1

Your focus on "the Left" (talk about stereotyping a group of people!) and "the Left's" racism is misplaced.

First, regarding Powell and Rice: I think every American who isn't racist is glad to see people of color holding such lofty positions in our government. It is as it should be. That said, Powell and Rice have served our country poorly and, especially Powell, have disappointed many. Our foreign relations stink and our national security stinks and it's their fault. And it's their fault because they so readily fell into line with Cheney and Co. whose interests, one might reasonably argue, are not exactly in line with those of most African-Americans. Hence, the Uncle Tom name calling.

Also, Joe, the real racism and hypocracy in the Blair scandal is not McGruder's trivial comment but rather the way our inept mainstream (liberal? ha!) media constantly alluded to the fact that, but for his skin color, Blair wouldn't have been allowed to continue working at the Times for as long as he did, i.e., a white buy in Blair's shoes would have been fired long before Blair was. Contrast the media's analysis with the analysis given by the same "liberal" mainstream media to Jack Kelly, the USA Today writer who fabricated extraordinary lies over a period of several years. That writer was an outspoken evangelical Christian, his lies were much more dangerous than Blair's as they stood to affect United States policy in the Middle East (where he reported) not to mention the lives of individuals he lied about, and yet ... did the media ever ask whether Mr. Kelly was given more leeway at USA Today because of his religion? Would an acknowledged atheist have been dismissed earlier than Mr. Kelly? I think we know the answer to that question (never asked by the mainstream media, to my knowledge).

Read all about Mr. Kelly, one of the most despicable liars in the history of journalism:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm?csp=15

2

Greg,

Your focus on "the Left" (talk about stereotyping a group of people!) and "the Left's" racism is misplaced.

Come on, Greg, be fair. I bent over backwards to point out that not everyone on the Left is a racist. But the fact is that you will rarely hear anyone on the Right using the term "Uncle Tom", while it is used far too often by those on the Left.

And it's their fault because they so readily fell into line with Cheney and Co. whose interests, one might reasonably argue, are not exactly in line with those of most African-Americans. Hence, the Uncle Tom name calling.

Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to think that “African-American interest” are the same as “American interests.” Why do you assume that a person’s skin color causes them to have a different agenda than other citizens?

Also, Joe, the real racism and hypocrisy in the Blair scandal is not McGruder's trivial comment but rather the way our inept mainstream (liberal? ha!) media constantly alluded to the fact that, but for his skin color, Blair wouldn't have been allowed to continue working at the Times for as long as he did, i.e., a white guy in Blair's shoes would have been fired long before Blair was.

Well, let’s be honest. Raines hired Blair on an affirmative action program and allowed him a great deal of leeway because of his ethnicity. The media only pointed that out because it was a relevant fact.

... did the media ever ask whether Mr. Kelly was given more leeway at USA Today because of his religion? Would an acknowledged atheist have been dismissed earlier than Mr. Kelly? I think we know the answer to that question (never asked by the mainstream media, to my knowledge).

You’re kidding, right? Have you followed Kelly’s story? They jumped on his neck with both feet (and rightly so). A better question is why do we even know about Kelly’s religious beliefs? Do we know if Stephen Glass was an atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim? No. Because no one thought it was an important enough detail to include it.

Read all about Mr. Kelly, one of the most despicable liars in the history of journalism:

I’m with you there. I used to own a small town newspaper and had to fire my editor after he plagiarized a story -- almost word for word -- from a rival paper. When I confronted him about it he couldn’t understand my outrage. Some people simply can't comprehend how important a free and honest press is to our liberty. Kelly, Blair, and Glass are all deserving of the scorn and ridicule that they heaped upon themselves. You certainly won't find me defending their actions.

3

Joe,
Ditto for me. I was just gathering some desire to be insulted before you so aptly answered Greg's comment.
Any defense of the Left is as untenable as a house built with Jell-O blocks. The self-imputed righteousness of leftist expression makes any attempt at rational dialogue difficult if not impossible. There are no issues other than tired cliches and extreme talking points fertilized with invective, acrimony and paranoia in the absence of logic. Of course, this impossibility of sane and sober dialogue is always construed as evidence of the power and correctness of their position. The time will come (hopefully sooner than later) when the worn out cliches and paranoid attributions of the Left will be exhausted and then a fresh dialogue of consequence might commence. Until such time, let the blatter roll. There is much work to be done away from the valley of bones.

4

German, for a guy who is evidently lusting after a logical discourse, that was an amazingly empty post.

Joe wrote:

"But the fact is that you will rarely hear anyone on the Right using the term "Uncle Tom", while it is used far too often by those on the Left."

