Hello to those on my list,
Whether or not you are enthusiastic about Obama, the issue of racism and white
privilege in this election is important, so please, if you like this piece,
please send it around.
Thanks,
Tim
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08
"For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are
constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list
will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin
and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a
personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents,
because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families
with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible,
pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a "****in' redneck," like
Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you,
you'll "kick their ****in' donkey," and talk about how you like to
"shoot ****" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy
(and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years
like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to
after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions
your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who
did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got
in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than
most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same
number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready
to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with
laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and
constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God"
in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding
fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from
holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and
the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that
reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it),
is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people
immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an
extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and
whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that
of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come
to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school,
people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work
they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for
civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think
you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a
small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a
class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree
with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway,
because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in
these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your
political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical
politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some
folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors
say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are
going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job
of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and
who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's
punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're
just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a
black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of
Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and
who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're
an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a
reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a
"trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word
answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question,
or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at
all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing
racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow
someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of
the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes,
inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion,
just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya
know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the
same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem."
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Sorry, I don't have any white guilt but here are a few more gems Time Wise has written. I could just post the links but then I thought you never do. Why should i?
Your Whiteness is Showing
By TIM WISE
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.
That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing.
And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?
See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.
But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.
Here is another one....
Uh-Obama:
Racism, White Voters and the Myth of Color-Blindness
By Tim Wise
March 6, 2008
Here's a sentence I never thought I'd write, at least not as soon as I am now compelled to write it: It may well be the case that the United States is on its way to electing a person of color as President. Make no mistake, I realize the way that any number of factors, racism prominently among them, could derail such a thing from coming to fruition. Indeed, results from the Ohio Democratic primary suggest that an awful lot of white folks, especially rural and working-class whites, are still mightily uncomfortable with voting for such a candidate, at least partly because of race: One-fifth of voters in the state said race was important to their decision, and roughly six in ten of these voted for Hillary Clinton, which totals would then represent her approximate margin of victory over Barack Obama.
But having said all that--and I think anyone who is being honest would have to acknowledge this as factual--we are far closer to the election of a person of color in a Presidential race than probably any of us expected. Obama's meteoric rise, from community organizer, to law professor, to Illinois state senator, to the U.S. Senate, and now, possibly, the highest office in the land, is something that could have been foreseen by few if any just a few years ago. Obama's undeniable charisma, savvy political instincts, passion for his work, and ability to connect with young voters (and not a few older ones as well) is the kind of thing you just don't see all that often. The fact that as a black man (or, as some may prefer, a man of biracial background) he has been able to catapult to the position in which he now finds himself makes the accomplishment even more significant. It does indeed mean something.
But this is where things become considerably more complicated; the point at which one is forced to determine what, exactly, his success means (and doesn't mean) when it comes to the state of race, race relations, and racism in the United States. And it is at this point that so-called mainstream commentary has, once again, dropped the ball.
On the one hand, many a voice has suggested that Obama's success signifies something akin to the end of racism in the U.S., if not entirely, then surely as a potent political or social force. After all, if a black man actually stands a better-than-decent shot at becoming President, then how much of a barrier could racism really be? But of course, the success of individual persons of color, while it certainly suggests that overt bigotry has diminished substantially, hardly speaks to the larger social reality faced by millions of others: a subject to which we will return. Just as sexism no doubt remained an issue in Pakistan, even after Benazir Bhutto became Prime Minister in the 1980s and again in the 90s (or in India or Israel after both nations had female Premiers, or in Great Britain after the election of Margaret Thatcher), so too can racism exist in abundance, in spite of the electoral success of one person of color, even one who could be elevated to the highest office in the world's most powerful nation.
