are questioning such, Langenscheidt. In fact it sounds to me that you are just insulting yourself, saying the left did not invent the term mixed race. That just reinforces more of what I said. What next are you going to say? That the left did not invent the term "human race". Which leaves the left with only saying white mixed with virtually any other race is not white but the other race. Are you at all capable of reading? The point I was making is that the left is not beyond race as it claims. It says it is beyond race but is only too happy to say white mixed with another race--but especially black--is the other race and not white. Which leaves white people when having children with another race losing their race, having the racial category white erased and other racial categorizations elevated. How difficult is that to comprehend?

"I remember those "Support Bush" bumper stickers with the little picture of a hangman's noose. I think we can all imagine the outcry if they said "Support Obama"."

Yes, and that outcry would be justified. If you know anything about America, you just may recall that it was the blacks that were routinely and casually lynched, not us honkies. Therefore the noose is a symbol of hatred to blacks, and rightly so. Or is it that you don't care, thus exposing your racism?

Walter,

The guy making the fish drawings and the almost indecipherable posts is known as 'JJ'. I can't actually type his name here, it has been blocked. He was thrown off about a year ago because of continual posts of over 12 screens, full of utter nonsense, and also of many really nasty personal attacks. Many of those attacks were on me, because I went after him tooth and nail. Some of did some digging, and his 'religion' was born in a federal prison. Nothing wrong with that, on the surface, but it is a front for white supremacists.

Oh - here's a nice photographic retrospective of Bush-hatred:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos

I remember those "Support Bush" bumper stickers with the little picture of a hangman's noose. I think we can all imagine the outcry if they said "Support Obama".

For the last 8 years (where did Susan Jacoby spend them, anyway?), many on the left expressed personal rancor - beyond the level we're currently seeing from the right - against Bush and members of his administration. More than a few harbored more or less thinly veiled wishes (or indulged in morbid fantasies such as the film "Death of a President") for the demise of Bush and/or Cheney. I remember a couple of years ago HuffPo printed a Thanksgiving Day prayer for Cheney's heart to give out. I wish I could say that sort of thing was unusual during the Bush years, but it wasn't.

peter,
pam and i are checking susan's old "religious gun nut" thread for you.

Pam,
is "Archarito" the guy who makes fish drawings and uses LOTS of RANdom CApitAL LETTERS?

The right wing is without a doubt racist, but the left wing is utterly phony and hypocritical when it comes to race.

The left says it is beyond race but it has not invented any term--racial term, racial category--to describe mixed race people other than to say mixed race.

And far from being consistent in the use of the term "mixed race", let alone consistent in being noble and just saying the human race, the left describes the offspring of whites and certain minorities--but especially Hispanics not to mention blacks--as precisely these minorities and not mixed race let alone white.

According to the racial categorization of the left wing, if all white people have children by Hispanics not to mention blacks, the U.S. will be Hispanic and black--not white at all. For white people to follow the left wing's prescription and be "beyond race" and have children by certain minorities is to have no white people at all in America--and no mixed race let alone human race but black people, Hispanic people.

The prescription of the left wing leads to a complete loss of racial identity on the part of whites--the elimination of the white race as a racial category. So much for being beyond race, the left wing.

But why would anyone believe the left is beyond race in the first place? Are we really to believe white people are the only racists in the world? You mean whites with all our civilization are more racist than certain minorities who cannot even build a worthwhile civilization in the first place?

What hypocrisy and phoniness on the part of the left. We see every day the attempt on the part of the left to elevate this minority and that. The left is not beyond race, it merely seeks to elevate certain minorities in the U.S. to be on par with whites--and then goes further than that and says of mixed children that the children are any race but white.

Obama considered a black man although not only with a white mother but completely raised by her. If all whites according to the left were to follow the path of Obama's mother there would be no white people--only black.

But I already said that. What hypocrisy and phoniness on the part of the left.

When Republicans or conservatives are challenged that their views towards Obamba may be motivated by racism, here is the typical response:

"I am not rasicst;I would feel the same about him no matter what color he is; he could be green, yellow, or purple, for all I care."

But he is not green, yellow, or purple; he is black, and many conservatives seem to care.

I would like to hear Conservatives and Repbuclicans who disagree with Obama say, "he has brown skin, and that is fine with me."

I am not hearing that.

If they would say something like that in direct and plain English, then it would be more believable. Constantly back-peddling and side-stepping any questions of race and racism seems disingenuous, and just keeps the doubts going amoung liberals.

This applies to you Globalone. Can't you make a convincing statement that Obama's brown skin is not the basis for your opposition to him.

Just say it, and then I will believe it.

Globalone says:
"Congrats to Lang for submitting what is, arguably, the most ascinine post in "On Faith" forum history."

Oh, puh-LEEZE! On this thread alone, that distinction belongs hands-down to Archarito.

Historically, I give you Spidermean2.

The despicable "Sambo" attack from the left against Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele?

Frankly, as a Democrat, well aware of Republican excesses, I find it odd to be in the position of warning fellow Dems against self-congratulation, distortion. However, racism should not be made into a political football. It is far too important an issue, too dangerous, and it is pervasive.

For a short list of prominent Dems, whose racist banter should not go unnoticed, click onto this site.

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

"God forbid that the nation ever again falls into the hands of republicans."

We have a WINNER!! (ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding). Congrats to Lang for submitting what is, arguably, the most ascinine post in "On Faith" forum history. Awesome dude!

And I'm guessing you're from Chicago?

As an aside, I'll take Eisenhower(R) over Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

BobThompson, you said:

"the democrats have always been more patronizing to minorities and willing to make close identification with historically oppressed groups a principal part of their public image. Then they foster and promote racial preference programs like affirmative action for jobs, college entrance, etc., and the advantaged minority starts to act indebted."

A policy of affirmative action and racial quotas is trivial, in the scheme of things, and more symbolic, than anything else.

The subject of race in America is not so trivial as you make it out to be. If it were simply as you say, then one would expect alot more ideolocially conservative black Republicans, wouldn't you? So where are they?

What we are talking about is not racial quotas that may affect only a tiny few individuals. What we are talking about is freedom, liberty, and dignity for millions and millions of black people, who were subjugated and degraded for 300 years, in America. We are not talking about money, income, or jobs, although those things are important; we are talking breathing air as a slave, or breathing air as a free person.

I remember as a child growing up in Virginia, when the Democratic Congress passed the Votings Right Act, the sitting governor of Virginia converted from a Democrat to a Repbulcan; the sitting Senators converted from Democrats to Republicans; the House Representatives likewise converted; the mayors in all of the little towns all over the state, converted from Democratic to Republican. In fact, this was repeated all over the South. Even as a little boy, it was easy for me to see that the Republican Party was the refuge of the racists.

At the time, the Republican Party felt it was a fair deal to give shelter and comfort to all those Southern racists, in exchange for more numbers and more power. Now all these years later, the Republican Party is still paying.

I believe that in America, to be conservative, a person's skin color must be white, and cannot be black. That is the paradigm that the conservatives have set up. They say they are open to anyone of any skin color. Is it, then, just a freakish coincidence, that there are almost no black Republicans at all?

It seems that Conservatives who do not think that they are racist should at least ponder this a little. Don't you ever wonder why all of you are white, and none of you are black?

"Here's something the Racist Post won't report on: a group of blacks beating a white kid on a bus. Oh no, mustn't call it "racially motivated" if it's a group of blacks beating a white kid."

Which was investigated and found to be a fight about choice of seats, not race. Talk about "playing the race card!"

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN

Your analysis of racial minority affinity to the democrats and not to republicans is frequently heard. Here's another. Neither party is loaded up with racial prejudice, but the democrats have always been more patronizing to minorities and willing to make close identification with historically oppressed groups a principal part of their public image. Then they foster and promote racial preference programs like affirmative action for jobs, college entrance, etc., and the advantaged minority starts to act indebted. And, of course, the advantaged groups are constantly reminded that the other political party is filled with racists and cannot be expected to act in the minorities' interest.

I grant that there are some racists on the right, but republicans, in general, and conservatives do not accept such a label as part and parcel of their political beliefs. A similar reaction comes from democrats when they are called 'socialists' by their opponents. Most democrats will reject this label because Americans mostly don't think favorably of socialism and most democrats do not consider themselves socialists. But socialists are certainly there and they have an affinity to the Democratic Party.

Pamsm:
I think you're misunderstanding the Dowd quote - she wasn't saying that that was what Wilson *said*, only that it was what he *meant*.

Given the state he hails from, his voting record, his previous statements, and his hero/mentor (Thurmond), I'm inclined to agree.
--------------------------

Thanks, and point noted. I confess I rushed through the Dowd piece. Speed-reading Dowd is a habit I developed after years of seeing her squander her considerable abilities.

To the question: If anything, Dowd's reporting on what Wilson "meant," rather than what he said, and the subsequent brouhaha by my fellow leftists and liberals, is all the more alarming. Frightening.

Shall we lynch him? Shall we now decide what Pelosi means, what McConell means, and vilify them on the net? Certainly,I have no fondness for Wilson, but I ask you to consider the consequences of this sort of witch hunting, spirit hunting, Dowdian divination.

I also ask that we all consider double standards. Are we to attribute Jesse Jackson's antisemitic remarks to his birth in Wilson's home state? And what was the liberal response to what the minister actually said, while a presidential candidate? Not what Dowd imagined him to have said, but what he did say? As for associations, we know who his associate was, none other than Farrakhan. Jackson's mid-east oil connections were disclosed.
His words, his state, his associate, past and present. The liberal response? Protection, defense.

What does it all come to? We wish to confront racism where we see, hear it. We do not wish to accuse a man because of what Maureen Dowd, of all people, thinks he intended to say. We do not want double standards for liberals and conservatives, white and black.

We want substance, truth, fact, judgment, you and I.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm

Jesse Jackson's 'Hymietown' Remark – 1984

Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson's rocky relations with American Jews.

A storm of protest erupted, and Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. The Nation of Islam's radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and old Jackson ally, made a difficult situation worse by threatening Coleman in a radio broadcast and issuing a public warning to Jews, made in Jackson's presence: "If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm."

Langenscheidt,

Thee:
"Appropo of the comments on this thread, have you noticed that most people's political leanings have almost nothing to do with facts?"

I daresay the facts will do for us all in the end, however we lean.

Situation: fact up.

For the Neocons and other angry Republicans:

Fact: Obama was hired to fix the economy and get us out of Iraq.

Fact: Obama is doing both.

Fact: Obama will be re-elected, unless he is photographed sodomizing Marines in the Oval Office.

Live with it.

Onofrio:

"Thee:
"As for my being wordy, long-winded, perhaps the rest of you should take the time to actually write something which is not at best clever word play (Onofrio).""

Please...lets not encourage his self-martyrdom. Besides, clever word play is something of which he will never be accused.

Appropo of the comments on this thread, have you noticed that most people's political leanings have almost nothing to do with facts?

BobThompson

You are right, there is a confusion over "conservatives" and "racists." But who is causing this confusion? It is the conservatives, themselves.

It was Federal intervention that put an end to Jim Crowe laws in the south, and sought to abate, at least, legal and instituional racism in America. Is it any wonder that black look to this Federal intervention as a very powerful example of the good that government can do?

Black people are not going to give up this attitude towards Federal power, until conservatives as a group, asure them that Federal power is no longer necessary to sustain the advances of civil rights and equality for black people.

I am sure there are many socially and economically conservative black people. But are they really welcome in the Republican Party? They are compelled by the color of their skin, to choose up a side, the Democrats, with whom they may disagree on many things, but what other choice do they have? The party of Rush and Newt? I don't think so.

It is the same with gay people. There are many gay people who are conservative by nature and at heart. But are they going to be Republicans? It is not likely, that they would join up with a party that condemns them as an "abomination" in the eyes of God, drums up hostility againts them for political gain, and then on top of that, encourages its member to carry guns?

The Republican party excludes many conservative people because to be a Republican, there are many tests to pass that go beyond being merely "conservative."

Daniel12

And further,

Thee:
"As for my being wordy, long-winded, perhaps the rest of you should take the time to actually write something which is not at best clever word play (Onofrio)."

I'll take that on the chin, insofar as it applies to me. I may well be vacuous, but to tar everyone else ("the rest of you") with that brush is a spiteful slight against the many thoughtful, learned, challenging, enlightening, engaging, and charming posts that appear here.

Have a go at me, by all means, but leave "the rest" out of it.

You need to rethink and see if you can be precise regarding what is racism. The fact that whites had an enormous advantage, supported by law (but not the Constitution), over blacks in our society for almost 200 years of our nation's existence does not make all whites who benefited from that racists. If a person supports or acquiesces in racist policies or acts, some will define them as racists and I don't object to that depiction, but it is one more step we must go to reach the racist, who does these things with a full knowledge and understanding of the underlying inequity and evil that goes with it. So I look at racism as in at least two forms. One comes from ignorance and lack of understanding, it is wrong but not necessarily from evil intent, and we have a lot of this in this country. The other comes with complete understanding and evil intent, if we accept evil intent as being a willingness to overtly deny others the same rights and opportunities as the racist enjoys, and, in my view, we no longer have a lot of this form.

Blacks in the US were legally disadvantaged in this regard for centuries and illegally disadvantaged for a substantial period after the legal obstacles were overturned. Some of the latter still goes on and it applies to blacks, latinos, Asians, and other minority groups. Much progress has been made in actually changing conditions so that the guarantees of equality of opportunity are really there.

None of this is necessarily applicable to the current divide between the conservatives and progressives over what our governing process should be. Most true conservatives believe in smaller and less intrusive government, especially federal government, than do progressives. In fact, as a conservative myself, I have not yet figured out if there is a limit on how much or how large the government can be before progressives would agree that individual liberty, as expressed by the founders, no longer exists.

I am frequently referred to as a racist merely because I hold conservative political views and oppose policies and direction of this administration, and your approach to the racism issue adds fuel to this fire. Why cannot you, and others like you, accept that this divide in political opinion exists for numerous legitimate reasons that do not involve racism?

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"Does the frio ono (muy cold) thinketh that every different snowflake of thought (mucho stars which disintegrate and are really nothing) belong to his mind only and no one else can twist a wad of paper into origami?"

Origami, snowflakes, and broken stars...I am worsted.

(:^U

Thee:
"I try to write something for eternity."

I see...a prophet hath no honour, eh? Well, enjoy your niche in the hallowed halls. I hope the bust does you justice.

Thee:
"With all the luxury of time in modern society at least one person has to have the courage to say he might as well make the best of the time as possible and strive to be a genius."

The gods are not spoilsports, Daniel12, but they do draw the line at hubris. In your case, I think they're still just laughing. But only just...

Remember, O Imperator, HOMINEM TE MEMENTO.

Langenscheidt, re: daniel12,
you've got to admit it's pretty cool how he posts those mulit-part opuses (opera?) in "reverse" order - so they appear in sequential order reading from the top.

speaking of which, if any wapo WEBMASTER is "listening", i sure wish these comment threads would be arranged so the NEWEST post is at the BOTTOM. much easier to follow along that way...

Daniel12:

The response you are getting (or more accurately, not getting) to your literary efforts should tell you something. You are not a writer. You are not a thinker. The fact that you imagine your writings to be be original shows how poorly read and inadequately educated you are. Face reality: you are not, by a very long shot, a genius and you never will be. What you are is a bore.

Find meaningful work before it is too late, Daniel. There will always be a need for embalmers. Start there.

I believe that alot of the anti-Obama sentiment in America is based on race, and that there are alot of white racist people who cannot accept a black man as President.

That does not mean that any criticism of Obama is racist. To infer that from my comments is to be deliberately obtuse, and disingenuous.

Before Obama became President, I could see it coming: the "uncivility" of the public discouse had become so base, rude, and toxic, that it was bound to break down completely when applied between people of different races.

It is true that the Republicans called Bill Clinton every dirty nasty name in the book, and his wife, Hillary, too. And in retalliation, the Democrats called Bush and his people every dirty nasty name in the book. And in the primaries, their was also alot of this ugly rudeness amoung Republicans towards each other, and among Democrats, towards each other? Why? Because that is the "standard operating procedure" in American politics today: dig up dirt, dirt, dirt on the other guy, and if you can't dig any up, just make it up.