The fact is that your identification of (1) Soj's post (which was met with a lot of flame from offended Kos readers) and (2) McGruder's statement do not mean that "the Left" uses the phrase "far too often" relative to those on "the Right." Furthermore, while I certainly don't throw the phrase around loosely, does it not matter at all for the purposes of Left bashing that the phrase is invoked not to characterize black people negatively because they are black but rather to point out where (in the speaker's opinion, anyway) a black person is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the betterment of black people? I mean, whether or not Rice and Powell are obnoxious is a matter of opinion, but calling them Uncle Tom's doesn't seem to me to be *quite* as obnoxious as, e.g., running on a platform of segregation or telling a black caller on one's radio show to "take the bone of your nose and call me back." What do you think Joe? I mean, you chose to highlight this issue to achieve some sort of "balance" between the Right and the Left, as if people on the Left are calling blacks Uncle Tom every day and nobody notices. WHere's the evidence for that? Republicans are less likely to use the Uncle Tom line because -- guess what -- there is no political reason to level that criticism against a black Republican (again, this is not to justify the use of the term by Democrats).

"Well, let’s be honest. Raines hired Blair on an affirmative action program and allowed him a great deal of leeway because of his ethnicity. The media only pointed that out because it was a relevant fact. "

Bwahahha. Let's be honest??? How about: where's the evidence for that??? How about: a wonderful example of circular reasoning. Blain's race is relevant because he's black and because he's black he was affirmed in and given leeway which is why his race is relevant. Keep on eating up the big media, Joe.

"A better question is why do we even know about Kelly’s religious beliefs? "

Because Kelly was reporting on the Middle East and his religious beliefs were (surprise!) consistent with sorts of propoganda he was fabricating, i.e., his lies were intended to advance his religious agenda. I'm not aware that lies that Blair told were intended to benefit members of his religion. Are you aware of any lies of Blair's that would further a religious agenda of Blair's?

"Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to think that “African-American interest” are the same as “American interests.”

On some meta-level which you fail to define that may be true. But to the extent that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are below poverty level, their interests are decidedly different from the interests of, oh, I don't know, those people who gained the most from Bush's tax cuts. I'm surprised no one told you about the fact that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are below poverty level, Joe. Why do you suppose that is?

5

Joe,

The only thing that I could fault you on here is saying that Powell is a conservative. He is very pro-UN and pro-Affirmative Action. At best he's pretty much a moderate. Now I don't know about Rice because she's done a good job at sticking to her job and area of expertise so there aren't a whole lot of tidbits to judge where she stands from, unless I'm mistaken.

The left attacks people like Powell because even though they advance the agenda of the left in some important areas, they aren't in the left's pocket. That is why they have such a hard time with Bush. Objectively speaking, he's no more a conservative than the average soccer mom on most issues. Let's face the facts here on the administration as a whole:

• Bush has allowed domestic spending to spiral out of control on a level that Reagan or even Nixon wouldn't have allowed. According to Vox, even Keynes said that deficit spending doesn't work in the long run; that it's only a stop-gap measure in a time of trouble. Also consider this: the bigger the debt the bigger the amount of money that will have to be spent on interest payments every year and that makes tax cuts unsustainable with our current system.
• With the drug plan, Bush has pushed us another step closer to a socialized medicare system.
• With his support for the CFR legislation, Bush has helped the left stifle conservative and libertarian opposition to establishment policy.
• Bush's amnest plan for the illegals is encouraging more to come now. That means that the Democrats will get a new base for a while, until the hispanic population is assimilated enough to have a firm middle class. By then it might be too late.

Many of the less observant out there have failed to notice that the left attacks any candidate they cannot control. They're friggin totalitarians for God's sake, what do you expect? Bush could draft a plan to nationalize the transportation and healthcare industries and they'd still try to get him out once they got what they want. Why? Again, because he is not in their camp which makes him dangerous to them.

6

Okay, I had to stop reading when I saw this, "But to the extent that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are below poverty level, their interests are decidedly different from the interests of, oh, I don't know, those people who gained the most from Bush's tax cuts."

Are you aware sir that fully 3/4 of the black people in America DO NOT live below the poverty level? Are you aware that in fact a vast majority of that 3/4 is solidly middle and upperclass? Are you aware that a good lot of them fall into that group of people who gained the most from Bush's tax cuts?

Your comment is symptomatic of exactly what Joe is criticising. From where I stand claims that use of the term Uncle Tom is not racist are completely laughable. How can it not be racist to use slave imagery to denigrate black people for having the wrong political views? When was the last time you heard a racial slur slung at a blacck democrat because their political views were not in the interests of most black people?

Would you argue that it is not racist to use ethnic slurs for people from other ethnic groups who don't adhere to what is seen as that particular groups' politics?

7

George,

The fact is that your identification of (1) Soj's post (which was met with a lot of flame from offended Kos readers) and (2) McGruder's statement do not mean that "the Left" uses the phrase "far too often" relative to those on "the Right."

It doesn’t? I’ve provided two examples from the Left. If you have some from the Right that can balance them out I would be interested in seeing them.

Furthermore, while I certainly don't throw the phrase around loosely, does it not matter at all for the purposes of Left bashing that the phrase is invoked not to characterize black people negatively because they are black but rather to point out where (in the speaker's opinion, anyway) a black person is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the betterment of black people?

