You know, one of these days those raising issue with our political views will NOT be 12 year olds mired in the childish "Racist Evangelical Republicans only like rich white people" cartoons of our youth.

How does a writer like Orcinus spew crap like that with a good conscience? When I have to smudge contradictory sources together to keep a coherent research paper, I have trouble sleeping. And not just because I stayed up to 4 am finishing the bastard either. People like him just don't register on my human being personal experience scale, so, to me, he is an oddity, someone clearly afflicted by some sort of sociopathic disorder, because his brain clearly doesn't work the same way (as well?) as mine does.

Hey... I went two paragraphs without making a pass at you, Ilyka! Awesome!

Darlin', you should get thee to Vegas. While you're HOT!

Ooh, too far, but I could go to one of the pueblos . . . if I had any money . . . which I don't . . . but--ooh, why'd you have to bring that up, Margi. Gambling and me should never get together. It always ends badly.

Would it be better to just tell you you're like buttah?

:)

I've heard of Jeeves before. He used to have his own website. You could ask him anything.

You could ask him anything.

GROAN. Did he reply with something racist? Because if not--wrong Jeeves. Or maybe I mean the right Jeeves. The one I'm talking about is definitely the wrong one.

A timely example of just how stupid some on the left can be and the evils of generalising from a few random examples of idiots!

As for that Jeeves fellow, he was never the same since he left the employ of Mr Wooster.

Here to defend myself, though I don't know that it's even necessary. Of course these people cited aren't mainstream conservatives -- BUT I do think that there is a mindset, and policy, promoted by social conservatives that makes it very easy for true racists to come out in droves. That's what I was trying to promote on Pandagon though it isn't made very clear.

That said, I don't think racism is the main offender with the situation on the Gulf Coast. It is obvious that the real problem is the flagrant governmental disregard of economic and social class issues from the birth of this country until the present.

(I was hired to make the Malkin website. It was a fun job, but still a job. The number people who bought the joke for awhile was astounding considering how over the top it was.)

"BUT I do think that there is a mindset, and policy, promoted by social conservatives that makes it very easy for true racists to come out in droves."

If you think that, then you're a fool, and there is no reason to consult your opinion on any subject more complex than "would you like a slice of lime in your appletini?"

Hey, thanks for the confidence, Andrea. And I suppose the rest of my statement makes me foolish as well?

America's class issues are raw, blatant and exposed in the aftermath of Katrina. It's ugly stuff to say the least and something that shouldn't be glossed over, including glossing over of the holy nexus of race and class in this country.

Here to defend myself, though I don't know that it's even necessary.

Maybe not, but I'm glad you did anyway. You bring up some stuff I'd like to address.

Of course these people cited aren't mainstream conservatives

Then Orcinus shouldn't have claimed it was seeping into the discourse of mainstream conservatism. Well, we've all written a sensationalist thesis now and then, but his was indefensible.

-- BUT I do think that there is a mindset, and policy, promoted by social conservatives that makes it very easy for true racists to come out in droves.

Regarding mindset:

Having seen some of what I think you're getting at with regards to feminism, I would have to agree to this extent: Conservatives tending to revere Things As They Were, it stands to reason that someone who longs for the good ol' days when colored folk knew their place is going to wind up more often on the right. The problem with believing in the good old days is that not everything about them was actually good. That I'd grant you.

But there's also another factor at work that tends to drive a bigot right: The casting of a wider and wider net with which to catch racists--and that mindset is more prevalent on the left.

I probably don't need to tell you how popular it is to paint yourself these days as "anti-PC," as a brave individual who defies conventional wisdom, blah blah. It's how a guy (or increasingly, a woman) can pen a rant against "feminazis"--using only the most radical feminists as examples, or even using NO actual feminists as examples, but merely blaming all kinds of phenomena on them--and generate 80 comments praising him or her for Finally Speaking Up! Against Political Correctness!

And I do think political correctness is a problem, because it shuts down dialogue when you proscribe certain words, certain phrases--and I have a better time knowing my enemy, so to speak, when my enemy is able to express him- or herself freely.

But the backlash against it is a bigger problem, because it provides the bigot with a rationalization and a cover: I'm not really a bigot, I'm just speaking truth to power. I'm just defying political correctness.

This is essentially a long way of saying we'd be better off not looking for racists under the bed so we could identify the ones who come right to the front door.

It is obvious that the real problem is the flagrant governmental disregard of economic and social class issues from the birth of this country until the present.

Ma'am, you're going to be a teacher some day, so--CITE.

What I'm seeing as definite problems are a mayor whose evacuation plan included DVDs instructing residents that there was no real plan, and a state governor who had to be urged by the president--our racist president--to lean on Nagin to get an evacuation order issued. There's plenty blame to be shared, and don't even get me started on the sheer waste of all those school buses lying unused in NO, but before I go pinning it on abstract causes, I'd like to eliminate the concrete.

Well, Glenn Reynolds sure doesn't think he's a "conservative" at all... but he is mainstream whatever he is, I'm sure.

Well, Glenn Reynolds sure doesn't think he's a "conservative" at all... but he is mainstream whatever he is, I'm sure.

True, but the distinction gets pretty academic once you look at him from the left. If you ask someone "what's the opposite of Atrios?" chances are they'll name Glenn.

Ma'am, you're going to be a teacher some day, so--CITE. Ha! Fair enough.

I'm pressed for time right now so I'm not going to be able to write too much in my defense right away (I'll come back later this evening).