Now, the President is black. Are Republicans so "dumb" as to suppose that they can call him, our first black President, that they could continue on this Ann-Coulter-esque way in their "over-the-top criticisms of him, without ruffling some racial feathers? That is what has happened. If Republicans do not mean their nastiness towards Obama to be mistaken for racism, then they should simply cut it out. What is so hard about that?

In defense of all this nastiness against Obama, many posters here say that "they" did it to Bush. But this is not really a very good defense, or argument, is it?

There is real racism against Obama. Can well-intentioned Republicans really be so naive as to suppose that their political rants won't get confused with this racism and intangeled with this racism?

All I am saying is that when the debate is between a black man and a white man, a little additonal courtesy is required, because of all the baggage of the past, slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, lynching, Jim Crowe, and all that other stuff. Can Republicans really be so tone-deaf?

Note that there are fewer and fewer black people in the Republican camp. Can this be because there are no black conservatives? No. There is probably about the same proportion of black conservatives as white ones, they just cannot be in a political party where it is communicated in a pretty easy-to-decipehr code that black people are not welcome.

Race Card?

"Playing the race card." Let me assure you: Out numbered by about ten to one, Black Folks know racism is no game and only racists play race cards.

And, if you don't think racism is the pivotal point here in the South: let me take you through a tour of the land I speak. Bring along a film crew and we will create a documentary no censor will allow us to show.

We can open the film with a Deep Southerner (who could be in my own family) saying: "Ain't no N-word never gonna be my President." Here, I must dilute the message with "secret" language; still, I am sure you get the point.

I am glad there are folks who are truly opposed to the President's actions on thoughtful grounds. I too dislike a lot of what I see; yet, find myself constantly defending him because of the many racists who despise him.

Even worse for all of us, the racist crowd is automatically lumped in with the Republicans and overshadows (for an outsider like me) any sensible positions the Republicans have.

In fact, universal health care is better and to all of our benefit. As an example, no doubt you would agree with me: The person (illegal or no) acquiring drug resistant TB is better off with health care than being allowed in our community spreading disease because of no health care.

As for "Socialism." in the active military, we do have an excellent socialized health care system operated by the U.S. Government.

Certainly that is true for the military dependents who are not service people. Military dependents are well cared for and protected by socialized medicine.

Why, as a minimum, is that so bad for the rest of us? You want to cover expenses? Ban war profits (I mean, do you like war profits?) and we can pay for health care, or at least a good portion of it. End the drug war and we can save enough to pay for the rest of it. If the wannabe Dracos would lighten up and stop putting so many people in jail (per capita we imprison six times the number of English prisoners. Do you really think our people are that bad?) we save enough to cut taxes and pay for health care. Here, an added benefit increases our American workforce while displacing illegals, economically forcing many of the illegals back to their home country. And on and on....

No, the hyped paradigmatic thyme: anyone opposed to Obama is racist is not true, though many are. And, through the ears of one who hears racists comments on a regular basis, here in Georgia, let me say: much of the Republican antagonistic complaining sounds a lot like closeted racism to me.

"People don't hide their racism down there and it's just a way of life to them."

You are completely correct. And, by that very fact, Southern racists are far more honest than those in the North and many on this comment page.

Here, in the South, people will tell you point blank they will never vote for anything to do with Pres. Obama because he is Black. Of course, the actual words used, replete with racial slurs, do not need to be repeated here. Still, I'm sure you get the point.

However, the Northern racists always deny racism, cover their true feelings with rhetoric, insist its others "playing race cards," then make six or seven racist comments in a row. To these people I say: polygraphs at 10 paces.

Being down here in the South, I can only guess as to why Northern racists are so dishonest about Black Folks: Apparently, up North, racism is considered, as it should be, a horrific social fault. And, considering those White people truly feel they have no faults, they cannot allow others to know they are afflicted with a terrible racial attitude.

Whereas, in the South: Southern racism is a source of pride and garners social power for the racists. This power can not be overcome politically. Any change must come, as Dr. Martin Luther King taught: "change can only come with a change of heart."

Face it. Republicans relish the fact they have no heart. Thereby, crushing the Civil Rights dream of including all people in our country.

Importantly, it is worthy to note: Democrats are not racists and have proven as much with their votes. Simply put, there are no White Democrat racists only White Republican racists; and, those Republicans who are not racists (like it or not) are in bed with racists like "Mr. I got nothin' to apologize for" Wilson and his ilk.

peterhuff,
pam and i are waiting over on the "religious gun nut" thread. it's quieted down since this new one came out.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/09/support_your_local_religious_gun_nut.html

see ya there?

This is a classic left vs right battle and keep racism out of it. The myth was that as the country grew richer and richer, there would be plenty for all, and prosperity would ameliorate the sometimes profound differences of diversity. No one counted on a 7/24 graphic news cycle which creates news, exacerbates conflict between groups and races.

What is needed is a leader, someone who is able to appeal to both Americas in an real way, not just pretty speechifying.

This is a classic left vs right battle and keep racism out of it. The myth was that as the country grew richer and richer, there would be plenty for all, and prosperity would ameliorate the sometimes profound differences of diversity. No one counted on a 7/24 graphic news cycle which creates news, exacerbates conflict between groups and races.

What is needed is a leader, someone who is able to appeal to both Americas in an real way, not just pretty speechifying.

This is a classic left vs right battle and keep racism out of it. The myth was that as the country grew richer and richer, there would be plenty for all, and prosperity would ameliorate the sometimes profound differences of diversity. No one counted on a 7/24 graphic news cycle which creates news, exacerbates conflict between groups and races.

What is needed is a leader, someone who is able to appeal to both Americas in an real way, not just pretty speechifying.

Having voted for neither Bush nor Obama, perhaps I don't have a dog in this fight.

But then again, I am a citizen.

I saw the liberal hatred of Bush as being for what he does/did more than for being who he is/was; I see the conservative hatred of Obama as being for who and what he is more than for what he does.

The liberals tend to be dilettantes, so even their hatred is shallow and put-on. The conservatives lack the ability to deal with nuance, so their hatred is all-encompassing

It's always easy to claim you hate someone for reasons other than the truth, but doing that is indicative of some internal shame.

For the conservatives to blast Obama for creeping socialism seems a valid complaint, at first. But these same conservatives had NOTHING to say when Bush was doing the same thing for the banks and for wall street.

They lose all credibility for that. I tend to agree with their complaints about creeping socialism, but I don't agree with the complainers. They've shat in the water and it isn't worth tasting anymore.

A link to a disturbing video is below. Because it's a gang of black thugs beating a defenceless white kid, it label "bullying" instead of "hate crime", as it should be.

Here's something the Racist Post won't report on: a group of blacks beating a white kid on a bus. Oh no, mustn't call it "racially motivated" if it's a group of blacks beating a white kid. Of course if it was the other way around, you'd have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Obama all down there hootin and hollerin...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/60D37B6EC5FF4711862576320011605B?OpenDocument

I have no remote. I have no driveway. I have no television which works. I use a broken one for a table, a second night stand.

And the narcissist that I am must thank everyone for reading me. And no it is not narcissistic to assume Jacoby reads her very blog.

As for my lack of originality, I challenge everyone to tell me exactly where my thoughts can be found elsewhere. Name the writers and their pieces. I would hate to waste my time--being a narcissist--saying what others have said.

As for my being wordy, long-winded, perhaps the rest of you should take the time to actually write something which is not at best clever word play (Onofrio).

Does the frio ono (muy cold) thinketh that every different snowflake of thought (mucho stars which disintegrate and are really nothing) belong to his mind only and no one else can twist a wad of paper into origami?

I try not to waste my time with what is so easy. I try to write something for eternity. With all the luxury of time in modern society at least one person has to have the courage to say he might as well make the best of the time as possible and strive to be a genius. That I have failed is no laugh of your own. It is only a cry, for you have dared nothing.

Wolf, wolf... Wolf, Help, there's a wolf... This time I'm telling the truth, there really is a wolf. HELP, wolf, wolf. Why won't anyone believe me? HELP, wolf, wolf

It is long past time that we racists held our heads up high and said it loud and proud:

Yes, we're racists, and damn proud of it!

We ain't gonna take the disrespect no more!

There is nothing in the least shameful about racism. Racism is beautiful. It makes life worth living.

Racism will make you more intelligent, successful and popular. It will enhance your health and wealth.

Don't fall for the lies about racism. Racism is one of life's most enriching and ennobling experiences. It is a positive force for progress, and it is sweeping the world.

Hooray for racism!

Why not join us today?

(But what in the devil does this post have to do with the topic of faith?)

It is a sad commentary that race is again the defense of Obama's cult following to any criticism of The Dear Leader. What does race have to do with lying? Does Obama's cult following want him to get a pass on lying BECAUSE he is black?

I agree with the characterization of some anti-Obama groups in this article--their behavior has been unseemly and disappointing. However, I am not sure about the issue of race. The author rightly points out that Bill Clinton faced a similarly rabid right-wing hate machine.
I think the folks who are unleashing their anti-Obama venom are dismayed at the rapid changes this country is going through politically. I think this largely accounts for, but does not excuse, their amped-up levels of vitriol.

Also, while I did vote for the president (in the general election) let us not forget that Obama campaigned on his ability to rise above the old Washington partisanship. I think Pres. Obama and his top advisor, David Axelrod, were misguided in their effort to convince voters they would usher in an era of good feeling in Washington. I knew they wouldn't be able to do it, and I'm surprised that the Obama campaign didn't as well. Let's at least hope they really believed they could, and that telling voters they would rise above the old partisan divide wasn't just their way of defeating Hillary Clinton.

Race being a FAITH ISSUE is a disingenuous obfuscation of how Obama is a puppet of the BILDERBERGERS. The Bilderberger's don't have any issue to defend about other than an invented race issue.

COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE against AMERICANS is a NEW WORLD ORDER BILDERBERGER FINANCIAL OLIGARCH way of identifying people who oppose their financial takeover of America so that; WHEN push comes to shove those in opposition to the INEVITABLE BILDERBERGER imposition of marital law and similar draconian measures against freedom loving Americans will be identified ahead of time so that the prepared patriots will be arrested ahead of time...

BILDERBERGER minions include politicians from both parties, bureaucrats, Washington DC pundits, and those who only get their news from main stream media sources vis a vis, independent news sources...

The sensational video, "THE OBAMA DECEPTION HQ Full length version" shows how the BILDERBERGERS CONTROL finances, politicians, pundits like Susan Jacoby, and manipulate the press.
Watch the video if you dare to learn the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr and every POTUS since JFK [who was the best POTUS ever because he tried to stop the BILDERBERGERS by printing Silver Certificates] has been a BILDERBERGER PUPPET.

This spying on American citizens is reminiscent of the Gestapo and IS much scarier than Hitler's Gestapo.

Comparing Bush and Obama to Hitler is VERY APPROPRIATE...

Watch the VIDEO, LEARN and DEFEND the US CONSTITUTION from all sources; incl the recent POTUS usurper of the US Constitution...

Joe Wilson's real name is:
Addison Graves Wilson Senior

He lies when he call himself "joe".
YOU LIE!!

But seriously folks:
Policy differences don't cause people (especially a trained lawyer(liar?) and politician to burst out with an outburst. Deep emotional hatred does, possibly the kind Southern white males have demonstrated for centuries. Hmmmm.

Hi Walter, Pam,

Do you want to try another link. I can't post on our last forum.

Dear NotNowMooky;

You seem to be stuck on words and not deeds. Outsourcing among my trade means NOT IN THE OFFICE...so you call it delegate and I call it outsourcing or tomaato/tomoto, BFD but your call on grammar!

Obama ran on a platform of "HOPE & CHANGE" and lost hope and wrong change is where we're headed. He apologized for Americans during his European tour, shook hands with Hugo Chavez but refuse dinner with Medvedev in Russia preferring to have hotel food.

3 czars during the Clinton years are far and away from the 32+ now. Appointments of czars make the vetting process obsolete. Now look at the ACORN activity when Obama worked for Acorn.

While everybody is entitled to their opinion, I should think that getting elected would be for the good of the people instead of sinking the country. How did anybody ever buy their way out of debt? I'd love to print the money that he has given away for the government to run GM, banks and etc. Now it's healthcare and name calling. Obama is stuck on being called a liar while he is busy calling another a jackass. He should retire to run a finishing school instead of getting us deeper in crisis.

Even you could do a better job but calling any of this racism is like being on a bad acid trip. You do the numbers blindfolded. Skin color does not make the man. His plans are flailing and we're stuck with an agenda that he did not reveal. Electing a president was probably with the hope of bringing the country together but he didn't say, so how were we to know? The trouble was there was no better candidate and Obama was literate and convincing.

Hey Mooky, best of luck with all this change. If you're one of the luckier people with a big income, huge numbers of people on a government run healthcare plan shouldn't bother you paying for alot of it yourself. Not much I can think of that is positive here, but it sure isn't based on him being black. I'm right there with everybody that the KKK belongs in hell. There's always a loose canon somewhere.

Farnaz,
I think you're misunderstanding the Dowd quote - she wasn't saying that that was what Wilson *said*, only that it was what he *meant*.

Given the state he hails from, his voting record, his previous statements, and his hero/mentor (Thurmond), I'm inclined to agree.

Arminius, re Dodeka-Dan

He has yet to learn that reading genii is not inherently heroic.

Snickers taught me that.

What concerns me is his patent fear of miscegenation, that he tries so hard to dress up as bold futurist originality.

Fear of miscegenation = the threshold of atrocity. One needs no sky-high IQ to get that view.

Man, some of these right-wing posters must have to keep a rag handy to wipe the spittle off their monitors.

One small question for them: What's with the "teleprompter" mania? Two of you have mentioned it in this thread, and I've been hearing and seeing it from Obama-haters with great regularity. Do you think it's actually an insult? Do you think that Obama is the first, or only, president to use a teleprompter?

Every president since the invention of the teleprompter (1950s) has used one - yes, even Reagan, the "Great Communicator." (See photo of Dubya using them on Wikipedia's page about the device) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprompter

Before that, they used written pages or notes. These are busy men - do you think they have time to spend memorizing hour-long speeches - especially on short notice?

Get real.

Ms. Jacoby,

I voted for Barack Obama, I support a universal healthcare system, I agree that racism is a factor in some of the outbursts we've heard recently, and I am a born-again Christian...

Ms. Jacoby, there are many Christians that are not racist and support our President. You forget that not all Christians grew up in bigoted southern homes. Many of us grew up in loving Christian homes with parents that taught us to "love thy neighbor." Maybe the Roanoke College student's parents' racism would be more accurately attributed to their geographical location rather than their "faith" - there are wonderful churches in the southeastern United States that teach of love and service to others regardless of race, sex, etc. I attend such a church. Racism does not belong to born-again Christians.

You spoke at Lynchburg College in the Fall of 2007 and I sat in the audience. Do you always blame Christians for the ills of society?

I thought you good folk had retired to bed! :^)

I'd like to quote a bit of heartfelt blackfella wisdom from the Austral Fundament, where racism has cut a long shadow:

Blackfella Whitefella
it doesn't matter
what ya colour
as long as you
a real fella
as long as you
a true fella

All the people
of different races
with different lives
in different places
it doesn't matter
what your name is
we've got to have
lots of changes

We need more brothers
if we're to make it
we need more sisters
if we're to save it

...

Blackfella Whitefella
Yellowfella Any fella
it doesn't matter
what ya colour
as long as you
a real fella

All the people
of different races
with different lives
in different places
it doesn't matter
which religions
it's all the same when the
ship is sinking

We need more brothers
if we're to make it
we need more sisters
if we're to save it

------------------------------------------------------------

From the Warumpi Band 'Blackfella/Whitefella'

(RIP George Burarrwanga)

A lively evening, eh Farnaz?

Certainly Obama’s election reflected the nation’s desire that he ‘take care’ of the Bush-ruined economy. But it is also true that the American electorate had other serious concerns in mind as well. Unlike the Bush and neoconservative view of soft power, which relied on shaming American allies, and promoting American goodness, Obama is more circumspect. He still retains great faith in America, but his soft power is more accommodating, less focused on absolutes. He has shown himself more willing to listen and less willing to dictate. He can no longer assume that U.S. soft power is a magnet that attracts, or that the Bush model of America is one the rest of the world wants to emulate. As Bush argued after winning his second term, “I earned capital in the campaign and now I intend to spend it.” Obama seems to understand better than his predecessor that spending without regard for the consequences (both figuratively and literally) can be a recipe for disaster.