Therein lies the problem, Greg. You don’t even seem to be aware of the paternalism in your statement. You seem to think that certain black people don’t know what’s good for "their kind.” (I’m embarrassed to even type such racist drivel.)

I mean, whether or not Rice and Powell are obnoxious is a matter of opinion, but calling them Uncle Tom's doesn't seem to me to be *quite* as obnoxious as, e.g., running on a platform of segregation or telling a black caller on one's radio show to "take the bone of your nose and call me back." What do you think Joe?

Are they the same? No. I hope, though, that we are talking about a more intelligent group of people than the a racists who calls into a radio show.

I mean, you chose to highlight this issue to achieve some sort of "balance" between the Right and the Left, as if people on the Left are calling blacks Uncle Tom every day and nobody notices. Where's the evidence for that?

Where did I say it happens every day?

Republicans are less likely to use the Uncle Tom line because -- guess what -- there is no political reason to level that criticism against a black Republican (again, this is not to justify the use of the term by Democrats).

There would be no reason because -- and let me see if I have this straight -- Republicans, unlike Democrats, would never know what is best for black folks?

Joe: "Well, let’s be honest. Raines hired Blair on an affirmative action program and allowed him a great deal of leeway because of his ethnicity. The media only pointed that out because it was a relevant fact. "

Bwahahha. Let's be honest??? How about: where's the evidence for that???

Um, because Howell Raines bragged about it to the National Association of Black Journalists.

How about: a wonderful example of circular reasoning. Blain's race is relevant because he's black and because he's black he was affirmed in and given leeway which is why his race is relevant. Keep on eating up the big media, Joe.

Are you even familiar with the Blair case? It’s not as if I’m bringing up anything new here.

"A better question is why do we even know about Kelly’s religious beliefs? "
Because Kelly was reporting on the Middle East and his religious beliefs were (surprise!) consistent with sorts of propoganda he was fabricating, i.e., his lies were intended to advance his religious agenda. I'm not aware that lies that Blair told were intended to benefit members of his religion. Are you aware of any lies of Blair's that would further a religious agenda of Blair's?

I’m sorry but I don’t even understand the question. What is the “religious agenda” toward the Middle East? That’s a new one on me.

Joe: "Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to think that “African-American interest” are the same as “American interests.”

On some meta-level which you fail to define that may be true. But to the extent that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are below poverty level, their interests are decidedly different from the interests of, oh, I don't know, those people who gained the most from Bush's tax cuts.

You mean the middle class? The largest demographic group of black Americans?

I'm surprised no one told you about the fact that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are below poverty level, Joe. Why do you suppose that is?

Where do we begin…? Because of the welfare policies that kept the black community trapped in a cycle of poverty, because of the government’s failure to establish law and order in predominately urban areas (where many black Americans live), because of drugs, because of….the list could go on and on. If you think the Democrats have the answer to solving poverty then you shoudl enligten us. Perhaps you can provide an example of an effective anti-poverty program that the Democrats haven’t tried over the past 40 years.

8

Joe, when you talk about 'the race-baiting "Boondocks" cartoonist Aaron McGruder' using language like "but you're definitely not a Tom." Are you aware that McGruder is African American?

9

The brilliant Samantha wrote:

"Are you aware sir that fully 3/4 of the black people in America DO NOT live below the poverty level?"

In other words, Samantha, (according to your data), 1/4 of black people live below the poverty level. I believe that is a disproportionate number of black people, as I said. Samantha, great genius, what fraction of whites live below the poverty level in the U.S.?

As for Mike, you've done a good job of describing why many Republicans aren't happy with Chimp and Company. "Liberals" (whom Mike equates with totalitarians because Mike can't tell the difference, pity the child) have a different list of reasons which begin with the fact that Bush lied to Americans to justify a war that was, to say the least, poorly planned. Thankfully, the "totalitarian regime" is scheduled to resume in November when the Shrub is punted out of office "big time." I can't wait! Heil Kerry! Mike, you'll be the first to go to prison for your treasonous statements.

Now, on to Big Joe:

"I’ve provided two examples from the Left. If you have some from the Right that can balance them out I would be interested in seeing them."

Joe, it's your post. If you're satisfied that the score is 2 to nothing and that's an imbalance worth ten paragraphs, there's not much I can do to persuade you.

"You seem to think that certain black people don’t know what’s good for "their kind.” (I’m embarrassed to even type such racist drivel.)"

You should be embarassed Joe because I didn't say anything remotely like that. You did. All I did was attempt to explain what the phrase Uncle Tom means and why people use it to describe certain individuals. I explictly stated that I do not approve of the term. Mighty kind of you to imply that I'm a racist.

"I hope, though, that we are talking about a more intelligent group of people than the a racists who calls into a radio show."

Joe, can you read? The "racist" who said "take the bone out of your nose and call me back" did not call into the radio show. He HOSTED the radio show. His name is Rush Limbaugh. He's popular with people like Mike.

