Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Brief reflection on Obama, or, "He's black???"

From another combox:

I said:

I was watching in horror, watching CBS’ coverage of Ebenezer Baptist Church and then later at Howard University, as otherwise-certainly-reasonable and distinguished African-American adults were reduced to tears and near ecstasy at every 0bama electoral vote. This guy really is the focus of all their hopes, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, it makes me profoundly sad.

That said, I’m hopeful that the Republicans will wake up and understand that being Democlones is a good way to lose power. After Carter came Reagan. Reagan was no god, but he was way better than either of the Bushes, Carter, or Clinton.

The next 4 yrs are going to be tough, though. 0bama is the worst candidate for Prez in my lifetime, IMHO, so that’s a bitter pill to swallow.

Sarah said:

So regardless of your personal opinion of Obama’s politics, you see nothing noteworthy about the first African-American president in our country’s history? That means nothing?


I said:

No, it’s not nothing, but it’s not nearly as noteworthy as how horrible 0bama’s policies are.
I refuse to be fixated on race. The widespread focus on it seems to me a backhanded admission that race actually means sthg, and that is latent racism to me. I don’t care one iota that the man is black. He’s not black, anyway, he’s as much white as he is black; you won’t see me celebrating the election of a white man as President.


evenshine said...

I know what you're saying. I finally got tired of all the newly-registered young black males talking about how they were "finally getting our voice heard". Ummm...and that didn't happen in past elections because there wasn't a black candidate? Or cause you didn't vote?? The numbers for Obama in states with a high minority population MAY have some relevance...latent though the issue may be.

The Jolly Nihilist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Jolly Nihilist said...

All day today, I've been tempted to ask people to pinch me...ask them to rouse me from a wonderful dream.

My first presidential vote was for Al Gore. We all know how that turned out.

Then, I voted for John Kerry. Once again, Americans disappointed me bitterly.

But, finally, it's happened. Finally, a Democrat--a progressive--once again has taken the reins.

Thank god.

Oh, joyous day!

Anonymous said...

You know. I have this horrible fear that when I am on my death bed, I will get a letter from someone that says,

"Dear Mr. E.,

We want you to know, that because black people should get a fair shake in life, we pushed to change the Standard and remove the Criteria the University, the Job, the Lender, and the Club base awards on. The standards have nothing to do with skin color or heritage, but we saw that because you are black, you weren't able to Achieve and that you might Fail. After meeting with the aforementioned, they realized that because you are black the situation was unfair and they changed the standard.

We thought this would be a comfort to you and your family in your last moments.

In sincere affection,


My dream would be a letter that said in terse terms, "We don't like your heritage at all, but your Character, Competency, Compassion, Convictions, and Cognitive abilities could not be limited. We are glad to see you go. We are tired of competing against you.

Mr. Whitey"

After a few moments of rage, I would realize that the letter from Mr. Whitey was a compliment.

Sorry about the typos.

axisoflogos said...

Well, every nihilist should be happy - especially a jolly one! It makes total sense!

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself.
4. Philosophy. a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Anonymous said...

The good news: Now there is a black prez, maybe everyone can get the whole racist thing out of their system. Maybe blacks will discover it is not a panacea, and we can move on. People can go back to voting on the issues again.

Rhology said...

On that we can agree, Anonymous.

NAL said...

... reasonable and distinguished African-American adults were reduced to tears and near ecstasy at every 0bama electoral vote.

Of course you can't understand this phenomenon, you're not black. Empathy has never been your strong suit, except within your own clique.

People can go back to voting on the issues again.

They did. They voted against incompetence. That was one of my principal issues. They voted for the more intelligent candidate, now there's a change we need.

Rhology said...


And you can? Are you black? Why is it different for you if you're not?

And why is it that you don't see normal, otherwise-rational and distinguished white people crying tears of joy, in near hysteria, when a white person achieves something great, for no other reason than that that person is white?

NAL said...

And why is it that you don't see normal, otherwise-rational and distinguished white people crying tears of joy, in near hysteria, ...

Because I don't go to church.

BlackBlogger said...