Daniel12,

I think you should read more fiction and poetry. (I know you didn't ask for suggestions.) Keep a list of beautiful words that you like. Copy, and immitate gorgeous sentences.

Later, read collections of the work of prominent contemporary essayists (no geniuses). Avoid geniuses at all costs.

Onofrio wrote:

"And another thing: sporting your high IQ is a very bad look, and, given your rambling output, tends to beg the question."

Especially when his grammar, syntax and thought processes suggest that his IQ is high only for a yokel.

"Dan-le-Douze, writing was invented by chalcolithic bureaucrats to keep tabs on the god-king's bling."

Onofrio, that is simply priceless!

I'm beginning to have real problems with Daniel12. At the very least, he could try not to be so damned wordy.

mdpotter, you said,
"And enough with the Fox and Rush stuff. You guys attack them for their views, but do you ever listen and watch them? I bet not. I do, and I also am here on the WP reading the other side as well. And I'm the ignorant one who only listens to one side?"

i DO listen to limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly, etc... it's absolutely shocking (well, used to be - now i expect it) to me the things they say: the inuendo, smears, fear-mongering (again), hyperbole, feigned compassion etc....

then i go to my in-laws house at least once a week, where they're ALL (and it's a big family...) what i'd affectionately call "right wing crazies". we have spirited conversations, good food and drink. from them, i hear the same limbaugh talking points i've heard all week on the radio. it's kind of funny really.

my parents-in-law are "birthers", what can i say?

SUSAN

I don't know what country you could possibly be living in. You think it is BRAVE to label Obama protesters as racist in the main stream media? And funnier still, that Maureen Dowd is brave for saying so? That man-hating [white men only]NY Times columnist has been busting for months to use the racism charge. I'm sure she and her editor Bill Keller felt nine months was enough time. They have probably been planning to use it since last December!
You have a very distorted sense of what constitutes BRAVERY in this PC-dominated world we now live in. BTW, I voted for Obama but knowing he would probably be just another Jimmy Carter.

mdpotter,
"You guys go back and forth between Bush is an idiot to Bush was some brilliant master politician who pulled fooled the entire world. He can't be both."

well, actually, i tend to linger MUCH longer on the "bush is an idiot" side. what was really irraitating about him to me was that he was "ok" with being an idiot.

like an apologist trying to prove some doctrine, he began with the "facts" and had people around him look for evidence to support that.

i think it's pretty well-established (i.e., not just "lefty" mania) that he/rumsfeld/cheney et. al. had a "score to settle" with saddam. it is known now that after investigators told rumsfeld that it was osama bin laden, he told them to keep for for evidence that it was saddam, somehow, with however tenuous a link.

remember that stuff? about the saddam/bin laden link? the "yellow cake" "sold" "to" "iraq". all scary stuff...good for rally support for a war, but BOGUS. that's not a (false) narrative. it's just the way it was.

i DO agree that bush really wanted to protect america. he probably felt pretty bad about having ignored george tenet running around "with his hair on fire", and having ignored the "bin laden wants to crash airplanes into buildings" presidential daily briefing.

President Obama was elected primarily to fix the economy. If it looks good by 2011, his reelection is assured. If it is not, it will be dicey.

He has been given a fairly free hand from his political opponents to deal with the economy but his election does not mean that all the secondary measures in his mandate should not face political opposition. The fact that Rep. Wilson was unforgivably rude may be motivated by racism or not. I do not know the heart of the man but neither does anyone else who makes a positive assertion one way or the other.

Neither health care nor racism will trump the politics of the wallet in 2011.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"Perhaps writing was invented to bridge the centuries, to get one hopeful person in touch with someone else, this one hopeful person also being a reasonable person, knowing that the only person to understand him will be born centuries later...."

Dan-le-Douze, writing was invented by chalcolithic bureaucrats to keep tabs on the god-king's bling.

A tip: Concision is Lord, if you care to be read.

And another thing: sporting your high IQ is a very bad look, and, given your rambling output, tends to beg the question.

And further: you are no prophet, and here's no great matter.

(How's that for theft, TSE!)

Learn from the snickers, ere they turn to guffaws.

I'm reluctant to say racism is driving the opposition to Obama and his policies. I think a larger reason is that our country has grown more polarized in the past few decades. Still, I don't remember opposition to Bill Clinton's health care reform being this angry. Maybe polarization is the driving force, but racism is certainly helping.

Modern racism has become much more covert than it used to be. Instead of the "No blacks allowed" signs, a portion of our population must hide their hatred and distrust of other races. I would argue this covert racism is more dangerous. Angry people in large groups commit violence.

It is fascinating to hear accusations that Democrats are calling all Obama's opponents racists, especially since I remember being called "unpatriotic," "un-American," and Anti-American" for disagreeing with George W. Bush and the decision to invade Iraq.

With respect to Congress, Joe Wilson's outburst was uncalled for, in much the same way as Congressional Democrats booing George Bush. Both parties have stooped to low levels. It's unfair to say that Wilson's statement was driven entirely by racism, but it is also ignorant to say race didn't play an important part (especially given Wilson's history).

Thank you for finally saying the imperative. Racism is not dead, it's just different. It's still just as damaging to our society.

I'm sorry she feels that way I did not vote for President Obama but it had nothing whatsoever to do with race and that card is getting old.And using the Bible is even a bigger offensive.Anyone can pick and choose what verses they want to use to their benefit try reading it the wasy GOD SAID TO chapter by chapter and verse by verse with understanding there are other tools to use if you don't understand.You have to take the words back to their orginal Hebrew,Greek,Aramaic,Latin meanings such as a Strogs Concordance.GOD said when he created all the races on the sixth day IT IS GOOD.He rested on the seventh and then created Adam and Eve how many people knew that I didn't till I started studing and learning truth so people can call me what ever they want WE ARE ALL GOD'S CHILDREN what part of ALL do people not understand.HE LOVES ALL OF US he may not like what we do but he never stops loveing us.Just like a parent your child may do something wrong you talk to them let them know what they did was wrong and you are disappointed in what they did and discipline accordingly but you always will love them.Same with GOD (our true FATHER)he will do the same but he never stops loveing us.So I pray for all of us and our Nation and our Leaders we keep cool heads and remember we are ALL AMERICANS no left no right ONE NATION UNDER GOD.I will not listen to anyone who throws the race card out there and then follows it with some Bible verse that to me is passing judgement and no has the right to do that except GOD we can discern but not judge.TAKE THE PLANK OUT OF YOUR OWN EYE BEFORE YOU TRY TO TAKE A SPLINTER OUT OF SOMEONE ELSES EYE.

No, Maureen told it like she made it up. I agree with you that a lot of the nonsense this summer was (and is) hatred. But, I will not agree with characterizing someone for something he did not say! We should be better than that.

RE: Maureen Dowd of the New York Times told it like it is in her op-ed column Sunday, when she said that the real meaning of South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's health care speech was not "you lie" but "you lie--boy."

ARminius,

I'm going to trust your Celtic instincts.

Goodnight.

Farnaz

"Yunno, I'm getting the feeling that this might not be the right moment for a substantive discussion."

Yunno, Farnaz, you are probably right. My heart tells me that we should continue the dialog and ignore the parasites. But never on these blogs have we ever endured such an endless attack by mindless, brain-chewing zombies. So my guts are telling me to get the hell out before I let my underlying Celtic fury drive me to going ballistic.

I thought this was a very courageous article; it said some things people are afraid to say, but that need to be said. Racism is too subtle now to call it what it is out loud; people, like this girl's parents, save it for the privacy of their own homes. In public, it's called dissent, but is much uglier, meaner and mean-spirited than American dissent has ever been, except perhaps during the Clinton years, and by the same people.

Pseudo,

I hope you saw my reply on the "right" thread. I believe you misunderstood me, or else, I was not as clear as I could have been.

Great column. You are a brave woman to call the crazies on their racism.

But they need to be called what they are - racists. And many of them are violent, gun nut racists.

While I personally have no use for religion, just as an objective observer of everything that Jesus supposedly said, I will never understand how these hateful racists can call themselves "Christian."

Like you, I also have big problems with Obama and for the same reasons. Isn't it ironic that the more he does to placate the right wingers, the crazier they get?

Arminius,

"Long time, no see.

Beautiful words indeed, from LBJ, who does not get, thanks to a certain unpleasantness in southeast Asia, the credit he really deserves.

Good words from you too."

Lots of work to do. Can't always sign in. As to 'Nam, no way to say that he did right on that one.

I forget who said of Lyndon Johnson:

"He was a man who succeeded and failed on a scale most dare not imagine."

I do believe that he saved the nation from destroying itself in race war. It cost him everything to do it. Sadly, I do believe he died of a broken heart over his difficulties as President.

Once again, this Washington Post "On Faith" series is just trying to stir up divisions among the faithful, and it has nothing to do with Faith.

-------------
True enough, except that this is an atheist's thread.

Once again, this Washington Post "On Faith" series is just trying to stir up divisions among the faithful, and it has nothing to do with Faith.

Don't know anyone of his generation who adored him, but anything is possible, I suppose.

LBJ thought you in the masses were all crap and he laughed at how you adulated him.

God you people are gullible sheep!

"THE OBAMA DECEPTION HQ Full length version" is not about Obama as much as it is about his controllers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

His controllers are the same as who controlled Bush, Clinton et cetera... et cetera... et cetera...

Yunno, I'm getting the feeling that this might not be the right moment for a substantive discussion.

Susan, racist THIS.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612

The REAL racists are the ones who voted for someone BECAUSE of their color and, as is obvious in this case, IGNORED the criminality of his background and associations and his evil intentions. He is not black, he is black of HEART.

Shall we never vote for another black person for fear we can never CRITICIZE him or her? This is mind control... but I'm not surprised coming from DEMOCRATS.

This is what they are doing to our children in school.

I never heard anyone say the word 'black' but I am hearing a lot of you rag writers using the word 'white' and pointing fingers -- so it would seem that YOU are the racists.

The only difference from 1980 to now is that NOW we are not going to let you say we are racists, terrorists, militias or whatever else you deem horrific that you can smear us with.

WE will still oppose the tyranny of this administration and all it's minions with all our might.

People like MoDo the DoDo and SuJac the lunatic will go down with this paper and no one will hire them to write this crap.

Right on about LBJ. He came a long, long way on civil rights. Not so many are familiar with his work of the fifties. Made up for some of his unfortunate associations of the thirties.

But that unpleasantness was a horror. And it was a horror that he could have ended.

And now we are in another....

Pseudo,

Long time, no see.

Beautiful words indeed, from LBJ, who does not get, thanks to a certain unpleasantness in southeast Asia, the credit he really deserves.

Good words from you too.

By the way, NO ONE BROUGHT A GUN to a rally to 'pray for his death'.

You are a POS Susan to even suggest that.

When someone was seen with his open carry, rest assured we ALL were carrying that day to protect us from the William Ayers of the bunch -- we just had ours CONCEALED, including women.

RACISM against Barack Hussein Obama is a Financial Oligarch New World Order BILDERBERGER defense of their failed policies which puppet Barack Obama spews through his TELEPROMPTER...

Don't believe that, watch this video:
THE OBAMA DECEPTION HQ Full length version
1:53:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

RACISM has nothing to do with objection to Bilderberger puppets Barack Hussein Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush et cetera, et cetera, every POTUS since JFK who tried to stop the FEDERAL RESERVE with SILVER CERTIFICATES...
LBJ's first act as POTUS on the plane from Dallas to Washington DC was to stop the printing presses printing the SILVER CERTIFICATES...

It's not racism, it's the BILDERBERGERS...
AMERICANS are FED UP with the BILDERBERGERS...
whom the main street media REFUSE to talk about...

MDPOTTER wrote: "You guys go back and forth between Bush is an idiot to Bush was some brilliant master politician who pulled fooled the entire world. He can't be both."

Good point, but faulty. Bush apparently is intelligent with a decent IQ. But he also must be incredibly naive because he allowed Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz and many others run the show. And there is ample evidence that Cheney wanted to take out Saddam even before Bush won the presidency.

Bush was a smart ventriloquist dummy on Cheney's lap. How about that?

This is why the time is going bankrupt. You have these old worn out people parroting the same old worn out 'racism' cry.

They cannot defend the horrid policies of this maniacal idiot who is controlled by shadowy utopians and power grabbers who seek to destroy America.

How do you justify the dirty money that runs Obama? This guy aided and abetted NAZIS for goshsakes!

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700

What kind of woman are you Susan?
When real racism happens, you will be like the boy who cried wolf -- WE WON'T GIVE A DAMN!!!!!!!!

!@#$!@#$!#$!#

Yes we're angry that obama is looting the country to give to his banker friends, extending the war, and is mired in the worst swamp of corruption without a hint of an idea that they will investigate themselves.

Far more important to go after someone who yelled --- and who TOLD THE TRUTH AT THAT!!!

This is why your party is done!

Susan, there is no value in fanning the flames; it's cheap, lazy, and counter productive. Why not write a piece on the evolution of rude behavior in Congress with this being the crescendo and then recommend ways to bring civility back to the discourse. That would be more balanced, more educational, and certainly more productive.
---------------------------------------
Indeed, it would.

Pseudo,

See my reply on the "right" thread.

But right message.

Susan, to make such broad brushed assertions of racism against an entire race/gender/political affiliation based on their opposition to a political figure is racist in itself and horribly incorrect. It is intellectually dishonest to attribute racist motivations to white male republicans based on the actions of a relative few rude and ignorant buffoons. It is also hypocritical given the culture of rudeness that permeates America and BOTH political parties. One need look no further than the posts here to see evidence aplenty.

In place of inflamatory rhetoric and, worse, the media amplification, we need voices of reason and calm. Susan, there is no value in fanning the flames; it's cheap, lazy, and counter productive. Why not write a piece on the evolution of rude behavior in Congress with this being the crescendo and then recommend ways to bring civility back to the discourse. That would be more balanced, more educational, and certainly more productive.

Insofaras religion and racism being linked together, there are those who seek religious affiliations to bolster their "us versus them" tendencies, but people of true faith recognize the value of every human life and welcome all ... that's what Jesus would/did do!

Again to walter-in-fallschurch:

And to your point of calling him a communist...sure some people have said as much. And I've already said that is non-sense. We can debate the socialist label, but communism is something totally different. But I wonder if you had the same outrage at your other friends calling Bush a facist? It goes both ways. I try to ignore the ignorant personal name-calling from both sides, but it does get under my skin (no pun intended) when we're called racists and bigots for opposing ever increasing government size and influence in our lives.

And enough with the Fox and Rush stuff. You guys attack them for their views, but do you ever listen and watch them? I bet not. I do, and I also am here on the WP reading the other side as well. And I'm the ignorant one who only listens to one side?

Sak61 said: "Now that folks have voice strong disapproval of the healthcare legislation [HR3200] along with Cap and Trade the new meme is that those who oppose President Obama and other progressives are racist."

New meme? Last resort? Sak, we are still the majority in the house and senate. We can cram this legislation right down your throat if we wish. But that's how Republicans work, not Dems. We're waiting for The Party of No to come work together. They won't do it. Your party is standing on the sidelines. The only ones doing anything at all are the Dems. Stop yelling at the Dems for taking action and start yelling at your party for doing NOTHING.

Arminius,

Yes, there have been racist screeds. You know, the thing is that here in New York, one doesn't really hear them, although that doesn't mean they aren't being voiced.

I can say that I've read some things that made my hair stand on end, or, at any rate. would have, if it weren't so long and thick.

There have also been legitimate criticisms from all sides, as you say, and the accompanying tendency by some either to dismiss them or accuse those who voice them. Some may reject disapproval of the president because they bought into the campaign rhetoric, looked forward to a new Camelot, refuse to surrender the dream. But there never was a Camelot, not under JFK, at any rate. Another motive for dismissing negative judgments is surely the well-founded fear of racist intent.

But we cannot withhold criticism because we fear bigotry. We must face prejudice squarely, not an easy task. We cannot always recognize it.

Sorry. Wrong thread.