"Are you even familiar with the Blair case? It’s not as if I’m bringing up anything new here."

No, you are just spouting back all the crap that our wonderful media fed you. In fact, you're entire post here is just a refry of an earlier equally stupid post on Drudge's blog.

"What is the “religious agenda” toward the Middle East? That’s a new one on me."

Are you telling me Joe that you are not aware of any relationship between Christians, Jews, the Holy Land, Armageddon and the Rapture? None of that rings a bell? Damn but you Christians are a bunch of lying turds through and through.

"You mean the middle class? The largest demographic group of black Americans?"

No, I mean blacks who make up a disproportionate number of the poorest people in the United States. You know, the poor people who end up joining the Army because it seems like such a great deal to them? And then they get sent to the Middle East to die so we can have cheap gas (that was the theory anyway). Please, Joe, don't let Karl Rove do the math for you. If you sincerely believe that the Chimp's tax cuts benefitted individuals in the middle class more than it benefitted individuals in the top 10%, you are either really rich or really stupid.

"Perhaps you can provide an example of an effective anti-poverty program that the Democrats haven’t tried over the past 40 years."

The issue isn't poverty, Joe, though I can hardly expect you to remember that for more than two sentences. The issue is the disproportionate number of blacks living in poverty. Here's a program that the Democrats haven't tried: take a quarter of the money we dump into our weapons programs and put the money instead into restoring the public school systems in urban areas (where most blacks live). And focus on improving those schools with that money for ten or twenty years. That's pretty straightforward. What do you propose to solve the problem (assuming you believe there is one)?

Mike, you're welcome to jump in here at any time. Do it quick before the Left takes your free speech away.

10

Gee Greg, what a great idea. De-fund an area that has been been great for blacks, the military, and dump the money into an area that has been awful for blacks, inner-city public schools. The military, over the past 25+ years has been an unqualified success for blacks (and other minorities). They make up a huge (nearly a third) percentage of the NCO ranks (the guys that really run the services) and a decent percentage of the officer ranks (about 10%, don't have exact number and am too lazy to look it up). Not only that, but the military has been an area where blacks (again, and others) have been able to get marketable skills and money for college. But, I know Greg, it really isn't about helping blacks is it? It's about helping Democrats. You take money away from an institution that is predominantly Republican and conservative (the military), and give it to an organization that is essentially a wing of the Democratic Party (the teacher's union). Then when things get worse for blacks (and other minorities) because you've taken away real opportunities, blame the Republicans for not cutting the military in half (or eliminating completely) and giving the money to the teacher's union.

11

Joe, when you talk about 'the race-baiting "Boondocks" cartoonist Aaron McGruder' using language like "but you're definitely not a Tom." Are you aware that McGruder is African American?

Yeah, I know. McGruder, who is probably one of the most racist cartoonists I’ve ever seen, was claiming that Blair hired him because he wasn’t a “sell out.”

12

Dear Greg, are you aware that that 1/4 that does live below the poverty level is steadily shrinking? Are you aware that before the great welfare experiment of the 1960s employment and wealth in the black community were increasing? Are you aware that after that employment and wealth in the black community began to decrease?

"...put the money instead into restoring the public school systems in urban areas (where most blacks live)" No dear, most blacks live in the suburbs. In fact the fastest growing demographic in the suburbs is blacks and other minority groups.

Now, if I remember correctly the point of this post was that use of slave imagery and language to denigrate black conservatives is racist. I asked you some question about that. You gonna address any of the questions I asked or are you just interested in being rude and convincing us that blacks are poor, live in urban ghettoes with bad schools, and just need more money from the government to get ahead in life?

13

mike,

powell is pro-Un?! then why did he lie to them about WMDs, show false information, and wiretap them?

good to see that someone is pointing out that not all christians are republicans. race is not hte issue, it is about what Jesus would do if he were here. that is something rarely touched on here. most christians want the US governemnt's agenda advanced, not christ's teachings. they want a holy war in the middle east. they think theya re the one's to bring armagedon to the world,a dn they are blessed by god to do it. then, they wonder why they can't convert the world to evengelical teachings! amazing.

the current regime has done nothing but make the black person's plight (or any other ethnic group) in this country worse. the 80billion (and rising) spent on the war could have gone a long way towards social programs to help the poor. but no, that would take money from the rich people who 'earned' it from companies like halliburton and enron. and that wouldn't be very christian would it.

god bless the almighty americans christian way of life. everyone bow down before the false prophit Bush.

14

"the current regime has done nothing but make the black person's plight (or any other ethnic group) in this country worse." I would just love to hear exactly how they've done this pretty please with sugar on top.

15

ok. the vast majority of blacks live at or below the poverty line.

1. worldwide confidence in the US dollar after iraq invasion has plummeted. high gas prices are just the start or an economic downturn that will leave the poorest americans even poorer with no bottom to keep people from begging in the streets.