I don't think we can single out any particular democrat as the "most liberal," or least qualified. It is my conclusion that all democrats pretty much believe the same thing and the one's that have a slightly different view are too chicken$#!t to do much about it anyhow. The ill informed can be fooled by all this nonsense about which one is catholic, and which one is southern baptist, and which is mormon, and which one takes a meaningless personally pro-life stance. My experience tells me this is all irrelevant.(with a very very few exceptions like Lieberman and Boren)

I do care that Obama is black. To me that is his main redeeming quality and the source of many of his other good qualities. The fact that he is half white does not make him less black, or less a member of the black community.
It is very important for black Americans to see a black president because it demonstrates that there are not significant barriers to black achievement placed by members outside the black community.(at least the ones present are not the main ones that blacks are bumping up against right now) This fact may be apparent to the conservative white community, but mainstream America, and all those outside the black community, do not have the ethical standing to tell the poorer and less informed members of the black community to "just get over it," and to "be successful like the Asians and every other immigrant group." No other group endured what blacks have endured in this country:centuries of slavery followed by another of unofficial second class citizenship. Just because America has finally stopped black oppression, does not give it the standing to tell a black person that he/she is solely to blame for believing that it is still there, even if it is true. America does not have the standing to correct the miss-perceptions of the black community but Obama does.

This alone could get more done for America than another crappy republican president who panders to conservatives to get elected and then spends the rest of his presidency pandering to the people he defeated.

McCain is the worst candidate the republican party has run in my lifetime. John Kerry would have loved to have McCain as his running mate.

McCain spent his whole career pandering to the big media for the stupid vote, and they of course turned on him for the election. Now they are already saying that the old John McCain that they love is back. McCain will get right back to supporting the old Hegemony, but with Obama, America has a chance.

Obama will be dealing with an unprecedented level of fiscal transparency in his presidency due to laws enacted by himself and republican Tom Coburn. If he decides to remain independant, and not be beholden to the special interest groups like all the democrats, and most of the republicans, something might actually get done. This is a slim chance, but with McCain, there was no chance.

Rhology said...

Because I don't go to church.

LOL. OK, that was very funny.

Anonymous said...


I think you have just lived through the worst 8 years of a prez during your lifetime.

Rhology said...

True, Clinton was pretty bad, you're right.

Anonymous said...


I certainly meant GW in my last comment.

Can you honestly say you or the rest of the country is better off today at the end of the GW presidency than the Clinton one ? Look around you please.

We have been left a mess. How can you deny that ? Please think about it. If Clinton was pretty bad, according to your opinion, Bush must have been the Titanic.

Lucian said...

Hey, Rho, here's something to help You lighten up a bit. ;-) :-)

Seth said...

It should be noted that the alleged 'titanic' downfall of the past two years coincides with the democratic takeover of congress.

It should also be noted that the supposed 'worst prez' of our lifetime, has maintained a ~20% higher approval rating then the democratic majority congress.

Rhology said...

Presidents always get more credit than they are due when times are good and more blame than they are due when times are bad.

I judge W on what he's done, rather than necessarily how such things have turned out. For example, I credit him with having the balls to seek out Osama bin Laden, but W is not all-powerful. If he can't find him, I doubt that much of it is his fault.
OTOH, critics like you, who suffer from the irrational Bush Derangement Syndrome, don't give him any credit where it's due, not for his tax cuts, nor for the surge, for democratic elections in Afg and Iraq, for several other things.
No, I don't even like him all that much (he's too liberal for me), but you're full of it when you say things like that.

Anonymous said...

Seth and Rhology,

First You Seth,

W is responsible no matter what shitheads are elected. Have you checked your math abilities lately ?
The Bush approval rating is in the high 20% range. Are you saying that W now holds an edge over Dem Congress in approval ? Who does your math Rhology perhaps ?


I judge W on what he has done and not done. Why the hell are we spending so much money in Iraq, and most distressing we have too many killed and maimed Americans as a result (1 is too much for me). We don't need this. When is the Afgan situation going to change. This one cannot get Bin Laden or defeat the Taliban.

I think you are so full of it when you say things like "Clinton was pretty bad" when we have a science idiot president who thought nothing of global warming for many a year, a president on whose watch we have seen credit markets crumble, 401ks greatly reduced in value enough to damage the retirement hopes of countless Americans, two endless wars, an economy in a bad way, stock markets in a mess, GM about to run out of money, Banks and Investment Houses collapsing. I'm tired and depressed and cannot continue to keep on telling you how full of it you are.

Rhology said...

You haven't made an argument, though, as to why W is responsible no matter who is elected to other offices.
Perhaps you don't understand that Congress plays a large part in the gov't. Did you forget 8th-grade civics? W can't pass laws. Congress does that.