Another excerpt from Lyndon Johnson:

"This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose. The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal," "government by consent of the governed," "give me liberty or give me death." Well, those are not just clever words, or those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries, and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty, risking their lives.

Those words are a promise to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions; it cannot be found in his power, or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom, he shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being. To apply any other test -- to deny a man his hopes because of his color, or race, or his religion, or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom."

Daniel12 wrote:

"Perhaps writing was invented to bridge the centuries, to get one hopeful person in touch with someone else, this one hopeful person also being a reasonable person, knowing that the only person to understand him will be born centuries later...."

Daniel, you need help. You are not a writer. You are not a thinker. Persons born centuries from now are not going to think you are a man before his time. You have nothing to say. You merely iterate what has been known, discussed, decided, and forgotten long ago. You write as though you imagine other people are interested in what you have to say. They are not. Haven't you figured that out by now? You are a narcissist. You need professional help. And an education would be a good idea too.

Again to walter-in-fallschurch:

Leaving work but wanted to respond once again. Sure, the right stirs up our base, every political party does. But the left does it by calling their opponents racists, bigots, sexists, etc. There is a difference though in saying a person's set of political policies is socialist in nature, and in calling that person a racist bigot.

Back to Iraq though. Call me crazy, but I actually believe that after 9-11, Bush was determined to not let us be attacked again and was willing to do whatever it took. That included taking out Iraq, who had been trying to aquire WMD for 2 decades and had used them on his own people. I will grant you, our intelligence proved to be out of date on his capabilities. But instead of recognizing it as a failure of on-the-ground intelligence that fooled everybody - based in part on Saddam's own insistence that he did in fact have these weapons, you prefer the liberal narrative that says Bush knew more than the CIA and every other intelligence service, and that he used that to fool Tony Blair, C Powell, the Clintons, you and me, and everyone else in order to launch a war for his own pleasure. You guys go back and forth between Bush is an idiot to Bush was some brilliant master politician who pulled fooled the entire world. He can't be both.

They are coming out of the woodwork now! Check out Archarito! "Sooooo they INVENT an OFFENSE with a DESPICABLE DEFENSE designed to OBFUSCATE PUPPET BARACH HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BILDERBERGER NEW WORLD ORDER ONE WORLD POLICIES..."

Arch, you sound absolutely loony. Read your post and pretend it came from someone else. All the ranting and screaming (in CAPS).

Do you work for food or just hold the sign?

SUSAN JACOBY IS A RACIST!

Yawn. Now that folks have voice strong disapproval of the healthcare legislation [HR3200] along with Cap and Trade the new meme is that those who oppose President Obama and other progressives are racist. It's the only tool left in the progressive work box as they can't counter reasoned, logical opposition.

If my unwillingness to don the yoke of economic slavery makes me a racist, so be it. Won't change my point of view on the burdensome legislation winding it's way through congress.

Farnaz,

You: "I do believe, as I posted below, that racism has been directed against Obama. Ageism was directed against McCain, and virulent sexism against Clinton."
Me: Agreed on all three.

You: "I have to agree that there is the tendency among some of my leftist brothers and sisters to label as racist anything critical of the president."
Me: Agreed again. I have read many non-racist criticisms of Obama, from all sides. But they are outnumbered by the racist screeds.

You: "I think that the failure to seek corroboration for Dowd's claim is disturbing."
Me: I read that column, and others on the same subject. I tried to do some research on it, and I concluded that the jury is still out, and Dowd overreached herself, which is nothing new.

You: "I deplore racism, ageism, sexism; I deplore inflammatory essays, populism."
Me: So do I. Always have. And whatever your faults, you are certainly no idiot.

You: "I cannot understand where we are going here with public discourse. I really can't."
Me: Nor can I, and I find it very frightening.

The ONLY RACISM ongoing is by Obama supporters who are puppeting the NEW WORLD ORDER BILDERBERGER FINANCIAL OLIGARCHS, who; besides controlling the mainstream media and handing out NEW WORLD ORDER TALKING POINTS such as DOMINATE OBAMA'S TELEPROMPTER...
There is not one single argument to support anything Obama does so the BILDERBERGER'S MANUFACTURE the RACISM argument in a DISINGENOUOUS EFFORT to shield their PUPPET from PUBLIC SCRUTINY...
Obama's puppet supporters have nothing to defend regarding his policies...
Sooooo they INVENT an OFFENSE with a DESPICABLE DEFENSE designed to OBFUSCATE PUPPET BARACH HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BILDERBERGER NEW WORLD ORDER ONE WORLD POLICIES...

What I see is one of the largest propaganda ever pulled on the (un)educated public. I have absolutely no question in my mind that the level of education has a lot to do with this both ways. A small percentage of (wealthy and educated)political opposition (it's the same neocons) does its best to defame the Obama administration and their best tool happened to be those (uneducated), who can be easily swayed to any direction they want to sway, and Obama's race, origin and skin color comes extremely handy to "help out". You've heard this from a foreigner, a European who has only seen black people on TV before the age 18.

KAROLINE1, you just might be in the same camp as Daniel12. Do you honestly believe that Susan reads your posts? It's 10PM on the east coast right now. She's tucking her children in, talking to her partner about the end of the day and getting ready for bed.

It's getting creepy here.

Daniel12, you need help dude. I'm serious. I'm sure everything about you seems normal to you inside your head. But when you start assuming, even shaming, a national columnist has read what you write it's just weird man. Really weird. I'd say it is delusional and narcissistic. I'd bet that is your diagnosis: narcisistic. Daniel12, you are no one. Just an American schmuck with a remote and a driveway just like the rest of us. Don't go creepy on us.

Arminius,

Yes, we have our differences. I do believe, as I posted below, that racism has been directed against Obama. Ageism was directed against McCain, and virulent sexism against Clinton.

I have to agree that there is the tendency among some of my leftist brothers and sisters to label as racist anything critical of the president. I think, too, that the media's hysterical polarizing and popularizing contribute to this.

I think that the failure to seek corroboration for Dowd's claim is disturbing. I am not saying that what she reports did not happen. All of her assertions may be correct. However, responsible journalism requires confirmation.

I am certainly what people view as on the left. But that does not make me an uncritical, unthinking idiot. I deplore racism, ageism, sexism; I deplore inflammatory essays, populism.

I cannot understand where we are going here with public discourse. I really can't.

seriously? Everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies is a religious racist? How quickly we forget the dissent, anger and rudeness of the left from the past eight years. And it doesn't seem to be a "minority" of Americans who disagree with Obama. Last time I checked, his approval is under 50%....

Susan,

I am glad you did not publish my comment. It shows that you yourself is being a racist, blindly supporting your site DEMONCRATS and faulty accusing GOP of racism to steer an argument.

That’s OK with me. In the future, don’t think for a moment that Washington Post especially your article(s) are going to be of any interest to me. ----I do avoid disgusting, bias and racist articles as yours seams to be. ----It will not end up there either…I will report your name as a bias and racist in all other blog entry’s and comments. ----The general audience who read Washington Post knows that by now, however my intention is for the message to reach into other sites too.

HZ9604 "I regard Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Pelosi, Waxman, et al as radical, leftist, liberal, socialist politicians who by the way have already ammassed fortunes prior to the economic homogenization of the masses."

Why do you believe this about them? I voted for them. I supported them and still do. I'm a standard issue white guy in my 50's who owns a home and a small business. My wife runs her own small business. Both of us have credit ratings above 740. I don't see anything dangerous in the policies of those in your list. What is it that you see that I do not.

And one more question. George Bush is very rich. He didn't earn the money himself - he inherited it. Obama was born poor and earned his money writing books. Why do you single out Obama for being wealthy as if it shows for certain that he is immoral?

Farnaz,

Agreed about the colonel. You and I both have our problems and our differences, but we are at least agreed on the nature of the rising storm of hatred against Obama. I do hope that the colonel just misread us.

I find myself disappointed with you Susan Jacoby. I have spent no small effort in giving myself a true education, being acquainted with a variety of fields to better understand the human, and I have thought that the more I understand and can clearly articulate the more I will be at least considered by people I admire, people well read and intelligent...

But then I see what you write after no doubt having read what I write and I see absolutely nothing I have said has taken effect. You have not even considered what I have written. I have difficulty considering you a person of reason--and apparently you feel the same about me.

But what we should both be worried about is if we two--with no doubt high I.Q.s and no doubt well read--cannot even approach each other, then hope for the less well read and intelligent is virtually nothing. I watched a movie last night with De Niro and Pacino--a cop movie--and Pacino said to De Niro that he lost faith in justice, man really, the day De Niro joined him in planting a gun in an ex-convict's apartment--for De Niro was his role model, the cop who would never descend to such things.

I feel somewhat as Pacino did in the movie. My faith for all my studying, all my intelligence, in being at least considered by intelligent people has been dealt a blow. I have always known that no matter how much two people study, no matter how intelligent they are, they can arrive at radically different views of the world, but I have never really wanted to accept it--for if even such people cannot communicate with any effect with each other the rest of the human race is lost.

The problem is worse than irrationality. The problem is that people will probably never be able to understand and work with each other. They will always conflict no matter education, no matter intelligence. And what makes it even more disturbing is that perhaps the only way people can bridge differences is not by an increase of intelligence and learning but by more primitive ways of being, the very irrational or at best by music.

I leave you with these thoughts. They seem enough. But fortunately I hope greatly. No matter what anybody else thinks I will keep learning, keep thinking, keep writing. There is always someone else in the world to understand one, even if does all too often take centuries for that other person to appear.

Perhaps writing was invented to bridge the centuries, to get one hopeful person in touch with someone else, this one hopeful person also being a reasonable person, knowing that the only person to understand him will be born centuries later....

Golfingary wrote: "I am a 52 year old WASP who dislikes Obama not because of the color of his skin but for the destructive policy agenda he wants to push ... I have been a life-long conservative Republican who turned on Bush last winter when he started the bailout mess ... sending the wrong message to the citizens of this country, that it is okay to fail because the government will be there to bail you out of your mistakes ... corporate welfare to personal welfare (buy a house you can't afford .. no problem, Uncle Sam will take care of your mistakes) .. come on people !! .. how much do we want the government in our lives !!"

Gary, what would you have done? Let the banks fail? What would that have done to our economy and the strength of our nation? How would you have stopped the bursting real estate bubble from pulling us into a depression?

I really am curious about this because I never, ever see a response that makes sense. Basically people like you say "I don't know what would have happened, but it would have been better than what we have now." What do you say? What would you have done?

Arminius,

"The second reading seemed to imply that he accused you and me of being racist."

Yup, that's what he did. Card-carrying Klan folk, vous et moi. Arminius, does the Klan admit brown Jews? Not that I'd want to join....

I think the colonel misread us. That's all.

No, race is NOT the major factor in people's anger today. Discourse is much more hostile in general today than it was when Clinton was president. The folks who are angry over health care and Obama today were angry over Clinton's actions and policies, too. But that was more than a decade ago. And Clinton was white, so the hostility that WAS shown toward him - and there was plenty - was not perceived as racist.

QUESTION: The media is internationally incorporated, is big business, sold out long, long ago. The question, most of the essays are designed to incite. Do we have, therefore, have to respond irrationally?

Is that required?

SUBSEQUENT POST: I regard Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Pelosi, Waxman, et al as radical, leftist, liberal, socialist politicians who by the way have already ammassed fortunes prior to the economic homogenization of the masses.

Posted by: hz9604 | September 15, 2009 9:39 PM
---------------------
Now, all of those listed warrant scrutiny, but notice "leftist, liberal, socialist politicians" and "economic homoginazation of the masses."

Oh well....

Farnaz,

I just re-read the colonel's post, and I am now very uncertain about it. I submit that I may have stepped in it big-time, but I'm not entirely sure. The second reading seemed to imply that he accused you and me of being racist. Am I wrong? One of my faults is giving people the benefit of the doubt, and that has backfired on me before.

mdpotter, you said,
"Yes, I remember Saddam, the guy who invaded his neighbors and created wars in the middle east for 3 decades. The guy developing WMD for years. Evidently you do not remember him. Was there a point to your question though?"

saddam WAS NOT a threat to us. his little despotic regime was contained. please don't tell me you were concerned about the violations of iraqis' human rights. the reason "we" (bush et. al.) went in there was WMD. he didn't have any.

my point was that the right wing is exceptionally versed (yes, i'm jealous) at stirring up the base and framing the debate largely using fear tactics.

you said,
"I also remember the "smoking gun in a mushroom cloud"...and apparently so does Obama and the rest of the civilized world. Hence our efforts to keep WMD out of the hands of the bad guys, to keep Iran from developing the bomb, etc."

iran, now there's a country WITH the capacity to build "the bomb". bush just threw them and korea onto the "axis of evil" (see the mongering?) list to give it credibility. iran and korea were (are) the problems, but he went after iraq.... yes, i'm still a bit bitter about that. i remember when he started talking about iraq. i was thinking "iraq"? what the heck?

then they started in with all that "mushroom cloud" and "vats" and "satellite photos" and i remember beginning to be swayed. the colin powel speech did it for me. boy did they use him! (cleverly and deceitfully - again, man they're good at being bad)

you said,
""Communism?". I don't know many who call Obama's policies communist, because they aren't. But they sure do border on socialism."

crazy (but lovable) republican friends of mine do, i think instructed by limbaugh et. al.

DCG326 wrote: "So if one doesn't approve of Obama they sre a racists???REALLY"

Nice to see that you completely failed reading comprehension. The author was quite specific in pointing out that not all criticism of Obama is racially based. But it is also plain wishful thinking to pretend that some of the animus does not stem from racism.

People hated Clinton too but as I recall, Clinton is not black.

My Liberal sister says she hated Bush and wanted him to fail. If my sister were black, wouldn't that make her a racist? If Bush were black and my sister white (as she is), wouldn't that make her racist?

Sorry. I see no racism in my hypothetical cases or the real one. I regard Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Pelosi, Waxman, et al as radical, leftist, liberal, socialist politicians who by the way have already ammassed fortunes prior to the economic homogenization of the masses.

The way to end this incivility is to call it for what it is whenever somebody violates decorum, not just be "outraged" when your guy gets what you've dished out to the other guy for years.

Posted by: mandog | September 15, 2009 9:32 PM
-----------------------
This is the point. And along with incivility, bring attention to dishonesty, distortion, omission, ignorance, etc., from wherever it comes--your guy or the opponent's.

The media does not do this. The media is internationally incorporated, is big business, sold out long, long ago. The question, most of the essays are designed to incite. Do we have, therefore, have to respond irrationally?

Is that required?

Arminius,

For the full text of the afore-pasted rant against vous et moi, scroll down:

Posted by: colonelpanic | September 15, 2009 9:02 PM

I don't blame the colonel. I just wish we could deal with the issues on a different level.

"The "liberals are just as bad" mantra is nonsense."

I wish I would have archived all the hundreds of posts I saw on this website from people wishing fervently that someone would kill George Bush. Jacoby...you've got your liberal blinders on. I'm not saying it's right to ever threaten the President or wish him harm...an American has to respect the office. However your statement above is evidence of a myopia that recuses you from all rational comment. You shoud jsut write novels or short stories...your credentials as an objective journalist are hereby revoked.

Incivility didn't start with the election of Barrack Obama. The media just started noticing it because their guy is on the receiving end.

The condemnation of incivility from Joe Wilson is justified, but it can be juxtaposed with the media acceptance of Ted Kennedy's slanderous assault on Judge Bork from the well of the Senate (which made "Borking" a verb)

The cries of incivility about Kanye West's episode with Taylor Swift got much more media condemnation than his announcement on a nationally televised award show that "George Bush hates black people."

I laughed when Barbara Boxer complained about incivility among Republicans who said "We won, you lost. Get over it." when Republicans took back the Senate in 2003. When democrats won big in the 1992 elections and Boxer made it to the Senate in "The Year of the Woman," she told those same senators "We won, you lost. Get over it."

This current media obsession with civility is long overdue, but is more akin to that old gag from Animal House. "He can't do that to our pledges. Only WE can do that to our pledges."

The way to end this incivility is to call it for what it is whenever somebody violates decorum, not just be "outraged" when your guy gets what you've dished out to the other guy for years.

So if one doesn't approve of Obama they sre a racists???REALLY

arminius3142.