That said, I completely agree with your assessment of my statement, including the bit about liberals casting a wider net to peg people as racists. Part of the problem is that all the language we can use to talk about race, gender and class in this country have become so negatively loaded that almost all conversations between ideological viewpoints are futile. Do understand that I'm coming from a point where I don't trust politicians at all -- Repubs and Dems alike -- to truly act on behalf of all the nation's people. The Katrina aftermath unfortunately illustrates much of what I find wrong with our country and proves my greatest fears about our vulnerability as individuals and as a nation.

I'm trying not to lose hope, as I do believe that government retains potential to serve us better than it has. Part of my problem with the current conservative atmosphere lies in the ever porous wall between church and state. As someone who is interested in faith from a scholarly perspective, seeing NOLA trashed by pscyho wingnuts as God's punishment for sin (and knowing there is a significant population that believes this) is absolutely astounding. Because these groups also elevate Bush as God's chosen leader, and because those conservatives inside the beltway have brought these fundamentalists under their wing, and because of Bush's ties to some of the most powerful men who espouse similar beliefs, and because these are people who have espoused truly offensive things about minorities of all stripes, I have very grave concerns about the integrity of the Republicans in Washington. The majority of people I have seen who have been spreading these troublesome memes about Katrina and everything else have been conservative fundamentalists who, as I have mentioned above, are not exactly rejected by Repubs in Washington, but are allowed to urge and demand their flocks vote a certain way with the latent (or not-so-) approval of the White House.

God, I'm running long here. One more thing before I bolt out of the house.

There's plenty blame to be shared

I totally agree, not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of the Bush administration. But what is most infuriating is the delayed responses by the federal government, the requests for help tied up in a bureaucracy that is so enormously ridiculous I can't even wrap my head around it, the clearly staged photo ops, and honestly, the loss of human life and governmental failures only referred to in passive language.

I'm officially late for my seminar. :P

Wait, I'm back. I'm also pissed that FEMA was merged into a part of Homeland Security and that the director of FEMA has little in the way of credentials. The latter point only confirms the liberal thinking that Bush only appoints obedient cronies without experience. This is a dangerous thing because it only deepens our fears of governmental illegitimacy and incompetence.

NOW, I'm leaving.

I'm also pissed that FEMA was merged into a part of Homeland Security

As I am also running late I will just say OH HELL YES. And that, thankfully, is a criticism I've seen both right and left.

"Hey, thanks for the confidence, Andrea."

You're not welcome.

"And I suppose the rest of my statement makes me foolish as well?"

'Fraid so, considering what it followed. Hey, whoever said life is fair? I'd like to see you give your future students (so you're going to be a teacher -- go figure.) a grade based on "what I had to say in the first paragraph, though blatantly stupid, should not have affected the whole rest of my essay."

"America's class issues are raw, blatant and exposed in the aftermath of Katrina."

Is it class or race? Make up your mind -- one is not necessarily other, unless you're of the belief that all poor people are black and all poor people are white (and all brilliant mathematicians and violinists are Asian.)

"It's ugly stuff to say the least"

Well that's an empty little cliché. Water is wet too.

"and something that shouldn't be glossed over,"

Please tell me who is glossing over this subject -- and please use universal standards of subject-avoiding, not ostentatious-liberal standards.

"including glossing over of the holy nexus of race and class in this country."

WTF is "the holy nexus of race and class"??? I'll bet you don't even know what that is -- it sounds like one of those meaningless "radical sounding" slogans with which would-be activists sprinkle their screeds.

Like most Concerned Progressives, you seem to be confusing class with caste. We do not have a caste system in this country. No one is stopping a black person from earning his way into the wealthy class, especially not a president whose administration has more "people of minority" in it, in positions of significant power, than any other administration in history. Oh, but they're all rich conservatives, supposedly so they don't count.

Angry, angry, Andrea. I'm not going to busy myself responding to you if I cannot be treated with respect.

By the way, Bush merged FEMA with the DHS in order to actually reduce FEMA back to its original reason for existence, which is to manage the processing of emergency funds and resources and arrange the paperwork, because so many people bitched and moaned and complained and made paranoid scifi movies about the fact that FEMA's power had become too great. Well, you can't please everyone.

Then there's Townhall and the mainstream media.

"I'm not going to busy myself responding to you if I cannot be treated with respect."

Why do you think you should be treated "with respect"? On my planet, respect has to be earned. And actually, by actually arguing you, I have treated you with respect. Believe me, you have not been treated disrespectfully by me. I know how to disrespect.

"Then there's Townhall and the mainstream media."

A sphincter says what?

(That's disrespect, btw.)

Why do you think you should be treated "with respect"? On my planet, respect has to be earned.

Considering that Ilyka and I have a long, friendly blogging relationship, and considering I'm here to address her and not argue dumbass semantics about Who Cares More: Liberals or Conservatives?, I suggest you defer to your hostess who has thus far addressed me like an equal and not a dirty liberal punching bag.

I know how to disrespect.

You're not the only one.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

But I would too, if I were you.

Distract from the bungling, incompetent cronyism at FEMA (three levels down!) that killed your fellow Americans. Distract from the desperate racist bleats and howls from your ideological soulmates. Distract as best you can.

It won't work this time.

MUST a nasty feud erupt in my comments when there's a thunderstorm on? You people are depriving me of a beautiful desert thunderstorm experience, do you know that?

Andrea, go to your site and bring it there. The world begs for a least-loved bedtime story. Despite my having taken a few digs at her in my post, Ms. Lauren showed up and did not immediately lay into me, but presented her defense with civility. That is sufficient to earn MY respect and, lest we forget, I'm who's important around here.