More importantly, to the extent Obama's success has been largely contingent on his studious avoidance of the issue of race--such that he rarely ever mentions discrimination and certainly not in front of white audiences--one has to wonder just how seriously we should take the notion that racism is a thing of the past, at least as supposedly evidenced by his ability to attract white votes? To the extent those whites are rewarding him in large measure for not talking about race, and to the extent they would abandon him in droves were he to begin talking much about racism--for he would be seen at that point as playing the race card, or appealing to "special interests" and suffer the consequences--we should view Obama's success, given what has been required to make it possible, as confirmation of the ongoing salience of race in American life. Were race really something we had moved beyond, whites would be open to hearing a candidate share factual information about housing discrimination, racial profiling, or race-based inequities in health care. But we don't want to be reminded of those things. We prefer to ignore them, and many are glad that Obama has downplayed them too, whether by choice, or necessity.
Erasing Race and Making White Folks Happy
The extent to which Obama's white support has been directly related to his downplaying of race issues simply cannot be overstated, as evidenced by the kinds of things many of these supporters openly admit, possessing no sense of apparent irony or misgiving. So, consider the chant offered by his supporters at a recent rally--and frankly, a chant in which whites appeared to be joining with far greater enthusiasm than folks of color--to the effect that "Race Doesn't Matter, Race Doesn't Matter," a concept so utterly absurd, given the way in which race most certainly still matters to the opportunity structure in this country, that one has to almost wretch at the repeated offering of it. Or consider the statements of support put forth by Obama supporters in a November 2007 Wall Street Journal article, to the effect that Obama makes whites "feel good" about ourselves (presumably by not bothering us with all that race talk), and that Obama, by virtue of his race-averse approach has "emancipated" whites to finally vote for a black candidate (because goodness knows we were previously chained and enslaved to a position of rejectionism). Worst of all, consider the words of one white Obama supporter, an ardent political blogger in Nashville, to the effect that what he likes about the Illinois Senator is that he "doesn't come with the baggage of the civil rights movement." Let it suffice to say that when the civil rights movement--one of the greatest struggles for human liberation in the history of our collective species--can be unashamedly equated with Samsonite, with luggage, with something one should avoid as though it were radioactive (and this coming from a self-described liberal), we are at a very dangerous place as a nation, all celebrations of Obama's cross-racial appeal notwithstanding.
What does it say about the nation's political culture--and what does it suggest about the extent to which we have moved "beyond race"--that candidate Obama, though he surely knows it, has been unable to mention the fact that 2006 saw the largest number of race-based housing discrimination complaints on record, and according to government and private studies, there are between two and three million cases of housing discrimination each year against people of color?
What does it say that he has failed to note with any regularity that according to over a hundred studies, health disparities between whites and blacks are due not merely to health care costs and economic differences between the two groups (a subject he does address) but also due to the provision of discriminatory care by providers, even to blacks with upper incomes, and black experiences with racism itself, which are directly related to hypertension and other maladies?
What does it say that Obama apparently can't bring himself to mention, for fear of likely white backlash, that whites are over seventy percent of drug users, but only about ten percent of persons incarcerated for a drug possession offense, while blacks and Latinos combined are about twenty-five percent of users, but comprise roughly ninety percent of persons locked up for a possession offense?
Why no mention of the massive national study by legal scholars Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen, which found that at least a third of all businesses in the nation engage in substantial discrimination against people of color--hiring such folks at rates that are well below their availability in the local and qualified labor pool, and well below the rates at which they are to be found in non-discriminating companies in the same locales and industries? Indeed, according to the Blumrosen study, at least 1.3 million qualified people of color will face job discrimination in a given year. Or what of the study of temporary agencies in California, which found that white women who are less qualified than their black counterparts, are still three times more likely to be favored in a job search? And what are the odds that he'll be likely to mention, to any significant degree, the recent EEOC report, which notes that in 2007 there was a twelve percent jump in race-based discrimination complaints in the workplace relative to the previous year (almost all of which were filed by persons of color): bringing the number of such complaints to their highest level since 1994?
As Obama talks about change and making the "American Dream" real for all, why is he unable to mention the fact--let alone propose specific remedies for it--that thanks to a history of unequal access to property and the inability to accumulate assets on par with whites, young black couples with college degrees and good incomes still start out at a significant disadvantage (around $20,000) relative to their white counterparts? In fact, the wealth gap between whites and blacks--with the average white family now having about eleven times the net worth of the average black family--continues to grow, even as income gaps for similarly educated families with similar background characteristics have shrunk.