We may differ on what constitutes a shriek. For me, this from the colonel does:

Read the postings of ARMINIUS3142, JOHNBOWERS, FARNAZ1MANSOURI and others and we read the thoughts and see the names and handles that hide behind the Klan masks in cowardice, or give them comfort as they stand beneath the Confederate flags of treason.

Protest as they may, they are racists; the cause of centuries of hatred, despair and heartbreak in this nation. They cannot be the judges of their own racism. They are simply convicts of their convictions who lie and plead innocence.

We know racism. We see racism. We smell racism. The racists only lie to themselves. Nobody else is convinced.

Lots of blacks didn't approve of bush because of race.So who cares if someone doesn't like a person of another race.

Simple though it surely is, there have been racist attacks against Obama. Equally simple is the fact that he became president during a period of incivility and irresponsible journalism. On both sides of the spectrum, this has been problematic. Some conservative journalists lambast him at every opportunity, and although they may not be racist, may be black, they are linked with bigots, since most on the left will not criticize him for anything.

The solution? Admit there is racism directed against the president and many, many, many others. There is also sexism as witnessed in the presidential primaries to an embarrassing degree.

The solution? Quieting down. Examining issues on the merits. Taking the mainstream media as lightly as it deserves. Researhing every issue. Every report. Looking for verification. Confirmation.

Let conservatives pick real issues on which to contest the president, rather than rant at everything he says or does.

Let liberals see errors and problems where they exist, acknowledge them, address them.

To walter-in-fallschurch:

Yes, I remember Saddam, the guy who invaded his neighbors and created wars in the middle east for 3 decades. The guy developing WMD for years. Evidently you do not remember him. Was there a point to your question though?

I also remember the "smoking gun in a mushroom cloud"...and apparently so does Obama and the rest of the civilized world. Hence our efforts to keep WMD out of the hands of the bad guys, to keep Iran from developing the bomb, etc.

"Communism?". I don't know many who call Obama's policies communist, because they aren't. But they sure do border on socialism. But again, let's leave labels aside. What do you call having the government control another 20% of the US economy...Adam Smith free-market capitalism?

And "climate alarmist"? Seriously? Some of us doubt the claims of the "consensus" (which keeps coming up with new explainations why the Earth keeps cooling the over the past decade) and are called fringe, doubters, wackos. We're told to shut up and that the debate is over. So unless your point is that we use fear tactics by actually joining the debate, you should direct your point to Al Gore and the rest of the left on this one.

"Shrieking doesn't convince, my friend. Turn brown and Iranian and Jewish for a day. Walk the walk. And try to talk intelligently."

Funny... I don't recall the good colonel shrieking.

Also - no one here will deny that you have had your share of horrors. But please try to understand that growing up as a tolerant liberal in the Jim Crow South ain't too damn easy. I got no broken bones, but my spirit still has the scars. The evil of bigotry is everywhere, and you are not the only victim. I'm not trying to pick another fight, I'm just asking you to notice that others also have had bad times, and just might have something worth listening to.

I am a 52 year old WASP who dislikes Obama not because of the color of his skin but for the destructive policy agenda he wants to push ... I have been a life-long conservative Republican who turned on Bush last winter when he started the bailout mess ... sending the wrong message to the citizens of this country, that it is okay to fail because the government will be there to bail you out of your mistakes ... corporate welfare to personal welfare (buy a house you can't afford .. no problem, Uncle Sam will take care of your mistakes) .. come on people !! .. how much do we want the government in our lives !!

Fascinating.

I wonder what wine one serves with a freshly-opened can of worms.

Colonelpanic,

I have seen Him in the watchfires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps
I have read His righteous sentence in the dim and flaring lamps,
His truth goes marching on!

colonelpanic,

My nonGod, Colonel, we surely are in a panic, are we not? And are you not making my point far better than I ever could?

You're evidently quite new to Susan's site, or you would could not possibly write as you have about Arminius et moi.

Shrieking doesn't convince, my friend. Turn brown and Iranian and Jewish for a day. Walk the walk. And try to talk intelligently.

I recall when Governor George Wallace bleated, "The biggest bigot is one who calls another a bigot."

George was a racist. Yet like so many conservatives in this forum he could only accuse others of being wrong.

It was only when George was coming to the end of his life and he was facing judgement day before God that he admitted to his racism and begged for forgiveness.

Read the postings of ARMINIUS3142, JOHNBOWERS, FARNAZ1MANSOURI and others and we read the thoughts and see the names and handles that hide behind the Klan masks in cowardice, or give them comfort as they stand beneath the Confederate flags of treason.

Protest as they may, they are racists; the cause of centuries of hatred, despair and heartbreak in this nation. They cannot be the judges of their own racism. They are simply convicts of their convictions who lie and plead innocence.

We know racism. We see racism. We smell racism. The racists only lie to themselves. Nobody else is convinced.

To them I say, "In my church, the cross is not for burning."

Mine eyes have seen the glory of coming of the Lord.
He is trampling down the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword. His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Part one.

The reason for the current viciousness between our two major political parties? The reason for the state of our disunion?

Everyone's opinion is welcome on this problem, for all of us are creating the problem. Or perhaps not everyone's opinion is welcome, for we all are standing up and shouting at the same time.

I prefer to answer this question by just concentrating on a particular problem, one that affects me personally, and this problem is none other than racism. Or perhaps--making it personal--I should just say I am going to concentrate on my racism.

Part two.

The overall feeling I get at the moment is means of communication--transportation and electrical methods of communicating over distance, and culminating in the internet--moving as if a wave, spreading out, making each individual witness to everything. Each individual a drop of water in a pond magnified, rippling outward in all directions.

And counter to this movement, the waves of everyone impinging on each person. And especially in America--the home of not only the birth of the internet but the nation which claims it can integrate the entire world's diversity--this problem seems acute. Each individual becoming aware of the nation and even the entire world as never before, and people from everywhere seeking to be immigrants to America.

As a white man--from European stock (English, Irish, French, Austrian, German and possibly Dutch)--it seems absolutely terrifying to have America be the nation which is the world's experiment in integrating everyone in the world. No other people are expected to take on this problem. And of course the experiment just happened, because America was the new world to which everyone rushed.

Part three.

And at the ground level, the material before our very eyes, the consistency of each person in the U.S., is skin color and the cultural background associated with skin color. Taking the widest view possible, and with the best possible intention of which I am capable, I would have to say the U.S. is charged with creating an entirely new racial category to describe the children of everyone mixed with everyone. Or perhaps, the U.S. is simply charged with creating for the first time in our minds, no matter how often we have used the phrase, the HUMAN RACE.--That is the race we are trying to create. That is what comes of everyone mixed with everyone.

And needless to say, put in these terms, we can see both the left and right in the U.S. are sadly way behind, hopelessly out of touch, with the problem. Everyone of course knows the twisting, turning past of the current right wing in America. The twisting past from Federalism to Andrew Jackson to South against North to the new right taking greater and greater shape from before F.D.R to our current right. For convenience sake, let us call this the racist white path, the path which I am on (to simplify with respect to myself as well).

And joining this path and twisting it in new direction, are the others, whether we speak of them as Native American or black or Jewish or Hispanic or Asian. And let us call them left wing to radically simplify. Now the left wing claims not to be racist. But has the left succeeded in creating a new racial term to describe everyone mixed with everyone which everyone can be satisfied with? No, the left has not. The left simply speaks of "mixed race"--or at best accepting the totality of us all, the human race.

Part 2

I like NPR but sometimes they do their job way TOO well. This made me physically sick. It's the most treasonous, dangerous movement in America and they will not stop until everyone like Ms. Jacoby and you and me and anyone not like them is dead.

The racism is only one small part of a much larger picture. I only hope these folks can be exposed for what they are and that America as a whole will wake up and see what's going on.

I'm not the paranoid type.. but this truly made me violently ill. I have just decided to stay away from all news for awhile and only look at those things I can stomach.

This is bigger than just simple racism towards Mr. Obama- but the fact of his race gives them all the extra ammo they need to truly melt down off and go off the deep end.

Part four.

But at the same time the left uses these words it says white mixed with especially minorities such as blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans is not white but these respective minorities. It definitely is that racist whites invented the notorious "one drop rule", the rule which said that even if only a drop of black blood were in a white person the person is black, but it also definitely is true the modern left uses that rule for its own advantage and is far from repudiating it.

In other words, if we make a thought experiment and ask what the result will be of every white having children by especially blacks, not only the right but the left will say the children are black and not white. In other words the left not to mention the right is far from being beyond race. The left is only too happy to describe a mixed race person such as Obama as black, or nominate to the Supreme Court a "wise Latina" to "better represent the diversity in America".

Do I need to spell it out and say we have a war here, that no race or ethnic group wants to give up its fundamental identity? Yes, America has made great strides in integrating these people and that, but it is far from inventing a new race of people beyond current racial terms for being mixed race or simply accepting everyone as "the human race". And without a doubt a great deal of the problem is that some people come from more backward societies than others.

It seems Asians--Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese,--citizens of India as well--have an easier time integrating with whites than Hispanics not to mention blacks because the former come from more advanced societies. Whites are less afraid to have the former in power than the latter. I speak for myself here making this personal, describing my hopes and fears. My hope is in an America which invents a new racial term beyond all races so far--or better yet, just speaks of the human race--but my fear is that rather than the U.S. being successful in this problem, this grand experiment, it will fail and we will have a conflict which is different than simple class conflict (if such can be described as simple) or even racial conflict and be a conflict of something of...let me reflect for a moment how to put it...A conflict of successful race mixing against unsuccessful race mixing.

I think Ms. Jacoby has it right, but there's more to this that meets the eye. How much of this I don't know if she or most Americans are aware of, really through no fault of their own. The Republicans don't want America to know.

I'm reposting this because this is way too important to not try to get out into the blogosphere. People need to know.

From Starhawk's thread last week:

The people who keep trying to label Mr. Obama as a 'fascist' and 'Socialist' are those who have been influenced by a group of extreme, Very hard line, Christian Right wingers who want to replace our Constitution with a biblical based theocracy. These are people who have taken and are following these ideals from RJ Rushdooney. This is a guy who has publicly advocated for the extermination of anyone who doesn't practice "HIS" version of Christianity. This is a treatise that has gained a much bigger following than we realize. One of his biggest followers/supporters is Howard Amundsen who gave millions to the Discovery "intelligent Design' institute and allowed it to be formed. There is also Tony Perkins, who works behind the scenes, holding conference calls with pastors/preachers and who knows who else, who then go back to their congregants and tell them to go to the health care town halls and scream and shout and completely disrupt the speakers and make up things to be shouting about. These folks have connections to senators like David Vitter and David Duke (yes, it was his connection to THAT David Duke that cost Tony Perkins his wanted Senate seat. Now he works pulling people's strings behind the scenes.) These people have barely, if at all, concealed their ties with KKK and other neo Nazi style militia groups and THEY are in OUR government.

These are the people who think it's OK to torture people and to shout down people who are simply trying to make things better for people- when even most of the objectors to health care reform is on Medicare/medicaid. These are the people bringing their guns to these town hall meetings. And to church.

They accuse Obama of 'fascism' and 'Socialism' without knowing that they are two completely separate things, while simultaneously working to undermine our trust in our democracy so that they can slip in underhandedly and overthrow our government.

It was an interview with Max Blumenthal, who was able to get into meetings that nobody from the press had gotten access to before, including Sarah Palin's Muthee 'witchcraft prevention'. His book is called 'Republican Gomorrah'- and the interview with Terri Gross is on NPR's website. If you are a thinking American, PLEASE listen to this interview. It will make your skin crawl.

Part five.

We can imagine whites mixing with immigrants from India and Asians in general--and of course Jewish people, sorry for not putting Jewish people into the correct place as I see it--but white mixing with Hispanics not to mention blacks? And this problem will be only exacerbated by the educational system becoming more and more rigorous at identifying problem students, for the problem students already to an uncomfortable degree in our eyes fall along racial lines.

So this--to hope to cut the conversation short for the mercy of the reader--is at least part of what I see as our state of disunion. We have whites striving to keep their racial identity. We have Jews of course striving to keep themselves as a people alive (if anyone wants any proof of the latter just look at Israel). We have Hispanics proud of being who they are and celebrating a Latina on the Supreme Court. We have Muslims erecting Mosques everywhere. We have blacks only too willing to take anyone--but especially the successful--to themselves even though the person might have only a drop of black blood.

No one is particularly pleased of losing ethnic not to mention racial identity--no matter what the left says to the contrary. We all, I hate to say it, are racist more than we like to admit. Sure there are people who say "we are moving to mixed race so we had just better accept it", or say "can't we just take everyone as just the human race?", and I will even grant that the left wing contains more of such people than the right, but are there really enough of such people in the U.S. to counter the opposite and already well enough described here movement of everyone being only too willing to elevate precisely themselves, their heritage, their race?

Part six.

We all are familiar with the term "melting pot" to describe the U.S. The fact is--compared with what we face now--the U.S. was never a melting pot, certainly not a melting pot for different colors. The U.S. merely melded national and ethnic identities from Europe into one nation--that is what we mean when we say America. The true melting pot is occurring before our very eyes. The question is whether what is being melded will be America or not--which is to say a successful experiment as America has been so far,--America the wealthiest and most powerful nation that has ever existed--or a failed experiment moving more and more toward being an all too uncomfortable reflection of current ethnic and racial and religous--yes, religious, we should add that--battles elsewhere in the world.

Personally I have my doubts about this current American project. To succeed I feel Americans must be of greater morality and intelligence than any other nation, people, ethnic group, race, religion has ever been. It was difficult enough for me, a relatively intelligent American, to even begin to understand the problem let alone solve it. But I suppose I should hope--I suppose we should hope--for America has been at the least hope. We should hope that America is not only hope. We all are familiar with hope leading to only tears. But where else is the hope for the world? We Americans are charged with being the saviors of the world whether we like it or not. And some say religion is leaving the world--must leave the world...

America had better be a new religion for everyone or there might not be a world.

sonofliberty09, you said,
"This is about a power grab by the....Divider and Chief President Obama...unconstitutional ideology...shoving down the throats ... change our society into a European Socialist State...." and so on...

thank you for illustrating my point so well.

This is getting ridiculous. Speaking as a life-long brown, Jewish (atheist) Democrat, I do hereby swear and affirm, that not all Republicans are racist. Also, it has been my misfortune to meet numerous Democractic racists, bigots, etc. Winced, almost cried, at the White paternalism evidenced by the media during the primaries and presidential election.

Oh, yes, my friends. Lotsa liberal bigots, racists, etc., great White Deliverers of us all at all points along the political spectrum.

And, again, we have only Maureen Dowd's word on the "boy" business. Lest we sink into the media swamp that no longer bothers to verify, let us keep that in mind. One columnist, alone, heard the "boy" word. One, and that one, known for her inflammatory columns.

"Our President, right or wrong"

"It's treason to not support the President in a time of war."

"If you don't like the way America is going, then leave."

Didn't conservatives say this to liberals during the Bush administration?

dissent :(

I voted for President Obama, and continue to support him. I don't think all of of the hatred directed towards him is racist. I think a lot of it is ideological - a hatred of liberals, and enlightened, compassionate, educated people in general. To me, this is just as scary as racism. The Holocaust was racist, but let us not forget that the Soviet and Chinese Communist committed similar atrocities based not on race, but on ideology. It's clear that some percentage of those who oppose Obama and speak of him with irrational hatred would be willing to harvest a holocaust of liberals.

Dear Susan,

It is absolutely amazing that Liberals like you are playing the race card. This is about a power grab by the executive branch of our government. This is about our Divider and Chief President Obama and his unconstitutional ideology that he is shoving down the throats of millions of Americans who love their freedom. This is about President Obama using Saul Alinsky’s "Rules for Radicals" to change our society into a European Socialist State. Our President was lying in his speech as was born out by the change that was made in the bill the next day. Maybe if you stopped drooling over the President and looked at things objectively you might find that most all the protesters are not racists. You would find out that Rep. Joe Wilson is not a racist. Stop race baiting you are helping to divide the country with race. The President's divide and conquer politics is getting really old. The radical Left Wing media's divide sleazy smears are now being exposed. That is why conservative talk radio and Fox news are blowing the Liberal media away in the ratings.