2. 80 billion on war leaves no room for economic packages to help the poorest buy houses, own businesses,etc. even though interest rates are their lowest ever (for why see point 1)

3. schools are getting restrictions like no child left behind which encourage expelling kids that bring down your test scores (mostly people of color). social programs like head start are being cut. these programs help the poor begin life on a good foot.

4. many people serving int his war, as in all past american wars are people of color. they want to get out of the ghetto so they get to go shoot some other people of color so halliburton makes money.

5. after 911 america had the opportunity to unite people in the country that where racial tensions had been building. during the short period of propaganda and lies (wmds) people were united. now that gap is widening again. the country is split and divided. people don't trust the government ahs their best interests.

more? i can go on. these things should be obvious.

16

Didn't the Republicans start in the 1850s as an anti-slavery party?

Doesn't that say something about the position of their opposition? Weren't the Democrats then the party of slavery?

And for a century after the War, weren't the Democrats (as "Dixiecrats") the party of Jim Crow, the party of White Supremacy, the party of Lynchings, the party of the Ku Klux Klan, the party of "SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION FOH-EVAH!"?

And yet blacks vote Democrat automatically, like machines or trained animals. What's wrong with this picture?

17

greg johnson:
"lusting after a logical discourse" is not something i do anymore. of all the big seven sins, this is the least of my worries right now. After more than 40 years of engagement (willing and unwilling) with "discourse" from the Left, there is simply little to lust after. we are at the whimper stage of the end of this world (see TS Eliot). my interjection is more in the lines of someone who has been there, has been mangled there, has been redeemed from there, and somehow still has energy to warn about the emptiness of there. i do appreciate your comments and interest as well as Joe's effort to open a place for exchange regardless of the presence of maimed people like me. i am sorry about my absence of lucidity. As an old firefly, my tail does not shine as brightly as before. yet, i love to watch the young fireflies dance in the darkness to celebrate hope and light. pax vobiscum.

18

dicknbush--What a blinking idiot you are. You ask what would Jesus do, well one thing he wouldn't do is sit around a bitch that there aren't enough social programs. When Jesus saw people in distress, he helped them. That is also what Christians do. We give money, we serve at soup kitchens, we teach convicts to read. We don't run around complaining that we need more govt programs or that Bill Gates has too much money.

19

So no comment about the slave imagery used to denigrate black conservatives? You would rather argue that blacks are poor, in bad schools, in the military only for a way out of the ghetto (and make some money for The Man while they're at it), need the government to do for them what they should be expected to do for themselves, and it's all the fault of "the current regime"?

20

ucfenger,

now that we are reduced to name calling....

that certainly is the christian thing to do when one has a disagreement. is this elementary school or what?

yeah, i'm sorry the underfunded innercity schools have failed blacks. you are right, it is better that they aren't educated. better not to put money into the schools. better to send them off to die for bush. that isn't racist, it is a great 'economic' opportunity for them, and it gets rid of the other pesky people of color (arabs). convinient. the white people don't have to do any of the dirty work.

chrisians give money - christian organizations that support the repbulican gov. christians support organizations that promote chrstianity. like the homeless shelters - you can stay as long as you listen to the our sermon.

as far as prison goes, what whetever helps a convict sleep at night. the ironey is that it is the christian laws that put over half of the prison population in prison for non-violent drug related crimes, many for possession. so christians get them in, then they teach them to read so they know how screwed they are by the christian-run system. how sweet.

samantha,

what is the source for all your great data, please?

i haven't seen any of these remarkable numbers before. i must be imagining all those people in the projects. there must must be nice suburbs somewhere with 3 TIMES as many black people in them. where are these suburbs? am i in the matrix or something?

21

Ken said:

"And yet blacks vote Democrat automatically, like machines or trained animals."

Really? A trained animal? You seem quite confident that blacks aren't thinking when they vote for Democrats. Perhaps I'll forward this thread to one of the many African-American political blogs and then some black voters can set you straight about their "training."

And Samantha, you're just a rotten liar. At least show some support for your numbers and maybe, just maybe, show some evidence that there is a cause and effect between the various trends you string together to support your bizarre views about the world.

Samanthat asked if I was "just interested in being rude and convincing us that blacks are poor, live in urban ghettoes with bad schools, and just need more money from the government to get ahead in life?"

Not only blacks, Samantha, but ALL poor people who live in urban ghettos with bad schools would benefit from more money being spent on more social programs, including better nutrition for the children, health care, schools, public transportation, and a cleaner environment. My only point was that African-Americans are disproportionately poor in this country. I asked you why you thought that was the case, and first you tried to deny that it was true (but your own miserable lie tripped you up) and then you seemed to claim that welfare (!) is the reason blacks today are disproportionately poor.

Maybe I'm naive (I'm sure you'll let me know), but I'm guessing that the disproportionate number of African-Americans living in poverty has more to do with the fact that black people in this country were slaves and then pseudo-citizens without voting rights for most of this country's history (until very recently in fact) then it has to do with the welfare programs of seventies.

And Samantha, most blacks do not live in the suburbs. That is a lie. Check the 2000 Census (or any summaries thereof).