And why such muted discussion about the way that, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, government at all levels and across party lines has engaged in ethnic cleansing in New Orleans, failing to provide rental assistance to the mostly black tenant base for over a year, plotting to tear down 5000 perfectly usable units of public housing, failing to restart the city's public health care infrastructure, and even ordering the Red Cross not to provide relief in the first few days after the city flooded in September 2005, so as to force evacuation and empty out the city? While Obama has spoken much about the failures of the Bush Administration during Katrina, openly discussing the deliberate acts of cruelty that go well beyond incompetence, and which amount to the forced depopulation of New Orleans-area blacks, has been something about which he cannot speak for fear of prompting a backlash from whites, most of whom, according to polls, don't think the events of Katrina have any lessons at all to teach us about race in America.
Surely, that Obama is constrained in his ability to focus any real attention on these matters, suggests that whatever his success may say about America and race, one thing it utterly fails to say is that we have conquered the racial demons that have so long bedeviled us. And to the extent he must remain relatively silent about these issues, lest he find his political ascent headed in a decidedly different direction, it is true, however ironic, that his success actually confirms the salience of white power. If, in order to be elected, a man of color has to pander to white folks, in ways that no white politician would ever have to do to people who were black or brown, then white privilege and white power remain operative realities. Obama's ascent to the Presidency, if it happens, will happen only because he managed to convince enough whites that he was different, and not really black, in the way too many whites continue to think of black people, which according to every opinion survey, is not too positively.
Transcending Blackness, Reinforcing White Racism: The Trouble With Exceptions
Obama's rise has owed almost everything to his ability--and this, again, coming from people who support him and are willing to speak candidly--to "transcend" race, which is really a way of saying, his ability to carve out an exception for himself in the minds of whites. But this notion of Obama "transcending race" (by which we really mean transcending his blackness) is a patently offensive and even racist notion in that it serves to reinforce generally negative feelings about blacks as a whole; feelings that the presence of exceptions cannot cancel out, and which they can even serve to reinforce. To the extent Obama has become the Cliff Huxtable of politics--a black man with whom millions of whites can identity and to whom they can relate--he has leapt one hurdle, only to watch his white co-countrymen and women erect a still higher one in the path of the black masses. If whites view Obama as having transcended his blackness, and if this is why we like him so much, we are saying, in effect, that the millions of blacks who haven't transcended theirs will remain a problem. To praise the transcending of blackness, after all, is to imply that blackness is something negative, something from which one who might otherwise qualify for membership ought to seek escape, and quickly.
Note, never has a white politician been confronted with questions about his or her ability to transcend race, or specifically, their whiteness. And this is true, even as many white politicians continue to pull almost all of their support from whites, and have almost no luck at convincing people of color to vote for them. In the Democratic primaries this year, Obama has regularly received about half the white vote, while Hillary Clinton has managed to pull down only about one-quarter of the black vote, yet the question has always been whether he could transcend race. The only rational conclusion to which this points is, again, that it is not race per se that needs to be overcome, but blackness. Whiteness is not seen as negative, as something to be conquered or transcended. Indeed, whereas blacks are being asked to rise above their racial identity, for whites, the burden is exactly the opposite: the worst thing for a white person is to fail to live up to the ostensibly high standards set by whiteness; it is to be considered white trash, which is to say, to be viewed as someone who has let down whiteness and fallen short of its pinnacle. For blacks, the worst thing it seems (at least in the minds of whites) is to be seen as black, which is no doubt why so many whites think it's a compliment to say things to black folks like, "I don't even think of you as black," not realizing that the subtext of such a comment is that it's a damned good thing they don't, for if they did, the person so thought of would be up the proverbial creek for sure.