Let's face it, the American Dream is pretty much a thing of the past. The proverbial pie has gotten smaller and those who control the wealth and power in this country will do everything they can to consolidate power. People like Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Newt Gingrich, etc., do what they do not because of any genuine idealism or moral imperative; rather they do it because they feel tha there is an assault on their supposedly God-given right to make money and live in a world where everyone is White, wealthy and believes in a version of God and Christianity where if one does something wrong, she merely says "My bad" and moves on to what they were doing before they got caught saying or doing what got them in trouble. The racism that is the undercurrent of Wilson's comment and those which are easily understood when Sarah Palin speaks and many Republicans is based on a contempt for both poor Whites and poor Blacks and Hispanics, with only Asians being spared because of the stereotype that they are all smarter than Whites. Paul Schrader, the film director wrote and directed a great film over 25 years ago, called "Blue Collar" which starred Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor. The tag line was "They pit the rich against the poor, the Whites against the Blacks, the owners against the workers". What we are witnessing is the beginning of open class warfare. The Christian angle by so many far rightpoliticians and talk show pundits is merely a smoke screen to hide racism and more importantly pure greed. It will get worse and the public discourse about health care, poverty, war and taxes will be much courser. Lastly, if one wants to understand the difference between Conservatives and Progressives (Liberals) then realize that conservatives seek to exclude others from things like decent health care and civil rights, while progressives seek to include all people in what's left of the american Dream. It's that simple.

you are very ugly and very annoying. all republicans are racist = generalizing 50% of the US population w/ a negative stereotype. descent is now racist? move to venezuela. 1 term president

Mr : VIPERMD

You present the same arguments of those who murdered civil rights workers in Mississippi back in the 1960s. Despite pleas like yours they were racists, too.

No white President was ever treated the way Joe Wilson treated President Obama.

You are dishonest in your thoughts and in your writing. You are a racist. And all but your racist friends know that.

Farnaz,

Yeah, I blew it on picking Goebbels as director, I did not check it out. My bad.
-------------
No biggie, Arminius, but she really is an interesting figure. To be young, gifted and morally insane, and to grow old, gifted, and morally insane is an existence devoutly to be avoided.

Someone should write a song....

Susan, the two bloggers who posted previously do make good points. Obama promised on nationwide television, in a Leni Reifenstal add moment, replete with multitudes, a halo over the head of the candidate, with only the sky above him, to return jobs to the US, to fine those who outsourced, etc. An out and out fib, as I mentioned then.

But look what he has chosen to do instead. As for old folks and their lack of concern for young people's health care needs, may I remind you that you wrote on this blog that only those who were "fanatic about health care" would support Clinton? Oh, yes, you did, m'dear.

Now, here is the problem. One cannot go about bashing Conservatives, pleasurable tho this may be, while engaging in the same one-sided cheering for one's own side. One loses credibility, and one should.

Farnaz,

Yeah, I blew it on picking Goebbels as director, I did not check it out. My bad.

The Republican Party has no ideas. Their philosophy has repeatedly lead us to depression and recession.

To garner any support they have chosen to garner support from the worst quarters of American society -- the rabble, the ignorant, the rude, the racist and the stupid.

It is no surprise then that this party treats the first black President of our country in a manner no white President has ever been treated.

Joe Wilson comes straight from the script of "The Birth of a Nation." And so do his supporters.

The next time I hear a loud, obnoxious lout in a movie house I will have to tell my children, "That is a Republican, child. You do not want to be like that. They are rude people."

mdpotter, you said,
"The left just seems to have a problem confronting issues; they prefer labels and scare tactics."

you have GOT to be kidding!!! remember saddam? the "smoking gun in the form a mushroom cloud"? the "vats of chemicals"? and now, from the right, against the constant refrains of "communism" and "climate alarmist", we hear of "death panels" and "socialized medicine."

"scare tactics"...puleeze...

New racism? Hardly. It's only an old racism of the rednecks that was suppressed inside, which only surfaced, now that we finally have the first non-Anglo President after 233 years of our republic and after eight years of total failure by a redneck Anglo President whom they supported with undying loyalty.

Ms. Susan Jacoby makes quite a number of claims that are based on nothing but the slant of her opinion.
"Old folks don't want the younger generation to have the same healthcare?" There is no evidence of that claim. It is pure fabrication on Ms. Jacoby's part. She has distorted the "Loaded guns" issue, wit full intent to decieve.
She invents racism that probably never existed in any of this, and then she pretends that it is someone other than herself who is "unreasoning".
If she claims to be a journalist, she is a discgrace to that craft. If she is a huckster, her infommercial doesn't hold a candle to those of Billy May.

Rob261 perfectly displays the wildly imaginative cowardice of the Right.

"This president is, without our consent, sending us into debt for the rest of my life, for certain. He is outsourcing everything to his czars and more. Government is going to start putting cameras in the bedroom and you are reducing this to racism? Shame on you. We're close to being like a Venezuelan government and you attribute this to racism?"

Consent? The President HAS our consent. He was elected by us, Americans. No President has ever had 100% of the vote.

Debt? Bush is the one who left us in debt and trashed our economy. Obama is the one who has saved us from full-on depression.

Outsourcing to Czars? The Czars are here in the US and they work for Obama. How is that outsourcing? You mean he is delegating. That is what leaders do, delegate.

Cameras in the Bedroom? Huh? What? Are you insane?

Venezuela? Huh? What? Are you insane?

And THEN Rob261 tells US to "Get a grip".

Insane.

Also, Farnaz, I made the original comment about 'Triumph of the Will', and got the director wrong. I was graciously corrected by Kjohnson3.
------------
Arminius,

Say it ain't so, Arminius. Say it ain't. Use google to learn more about her, a fascinating, sad, tragic figure, morally deaf, dumb, and blind.

It kills me all the people who think it's okay to call the democratically elected President of the United States, Hilter, Stalin, communist, socialist etc. but then be completely offended because someone calls them a racist.

There is alot more evidence that (some) of these right wing idiots are racist than there is that President Obama is Hitler or a communist.

I guess the 1st amendment only applies to delusional conservatives.

"The West. Whatever is it? Was it? A legend in its own mindlessness."
As Gandhi said, when he was asked what he thought about western civilization, replied, "I think it would be a good idea."

Also, Farnaz, I made the original comment about 'Triumph of the Will', and got the director wrong. I was graciously corrected by Kjohnson3.

The issue is more important than merely making a black man president of the US. We (the citizens of the US, and largely liberal at that) have made a black man the most powerful single person in the world. For the first time in history. This reminds me that it was also we who, for the first time in history, declared as a 'mission statement' for a new nation, that all men were created equal. That, too, had never been done before, in history. I'm impressed with us.

Langenscheidt,

"'Triumph of the Will', produced and directed by none other than Goebbels himself, "

Although Goebbels was certainly involved in the scripting, "Triumph of the Will" was produced and directed by Leni Riefenstahl, specifically at Hitler's request.
-------------------
Yes, indeed, she did. (How could one not know this, she naively asks.) Not to digress from the topic, may I point out that our college library has acquired a documentary on the auteur? Acquired it at my request. In the last six months, more than six hundred students have viewed it independently. Literacy makes a comeback.

What is most interesting are their comments, their disbelief at the thick wall surrounding her consciousness, their fear for us all. Some racists know they're racists, embrace the identity. Many, many do not. They do not know. And many who are not racist use racism, just as those who are not sexist use sexism.

The West sinks deeper and deeper into opportunistic populist polemics. The West. Whatever is it? Was it? A legend in its own mindlessness.

Cadlecreek1 wrote:

"If we are comparing white to black presidents in the last 10 years: all have been called liars, hitler, idots, nazis, facist, etc."

Say what???

Rob261 wrote:

"This president is, without our consent, sending us into debt for the rest of my life, for certain."

Uh....actually George Bush beat him to that by several years.

The GOP has mastered the art of speaking in code, especially when it comes to racism. They've also got the following drill down cold:

1. Use apocalyptic rhetoric that exacerbates fear, bigotry and extremism among the uneducated and intolerant.
2. Counter any liberal criticism of your inflammatory calls for action by saying they can't take a joke or are blowing it out of proportion.
3. Keep turning up the heat and act surprised when somebody finally heeds your calls for extreme action.
4. Be sure to maintain you were only speaking figuratively and you are being unfairly blamed when violence occurs.
5. Keep your celebrations behind closed doors.

The author writes, "Public opinion polls show that around a fourth of Americans are still not certain that the president is an American citizen. The persistence of this falsehood is clearly related to racism, because these people are looking for anything to delegitimize Obama's presidency."

What malarkey! What a leap of logic! Perhaps the "birthers" are trying to delegitimize Obama's presidency because they feel he is en empty suit, has no leadership capabilities (aside from the ability to incite fervor through rhetoric), and favors policies that will weaken the country. Perhaps a few of them even believe that he was born outside the US. Are some of these people racist? Probably -- just as many Obama supporters are. But to suggest that anyone using the "birther" argument is motivated by racism is -- in Obama's words -- "acting stupidly."

Likewise, consider the author's arguments about the seniors protesting potential cuts to Medicare. "Don't think that race has nothing to do with the rage of these seniors, either. Did you see many black grandmas and grandpas at the anti-Obama demonstration in Washington last weekend?"

I believe race DOES play a role here, but not as she suggests. Do the "black grandmas and grandpas" care any less about protecting Medicare than their white counterparts? Probably not -- but you can bet your bottom dollar that many of them DO blindly support the president because of his race.

I personally couldn't care less if the president were black, white, orange or purple. But I don't like THIS PARTICULAR president.

Susan,

"Maureen Dowd of the New York Times told it like it is in her op-ed column Sunday, when she said that the real meaning of South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's health care speech was not "you lie" but "you lie--boy."

How do you know she "told it like it is"? No one has yet corroborated her on this.

Admittedly, it's possible that she did, that no one will have the guts to step forward. On the other hand, she may be mistaken and all the hysteria for nothing. Then Wilson will be due an apology. Will he get it, do you think?

From a journalistic perspective, I would imagine you will agree that one must seek confirmation rather than assert hearsay as fact. If Wilson spoke as Dowd claims, then, yes racism is at issue. If he did not, then racism is not at issue.

As for liberals, on Bush, I'm afraid that many behaved regrettably. Even on this thread, one sees Limbaugh equated with Hitler. Hilarious. Why not Idi Amin Dada? Perhaps, some notable southern slaver? Satan. Beelzebub. Saddam Hussein. And then we have the scandalous example of the Dems vs. Hillary Clinton. Maureen Dowd played a big, big part in this, was taken to task for it by her own editors.

Althougn, admittedly, the greatest threat to democracy today comes from right wing fundamentalist Christian ideologues, tere is little, from any quarter, in the way of substantive dialogue. Saints vs. sinners, Christians vs. lions, we get, instead. NonGod help us all.

Has she aged yet,do I hear bitterness.The media has brought this BLIGHT to us all. We have lost the sense of civility.I guess we have to learn it all again.At my age I do not seek to learn the American uncivility

Hey Walter,

My fondest travel fantasy is to visit the South of France. We bailed France out in WWII, but we didn't win the war single-handedly.

There were those infamous Russian winters decimating the Germans, and then the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is nothing much to celebrate, at least in my view. And now we're all driving Toyotas anyway. Can't afford a Beamer :^)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II

WOW, I have read the posts and have never seen such hatred from either side of the isle. Not liking a bill in congress does not make you a racist. Speaking out against your government does not make you racist. Treating a group of people different because of skin color, ethnicity, etc. is racist. If we are comparing white to black presidents in the last 10 years: all have been called liars, hitler, idots, nazis, facist, etc. It is not race, for the most part, that we are seeing but a complete lack of civil discourse and understanding. Both sides are guilty!!!!!!!! The late great philospher Bob Marley once said 'don't point your finger unless you sure your fingers clean'(it is an old song that most people have not heard).

BTW-> groing up there was a little store near my grandmothers house that had a sign 'colored use back'. Blacks needed to go to the back door and tell the owners what they wanted and the items would be retrieved. The time was 1978 in Maryland, not more then 20 minutes from the nations capital. There are racist in this country whether you call them aryan nation, skin heads, new black panthers, nation of islam, etc. but racist come in all colors. Disagreeing or being ignorant of facts in a bill does not make you a racist but prejudging a group and trying to disable their ideas with hateful classifications and names; well, you just might be a racist.

You have to be kidding about your thinking hating Obama is racist related. This president is, without our consent, sending us into debt for the rest of my life, for certain. He is outsourcing everything to his czars and more. Government is going to start putting cameras in the bedroom and you are reducing this to racism? Shame on you. We're close to being like a Venezuelan government and you attribute this to racism?

Get a grip and try to realize what life will be like when all these invasive changes hopefully will not, but maybe, kick in. These reactions have nothing to do with the color of his skin but only the control freak within him. There was racism way before Obama started reading the teleprompter and that stems from the stupidity within those racist people. Were he American friendly, we wouldn't be in this situation. He is alarming to the whole country and world. Your take and calling it racism is only making it like a kids pillow fight. Look at what he's doing blindfolded. You'd hate it too and I WAS registered democrat.

"'Triumph of the Will', produced and directed by none other than Goebbels himself, "

Although Goebbels was certainly involved in the scripting, "Triumph of the Will" was produced and directed by Leni Riefenstahl, specifically at Hitler's request.

Persiflage:

"Tom56, at least Joe Wilson didn't holler out SUCK IT! in a crowded room. He clearly recognized that he wasn't in a porno parlor, but in the halls of congress. Apparently he showed some awareness and restraint after all - for a republican."

And yet...had a mere citizen, sitting in the balcony, done the same thing, he'd have been grabbed by the capitol police, and possibly cited and prosecuted ....

In the 1990s we were angry white men….now that we have a black president we are apparently angry racist white men. I suppose if Michelle Obama had been elected instead of her husband, liberals would say that we were angry white anti-female men. The left just seems to have a problem confronting issues; they prefer labels and scare tactics. Between 2001 and 2009, dissent was the highest form of patriotism (white or black). Now dissent is the lowest form of racism and intolerance. The author writes of incivility. How about the incivility of labeling your opponents as racists because you are unable to defend your ideas?

The author’s last paragraph is telling. She writes that she and her fellow liberals patted themselves on the back for having elected a black man president. For conservatives and Republicans, we kicked ourselves for having lost the debate, abandoned our principles, and lost the election. Then we noticed that hey, America now has elected a black man president. See, we’re not a racist country like all those liberals say we are. Then we stopped thinking about race again and started treating Pres Obama like any other politician….we began to judge him on his actions and his policies, because to do otherwise wouldn’t be American – the problem though is that liberals were still judging him on his race.

Am I the only liberal who thinks calling someone a racist because of a non-racial comment (offensive though it may be) is about as un-liberal as you can get? Racism is a serious offense, so calling someone a racist is a serious accusation. You can't do it based on conjecture. You can't do it based on the fact no one ever yelled "you lie" to a white president.

To accuse someone of racism without better evidence is simply slander.

Posted by: webg | September 15, 2009 6:14 PM
---------------------------
Part of the problem is that racists do not always know they are racist. Let me give you a recent example from this thread. A blogger, Mary Cunningham, opined with respect to Catholic parochial school girls who knocked out my daughter's front teeth because she is Jewish, might just as well have been called "latino" (sic).

Two things: For this blogger, Christians have nationalities which identify them. It was the Germans and not the German Protestants and Catholics who engineered the Holocaust against "the Jews." For her, "the Jews" (her words, used repeatedly, for years) are always "the Jews," Christians/Catholics et al, are referred to sans article.

For her, the Catholicism of the girls was not at issue. Of course, it was and is. As I've posted attacks by these parochial school students against Jewish children were not new at the time of my daughter's assault; moreover, they continue. This resulted in a visit by the police to the school last week.

Now, how and why would Mary Cunningham assume that the Catholic girls who attacked my daughter, the "Christ killer," were Hispanic, you may ask?

I never said they were Hispanic, and, in fact, they are NOT Hispanic.

Racism?