Ucfenger writes:

"Gee Greg, what a great idea. De-fund an area that has been been great for blacks, the military, and dump the money into an area that has been awful for blacks, inner-city public schools."

ucfenger, your post is one of the most absurd and illogical posts i have ever read (not to mention creepy and paranoid). Why are a disproportionate number of blacks in the military do you suppose? Is this is a positive sign for African-Americans that a disproportionate of them get sent to die in Iraq relative to white boys?

Finally, Samantha says,

"Now, if I remember correctly the point of this post was that use of slave imagery and language to denigrate black conservatives is racist. "

Yeah, and if I remember correctly I never said that calling someone an Uncle Tom wasn't racist. I explicitly stated my disapproval of the term. What I tried to do was qualify what I perceive to be a fair distinction between, e.g., a white person calling someone a "porch monkey" and a black liberal calling a black conservative in a conservative administration an "Uncle Tom."

If you can't see any difference between the two, that's your problem. For myself, I'm just disgusted by the ignorance in the posts written in response to mine. Not suprised, mind you, but disgusted. This is a Christian web site after all.

22

Ucfengr wrote:

"When Jesus saw people in distress, he helped them. That is also what Christians do. We give money, we serve at soup kitchens, we teach convicts to read."

And Jesus would be opposed to any additional government-funded programs for helping people because .... why?

I'm glad to see you admit, at least, that money is necessary to fix problems in our society.

By the way, aren't those convicts that you teach to read disproportionately black? Why do you suppose that is?

23

German, it's too bad you no longer have the cajones to jump into the fray (assuming that you ever did). You sound like a true wingnut and I'd love to find out just how crazy conservative you are.

For example, I'd love to know where you think the "emptiness" is in wishing, e.g., that we'd never occupied Iraq, that we'd made more of an effort to improve diplomatic relations with other countries in the world, that our citizens were educated at a level that approximates that in other first world countries, etc., etc.

Honestly, as a Christian, I struggle with these issues daily.

24

Greg,

Is this is a positive sign for African-Americans that a disproportionate of them get sent to die in Iraq relative to white boys?

That simply isn't true. Out of the first 500 servicembers to die during the conflict, 397 (80%) were white even though non-Hispanic whites make up only 69% of the population.

25

"And Samantha, you're just a rotten liar. At least show some support for your numbers and maybe, just maybe, show some evidence that there is a cause and effect between the various trends you string together to support your bizarre views about the world."

That is so funny! How old are you? Why get so incised over the idea that black folk aren't as poor and uneducated as you would like to think?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov4.html
Historical Poverty Tables
According to the US Census Bureau (if I'm reading their tables correctly) the percentage of black families living below the poverty level in 2001(last year for which numbers are available) was 20.7. The percentage of married couple families living below poverty level the same year was 7.8. The numbers for black families over all shows only a slight downard trend from 1974 while the numbers for married couple black families has fallen by nearly half since 1974. Rather telling don't you think?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty01/povrac01cht.gif
Poverty rates by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2001
Note the over all downward trend. Control for single parent families and the numbers for blacks come much closer to that for the overall population.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty01/povtyp01cht.gif
Poverty Rates of People in Families by Family Type and Presence of Workers: 2001
Note the lower poverty rate of married couple families versus single parent families.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40438-2001Jun24¬Found=true
June 25, 2001
"...the nation's major minority groups -- blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans -- increased its presence in the suburbs of the largest metropolitan areas during the 1990s.
As a result, minorities accounted for most suburban growth in 65 of the 102 largest metropolitan areas."

http://racerelations.about.com/library/weekly/aa063001a.htm
"Racial diversity is creeping out of the cities and into the suburbs, according to an analysis of 2000 census data."

"Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America" by John McWhorter strings all of these ideas and numbers together to present a rather bizzare view of the world in which black people are not mostly poor living in ghettos going to bad schools.

26

Joe,

I appreciate this information although it's a little off point, isn't it? You can massage the numbers all you want but it's not going to change the bottom line about the economic status of African-Americans in this country.

Blacks are 12% of the population and 22% of the military. Thus, a disproportionate number of blacks are *sent* to Iraq, as I said. You want stats regarding death? Up to the fall of Baghdad, blacks comprised 20% of the casualties. Why the change in numbers, you ask?

"Elite combat troops like Special Forces units and the Green Berets are disproportionately white, military experts said. The U.S. Army's dash to Baghdad forced supply convoys occasionally to traverse enemy-held territory in southern and central Iraq, leaving minority troops assigned to logistical units vulnerable."
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d928607a.htm

I'll leave it to you, Joe (genius with numbers that you are) to figure out why the numbers of blacks killed have dropped since the fall of Baghdad.

In any event, the war ends on June 30th according to Dear Leader, does it not? Let's add up the numbers at that time if you like. At the very least, it'll give you a chance to appreciate just how many young men and women, of all colors, died for Dear Leader's shameful war (which you no doubt support fully, as Jesus would no doubt have supported it -- I'm sure you've already come up with a twisted argument to support that view, too).