In what must prove among the greatest ironies of all time, for Barack Obama to become President, which he well may accomplish, he will have to succeed in convincing a lot of racist white people to vote for him. Without the support of racists he simply can't win. While this may seem counterintuitive--that is, after all, what makes it ironic--it is really inarguable. After all, according to many an opinion survey in the past decade, large numbers of whites (often as high as one-half to three-quarters) harbor at least one negative and racist stereotype about African Americans, whether regarding their intelligence, law-abidingness, work ethic, or value systems. Without the votes of at least some of those whites (and keep in mind, that's how many whites are willing to admit to racist beliefs, which is likely far fewer than actually hold them), Obama's candidacy would be sunk. So long as whites can vote for a black man only to the extent that he doesn't remind them of other black people, it is fair to say that white people remain mired in a racism quite profound. To the extent we view the larger black community in terms far more hostile than those reserved for Obama, Oprah, Tiger, Colin, Condoleezza, Denzel and Bill (meaning Cosby, not Clinton, whose blackness is believed to be authentic only by himself nowadays), whites have proven how creative we can be, and how resourceful, when it comes to the maintenance of racial inequality.
By granting exemptions from blackness, even to those black folks who did not ask for such exemptions (and nothing I have said here should be taken as a critique of Obama himself by the way, for whom I did indeed vote last month), we have taken racism to an entirely new and disturbing level, one that bypasses the old and all-encompassing hostilities of the past, and replaces them with a new, seemingly ecumenical acceptance in the present. But make no mistake, it is an ecumenism that depends upon our being made to feel good, and on our ability to glom onto folks of color who won't challenge our denial let alone our privileges, even if they might like to.
In short, the success of Barack Obama has proven, perhaps more so than any other single thing could, just how powerful race remains in America. His success, far from disproving white power and privilege, confirms it with a vengeance.
So, now race is the only issue?
Didn't get the memo.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
So, now race is the only issue?
Didn't get the memo.
Define what you mean by issue. Is it the only political issue? Then no, it's not the only issue. But, is it the only social issue? Well, yes. Right now, in this time in our history, if the line that is drawn is between the stupid and the intelligent then the issue is social.
Racism runs deep. Many refuse to vote for Obama because they fear the color of the man and not what he has to say.
Charles Darwin said,
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
So, now race is the only issue?
Seems as if that is the case in the African American population. They have been voting for him in the mid to high 90%s. Which I think is fine. I get it, he's the first black candidate and they are entitled to vote for him only on that basis.
Just don't complain when others vote against him inversely. There are idiots on both sides who will vote based upon race.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
So, now race is the only issue?
Seems as if that is the case in the African American population. They have been voting for him in the mid to high 90%s. Which I think is fine. I get it, he's the first black candidate and they are entitled to vote for him only on that basis.
Just don't complain when others vote against him inversely. There are idiots on both sides who will vote based upon race.
Aren't their actions the Definition of RACISM?
Voting for someone because of their RACE???
If anyone was to vote for Senator McCain because of his Race, they would be labeled a Racist.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Sorry, I don't have any white guilt but here are a few more gems Time Wise has written. I could just post the links but then I thought you never do. Why should i?
Your Whiteness is Showing
By TIM WISE
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.
That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing.
And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?
See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.
But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.
When I'm feeling an especially strong case of White Guilt coming over me for just being White, I remember the immortal words of the Reverand Martin Luther King:
No, not THOSE words.
I remember the ones that the FBI recorded of him in a motel room having sex with a woman who was NOT his wife.
The Quote:
Close your Eyes, RecycleMichael, Waterboy, and FOTD, this may hurt:
The Quote recorded by the FBI:
"I'm feeling WHITE tonite!".
They played that recording privately to MLK when he started criticizing the FBI and Director J. Edna Hoover.
He never criticized them again.
The tape was purportedly played thereafter at annual FBI picnics for entertainment purposes.
[:o)]
That is quite a lie, even for you friendly bear.
Please explain how you were privy to a private conversation between Martin Luther King, Jr. and the FBI.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
That is quite a lie, even for you friendly bear.
Please explain how you were privy to a private conversation between Martin Luther King, Jr. and the FBI.
Back in the 1960's, FBI Director J. Edna Hoover and the FBI Counter-Intelligence unit were very afraid the MLK would stir up a Black rebellion while the U.S. was heavily engaged in a foreign war against the Legions of Marxist-Leninism, since so many of MLK's close advisors were Marxist-trained black radicals.