W DOES have a higher approval rating than Congress. W's is in the high 20s, Congress' in the high teens. You do the math.

There are many good reasons for the conflict in Iraq. You don't like it, but you didn't make an argument.
If 1 is too many for you, then you probably don't understand what war is. War = killing the other guy, and sometimes your own get killed. What the USA doesn't need is a bunch of wimpy pacifists like you to show the jihadis that we really don't care to defend ourselves.
I don't know what you mean when you say "this one cannot get bin Laden..."

Man-made global warming is crap and junk science.
You say "endless wars" when they've only been on for ~5 yrs. I didn't realise that after 5 yrs, a war necessarily becomes automatic. Perhaps your attention span is limited from too many Saturday morning cartoons.
As for the economy, perhaps you could make the argument that it's all or mostly W's fault rather than the collective economy's tendency to go too far too fast and extend too much credit to people who weren't good for it.

Seriously, you're just like most liberals. You talk a lot and think a little.

Seth said...

W is responsible no matter [who is] elected...

That is just ignorant.

Who does your math[?]

Rasmussen Report 11/06/08 Quote:
"Congress has consistently scored lower this year in voter approval than even President Bush who has hit record lows for his presidency." => Congress: 11%

Anonymous, your insults reveal your bigotry. Because I disagree with the liberal worldview and am unwilling to joint the I-Hate-President-Bush mob then I must be an idiot? Come on.

Anonymous said...


I do not have the necessary patience to answer your arguments. However, I find your Global Warming comment most disturbing. You actually think that people had nothing to do with it, despite the contrary ? The web links you left me with are laughable as is everything whenever you try to comment on science. Please let's see real science, backed by the scientific community at large, and not a rogue ignorant fool.

Rhology said...


Next time it's a sunny day, go outside. Look up in the sky. Find the brightest point. Don't look directly at it, but it's called The Sun. It's a big fiery ball that provides energy for the planet. It causes global warming.

But who's the "rogue scientist"?
Do you mean these people? There are over 400 of them.
Or these?
Or these?
Or perhaps these?

Read the links, THEN comment. That's how it usually works.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Providing a list of names that deviate from a consensus doesn't mean that much, especially since it's fairly easy to dredge up a huge list of geological/climatology etc organisations and experts that do back anthropogenic warming. 400 names in the grand scheme of things isn't that many - on any scientific position you care to think of, you can virtually always find dissenters from the consensus.

It seems to be quite popular amongst religious conservatives to deny anthropogenic global warming for reasons I am not entirely sure of - although that blog link you posted a while back (I forget the blogger's name) seemed to think it was part of some worldwide socialist conspiracy of some description. That said, people on the other side of the fence such as Al Gore, who seems to have made some pretty wild claims about it in the past, aren't overly helpful either.

Finally, as per the DI's 'dissent from Darwinism' list, it is always worth checking up on whether all the names are actually experts in the field in question, and if they are, what those supposed dissenters actually think on the matter - quite often what they say isn't actually 'phenomenon X is nonsense' and there is more to their disagreement - eg I quickly scanned through one of the articles (the Lorne Gunter one), where someone in the comments section pointed out that one of the people being cited as backing up the opposing view (John Christy) had actually stated elsewhere that there is a definite human component to GW, he is simply critical of the exaggerated claims as to what effect it will have on the planet.

Rhology said...

And critical also of the failure of the Blame Humans First crowd to acknowledge that GW has actually not occurred for something like 2 years now.

Anonymous said...


You are a classic global warming (and I mean athropogenic) denier. Your links are all quite foolish. How about you studying the real science behind this instead. Try Scientific American to get some of your data for instance. There are numerous other sources you could simply google (an exercise left to the reader). Or, do you choose to remain in the dark based on opinions of uneducated or misinformed or ignorant or otherwise unqualified sources ? Human activities have resulted in undeniable climate change. Your comments indicate you do not really understand, or care, to the significance of this, much less understand it.

Rhology said...

Several sentences, no argument found. I suggest arguments.

Anonymous said...

Read up on who makes up your list of 400:

Included in them are

economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs, as well as scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries.

None of these individuals are mainstream scientists who are actively involved in climate research.

Yet you blindly follow the Inhofe 400 as if they actually know something the real researchers do not.

Your anti-science knows no bounds.