27

Samantha I'm old enough to know when someone is answering their own questions rather than acknowledging the falsity of her own statement.

I never disputed your numbers regarding suburban growth. And I don't know why you think they are relevant. Are those the most affluent suburbs blacks are moving to in droves?

You wrote "Why get so incised over the idea that black folk aren't as poor and uneducated as you would like to think?"

That is not what annoys me Samantha. What annoys me is jackasses like you and Mr. McWhorter who believe that blacks and whites stand on economically equal footing in the United States and that accuse people like me (who aren't manipulating the numbers) of being in denial about the incredible standard of living of blacks in the United States.

Let's remind everyone again about this fact which you choose to ignore: blacks are disproportionally represented amongs people living in poverty in the US.

WIth respect to the data you cite:

"The percentage of black families living below the poverty level in 2001(last year for which numbers are available) was 20.7."

That's diproportionate, Samantha. Blacks are 12% of the population.

"The percentage of married couple families living below poverty level the same year was 7.8."

This makes your numbers even worse because the disproportionality among families is even greater than that among individuals! Good job, Samantha! This must be an exciting learning experience for you.

"The numbers for black families over all shows only a slight downard trend from 1974 ..."

Only a slight downward trend in a quarter century. Wow, that's breathtaking progress, Samantha.

". . .while the numbers for married couple black families has fallen by nearly half since 1974."

That *sounds* like good news. But are you telling me that because the number of married couple black families below the poverty level has fallen by nearly half since 1974 that blacks and whites are on equal economic footing in this country? What is the percentage of married couple white families living below poverty and are those percentages proportional to the relative numbers of black and white married couple families?

Maybe I should just read Mr. McWhorton's book so I can stop worrying about poverty and inequality in the United States. Maybe I could even achieve that "clear" state of mind enjoyed by Samantha, Joe, Mike and German.

Jesus loves you in spite of your ignorance, folks. Don't worry.

28

german killah et al:

great to read your comments. it really makes this PM a delight.

1. yes. i have "cajones". many "cajones" filled with many things all over my home and office. now; if you mean "cojones" (aka balls or courage), i also have them and have been quite active for probably longer than you have had yours. yet, the issue is not possession of equipment but rather utility and skill. Unless you stand in my cojones in a real situation rather than in a mere verbal exchange, you will never know.

2. there is a big difference between knowing and understanding as much as with looking and seeing. While we might pretend that it is all the same, we eventually discover that we can spend a lot of time looking and knowing without really seeing and understanding. So, as a Christian (pending the approval of the ultimate definer) and a "crazy conservative" my daily struggle usually rises above many BIG issues which are best left in God's hands rather than my own (in a simple way, i trust God to know and understand far more than me or other people). I am far too busy doing something effective and consistent about daily issues like education, counseling, parenting, loving, husbanding, employing, encouraging, taking risks, falling, rising, etc. that use my gifts and talents in obedience to the reality of Jesus Christ and His promises.

Late at night or in soft days like this, it is good to cruise around the blogosphere and observe what others are doing or saying in USA as well as in the world. for this I come to the Outopost and find some interesting issues that merit consideration or confirm a corresponding thought on my part. In all, there is no desire in me to engage into a chest pounding "argument" or a growling episode to define who takes the prize bitch. i already have my own and it works well for me. moreover, there is no need for me to score points in order to demonstrate intellectual prowess or rhetorical skill or antagonistic incisiveness of thought. reality is a little more than war games or rhetorical upmanship. keeping track of points is for scorekeepers or accountants.
so, exxxcuuusee mee.

29

Greg, insulting someone before trying to convince them of a point isn't exactly a healthy strategy. Spelling people's names right is also a good idea if you hope they'll pay attention to what you're saying.

John McWhorter never says anything about blacks and whites being on an equal economic footing, and neither did anyone in this thread. What's obviously true is that economic conditions for most black people aren't a whole lot different than for most white people. If you took the median 30-40% of each population, I suspect that there wouldn't be a marked difference.

There clearly is a disproportionate amount of poor black people, most of them coming from among the single-parent families. That's unfortunate, and it clearly originates way back with racist policies and practices, as John McWhorter argues. What he's clear about is that liberals tend to want to ignore the huge improvements since the civil rights era.

Now as for the numbers, let me clear up what you must not have detected. The percentage of black families with single-parent families below the poverty level hasn't changed much. The percentage of black families with two-parent families below the poverty level has dropped in half. That was the point. The problems in the black community aren't about racist practices against black people. They're about black single-parent families.

The only practices I know that single out single-parent families especially much are welfare programs and related entitlements. That's got to be at least a factor. It makes sense that a program that keeps black people on a fixed income and discourages marriage, independence, and work would keep black people from single-parent families below the poverty level. Some recent changes have helped here, but that's at least part of the difference.