So, the FBI routinely bugged the motels where MLK resided around the country, hoping to garner intelligence about any seditious plans.
As a consequence, they routinely recorded Saint Martin in sexual liaisons with women who were not his wife.
Now you know how Coretta Scott King earned her studied countenance of martyrdom.
She had tolerated an alley-cat husband for years.
It's all in the public record.
Saint Martin had Feet of Clay.
I quoted my favorite recording earlier.
ALL true.
[:O]
Motivations of the FBI aside, it is even stranger that you repeat the stories with glee. As though having illicit sex recorded and used as blackmail by a government agency was a good thing!
If this election is framed by him and others as being about race, the country loses bigtime. FB and his group have made it clear they don't care what it takes to win, or what enemies must be punished in order to acquire power and wield it to their own benefit, even if it means a race war. Beware of attempts to be lured into this trap.
Yes, Americans are racists. Black, white, Hispanic and Asian. Hawaiian, Native American, Middle Eastern and Eskimo, we are racist. We're also religiously divided and we don't like criticizm from outsiders. We are also homophobic, sexist, chauvinistic, nationalistic and prone to stick our heads in the sand.
Somehow we've always been able to surmount these deficits and work with each other because our system allows protections in the law and somewhere deeply we know the problems in life are shared by all. There are those that would sacrifice these protections and manipulate our differences to assure power over the weaker groups.
It is a foul patriot indeed that serves up his country for his own benefit. The fringes seem intent on that.
Prove it friendly bear.
Show us the public record of which you speak.
If not, stop lying.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Prove it friendly bear.
Show us the public record of which you speak.
If not, stop lying.
It's all in the 1976 "Church Report", named after Sinate Intelligence Committee Chairman Frank Church.
The Church investigation was staged after J. Edna had passed on to be the Great-Cross Dresser in the Sky.
Here's the link:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm
Now, we'll see if the proof shuts RecyleMichael's gluttonous pie-hole......
Surprised you didn't live through the Church Hearings.
Were you in one of those "purple" hazes so prevelant back then.....?
You inhaled?
Must have. Definitely.
That explains a LOT.
Did you think no one would read the entire report? I pulled up the link and couldn't find anything close to what you posted. In fact there were no quotes from the wiretaps at all. They were only referred to. There were probably tapes admitted to the hearings but they aren't on this link. And none of the hearings referred to Hoovers frilly panties either.
It did remind me however of the depth of government abuse that Hoover employed. Your kind of guy, thats for sure. He was sure everyone was a Commie, Marxist, Leninist operative and was willing to use the power of the government to destroy lives without reservation. Of course he was a racist, extortionist too but that was just for kicks.
Inhale this boob head:
The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." 9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' 10 The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." 11 Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the "Man of the Year," an honor which elicited Director Hoover's comment that "they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." 12 Hoover wrote "astounding" across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI's efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death. Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize. 13
In fact, I could find nothing listed in your posts above in the Church report. Nothing. Now, I speed read it, so maybe I just missed the salacious parts that you so enjoyed. Perhaps you could indicate the paragraphs
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did you think no one would read the entire report? I pulled up the link and couldn't find anything close to what you posted. In fact there were no quotes from the wiretaps at all. They were only referred to. There were probably tapes admitted to the hearings but they aren't on this link. And none of the hearings referred to Hoovers frilly panties either.
It did remind me however of the depth of government abuse that Hoover employed. Your kind of guy, thats for sure. He was sure everyone was a Commie, Marxist, Leninist operative and was willing to use the power of the government to destroy lives without reservation. Of course he was a racist, extortionist too but that was just for kicks.
Inhale this boob head:
The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." 9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' 10 The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." 11 Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the "Man of the Year," an honor which elicited Director Hoover's comment that "they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." 12 Hoover wrote "astounding" across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI's efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death. Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize. 13
The FBI sent a audiotape to the residence of MLK.
The audiotape captured a sexual liaison between MLK and a women who was not his wife.
That is the tape that proclaimed, "I'm white tonite".
Coretta Scott King was NOT amused......