Ms. Lauren, I wanted to get to your previous points but I'm going to have to shut down now. I've lost modems before in storms and I literally can't afford to lose another. I'm sorry to offer what might look like a weak excuse to some, but I promise I'll be back.

Ethan, I'm going to have to wait on getting to your links as well. Thank you for providing them.

Everyone else, just behave. I don't have the budget for Valium.

Well, now I know. On the ladies end of the blogosphere, it is a different animal. Where I come from, what Andrea said would have been supported by all present and Lauren's dismissal would have looked like a weak cop-out at best.

On a side note, though, Lauren, I've seen too many "Bush is racist," "Bush's eeevil pro-oil global warming policies," and not to mention the good old "Bush is the dumbest man in America" memes out there to let you get away with painting conservatives as being heavily influenced by racists, in so many more words than were necessary. I have to call you on that, especially while the Lefties launch barrages of hate against any and all conservatives, and to say that that sort of Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan (What she ACTUALLY said, not the MSM's portrayal of her) vitriol doesn't find a welcome ear in the Democratic party is indefensible.

While you didn't say that, you only left one clause alluding to a general distrust of all politicians before starting to chip away at the Republicans in a lengthy attack. I simply don't see the bigot connections in the Republicans that you do, especially considering what seems to me to be their pathological desire to pander to minority special interests on ludicrous issues.

"I'm not really a bigot, I'm just speaking truth to power. I'm just defying political correctness."

Best Onion headline ever:

" 'Politically Incorrect' Sophomore Actually a Racist Asshole"

It's funny 'cause it's true!

Part of the problem is that all the language we can use to talk about race, gender and class in this country have become so negatively loaded that almost all conversations between ideological viewpoints are futile

It can be done, but not without a lot of tedium--a lot of qualifiers, a lot of "of course there are exceptions" and "not in all instances, but some" and other such speech that makes for coma-inducing conversation with a low words-to-concepts ratio.

As someone who is interested in faith from a scholarly perspective, seeing NOLA trashed by pscyho wingnuts as God's punishment for sin (and knowing there is a significant population that believes this) is absolutely astounding

I'm always told those folks are out there; I don't doubt they're out there; but I have to say, honestly, that despite having a few religious conservatives on my blogroll, I'm not seeing this idea get any traction. For one thing, any Catholic conservatives out there are, given the demographics of New Orleans, immediately going to react to it as anti-Catholic which, if it's coming from the born-agains, it likely at least partially is.

Maybe I'm just not reading enough nutters.

The majority of people I have seen who have been spreading these troublesome memes about Katrina and everything else have been conservative fundamentalists who, as I have mentioned above, are not exactly rejected by Repubs in Washington, but are allowed to urge and demand their flocks vote a certain way with the latent (or not-so-) approval of the White House.

I would agree with you that they're tolerated and in some cases encouraged by this administration. Dawn Eden famously agreed that Bush's inaugural constituted a "coded message" to Christian conservatives. I don't know whether she's right about that, but she'd be more likely to know than I would, I figure.

I don't know how many of the people of New Orleans are themselves religious, what percent of the population prefers voodoo, Catholicism, Judaism, or no religion at all--so I guess I'm not seeing an obvious connection between "Bush winks and nods at his Christian conservative base all the time" and "Bush's handling of Katrina is fraught with racism." If you're just saying that you distrust that sort of voter in general, that I understand. Though it was interesting, when I brought the issue up at ASV, how many evangelicals turned up to say I was wrong--in fairly civil fashion.

And it's worth noting that most of the worst bigots I met during my 11 years in Dallas were originally from "up north"--for some reason Michigan seemed to be most heavily represented. As I said to a guy in email the other day, they'd get down to Dallas and figure "Ah, now that I'm here in redneck Texas I can feel free to express my bigotry, 'cause these folks will understand." Which, to the credit of the natives, they usually did not, nor did they approve.

Probably not relevant, but Mark had a great story about this priest who'd had a parish in Dallas back in the early 60s, who'd retired up to South Dakota (don't ask me why he went where it was colder; I have no idea), and was friendly with Mark's parents. Apparently one day while he and Mark and Mark's parents were out to breakfast, the old priest spied an interracial couple and muttered, "Now that, you'd never see that down in Dallas." Mark said he just stared at him slack-jawed. But this guy's mindset hadn't changed, well, ever. He seemed to think Dallas was still de facto segregated, which to some extent it is--but somehow I managed to hang out with three different interracial couples during my time there.

One woman did complain that occasionally people would ask her, "Oh, is your child mixed?" She'd tell them nuts were mixed; her child was biracial. So I'm not claiming things were great down there, but they were well enough that most people thought nothing of it.

Crud, I think I've lost my point. If I had one. It's not easy keeping track of these things when you suffer from delusion to the extent that I do.

I guess I just don't automatically think "Christian guy from Midland = racist." And I guess I don't react well when people assume that.

Well, now I know. On the ladies end of the blogosphere, it is a different animal. Where I come from, what Andrea said would have been supported by all present and Lauren's dismissal would have looked like a weak cop-out at best.

And that has everything do with my sitting down to take a piss, dude. Everything. It's all because this is the "ladies end" and not because maybe I work hard not to cultivate a damn echo chamber up in here.

I mean, if all I want to hear is how right I am, I'll go say affirmations to myself in the mirror, you know?