The numbers McWhorter gives (which he cites, but I don't have it with me) are that the median income among black two-parent families in 1995 was $41,000 with the median income among overall two parent families not much higher at $47,000. Compare 20 years earlier, and you'd see a huge difference. This varied from city to city. In some cities (he doesn't say which), the black median income was actually higher than the overall median income for two-parent families. Also, factors such as the lower standard of living in some areas where the percentage of black families is higher (e.g. the South) explains part of that difference.

I will reiterate. No one has claimed that blacks and whites are on equal economic footing in this country. Those are your words that you're putting in other people's mouths. Some people have asserted that conservative policies are more likely to help the inequities that remain. I think there's something to that. You obviously disagree. What's obviously false is that things are the way they were in the 1960s. Yes many liberals act as if no progress has been made since the civil rights era. I've even heard people like Al Sharpton claim that no progress has been made since then. Yet I haven't heard anyone suggest a positive plan besides reparations (which are unworkable, impossible to apply consistently, and in violation of the Constitution) and affirmative action (which is already going on everywhere but California and hasn't helped but rather has hurt blacks' chances of doing well in college because of placement in a school they're underprepared for).

Still, none of this affects Joe's point. Using racist terminology to label a black person because they happen to think conservative views are in the best interests of black people is wrong. If they thought it wasn't in the best interests of black people and still supported it, then perhaps they'd be Uncle Toms. As it is, Colin Powell and Condi Rice support affirmative action anyway and explicitly indicated their disagreement with the brief filed by the Bush Administration. How that's serving Whitey's agenda I just don't understand. But when Republicans can demonstrate such a highly qualified cabinet and yet be the most ethnically diverse cabinet ever, Democrats have to do something to try to make it look illegitimately so.

The fact is that these are good people, there because they're convinced the administration is moving in the right direction in their own specialized area, and are doing a better job at it that anyone who has posted anything to this blog entry could hope to do.

30

Summary of German's post:

"I have nothing of substance to add. I'm just a bitter Jesus freak waiting for the Rapture."

Thanks, German! That's what we suspected.

31

Well Greg, Jesus might be against government programs. I seem to remember something about his kingdom not being of this world. I also remember something about some commandment against stealing. When the government takes my money using the threat of force to give to someone else (usually to buy their vote) does that qualify as stealing?

Regarding all the comments about under-funded city schools, I would remark that where I live, the DC metro area, DC public schools are among the most lavishly funded in the country, if not the world. Yet I don't think they graduate 50% of their high school students. DC spends about $15,000 per student per year. Figure 30 students per class and you have $450,000 per class per year. You could pay a teacher 150 grand per year, buy every student a loaded laptop with a high-speed wireless connection (figuring $2500 per for computer and network) and still have more than $225k leftover for art and gym supplies.

32

Greg said:

Ucfengr wrote:

"When Jesus saw people in distress, he helped them. That is also what Christians do. We give money, we serve at soup kitchens, we teach convicts to read."

And Jesus would be opposed to any additional government-funded programs for helping people because .... why?

I'm glad to see you admit, at least, that money is necessary to fix problems in our society.

By the way, aren't those convicts that you teach to read disproportionately black? Why do you suppose that is?

Jesus didn't preach to governments, he taught people. He didn't die for governments, he died for people.

His calls to action are personal and require a personal choice to act or not act. Review the gospels and then try to make the case that Jesus advocated a corporate response to oppression or poverty.

You can't.

33

Jeremy said:

"Using racist terminology to label a black person because they happen to think conservative views are in the best interests of black people is wrong."

Agreed (for the umpteenth time). But that was not Joe's point. Joe's point was that "the Left" somehow let's "Uncle Tom" type statements slide and that this was hypocritical. My post pointed out that (among other things) that, in fact, Uncle Tomisms are criticized by people on the Right AND Left and IN FACT were criticized by liberals at the "liberal" blogsite cited by Joe to make his point.

"What he's clear about is that liberals tend to want to ignore the huge improvements since the civil rights era."

What is the basis for this assertion? Just because someone states there is a long way to go hardly means that the person is "ignoring" any improvements. Does the statement about these "huge improvements" since segregation was made illegal need to be made EVERY TIME someone shows where there are further improvements to be made? That's what it sounds like because you know very well it would be trivial to assemble thousands of quotes by very liberal people, black and white, who speak proudly of the "huge improvements" which have been in the lives of African-Americans in this country. By the way, I NEVER heard AL Sharpton make the statement you claim to have heard. I would love to see the evidence that he made such a statement (and it would be nice to see it in context, for obvious reasons).

If it is so distasteful to you to "have to listen" to liberals wanting to improve the lives of the poorest people in America (people who admit are disproportionately African-American), how can you bear to listen to the richest people in America (even more disproportionately white) complain about higher taxes? Or listen to those same people complain that a miniscule portion of government spending is going towards providing better education, food and health care for people?

And please spare me the lecture about name calling and putting words in other people's mouths. Read the thread. Notice where the bimbo Samantha wrote the following: