The need for real diplomacy with Iran

By JustForeignPolicy.org

Notes:

Popularity: 2% [?]

From Jörg Colberg’s weblog:

If Obama Loses: “If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama’s missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let’s be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin. Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election.” ….[READ MORE >>]

From Jacob Weisberg writing for Slate.com

Let’s be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin. Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election.

Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate. Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that’s what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an “elitist” who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn’t one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We’re just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Then there’s the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama’s white mother always preferred that her “mate” be “a man of color.” John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book. ….[READ MORE >>]

Paul Street for ZMAG Writes:

….Barack Obama told reporters that if he lost in his quest for the presidency, “it would not be because of race. It would be because of mistakes I made along the campaign trail.”

“….like many of Obama’s formulations, his comment was partly true and largely false.”

If Obama loses to the reactionary war-mongering nut-job John McCain despite a political context that would normally strongly favor a Democrat this time around, the refusal of a significant number of white voters to support a black candidate will be a significant part of the explanation. ….[READ MORE >>]

Bob Herbert of The New York Times says:

So what’s the problem for the Obama campaign?

The problem is the dog that isn’t barking.

Talk for more than a few minutes with an Obama supporter in a white middle-class or working-class area and you’ll hear about a friend or relative or co-worker who has a real problem with the candidate.

When Jack Davis’s wife, Joan, who also plans to vote for Senator Obama, was asked about Democrats that she knew who would not vote for him, she replied:

“My mother! She’s 85 years old. I’m sorry to say, but she will not vote for him.”

It is frequently the case that a statistically significant percentage of white voters will lie to pollsters — or decline to state their preference — in races in which one candidate is black and the other white.

After many years of watching black candidates run for public office, and paying especially close attention to this year’s Democratic primary race, I’ve developed my own (very arbitrary) rule of thumb regarding the polls in this election:

Take at least two to three points off of Senator Obama’s poll numbers, and assume a substantial edge for Senator McCain in the breakdown of the undecided vote.

[ READ MORE HERE ] — The race issue in Barack Obama’s campaign can come up in peculiar and jolting ways.

REFERENCES:

1. Racist Attacks on Obama Growing More Heated
2. Jerome Corsi: Politician-Basher’s White Supremacist Ties Revisited
3. Hawking Racism — Pat Buchanan’s latest book is a White Nationalist Screed
4. Fox ‘Racist News’ Channel Depicts Pro-Obama Europeans as — ‘Scary’ Black People
5. Obama Smears - Fox News’ Racist Liars On A Rampage!
6. Attack Politics - Taken To New Lows By Fox News Morons!
7. Neo Nazi/White Supremacist Hal Turner Confirms Friendship And Kinship With Fox News’s Sean Hannity

Popularity: 13% [?]

THIS cover of the latest New Yorker Publication cannot be termed satire!

It is a cheap, racist, incendiary and shameless trick to gain readers — by a failing “Left-Wing” magazine, probably pro-Clinton.

As I have mentioned before, some of the so-called “liberal whites” are just as hopelessly racist as their “cousins” on the extreme right, and I am very saddened by that. The “Clinton Bigot Strategy,” and now THIS crap, affirms my assertion.

Key Words:

1. Turban = Muslim

2. Flag Burning = Unpatriotic

3. Gun = Terrorist

4. Afro = Angry Black Panther “Revolutionary”

5. Osama Bin Laden PIC = Terrorism Sympathizer

6. Oval Room = White House Oval Office

Polls have consistently indicated that 10 to 12 percent of Americans believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim — quite believable, based on my own interactions with “ethnic” and “low-information” America.

The level of ignorance is astounding!

Right wing blogs are on fire, smoking and permutating Obama falsehoods relentlessly. Smear emails are criss-crossing the internet with more urgency that your typical Viagra peddler. The “pornographic” folks at Fox News have been in 24/7 “pant-wetting orgy” for months,….and now a desperate liberal publication comes up with this crap.

The biggest “Gook” of them all, radio “prankster” Rush Limbaugh must be swimming in his bile — farting his way to 400 million dollars!

Hey, it could be Hillary and Bill Clinton behind this again….after all there is evidence that they were responsible for circulating a photo calling attention to the African “Muslim” roots of the senator from Illinois.

Racism, the crutch that supports the weak-minded and the cudgel that marginalizes those simply looking for a fair shake — America’s most disgraceful legacy, is alive and well….[MORE >>]

———————————————
The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive.”
———————————————

Obama Rumors Debunked

The ‘Fox KKK Prostitutes’ Attacks on Michelle Obama

Notes: Making It — How Chicago shaped Obama. by Ryan Lizza

Popularity: 17% [?]

In Flag City USA, False Obama Rumors Are Flying

On the television in his living room, Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor’s house, at his son’s auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate’s background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

“It’s like you’re hearing about two different men with nothing in common,” Peterman said. “It makes it impossible to figure out what’s true, or what you can believe.”

“I think Obama would be a disaster, and there’s a lot of reasons,” said Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from friends he goes camping with. “I understand he’s from Africa, and that the first thing he’s going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He’s got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there’s the Muslim thing. He’s just not presidential!” …..[MORE >>]

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly: Feagin’s voluminous, relentless book testifies to both the strengths and the flaws of applying a sociological approach to the intricate issues of racism in America. Most social scientists, according to this sociologist at the University of Florida (White Racism, etc.) and president of the American Sociological Association, see racism “as something tacked on to an otherwise healthy American society.”