"I am a Good Person. I can formulate My Own Opinions. I am An Effective Debater! I deserve mass linkage. I am a Competent Blogger. My posts are Widely Read. I am in Tune with Conservative Principles! Ann Coulter wishes she were me. Yes she DOES. Lick my boots, Ann. Lick them. Lick them GOOD. Yeah, that's--"

Wait, sorry, what were you saying again?

Okay, Jackass, I'll spare all the arguments about why being an apologist for racists is as bad as being a racist because I really don't care whether you think you're not a racist. You are.

But the reason you don't see Atrios, Kos, or Odub listed at TTLB's "leaderboard" is the same reason you don't see ANY liberal bloggers listed there. The fundraising drive in question is an initiative by conservatives, and the results are self-reported. Liberals have their own fundraising and relief-support efforts going on, and mostly don't see the need to trumpet to the world how helpful they are. I can tell you that Atrios has raised a ton of money. I'm sure that Kos has too. But then, you wouldn't actually bother to find out if that's the case or not, because like all cons, you're mostly concerned about appearances and the political ramifications of everything you do and say. Idiot.

I'm always told those folks are out there; I don't doubt they're out there; but I have to say, honestly, that despite having a few religious conservatives on my blogroll, I'm not seeing this idea get any traction.

The problem is I KNOW plenty of these nutters. I'm smack dab in the center of Indiana with a church on every corner. Every hour, on the hour, you can hear the church bells a-ringin'. I know plenty of truly admirable Christians (my long-time mentor is a minister at the church down the street, odd for an atheist perhaps), but my positive experiences with Christianity are too often drowned out by the crazies who have waged a letter-writing war in my local paper for well over a year on whether or not the dinosaurs existed at all. It may be that these people are louder here than elsewhere. I don't know.

Many of the fundamentalists I know (and love -- I love them but oh my god) truly believe that women cannot have a direct relationship with God and only through their husbands, that women are spiritually, inherently incomplete without a man, etc. These ideas clearly offend my feminism but they're offensive on a much greater level to me as well in that they speak of women as a lesser class.

Additionally, the church down the street, the one I grew up in, is very active in its ministries and regularly takes trips to urban areas to help out the African-American churches of this protestant branch. Awesome stuff. But inevitably, there is the bigot or two that speaks of the lowliness of the people in the neighborhoods who are a) not Christian and are therefore looking forward to eternal damnation (reasonable, I suppose, from a Christian perspective), or b) speak of urbanization as though it's clearly the key word for poor black people and the supposedly inherent downfalls of their melanin levels. This is the subtle racism that goes unnoticed or excused, but never as blatant as the other examples I've witnessed in the church when we briefly had a black minister leading our church before it was burnt down for his blackness.

Of course the arson was not from within the church, but it was the statements from within, before and after, that made it sting so hard. (anecdote, anecdote, anecdote, personal is political, bear with me) Many within the church were clearly uncomfortable with our black minister. Attendance dropped significantly, there was much whispering and behind the scenes sabotage, and open concerns about whether or not a black minister should preach the word of God to a group of white people. It was truly devastating to hear this come from people whom I had previously considered role models for virtuous living.

More recently, I had an old friend call me up, a young, never-married single mom like myself, who had joined the church because she was tired of moral ambiguity. Fair enough. What truly troubled me was that she reported that she has been preached to by the heads of the church that liberalism is literally evil, that George Bush is essentially a reincarnate or appointment of God Himself, that educational institutions are evil, you name it. Every over-the-top accusation made against conservative Christianity by psychotic secularists like myself realized! Maybe I'm naive, but I still can't believe it. This is a large church in our area that commands a significant portion of the church going population.

Clinton-era and post-Reagan politics made much of this rhetoric possible and widely accepted among certain populations of Americans -- conservative Christians. There seems to be an ideological rift between what I would consider the old-school conservative and this ever prominent fundamentalist conservative, but nonetheless Washington Republicans have taken the fundies under their wing and have allowed them to do much of their ideological dirty work for them. This is, I think, both genius and disingenuous. It's easy to paint liberals as hapless, immoral, whiny reactionaries if they aren't right with God.

And thern there's the squidgy issue with Bush being a born-again Christian whose faith has infiltrated his policy at all levels.

Insofar as this goes with the charges of racism is to be debated. Nonetheless because race and class are so closely intertwined in this country, and because on some level the Bush administration purports that wealth is virtue and that the American dream is available to anybody (a fundamental disagreement between liberals and conservatives), and because of the photo-opping and grandstanding done over the last week (FEMA, state, and local fuckups being ignored here) in regards to the victims of Katrina who, in NOLA who are almost all poor and overwhelmingly black, it is very difficult to not conclude that at the very least the Bush administration has a fundamental disregard for poor people.

Democrats haven't been so great on this regard either. I fault Clinton for fucking up the welfare system, for one. But overall I think it has everything to do with the inside the beltway politics being so tight and removed from actual, non-politican people in American society, and with politicians being of a particular brand of privileged person almost all the way up the chain, that makes this disgregard for the reality of poverty to be ignored or, as I said above, glossed over. And because our record regarding the intersection of race and class in America, the land of "equal opportunity," has been so fantastically dismal, this points to real boundaries between historically-disadvantaged people of color and the government charged to take care of all of us, not just the lobbyists and special interest groups.

While you didn't say that, you only left one clause alluding to a general distrust of all politicians before starting to chip away at the Republicans in a lengthy attack.
That's because I find the Washington Republicans particularly distasteful. The Democratic party is the closest thing I have to representation but I'd just as soon chuck it all and start over with a government truly for the people by the people. In many ways I would (surprisingly?) call for greater localization and less bureaucratic bullshit that made for a disgusting outcome in NOLA. But still, the federal government is obligated to provide aid in national disasters in a timely fashion. Or at least morally obligated. I can't help but wonder how everyone would feel if a Democrat had been in charge during this whole mess.