Michael Eric Dyson's book, "I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr." discusses King's sexual piccadillos.......
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did you think no one would read the entire report? I pulled up the link and couldn't find anything close to what you posted. In fact there were no quotes from the wiretaps at all. They were only referred to. There were probably tapes admitted to the hearings but they aren't on this link. And none of the hearings referred to Hoovers frilly panties either.
It did remind me however of the depth of government abuse that Hoover employed. Your kind of guy, thats for sure. He was sure everyone was a Commie, Marxist, Leninist operative and was willing to use the power of the government to destroy lives without reservation. Of course he was a racist, extortionist too but that was just for kicks.
Inhale this boob head:
The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." 9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' 10 The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." 11 Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the "Man of the Year," an honor which elicited Director Hoover's comment that "they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." 12 Hoover wrote "astounding" across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI's efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death. Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize. 13
The FBI sent a audiotape to the residence of MLK.
The audiotape captured a sexual liaison between MLK and a women who was not his wife.
That is the tape that proclaimed, "I'm white tonite".
Coretta Scott King was NOT amused......
Michael Eric Dyson's book, "I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr." discusses King's sexual piccadillos.......
So, Michael's right. You are a liar. You posted that they were in the Church report that you linked to. Turns out they are referred to in a book. Not a Senate hearing.
His affairs with other women have been discussed for years and even reported on the History channel. Apparently only you and Hoover really thought that was important.
Oh so you post a link to prove your story that doesn't prove anything?
I also read the report and it doesn't have the quote you used.
Then when challenged, you switch your argument and say it was in a tape written about in a book you read. Of course, that would still not be proof, even if you did actually post from a book.
Friendly Bear has been proven to be a liar once again. Your efforts to cover up your lie using a link to a government report make it even worse.
Telling two lies does not make it truth. No matter how many times you lie.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Oh so you post a link to prove your story that doesn't prove anything?
I also read the report and it doesn't have the quote you used.
Then when challenged, you switch your argument and say it was in a tape written about in a book you read. Of course, that would still not be proof, even if you did actually post from a book.
Friendly Bear has been proven to be a liar once again. Your efforts to cover up your lie using a link to a government report make it even worse.
Telling two lies does not make it truth. No matter how many times you lie.
Because of the very incendiary nature of the tape recordings of the Reverand King, the published reports tend to soften the actual recordings so as to protect the dignity of the wife of the martyr, Coretta Scott King.
Nonetheless, the quote by Dr. King is accurate.
All in all, a tawdry affair at best.
Not listening any more, liar.
You really should give up on this thread.
When you don't know what you are talking about, it is hard to know when to stop.
Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Isn't that what Psychologists call transfer? Clinton has nothing to do with this.
Here's a definition of flip flop for ya there, wrinkle... or maybe McCain didn't flip-flop... maybe he just "found religion." [:o)]
John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
01/16/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421
"I don't think the governor's tax cut is too big—it's just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. ...
"I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich."
—Discussion with media, reported in "Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans," Los Angeles Times, and "GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,"
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it's clear that there's a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don't think it's fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans."
—NBC's "Meet the Press," Jan. 16, 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"There's one big difference between me and the others—I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I'll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation."
—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. ...
"We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. ... We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.
"We will need resources to deal with ... responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers."
—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Not listening any more, liar.
You really should give up on this thread.
When you don't know what you are talking about, it is hard to know when to stop.
The Church Senate Intelligence committee studied a number of issues:
--CIA involvement in foreign assassinations.
--U.S. Army spying on domestic dissident organizations.
--FBI spying on MLK.
Feel free to research at your leisure. The Committee issued FOURTEEN separate reports.
Nonetheless, the Church Report on the FBI did discuss the FBI smear campaign against MLK, including providing the aforementioned audiotape to him family, with the suggestion that he commit suicide to avoid public embarrassment....
He declined, and someone implemented Plan B.
Still no proof of your lies.
Friendly Bear = Liar.
Stop insulting us. Stop.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Here's a definition of flip flop for ya there, wrinkle... or maybe McCain didn't flip-flop... maybe he just "found religion." [:o)]
John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
01/16/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421
"I don't think the governor's tax cut is too big—it's just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. ...