DanielintheLionsDen, (and arminus)
daniel said,
"For example, they hate France. Why? because the culture is refined, the food is good, the art is great, the history is long, the architecture is splendid, the language is beautiful, and that makes them terrible people."

i think the reason so many people pick on france is they are jealous. i mean who wouldn't like french stereotypical (in the good ways) french lifestyle. (though i have to say give me a steak over those crazy tiny well-decorated french restaurant meals anyday....)

month-long vacations, wine, cheese...

of course they get to live that way because if anything bad (e.g. invasion)ever happened to france somebody (probably the u.s.) would come to the rescue.

I am shouting a great big thank you to Ms. Jacoby for publishing this article. "Incivility" if unchecked may become overt and/or cloaked "criminality". Nevertheless,
I'm sending "light and love" to those who hate me and others based on our color. I "will" that they shall one day be enlightened to the fact that we are ALL made in the likeness of the "Divine". It is within our power to cultivate Love for all of "Creation".

Am I the only liberal who thinks calling someone a racist because of a non-racial comment (offensive though it may be) is about as un-liberal as you can get? Racism is a serious offense, so calling someone a racist is a serious accusation. You can't do it based on conjecture. You can't do it based on the fact no one ever yelled "you lie" to a white president.

To accuse someone of racism without better evidence is simply slander.

Susan Jacoby:

I think you are missing the point. There is no disdain for the NYPD regarding their efforts to protect synagogues during holy days, as a "supplement." I don't think I said that, did not mean to imply it.

The point is quite simple. Jews, like everyone else, have enough trouble getting by from day to day. We do not want and cannot afford private patrols, which in some neighborhoods, are visible 24/7. We do not want to be besieged by police officers on holy days any more than Catholics, Protestants, Hindues, or Muslims would.

We have been threatened for four decades by racist, lunatic Islamists. As you know, not too long ago there was a shooting on the bridge by such maniacs.

WE want those responsible to be caught and tried in a court of law. This is a federal issue as some of the racist, lunatic Islamist threats come from out of state, as you should know.

Further, we object to placing a few rabbis who wish to call attention to the problem in the same category as the Kentucky pastor. As you should know, no rabbi would ever carry a weapon into a synagogue.

Unlike Christians, Jews may not even carry money into a temple.

The issue, obscured by OnFaith, is surely the threat. As for the rabbi I mentioned, she is very well known in New York. I emailed John Mark Reynold's comments to her, and she sent them to everyone on her mailing list.

It's been four decades. Long enough. We want it to end. Now.
-----------------------
On another note, are you sure you wish to quote Maureen Dowd on civility? Would that be the Maureen Dowd taken to task by the editors of the New York Times for her vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton?

Farnaz

The strange irony about the Fox News driven population is that I found out about the wide array of recist posters at the recent Tea Party protest while reading the Times of London, which is owned by Fox. I didn't see any coverage anywhere else.

Murdock is a brilliant business man and really knows his audiance. I truely believe that he sits in his office laughing at the far right in this country who eat up what Fox News serves, hook, line and sinker.

It is my opinion that all of these 'issues' (re: mentioned in this article) are red-herrings.
They are trivial items that have been magnified by a biased press (pro Republican) trying to create a 'bandwagon effect'.

The 'gun issues' are not about 'guns'; they are staged events manufactured in the hope that an arrest will be made so the Republicans can have a field-day regarding the right to bear arms.

The Republican Party has been demolished and it will not rise-from-its-ashes, ever again. It has absolutely no platform but 'anti'.

.

Amazing the way the decibel level jumped dramatically when the issue of racism gets raised. Was a nerve struck, or what?

Just to add to the debate:

This from hammeresq:

"Ms. Jacoby seems to forget that white America elected Obama. Now, by his actions, he appears to be a Marxist. The noise that you are hearing, that you have missinterpreted, is the American people showing the love of their Country and their inexorable drive to take it back."

I think that you could reposition. And rephrase. "Now, by the (propaganda and spin of Fox us up News and their ilk, you are believing the PR that) he appears to be a Maxist."

Do you and your kin think for yourselves, or is it just much easier to allow downloads from Rush? I am serious. Anyone that actually believes this crap that is being floated by the Right wing spin machine leave me believing that they are either unable or uninterested in critical thinking, or are just flat out naive. Or worse.

Turn Limbaugh off, and turn your brain back on. It is so clear that "You Lie!" applies far easier and more truthfully to the Right Side of the Aisle.

Posted by: hammeresq

To Tom56:

I find it amazing that the most vitriolic speech usually comes from conservatives and usually those proclaiming to be faithful Christians. I'd guess, based on your rant, that you are an evangelical Christian. Am I close?

As for the specifics of your charges, you make broad statements "Obama is the most leftist president we have ever had." without citing any evidence to back that up.

But here are a few facts for you to ponder as you froth away in front of your PC:

The entire country embraced Bush after the events of 9/11. Even my father, a lifelong democrat, spoke in support of the president when we were attacked.

The media allowed Bush to propagate one war into two without the use of such inconveniences as the rule of law (see articles on FISA), adherence to treaties (see Geneva convention regarding torture) or the use of military conventions regarding prisoners of war (see everything about Guantanamo).

Although initially supporting Bush, America soon turned against him not because of a general disdain for Bush, but because of the ineptness of his own actions. Cherry picking intelligence and a failure to appoint someone with experience in life-saving positions like FEMA are just two of the numerous examples of why President Bush became the laughing stock of the world. His unconcern with anything save loyalty, speaks more about his leadership principles than every speech he's ever made.

The criticisms thrown at Bush were both well deserved and appropriate. After all, no president has shown such an aversion to facts and understanding as has Bush. Unfortunately, you have little understanding of what words like socialism and totalitarianism are, as evidenced by your post. I guess this is typical of your type, one unwilling or unable to actually support the charges you make. And when all else fails, you resort to the kind of worthless name-calling and caustic remarks we were hoping ended with the end of the Bush administration. But alas, I guess we are in for a long four years, with conservatives screaming about everything but the real issue -- the waning days of white, older conservatives and their monopoly on power.

I'm afraid for this country. This country is ripe for a CIVIL WAR II. I'm getting out of here. This place is too toxic to live. I'm going to France under an unassumed name and citizenship.

Alex511,

Another good thing to add here - what LBJ did when New Orleans was hit by a hurricane in 1965, a big one. Not as bad as Katrina, but the city was devastated, and parts were flooded. Within 24 hours - 24 hours! - LBJ was on the ground there. Did he make a stupid speech to an empty Jackson Square? Hell, no! He marched right into shelters, many blacked out, shined a flashlight in his face, and announced, "This is your president! I'm here to help!"

And that is LEADERSHIP! The contrast to Bush is a sad proof of what we have come to. But I would bet huge amounts of money that if an American city gets hard hit again, Obama will be there very fast, up close and personal.

The re-emergence of divisive hate filled sentiment in this country is a direct result of the divisive hate and fear based strategies and policies of the Bush-Cheney government engineered by Karl Rove. They used hate and fear to divide and conquer opposition against their agenda. That hate and fear will take a generation to subside. There are enough of the far right still in congress to resurrect those tactics if the Republicans regain control of the government. For the country's sake we need presidents with collabrative rather than divisive policies until we have forgotten our hatreds. President Obama is a good start. It's too easy to hate; you don't have to consider any other point of view but your own. Hating is for the narrow-simple-closed minded.

The frightening thing to me is that during the rise of Hitler he managed to call upon the dark nether world of the masses. He could make people feel that there worst urges and desires would help humanity. It was good to hate Jews, they were tainting the purity of their "superior" race, they needed to conquer countries so that their superior race could flourish and to gain back lands they wrongfully lost in past battles. As crazy and insane as that sounds today, it made perfect sense to millions of educated people. Hitler gave life to the nightmarish yearnings buried in the depths of these peoples' hearts.

So to say OBama is like Hitler, is truly a ghastly irony. After all, if anything, Obama calls on our best angels and speaks calmly and reasonably about logic and ideas.

Yet, to call these extreme right wingnuts Nazi-like, would also be against the grain of the PC media and liberal intelligentsia. They say it is an insult to Jews, it undermines the holocaust etc. But, while these loonies are not calling for death camps, their paranoid belief that their country has been taken from them and their lives are under attack by a black socialist, could lead these creepy people to do violence. It is not surprising they tote guns to town hall meetings. They want us to know they mean serious business.

The poet Yeats, in the poem "The Second Coming" wrote, "The best lose all conviction while the worst reach heightening intensity". ... Isn't that what we see now? It is time for some fire and fury on the left. Why isn't there a march for the Public Option on Washington? If the left does not focus its energies now I fear the country will sink further into psychosis.

Arminius

Don't fear for this nation. All of "those people" were here all along, those people in their little "tea-party" escapades, whom I have called the new American fascists. I have known them all my life.

It is good, finally, once and for all, to get this out in the open. It has to happen as it is. You did not suppose that we would have a black President, without the earth beneath our feet shaking?

It is time for them to come out into the light of day, and grow up. Then we can discuss health care with them, and not before.

Tom56, at least Joe Wilson didn't holler out SUCK IT! in a crowded room. He clearly recognized that he wasn't in a porno parlor, but in the halls of congress. Apparently he showed some awareness and restraint after all - for a republican.

Voter outrage comes from one of two places - being deeply informed or being deeply misinformed.

To be honest, I see you in the 2nd category. Perhaps a little too much Fox News??

PS. We have yet to elect anyone from the Socialist Party - I think you've got your countries mixed up.

fr edbyronadams:

>The seed that sprouted in the opposition to the presidency of #43 was his response to Katrina, in which a resident population refused ample warning to evacuate and the state and local officials failed to act to aid the evacuation.
Somehow, George Bush got the blame. ...

Well, that's because Dumbya was completely clueless as to what to do. Remember "You're doing a heckuva job, brownie"? His bff was FIRED for his inadequacy in performing job duties. FEMA trailers sit, unoccupied and now MOLDY, in Georgia. They were never delivered, thanks to brownie and dumbya.

Had we had a REAL President at the time of Katrina, they'd have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work. Instead, dumbya just flew over for photo ops, and let his mother claim that the evacuees in the Houston Astrodome were "living better" there than they were in their own homes.

Another thing, Daniel ITLD,

France. People on the right, being ignorant, apparently do not know that we probably would not have won our revolution without their help. And I guess they don't know that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France in 1876.

Sure, France is cantankerous and difficult to deal with. So are we. I was really amused by the 'Freedom Fries' thing, for the French got a great laugh out of it. What they make is as to our product as prime rib is to a fast food hamburger.

And there you are:

Tom56,

a perfect example of an inarticulate, flaming racist, who has nothing to offer the "debate" but a fascist rant.

Seeing the elephant in the room is not "playing the race" card. It is Republicans who "play the race" card, not Democrats.

I am not suprised at all that this is what it has come down to. I thought it would happen sooner, as a matter of fact.

Soon, the dreaded "N" word will be back again, aceptable and respectable to use, at least amoung "respectable" Republican circles.

Daniel ITLD,

You may have hit on the root of the problem of the rabid right: ignorance. Ignorance produced fear, and they incestuously bred to produce racism.

I fear for our great nation.

Hi Arminius

I have seen "Triumph of the Will."

And yes, Rush Limbaugh has many of the speaking mannerisms of Adolph Hitler, including the sprayed drool, which I have seem him do in fits of excitement.

By contrast, Obama's speaking style is calm and serene. To compare Obama's speeches to Hitler's is, once again, to brag about ones own ignorance.

I never did see such a group of people as these Conservative Republicans, who are so proud of how ignorant ans stupid they are.

For example, they hate France. Why? because the culture is refined, the food is good, the art is great, the history is long, the architecture is splendid, the language is beautiful, and that makes them terrible people.

What glorious American values these Conservative Republican White People have.

Dear DCDave11

I was born and raised in the South.

On the subject of race, the South does not have a thing to be proud of, especially in the year 2009.

I am telling the real, and awful truth. You are telling a lie.

edbyronadams

Racism is not, as you say, a handy excuse. It is a wicked and diabolical threat.

That you are so free and casual in your regards to this new rise of racist sentiment in America is part of the problem.

We already fought one Civil War over it.

The Republican Party seems to want another Civil War. The Republican Party seems to want President Obama dead.

That is what I believe, and I do not think that is a casual sentiment to sneer at, as you seem to.

Shut up! Please!
As a right winger myself, I've spent the last 6 years listening to nothing but terrible things said about Bush. The left was ruthless in their attacks and you didn't have to go into some back alley speak easy to hear it. It was on every major network, Comedy Central had a cartoon series making fun of the president, HBO... It was everywhere, people calling him stupid and a spoiled brat, a killer, he didn't care about black people... I mean, what wasn't said about bush. Liberals were screaming little children for the last 8 years. To insinuate that someone is a racist because they take issue with the first black presidents policies is just wrong. What were the people who were calling for the assassination of George Bush, were they racists? No, they were left wing liberals. Every other car in Northern Virginia had a "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker. Screw you bringing race into it. Then again, keep doing it, because its just making those that have legitimate issues with the president's policies less likely to give in at all. Its a war and its on and it has nothing to do with race. It has to with right and wrong and decimation of the left in this country. Half the speakers at the Tea Party were black and they were very well received and its not surprise, because race has nothing to do with it. Obama is the most leftist president we have ever had. If Jimmy Carter some how won the white house again, we would be filling the streets. If Nancy Pelosi was in the white house it would be the same thing. Socialism, Totalitarianism, Communism belong on the ash heap of history, but for some reason Obama thinks its a good idea to turn us into a collective society. I'm just not down for it. These people are disagree with the president are smart well read folks who know our history and understand what it means to be outside the bounds of our constitution. You socialist reverse bigots can choke on your own drivel. SUCK IT!

I find it so very strange that the USA, once considered itself racially unbiased, especially when the call to war was to go into a region where actual racism between separate cultural factions continue to foment unrest and terrorism.

only to find later that we, ourselves, (USA) are still crippled over race.

so I wouldn't go all pointy-headed about war being the best way to solve the unrest in the Mid-East because that would also signal that the USA has to do the same thing, civil war, all over again.

It would seem that some numbskulls in the USA are just pitching for this very thing to happen.

Numbskulls. Clean up your act before you go in and try and fix other's problems.

No, from what I see the USA is just as polarized racially today as it was thirty years ago.

But citizens of the USA always seem to claim that we've figured that out.

Maybe it's more like, in the USA, people agree that racism is here, but nowhere near as bad as elsewhere.

And that's pathetic. We're somehow chosen to straighten out others when we, ourselves are as crooked, maybe not just as crooked, but crooked just the same.

I can picture Racism, yup.

Recently a California university in the middle of the state had a frat house that became, for lack of a better term, racist house 101. Confederate flags, limited enrollement, talk of racism, hatred, and your basic throwbacks from the southern tradition that keeps the black person in the role of servant.

California, the state you thought was so compassionate. It turns out, the frat house was shut down, but not until after folks started doing something about it. If it were up to the frat boys, the house would still be a colony of the south.

so look around and assess the situation. is racism dead?

No, it's just doing other things right now, but it's quite alive.

"Jeez Joe, ye should have known better.... "

Hi, Persiflage,

A better version, from baseball:
"Joe, say it ain't so!"

Arminius

Joe Wilson's remark was either a study in a total lack of self-awareness, or something much more calculated and insidious. He was stroking his hometown consituents at the very least.

Being an elected official, and a republican at that, you'd have thought that Joe would have had the common sense to refrain from volatile remarks that would be easily misconstrued as racially motivated - regardless of his intent.

On the other hand, as a white southern republican he doesn't have any black constituents, so no cause for concern, right?

As to the nature of his assaultive remark - are we supposed to believe that South Carolina is now utterly without a trace of racism? Poor Joe, so totally misunderstood!

I prefer to think that Joe's remark was simply coming from the same place as that deep well of disinformation motivating the drones out there that are so loudly protesting healthcare reform. Not necessarily racist, but pretty damned stupid all the same.

Jeez Joe, ye should have known better....

I think we are finally getting to the point where the racism charge is becoming innocuous due to overuse. You lefties should have saved it as your nuclear weapon. We are all racists now.