Goddamn, I types a lot there. Sorry to be so wordy. I only hope it's cogent.

I really don't care whether you think you're not a racist. You are.

Because why? Because you said so? I don't even know you. You quite obviously do not know me. You've given me this much reason to give a fuck what you think: None.

I suggest you quit while you're ahead. Oh, wait--you aren't.

The left, the right, which is the correct position?

Sorry Ilyka. You can't have it both ways.
Support a party that devised the southern strategy and regularly relies upon boogiemen like Willie Horton and Welfare Queens to stir up white paranoia, then get the vapors when somebody suggests y'all are racist? Boo-hoo-friggin-hoo.

No, I'm not suggesting you are a KKK-style racist or even a Jesse Helms racist. I am suggesting that your party is quite happy to play to the assumption that poor black people are just the teensiest bit less human than...ahem...us. How else could you justify policies that increase the load of misery (viz recent US poverty, infant mortality stats) among THEM?

You're just miffed because it's harder to maintain that polite, I'm-no-racist facade when your beloved president is letting the Crescent City devolve into Somalia on the Ponchartrain.

"The casting of a wider and wider net with which to catch racists--and that mindset is more prevalent on the left." Which makes a lot of sense, given the supposition that there are more recists on the right. Right-wing rhetoric is generally far more intolerant of people who aren't straight white Christian males than left-wing rhetoric.

"Mau Mauing" doesn't strike you as being just a tad racist?

I am suggesting that your party is quite happy to play to the assumption that poor black people are just the teensiest bit less human than...ahem...us. How else could you justify policies that increase the load of misery (viz recent US poverty, infant mortality stats) among THEM?

Wow, interesting theory. Let's take a look:

1998 Poverty Rates
Whites 8.2%
Hispanics 25.6%
African Americans 26.1%

2000 Poverty Rates
Whites 7.5%
Hispanics 21.2%
African Americans 22.1%

2004 Poverty Rates
Whites 8.6%
Hispanics 21.9%
African Americans 24.7%

I take it that Bush and the Republican leadership hate white people because of their race too, given the increasing white poverty rate; there's just a percentage difference in the degree of the hate. And they don't hate black people quite as much as Clinton hated them in 1998 (and please note the sarcasm, I thought Clinton was a good president).

1998 Infant Mortality Rates
Whites 6.0
African Americans 14.3

2000 Infant Mortality Rates
Whites 5.7
African Americans 14.0

2002 Infant Mortality Rates
Whites 5.9
African Americans 14.4

2003 Infant Mortality Rates
Whites 5.8
African Americans 14.1

Huh. It turns out that after a surge for blacks and whites in 2002 (due to a change in the birth weight distribution, apparently), infant mortality rates dropped back down in 2003. Tentative theory: In 2003, Bush and the Republican leadership stopped seeing blacks as less than human, or at least, downplayed the hate a little.

Listen, these non causa pro causa arguments positing that disparate adverse circumstances for different racial groups are the result of political racism only serve as a barrier to solving these real problems. Wouldn't it be great to have two parties in an actual, not predetermined, competition for individual voters in all racial groups? The outcome of that competition might actually, you know, improve things.

And that has everything do with my sitting down to take a piss, dude. Everything. It's all because this is the "ladies end" and not because maybe I work hard not to cultivate a damn echo chamber up in here.

Er, ahem. I blame my poor word choice again. What I meant to say was that what Andrea had said would have been taken as "a fair statement" rather than a vicious personal attack, not that everyone would have been an Andrea fanboy, but that Lauren would have been the one dismissing debate. My fault. Wasn't trying to attack anything other than Lauren's "Angry, angry, Andrea. I'm not going to busy myself responding to you if I cannot be treated with respect." and the apparent lack of calling "BS" to it.

And to the rest of that, I say :P. It is not because you're a woman any more than the fact that the NOLA looters are looting has to do with them being black.

And I'll disagree with you when you say something I CAN disagree with in good faith, happy?

On a side note, I had thought the "OMG RACIST OVER THERE LOOK" nutters were a thing of fairy tales.

Railing on the anti-America nutters or the racism nutters is simply weak practice for either side. It is perfectly natural for each political party casting its wide nets to nab a few kooks. You get a few easy points by hammering them with relative ease, but casting them as directly steering policy, even and especially with the sorts of vague semi-references that insinuate that there is a great conspiracy to keep blacks down by the Republican party with the vaguest of proof given... that's simply ridiculous. Same as assuming that the Lefties are self-hating America bashers who seek to dismantle American economic and military might and appease any who disagree with us. Sure, the pundits we see say crap like that, but this is the Internet. The internet is filled with stupid people.

Support a party that devised the southern strategy and regularly relies upon boogiemen like Willie Horton and Welfare Queens to stir up white paranoia, then get the vapors when somebody suggests y'all are racist?

How do you not get hay fever, James?

And why exactly was there a southern strategy again?--Hey, let's ask Amanda!

To use race-baiting rhetoric about crime and welfare to pull all the racist Southern Democrats in who were angry that their liberal party had lived up to the idea of equality and embraced civil rights

Who had the racists to lure away in the first place, James? Can I suggest you're racist? Well, I can--but there wouldn't be any evidence for it.

I am not "getting the vapors," as would be quite clear if you'd read anything I'd written, instead of charging over here full of righteous indignation.

Try--just try, James--sticking to the issues under discussion. That "but you're all racists in the larger sense; you're all racists because Nixon was an asshole" (so was LBJ; are all Democrats egotistical warmongers by extension?) nonreasoning doesn't really fly here.

You're just miffed because it's harder to maintain that polite, I'm-no-racist facade when your beloved president is letting the Crescent City devolve into Somalia on the Ponchartrain.

So he let the hurricane devastate New Orleans... because they were black and he is racist. This is of course the reason he never lifted a finger to help them. *Sigh* You're a cartoon character, some hideous caricature of a rational person. As long as you bring self-righteous crap like that to the table, you are worthy of scorn, derision, and laughter directed at you rather than any sort of respect. Go back to your safehouse of Pandagon's well-moderated (Read no eeevil Neocon zone unless the mods can fisk the post and look smart.) comments and let the adults discuss who is racist.

"Mau Mauing" doesn't strike you as being just a tad racist?

In the context used--that is, referring to the intimidation used by liberals to silence black conservatives--no. That it's over-the-top, I'd grant you.

I also don't think it'd have been my choice personally, but that's because I dislike appropriating historical references to present-day circumstances. One of the worst abuses of that--and this one does not come from my side generally--is the use of Nazi references with respect to present-day Israeli policies.

If a Democrat had been in charge, I would probably still say "Come on now, stop attacking his response time. This is the Federal Government, for pete's sake. Bureaucracy is the norm, and let's wait until the laymen learn how the process is supposed to work before we blame the President for messing up the process. Still, those bus pictures are pretty clearly bad.

But I'd say the media would be more on the President's side were he Dem. KEKEKEKE!

Lauren, your experience with the nutjobs of Christianity runs contrary to my entire experience with Christians, marring a few crazies wandering the college campus spewing bull. I can understand why you feel the way you do if that's the kind of thing you see daily, but, dang, I rarely ever see crap like that, so it runs contrary to my experience.

Furthermore, Ilyka, I do take issue with your characterization that racism is something that simply can/will/must be sought out the reasons behind and cured. There are always crazies out there, and if we COULD have developed some kind of racism vaccine, we sure as heck would have a while ago, as hating racism has been in style for quite a while.

So, yes, I don't think it says anything useful that few seek to root out the causes and end it. Because rational people already know the cause, there are idiots and crazies out there. The solution? Well, if you disapprove of rounding them up and lobotomizing/shooting them, then we are left with little choice but to continue to cope with them. Forgive me for generalizations, but I've heard COUNTLESS arguments against teaching abstinence, alcohol/drug avoidance, etcetera claiming that logical plans for dealing with those societal issues don't work. The statistics don't often paint a pretty picture for them, and I don't think that anti-racism classes are going to fix things either.

And, Lauren, just to reinforce my point, people of my mindset tend to react violently (In a loose definition, like vinegar reacts violently with baking soda.) to stories like yours because the folk of my experience don't meet or generally expect to meet, or expect OTHERS to meet the sorts of nutters of which you speak. So, the idea that your stories are semi-fairy tales continuing what is perceived by those on my end as a means of unfairly persecuting Christianity. So, yes, I ask for understanding for the types like me as you tell your side of the story fairly and hope that people see things your way.

But I still don't see the nutters getting pandered to by the party. When I see Bush appealing to Christian base, I see him appealing to decent people, not crazies.

I just see that we're in disagreement not so much over the facts but probably over points of view and personal experiences, Lauren, so I at least wanna get some amount of mutual ground here.

I would disagree with you in turn, OHNOES. One of the great victories of classic liberalism was a changed perspective on minorities in this country:

How Minority Groups Are Seen (Influence On Nation) (toward the end of the report)

United States
Blacks Good 78% Bad 12%
Hispanics Good 67% Bad 21%
Great Britain
Blacks/Asians Good 63% Bad 26%
Germany
Turks Good 47% Bad 41%
France
North Africans Good 43% Bad 51%
Italy
Albanians Good 14% Bad 80%

Perhaps surprisingly to many, the perspective on minorities is better in America than in Western Europe. While I don't have a survey for past times, I hope you could take "judicial notice" of the proposition that results of such a survey in 1950 or 1960 would have been drastically different.

Don't stop chasing the good just because you don't expect to achieve the perfect. People can change.

P.S. You're referring to Andrea when it seems that you're addressing points made by Lauren.

To back up the "racism is hip and edgy among the kids fighting the powers" meme, I play online FPS games. Given the Internet anonymity thing, for nearly every "Bush is dumbest person EVAR" opinion I see expressed, I see just as many calling those that kill them "Jews" or the n-word repeatedly, with a smaller amount of direct tirades against the ethnic groups, probably largely because online games don't leave much room for such tirades. Also seen are the types that brag about masturbating or doing drugs periodically or what not, and we're dealing with a similar age group.

In fact, I'm moderately thick-skinned, but once I (accidently, I swear!) wandered into a prosperous warez chat room. Some of the crap said in there scared even me. Every chat line was a stinking racial slur. I had never SEEN such filth.

To give context, one of Lord of the Rings films was available for illegal acquisition in that room. One chat line that just made me groan was "Are there any n******s in Lord of the Rings?"

Maybe there is more to this racism thing than I claim myself. I thought I had a conclusion, but I simply don't, so I shall pitch these facts out.

I think perhaps you are addressing Lauren, OHNOES, and not Andrea? (If you like, I'll edit ya to reflect that--let me know.)

Furthermore, Ilyka, I do take issue with your characterization that racism is something that simply can/will/must be sought out the reasons behind and cured. There are always crazies out there, and if we COULD have developed some kind of racism vaccine, we sure as heck would have a while ago, as hating racism has been in style for quite a while.

I don't think you've characterized me fairly there. In my update, I did say it was "telling" that we're more interested in pointing fingers at racists rather than trying to work out how to possibly reduce their number, but my point there was that this is partly because racists on the right have political utility to the left. In other words--just leave them there, as long as Democrats are out of power, and use them to paint your side as the party of nonracists.

That's not to say racism can't be "cured" in the same sense polio has been "cured." People do still get polio, but it's not the killer it once was. This, I think, can be done with racism--it can be marginalized to the point that it's no longer relevant.

When one side of the political divide has a vested interest in keeping it alive, however, that gets more difficult to do.

Something that may or may not be the subject of a future post: I am all in favor of trying to meet racism head-on and to discredit it; I am not in favor of doing so "proactively"--assuming everyone as racist until proven nonracist. That to me runs counter to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Gah, you're right, Hubris. Lauren, not Andrea. Dangit, now Lauren won't read my posts. *Sobs*

Hubris, I of course think that the good should be chased in this case. But, given those numbers, IF the poll is to be trusted with honest responses, we're doing SPECTACULAR in controlling the nutters in our country and I think we SHOULD pat ourselves on the back for that rather than deriding the nutjobs out there, because I don't think we CAN, at this point, cure stupidity, so there will always be a certain amount of racists, bigots, and morons out there, and I'd just as much prefer the positive reinforcement of numbers like that rather than the insinuations that racism is an enormous problem within the Republican party or the political Right or what not.

But, again, I'm also viewing our current societal attempts to cut out racism as taken for granted when I say that there is no cure. As in we aren't going to stop trying to remove this embarassment to society with our current measures, but I feel that being verbally lashed for having any racists anywhere is ludicrous. The morons are out there, but society has shown that it CAN deal with them and that the racists are down to a small series of idiots now.

Remember, I'm fairly young, so I have no memories of a time where the black leaders were MLK rather than the race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, so I speak from a status quo poi... gah, I cannot really phrase what I'm trying to say about where I'm coming from and what my base assumptions are...

But, yes, I wanna stop racists in America, but... meh, I think we're on the good road to it now.

I just wish it would not be used as a political cleaver.

Would you be a dear and edit for me, Ilyka? Thanks.

Gah, when you characterize it like that, I tend to agree with you, Ilyka. Though my innate anti-"conspiracy" senses take issue with the idea that Lefties are conspiring to leave racists in the Right alone as political punching bags. Logical, but I don't like making such accusation.

Isn't racism marginalized to the point where it really isn't taken seriously today?

Isn't racism marginalized to the point where it really isn't taken seriously today?

Don't ask me. I'm delusional, remember?

If you did ask me anyway, though, I'd say yes. But about 15 years ago I was working in an office with a couple of Hispanic women, and we got on the subject, and when I asked them if they thought things were better, they said, both of them, "No." Their reasoning was, it's worse in some ways now because it's been driven underground. You used to know someone was a racist because he'd walk up to you and call you a wetback, they said, but now, he'd know he can't say that, so the discrimination was more subtle, harder to detect--and harder to fight.

Who knows. This thread is exhausting.

I'll go edit your comments now.

Thank you very much, Ilyka. *Offers more flirtations and marriage proposals.*

On a note more related to the original topic, I read a pretty far Right blog, the sort that loathes the Republican party for having Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip, failure to secure the borders, the judicial filibuster compromise, calling Islam the "Religion of Peace" (While citing stories of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists.), etc... Amidst advocating responses like this..

"Second: Monday morning, you declare martial law. At that time, you issue a clear, unequivocal standing order to all units to shoot to kill. Not one of those bureaucratic “cover-your-ass” ambiguous orders giving permission to shoot on sight that you can later claim got misinterpreted. Because if you do this, nobody will actually be doing any shooting. Soldiers aren’t stupid, and they can smell from forty klicks away when a politician asshat is setting them up for a dose of ye ole “Shit Runs Downhill” treatment. No, you issue a damn order to shoot. Anybody caught with property not their own that isn’t food or drink, you shoot to kill. Anybody caught shooting at anybody not shooting at them, you shoot to kill. Anybody offering the least resistance to first responders and Guardsmen, you shoot to kill. No warnings, no negotiations, no attempts to arrest them.

YOU. SHOOT. TO. KILL!"

also advocating making the bus hero fellow mayor of New Orleans. I mean, honestly, if one of the groups of farthest Righties out there aren't "racist," or condemning the hero or what not, I think it is disingenuous at best to say that racism is a problem of the Right, but rather a problem accidently stuck to the Right.

Hmmm... that's an interesting way of looking at it. Racism being driven underground, thus fewer overt signs of racism, thus finding racism is difficult, thus a much easier swath of calling false racists as a political slur or an extortion chip by the Jacksons and the Sharptons of the world... hmmm...

OHNOES, I can only speak from my experience. I grew up in the church and attended until I was 21 or 22 despite my atheism because I had a strong community of friends. I ended up leaving the church because the pulpit slowly became a stage for spewing negative rhetoric surrounding homosexuality and illegitimacy (and I was a single mother bringing my child to this church, mind you).

It's very clear to me that in my corner of the world community that the Clinton-era debates around morality did much to politicize or re-politicize church communities. It's my opinion that God would likely be less concerned with American politics and more concerned with the state of the individual soul.