But Feagin contends that the system embeds racism at the core, from the Constitution to the legacy of slavery and segregation in retarding black economic advancement. He argues aptly that color-blind ideology “provides a veneer of liberality” for those unwilling to recognize how race has shaped America, while those who lump blacks with white immigrant groups ignore the effects of racial discrimination. But Feagin’s approach surely sacrifices complexity.

Are “racist pressures against interracial marriage” solely the product of white racism? If achievement tests are so biased toward the white middle class, then why do some Asian immigrants do well on them? Feagin calls for a large-scale educational campaign to move whites to confront “the reality of the pain that their system of racism has caused” and a new constitutional convention to incorporate “the group interests and rights of all Americans of color.”

He also calls for individual and group reparations for blacks. (But how exactly would a “black community” be determined?) Feagin doesn’t engage those who argue that class-based remedies may be better than race-based onesAanother flaw in a book full of strong yet poorly articulated arguments.

From Kirkus Reviews: A sometimes searing indictment of American racial practices.

Sociologist Feagin (White Racism, not reviewed) traces the development of American racism to its roots in Europe.

Ideologically, race was not a major consideration in human endeavors until the beginning of the European slave trade in the 1400s, Feagin tells us. But some 300 years later, it had grown full-blown and become a major cornerstone of intellectual thought–dominated by such thinkers as Locke, Kant, and Hegel, and by the Frenchman Joseph Arthur de Gobineau. All of these harbored anti-black views to varying degrees, including the curious natural-law notion that blacks somehow were born to be slaves.

Much of this 18th-century twaddle was absorbed by our Founding Fathers, especially by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison. Feagin also examines Reconstruction, the lynchings of the late–19th and early–20th centuries, the Civil Rights era, and the post–Civil Rights period.

As we enter a point in the new millennium where the white population is beginning to shrink, Feagin points out that less than half the population of America’s four largest cities (New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago) is white.

This and other factors lead Feagin to call for an international view of civil rights (i.e., one in which all are entitled to equal concern because all are human beings and not members of this or that state or tribe). Feagin, who is avowedly influenced by Franz Fanon and Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), is at his overwrought best when he is in historical pursuit of the roots of racism.

Perhaps because it is something not readily fresh on the mind, it is a matter of more than idle curiosity what Benjamin Franklin and James Madison thought about whiteness.

On the other hand, matters such as affirmative action and reparations are too widely discussed and familiar to make Feagin’s discussion of them very interesting or fresh.

A useful study, even for those who are not guilt-ridden.

Popularity: 21% [?]

 Columnist - John Sammon
You know what bothers me, apart from the ethics, who’s right and who’s wrong? (America is always right, right or wrong).

America only attacks small, poor countries. Look at the list of our opponents over the past thirty years or so, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Balkans, Lebanon, and Cuba (oops, we didn’t attack Cuba, we almost did).

Always in the name of freedom.

It makes me yearn for World War Two, the good war, where we fought competent powerful enemies worthy of the name. Now, I know because we’re America we’re always right no matter what. I know we have right on our side in every case. That we’re infallible, incapable of error.

But do we always have to fight countries much smaller than ourselves?

This will get me labeled as unpatriotic, and not one of the my-country-right-or-wrong-God-likes-me-and-not-you crowd. But it makes me uncomfortable that we’re always beating up (in the name of right) on poor small countries, countries whose gross national product is a fraction of our own.

These are people who don’t have refrigerators like we do.

To be invaded by the United States, you have to be small, poor, and have no navy and no air force like we do.

We never take on big countries like China.

Here’s a partial list of countries that because of their size and poverty can consider themselves under risk of attack from Bombs Away John McCain if they don’t conform to the American lifestyle, and fail to provide us with raw materials, or do what we want when we want, or pattern themselves after us, or seek nuclear power (that right is reserved for America and its friends like India).

And most of all, not attack their neighbors. The right to attack is reserved for America. Here’s the list:

Chad – This tiny Central African country, named for a voting stub (chad), would be easy for the United States to defeat. Hell, they don’t have anything except sand and flies. In fact, their chief commodity export are gnats.

Switzerland – If we run out of milk, we know where we can get it (lots of cows). The only problem here are the mountains (we have specialized troops that can climb those), and the sexy blondes in the villages who might prove a distraction. It can be overcome by our modern technology.

Yemen – This is a plumb ready for the taking. Think of it. Oil rich. On the ocean where the Red Sea meets the Arabian Sea. Beautiful waterfront condos overlooking the sea. Prime real estate. No air force to speak of. Navy? Can Arabs sail? Hell no. The only problem is, it’s a republic. That’s okay, we can blame 9-11 on ‘em. Yemen has another advantage. Many different tribes. We can get them to warring with each other.

Djibouti – Another Arab country in the Horn of Africa. Once again, potential oil and ocean views. We could overrun them in three days. It’s a Moslem country so this would figure in with our remaking the Middle East. But the main reason is it would give our hip soldiers (who love slang) the chance to wear tee shirts that say, “you bet Djibouti (your booty).”

Netherlands Antilles – This tiny island off the coast of Venezuela, I can’t think of one good reason to invade. Except maybe, it’s close to South America and would give us more of a presence there. We’ve always tried to boss South America.

This is only a partial list.

There are many more such countries that can be taught freedom.

© Copyright 2008 by SammonSays.com

Popularity: 19% [?]