Great article. I suspect that any adult living in America, surely anyone living in the South knows full well that just below the surface (and sometimes not even that) racism continues to run strong in this country. I've visited with inlaws that were truely good people, walk-the-talk Christains in every respect. Except race. To them blacks are inferior and frightening. These good people never questioned the contradiction of Christianity and Racism. There has been progress, some minds have been changed. For others, racism is covert but still very real. The crybaby's that shout "the liberals are using the race card!" are of course, disingenuous. Truth to them has no real meaning, its the ends that matter. The ends justify their means, whatever they are. Fortunately, these small minded, bitter people represent at best 20% or so of America. A bit of time and enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

"As an historian, I am astounded at how close many of the views of the screamers are to those held by pre-Civil War Southerners."

And close to post-Civil War Southerners, as well as elsewhere. Don't forget that the despicable KKK, those drag queens from outer space, reached their highest power in the 1920's, and their HQ was in, of all places, Indianapolis, IN.

I am a man of the South, lived here for all my 66 years. I am white, and was blessedly raised to have no bias against creed, color, or whatever. But I see the bigotry around me still. It is usually what is called 'soft bigotry', the person never exhibits it, but the poison still lingers.... until something happens. Like the election of a black president.

Liberals are using the race card to difuse any legitimate counter-point. The GOP used the patriotism card to the same effect early in the Bush Administration. In both cases there were legitimate uses of the card. In most cases it was/is an attempt to block an open debate. It is quite effective as out melodrama addicted society is easily distracted from real issues.

However, the real problem with using the race card as a shield is that it can and IS damaging race relations in this country. Nothing invokes racial resentment in a person more than being accused of racisim when none exists. This is true no matter what your ethnicity is. Resentment leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate almost always leads to violence.

FOr this reason I issue this word of caution to anyone who will listen. Use the card as you want but beware that the long term damage you cause to our society may cost you far more than than you could ever hope to gain from its use.

"Maureen Dowd of the New York Times told it like it is..." The quote speaks an untruth. Actually, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times "told it" as she interpreted the event. Her interpretation, unless she is a reliable mind reader, is called "putting words in someone else's mouth", and is unacceptable in rational discussions.

Jacoby's Truth is immediately trashed by those saying she said what she did not say. That one is racist if one criticizes Obama; that the Left is as uncivil as the Right. Ms. Jacoby's comments refute that. A large part of what is going on is that the good old USA's place in the world is changing, strategically, militarily, economically and people who are not mature enough to admit this have to have someone to blame. And who better to blame than the ****** in the White House. See Human Nature 101: it's called scape goating In addition, right wing policies have brought us to this point, from Reagan's deregulation to Bush's senseless tax cuts. Has anyone on the Right noticed that Clinton and a Republican congress balanced the budget? Gee, if we work together good things can happen. And these times are different and now we have to run a deficit to get us out of the mess that the ultra rich created by deregulating Wall Street and the banks. And guess what? Joe Six Pack can't figure that out. It's just the ******* in the White House. Elitist? Yeah. The truth hurts. Oh, and why aren't all of you on the Right criticizing the craziness of Limbaugh? Grow up. Your policies screwed up the country and now you don't want to let someone smarter than you fix it.

The irrationality of the Obama haters is truly frightening. Even after Ms. Jacoby specifically said opposition to his policies was NOT racist they persist in going as if she said it was. And to equate the general disdain in which Bush & his policies were held is somehow equated to the lies screamed by the rabid right is mindboggling. As an historian, I am astounded at how close many of the views of the screamers are to those held by pre-Civil War Southerners.

Ms. Jacoby seems to forget that white America elected Obama. Now, by his actions, he appears to be a Marxist. The noise that you are hearing, that you have missinterpreted, is the American people showing the love of their Country and their inexorable drive to take it back.

According to most of these posters the only racist is the person who dares speak of racism. Kind of like if a lady is a victim of rape, reporting it makes her the rapist.

Why should anyone be obliged to love President Obama? People have their reasons, good or bad, for disliking the president.

How many religion writers like you, Ms. Jacoby, condemned the hatred of Bush? Should we presume that if they didn't, they are "irrational haters?" Clearly from your point of view, the answer is: Yes.

Unfortunately the talking heads seek ratings and many set a poor example.
Aggresive and loud debate with someone with different views, changes no ones beliefs but has become the norm.
Perhaps part of the frustration comes from the spin/lies and distortion of politicians and the media and the uncertainty of our times.
While all who oppose President Obama are *not racists, there are those unwilling to accept him because of his race.
I have also observed some "religious" tv programming to overtly criticize President Obama, while I rarely heard criticisms of Bush/Cheney, even with evidence of eit or torture.

Are there still racists in the USA? Of course there are. So why don't we brand every person that criticizes Obama's policies as racist? Give me a break!

P.S....Criticizing this President for his policies doesn't make one a racist. Get a clue lady!

Ms. Jacoby is concerned about the incivility that has been going on "For the past few months"..so I guess the incivility that has been going on for the past few years doesn't bother her. It's only when a President she supports is criticized or disrespected in her eyes that there is any need for concern. It's this double standard that has rendered Ms. Jacoby and those like her as the irrelevant, hippocrites that they are.

Right on sistah! I've felt this for weeks now. Just look at the faces on the people at these town hall meetings - filled with anger and hatred.

The characters downtown here on Saturday looked about the same, only many had smug, superior looks on their faces as if, finally, they could demonstrate their dislike of Obama and could vent and carry horrid signs with the rest of their kind.

I just hope nothing happens to our President as a result of this outrageous and rabid hate-filled rhetoric and these horrid demonstrations!

Sure, I didn't like Bush or his policies either, but I don't remember this much bias and hatred.

If Hillary became President or John McCain became President, do you think someone would have screamed "Liar" during his health reform speech?

Do you think either of the others would have had such an uproar over an education speech?

It's racism pure and simple. And the people screaming "we want our country back" means just that, they want their country back the way it was 50 years ago. We are turning into a very sick society.

Thank you Ms. Jacoby for this thoughtful article. I read every word of it with keen interest. The Course in Miracles states:
Every loving thought is true. Everything else is an appeal for healing and help, regardless of the form it takes.

Neither the Democrats Censure nor the Wilson outburst had or will have anything to do with race. Pretending that it does is every bit as delusional as pretending that Obama is not an American or believing that Obama supports Death Panels. All equally ludicrous.

There is a common myth amongst Northern Suburbanites (must be something in all the organic foods lol) that somehow southerners are racist. Where is the evidence for this? DC, Atlanta and New Orleans are three of the most integrated cities in the country. When I passed through Millwaukee and lived in Chicago for a few years I was shocked at how segregated they were. I mean that, absolutely shocked.

My advice to Ms. Jacoby is simple. Please travel to the south and actually pay attention to the way people get along I think that it will cause you to re-think your predjudised views.

Yet another hateful liberal screed published under the guise of "Faith".

The hypocrisy of the left in this matter is laughable. Labeling people racist for behaving exactly in the same manner as the the Bush haters is pathetic, but then again, Jacoby is pathetic.

People like Susan have such short memories. President Obama gets way beter treatment from his adversaries than President Bush did at any point in his terms in office.

Besides, President Obama was standing there calling other people liars. Then he emitted a great big fat lie. So one man had the courage to speak truth to power and call him a lier. So what?

To johnbowers,

Instead of making broad claims, how about supporting them with evidence and facts?

The far left wing of the Democrats have made a shameful and hypocritical art of using 'racist, xenophobic, greedy, evil monger, etc etc' whenever, as they often do, lose an intellectual arguement.

When all else fails, and you just deeply hate your opposition, throw every mean spiritied label you can, that's the shameless liberals.

Only 6% of Americans disapproved of Obama on inauguration day, meaning democrats, independents, and republicans were rooting for him, regardless of whether they voted for him or not.

Now that number is over 40% for disapproval - did many of us just wake up 7 months later and become racists? Did we look into the depths of our soul, or better yet tune in our flat screens better and realize, "Oh he's African-American, didn't notice that before - oh, I don't like him now!"

Nothing to do with the far jump to the left in policies, extraordinary spending, an aggressive no discussion approach to trying to pass health care, a no discussion cap and trade bill etc etc??

No, if you disagree with Obama, than you are a racist. Period.

There is outsized rhetoric on both sides, but no group like the fringe left uses it as broadly and shamelessly.

In this great nation of all, an African-American President, 10s of millions of immigrants like my parents, the most diverse, progressive, and succesful nation in human history, and this is how they behave?? They are disgusting.

Was it racism to be against Colin Powell, Condeelza Rice, or Michael Steele? Ah, no -- they were African-American but in the 'wrong' party, so clearly they were "SELL OUTS!!" or "Uncle Toms" - disgusting and pitiful.

Just label someone, that's all you have to do.

Their is no personal responsibility, integrity, decency, or true intelligence left over there - just infinite ingratitude for America, shameless entitlement, inflammatory rhetoric, and mindless hand wringing.

Play the race card, declare class war, most Americans aren't falling for their shameless identity bating - keep screaming, it makes your numbers go lower and lower.

I'm non-white, I could use the Democrats tactics - unfortunately as the son of immigrants, I know how great, diverse, and decent this nation is, something the spineless and pitiful far left will never know.

Thank you, Susan Jacoby, for articulating the sentiments of most rational people. It is frightening to observe radical right-wing views appearing too frequently as "mainstream." The shrillest voices seem to get the most attention...and Obama's cool eloquence is either ignored or taken for granted. It seems impossible to have a sane conversation with the Obama-haters; therefore, the more we hear from people like you, the better off we'll be.

Ms. Jacoby- I live in the Chicagoland area, a sixth generation American of protestant ancestry, married to a jewish woman and my ancestors fought in the Union Army during the Civil War. I have no southern roots and am not a baptist. As usual, the only people playing the race card are liberals, some black, but mostly white. I do not see BHO as a black president, but as a socialist one hell-bent on transforming the USA into a mediocre, Western European socialist state. Conservatives are not intllectually capable of playing the race card or stealing elections. We leave that to liberals and their friends at ACORN.

Massmedia77,

Beautiful post, thank you.
Here's what I say to those who pretend to be Christian but still hate:
We're all God's Children, can't you see?
It's not Us and Them, it's WE and WE!

Susan,

As a black American (not African American) veteran of the Gulf War, I applaud you. Thank you for saying what needed to be said. It is a true shame to see grown men, no matter what race they are, acting like children when they can't get their way.

It is also a shame that, in 2009, we are still having these same discussions. As a Christian (a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ), I do not understand how a child of God could expect for the Lord to ignore the hate that broils deep within. I pray for these people filled with hate and I pray for their children who cannot live their own lives for fear of retribution from the ones they love.

Jesus did not have an ounce of hate in him, God is love....it's too simple to ignore. If you have hatred in you then you are not in line with anything that the Lord is about. There's only one "enemy" who loves to spread hate through fear, confusion and deceit....

Let's all look within and love one another. Let's get through the problems that face all Americans and help those in need.

Kjohnson3,
Thanks for the correction on who directed 'Triumph of the Will'.

You are as delusional in the extremes of your opinions as the "birthers" are in theirs. Your rhetoric here is filled with distortion & half-truth. It does not raise to the level of a "reasoned argument" any more than that of the dissidents that you wish to silence at all costs.

The same people that applauded the ascension of GWB to the White House in the stolen election of 2000, where he got a million fewer votes and had to rely on a 5-4 court decision driven by Republican appointees, are now apoplectic over Obama and seek to "deligitimize" his presidency.

To honor the constitution is to know that once the Electoral College casts its votes, the election is over.

The seed that sprouted in the opposition to the presidency of #43 was his response to Katrina, in which a resident population refused ample warning to evacuate and the state and local officials failed to act to aid the evacuation.

Somehow, George Bush got the blame. Hardly the height of reason. No racism to blame, unless you blame the people who stayed behind or failed to help evacuate them.

Racism is a handy excuse for some. Hardly the height of reason either.

"'Triumph of the Will', produced and directed by none other than Goebbels himself, the nazi propaganda minister."

I believe it was Leni Riefenstahl who directed "Triumph of the Will." Goebbels would have been the producer.

Thank you Susan for your article. I am African-American/AMERICAN and I get sick of people pretending that we are having an honest health care debate. I don't agree with every thing Obama says regarding health care. However, if I wanted to protest, lets face it, I would not have been welcomed in that crowd! I mean, where was Micheal Steele? Why wasn't he there cheering them on? Perhaps because he would have had the same problem I would have had.

Obama is in the same position as a parent trying to control a kid throwing a tantrum during a party. Your hands are tied. You cannot spank them, you should not give in, if you carry them to their room they'll keep disturbing the party from there and your party is ruined. The answer is of course not to have that kid present at the party in the first place. So Obama's best shot is to just ignore Republicans. This tantrum throwing by Republicans is of course choreographed. They know that by making civilized discourse impossible they are going to make exellent Governance by Obama impossible. Limbaugh and Beck and other such demagogues are actively stirring people up to act like brats. The worrysome thing is that lots of people are tuning in to them. They want to be stirred up, they want to create disorder. Now, what has Obama done to deserve this? Trying to make this a better Country for everyone. That's it in a nutshell. So the motivation for these people to act ignorant lies elswhere and that elswhere can only be fear of black people which always translates into racism.

Daniel ITLD,

There is a movie you might want to see, 'Triumph of the Will', produced and directed by none other than Goebbels himself, the nazi propaganda minister. As far as propaganda goes, it is a triumph, but it will freeze the blood of anyone with a spark of decency. The Austrian Corporal could be a powerful speaker before a large audience when he wanted to. But NOT like Obama, no, but like Rush Bimbo. Obama speaks peace with grace, Hitler and Rush preach hatred in a harsh voice.

Therefore, I think your comparison of our home-grown right-wing-nuts to fascists is good.

One has to feel for these southern evangelicals. Every day of Obama Presidency is a torcher to them. How on earth did this slave boy get to become our master. I think this article puts all the things into context so eloquently. How do you reason with the people who raise Obama's photo with a Hitler mustache before even beginning the debate. I dont know if I am the only one who fears the worst for Obama. Unlike Kennedy though, no one will now be able to say that we didnt see it coming.~!

What is "Nazi-ism?"

It was a German variety of "facism."

And what is fascism?

First of all, it is not simply a crazed dictator. It is a socio-economic phenomon that sweeps over certain societies at moments of distress. Some societies, such as in Latin America, seem more predisposed to it; others, as in Scandinavia, do not.

Why? I do not know, that is merely my observation.

What are the characteristics of fascism?

First of all, it tends to be a social and political mass movement, driven more by emotion than by any well-thought out program of reforms.

Some features of fascist movements:

-- mystical association of religion and nationalism, with a consequent nationalism that is sometimes extreme,

-- xenophobia,

-- a preoccupation and interest in guns, the military, and war.

-- cult of personality driven politics al la Sarah Palin.

Does any of this seem familiar? It does to me.

The only thing hopeful here is that this wave of "facism" in America that has arisint agains Obama is not sweeping over all of American society, but only a tiny part of it, and that there is a very powerful counter-balance to it.

The new anti-Obama fascists, hypocritially compare Obama to Hitler. They belittle Obama's speech-making by saying, "Hitler gave good speeches, too."

Well guess what? Hitler gave lousy speeches. His speeches amounted to screaming fits, which hardly compare to anything style that Obama has.

Rush Limbaugh, the darling of the new fascists, is the one who apes Adolph Hitler, in his style of speaking, NOT Obama.

Red Herring alert:
"There is nothing stupider than putting guns, in a crowded setting, into the hands of half-trained or untrained civilians. Hello?"

Concealed handgun permit holders (and that's what we're talking about here, not Uncle Ned getting some gun out of thin air) have the same training or more than that of private security guards. And most of the 1-2% of the population self-motivated enough to get the handgun permits in the first place practice more often, have more training, and have greater shooting proficiency than the average law enforcement officer, who only goes to the firing range twice a year to "qualify."

Thankyou Susan,

for finally acknowledging the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM:

"Barak Obama's race."

By defending Wilson's breach of the House Rules of Decorum by parroting Democrats are "playing the race card," Republican propagandists are actually exploiting Obama's race to come up with this new mantra. (after all, Muslim, no-birth-certificate, terrorist have all become so passé)

Using "liberals are playing the race card" to defend any inappropriate attack on the President is representative of the great white GoP minds and their closet racism.

"...underlines the fact that faith and hatred often coexist."

More often than not, I'd say. Racial hatred and religion both stem from profound ignorance, so no surprise.