"I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich."
—Discussion with media, reported in "Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans," Los Angeles Times, and "GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,"
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it's clear that there's a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don't think it's fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans."
—NBC's "Meet the Press," Jan. 16, 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"There's one big difference between me and the others—I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I'll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation."
—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. ...
"We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. ... We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.
"We will need resources to deal with ... responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers."
—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.
That was the McCain that I was impressed with. He's gone.
http://www.timwise.org/
Whoa. I didn't know anybody was allowed to just come out and tell the truth like that.
MLK was no saint... and I think you owe FB an appology...
Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the influence of Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under constant surveillance.
The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about communism.
But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life -- details the FBI was able to use against him.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html
On Jan. 6, 1964, FBI men installed microphones in King's Washington, D.C., hotel room and turned on the tape recorder. According to officials who heard the tapes, King that night betrayed his wife, Coretta--not for the first or the last time--shouting, amid his most private activities, "I'm ****ing for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Later that year, agents anonymously shipped King "a 'highlight' recording of bugged sex groans and party jokes" along with a letter warning him: "You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They called it the "suicide package."
http://www.slate.com/id/3043/
When the Bureau installed wiretaps in King's office, these taps provided absolutely no evidence that Levison's interest in King was other than a shared commitment to the civil rights movement. They did, however, provide the FBI with its first inkling of King's promiscuous sexual activities, which would later be amply augmented by surveillance bugs installed in his hotel rooms.
http://www.historynet.com/martin-luther-king-jr-fbis-campaign-to-discredit-the-civil-rights-leader.htm/print
in 1964, the FBI sent King a tape they had made of him having sex with women other than his wife and they threatened to release it to the public if he didn't resign his leadership of the movement. But the letter they sent with the tape blackmailing him when even further. The FBI wrote:"King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Negroes. White people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don't have one at this times that is any where near your equal. You are no clergyman and you know it. I repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that."
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/king.htm#FBI
quote:
Originally posted by Juan Mad Okie
MLK was no saint... and I think you owe FB an appology...
Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the influence of Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under constant surveillance.
The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about communism.
But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life -- details the FBI was able to use against him.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html
On Jan. 6, 1964, FBI men installed microphones in King's Washington, D.C., hotel room and turned on the tape recorder. According to officials who heard the tapes, King that night betrayed his wife, Coretta--not for the first or the last time--shouting, amid his most private activities, "I'm ****ing for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Later that year, agents anonymously shipped King "a 'highlight' recording of bugged sex groans and party jokes" along with a letter warning him: "You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They called it the "suicide package."
http://www.slate.com/id/3043/
When the Bureau installed wiretaps in King's office, these taps provided absolutely no evidence that Levison's interest in King was other than a shared commitment to the civil rights movement. They did, however, provide the FBI with its first inkling of King's promiscuous sexual activities, which would later be amply augmented by surveillance bugs installed in his hotel rooms.
http://www.historynet.com/martin-luther-king-jr-fbis-campaign-to-discredit-the-civil-rights-leader.htm/print
in 1964, the FBI sent King a tape they had made of him having sex with women other than his wife and they threatened to release it to the public if he didn't resign his leadership of the movement. But the letter they sent with the tape blackmailing him when even further. The FBI wrote:"King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Negroes. White people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don't have one at this times that is any where near your equal. You are no clergyman and you know it. I repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that."
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/king.htm#FBI
Wouldn't this be the same FBI under JEH? You know, the cross-dresser?
[:O]
Just sayin'...
Not at all Juan.
Follow the thread. He said such tapes were part of public records in the Church hearings report and provided a link. They were not. He got the text of the tapes from a book by an author who quoted them. The author was not under oath and his sources are anyone's guess.
The tapes are also quite suspect having come from an agency led by a cross dressing vengeful leader who expressed contempt for MLK as early as 1962 and spent most of the 60's trying to unsuccessfully prove his Communist links. There were none. That is persecution at the basest of levels.