Their reasoning was, it's worse in some ways now because it's been driven underground. You used to know someone was a racist because he'd walk up to you and call you a wetback, they said, but now, he'd know he can't say that, so the discrimination was more subtle, harder to detect--and harder to fight.
I've heard this plenty of times myself. I can think of a few examples relayed to me by friends of mine that range over all forms of racism and could certainly illustrate this point. I'll keep the anecdotes to a minimum this time around since I feel like I'm writing novels over here. Stories gladly told if asked.

a problem accidently stuck to the Right
I think this is what Elayne was getting at with her comment above. I wouldn't call the Republican party inherently racist, but I think the policies promoted appeal to people who hold oppressive beliefs. Think of the Minutemen, the whispering campaigns against McCain, the religious nutjobs that use their televangelism to pray for Supreme Court justices, and the reverance for the old Dixiecrats turned GOPers.

It is my wish that the common party members would demand the people in power purge the nutters from their party so we could actually talk policy that undoes racism, classism, and sexism instead of latently supporting it by appealing to their votes.

Such a statement would be laughed at by ordinary person. No SANE mind believes that President Bush is racist, no SANE mind has any substantive reason to believe that President Bush or the members of his administration, and apart from guilt by "kinda sorta" association, there is little reason to believe that the Republican party endorses racism, and, again, the problem of racists supporting the Republicans is, frankly, fairly minor and fairly low on the list of things the GOP should do. I simply don't think they pander to racists for their votes directly. Personally, I wish that they would stand up against those who would brand them racist and defend our borders from illegal immigration, but that's just me (If they WERE racist, then you think they'd wanna keep those "dang wetbacks" outta the country, but what do I know?). (Then there's the question on if business contributors are buying off border defense legislation, but that borders too closely on EEEEVIL RICH OIL REPUBLICANS for me to entertain as a serious notion without research. In another notion, standing up to them gives them crebility simply because they illicited a response. "Bush denies charges of racism" is a loaded MSM-worthy headline anyway.)

Furthermore, such an admittance would give political fuel to those who constantly claim that the Republicans are racist in a form of indirectly admitting that they ARE so.

By the way, the Minutemen were doing what the Republicans refused to do and should have done. I know nothing about the McCain whisperings, but the day Pat Robertson holds a voice in American politics greater than that of yours or mine is the day I give up politics entirely.

I don't think there is anything wrong with church groups getting involved in politics (I mean, at heart, they're a group of citizens too, you know.) if nearly militant minority groups can have their voices in the ring. I see absolutely NO reason for churches not to become politicized when the courts are ruling as to the appropriateness of prayer, the mention of God in the pledge, the appropriate display of the Ten Commandments (Honestly, if the arts, including symbols hostile to religion, are protected speech.) etc... At least in these cases, the church is ALREADY politicized.

The church is exempt from paying taxes because they are not allowed to endorse candidates. Clearly churches are endorsing candidates.

And in thinking about it:
the day Pat Robertson holds a voice in American politics greater than that of yours or mine is the day I give up politics entirely
it's easily arguable that Robertson does have a greater voice in politics than you or I considering his enormous audience, influence of that audience, and fund-raising power.

Shit. "...you and me..."

Last I checked, churches were tax-exempt for other reasons than just non-endorsement of candidates, but I might not be correct.

Robertson's voice in politics is still just 1 times the amount of people that would follow his stuff blindly. He doesn't trump most pundits.

The key to your statement is whether or not his influence is greater than yours or mine. And it is.

The problem is not the overt racism and homophobia that people like Strom Thurmond excelled at. The problem is the institutional racism that goes on behind the scenes. Ever see a black person on a holiday greeting card in Wal-Mart?

Why were the majority of the poor people (and thus most likely to be unable to leave) in New Orleans black? Why weren't they as easily able to leave as other people?

Ever see a black person on a holiday greeting card in Wal-Mart?

Yep. And at the Wal-Mart closest to me, about half of the Cabbage Patch Kids and other dolls (I was shopping for my daughter, I swear!) are modeled on African American or Hispanic types. Maybe we live in different types of neighborhoods.

As to your second question: When a disaster (such as flash flooding) hits my native West Virginia, almost all the people who suffer are white and poor.

It's not because of racism, it's because almost all the people who live there are white. And poor. Even poorer in the low-lying land close to waterways.

Correlation isn't the same as causation.

Pfft, Robertson's voice is only more than ours because he can convince other people. I sincerely doubt that he holds personal influence over government officials.

"Ever see a black person on a holiday greeting card in Wal-Mart?"

Damn. Who let the dogs out here? Ryan reminds me of this letter to Ann Landers I read years ago, from a man who claimed to be under the impression that most of the world's population was white and blond, because everyone in his town was white skinned and blond-haired.

and regularly relies upon boogiemen like Willie Horton

I never understod the outrage over the Willie Horton ad. He raped a woman after being let out on a weekend furlough (he was a convicted murderer, for fuck's sake!). How is he a boogie man if he actually did what the advert said? I thought "boogie man" was defined as a fictional threat.

Could you please tell me why I should be shocked and outraged that his crimes were brought up? I'm still not getting it.

Robertson's voice is only more than ours because he can convince other people. I sincerely doubt that he holds personal influence over government officials.

Um, his people do vote for government officials. That's called power, influence, and voice.

Yeah, but, again, anyone can influence other people.

PIMF. Again wasn't the word as I had never said it.

Anyone can influence others. You or I could with the proper posse of mooks. That's the democratic voting process. I don't see, however, Robertson wielding more power by being on the speed dial of prominent Republicans or anything like that.