Then he expects others to believe that the tapes were authentic, undoctored and relevant? Well, it was enough for you and FB but no one else either cared or gave him credit.
How does this make white women feel who just aren't for Obama? Wise says he's against racism, he's just another black racist in white skin. He pretends to understand what it is to be a woman.
"Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women
Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November
By Tim "Whiteguilt" Wise
June 5, 2008
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.
That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing.
And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?
See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.
But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act."
While I admit that Mr. Wise could have been a bit less accusatory in his writing, you seem to miss the point. He doesn't say all white women who oppose Obama are racist--there are plenty of white women who would never vote for a democrat period. He is speaking of women who are strong feminists that supported Hillary, and all that she stood for. For those women, voting for McCain or staying home makes no sense. I am not sure if it is racism, but you have to wonder why a woman who supported Hillary would support a candidate that is so diametrically opposed to her.
Regardless, the majority of white women support Obama.
Didn't you just break two of your rules Conan?
He's just a blogger!
And, he doesn't fit into your paradigm!
Lastly, you've quoted a post that someone you hold in low esteem had posted earlier. FOTD posted this quote weeks ago.
OUch.
BTW, I think the pic of Obama smoking makes him look cool. Yeah, smoking is bad and stuff, but it looks like a pic from the Kerouac period. Cool, man.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Didn't you just break two of your rules Conan?
He's just a blogger!
And, he doesn't fit into your paradigm!
Lastly, you've quoted a post that someone you hold in low esteem had posted earlier. FOTD posted this quote weeks ago.
OUch.
BTW, I think the pic of Obama smoking makes him look cool. Yeah, smoking is bad and stuff, but it looks like a pic from the Kerouac period. Cool, man.
Conan rule #28: I reserve the right to post additional material from moonbat websites, if I so choose.
Conan rule # 2: I reserve the right to contradict myself with total impunity.
Conan rule #9: Do anything to keep my dear friend Waterboy confounded on a daily basis.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
While I admit that Mr. Wise could have been a bit less accusatory in his writing, you seem to miss the point. He doesn't say all white women who oppose Obama are racist--there are plenty of white women who would never vote for a democrat period. He is speaking of women who are strong feminists that supported Hillary, and all that she stood for. For those women, voting for McCain or staying home makes no sense. I am not sure if it is racism, but you have to wonder why a woman who supported Hillary would support a candidate that is so diametrically opposed to her.
Regardless, the majority of white women support Obama.
Wise seems to do a good job ignoring the issue of blacks who might be idealogically in step with McCain who will vote for Obama simply because he is black. Or blacks who never participate in the political process nor give it any thought who will vote for Obama, not on policy but on race.
Same type of identification issue Wise is commenting on, yet Mr. Whiteguilt doesn't seem to piece that together.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Didn't you just break two of your rules Conan?
He's just a blogger!
And, he doesn't fit into your paradigm!
Lastly, you've quoted a post that someone you hold in low esteem had posted earlier. FOTD posted this quote weeks ago.
OUch.
BTW, I think the pic of Obama smoking makes him look cool. Yeah, smoking is bad and stuff, but it looks like a pic from the Kerouac period. Cool, man.
Conan rule #28: I reserve the right to post additional material from moonbat websites, if I so choose.
Conan rule # 2: I reserve the right to contradict myself with total impunity.
Conan rule #9: Do anything to keep my dear friend Waterboy confounded on a daily basis.
Well, ok, as long as you're following the rules.[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
While I admit that Mr. Wise could have been a bit less accusatory in his writing, you seem to miss the point. He doesn't say all white women who oppose Obama are racist--there are plenty of white women who would never vote for a democrat period. He is speaking of women who are strong feminists that supported Hillary, and all that she stood for. For those women, voting for McCain or staying home makes no sense. I am not sure if it is racism, but you have to wonder why a woman who supported Hillary would support a candidate that is so diametrically opposed to her.
Regardless, the majority of white women support Obama.
Wise seems to do a good job ignoring the issue of blacks who might be idealogically in step with McCain who will vote for Obama simply because he is black. Or blacks who never participate in the political process nor give it any thought who will vote for Obama, not on policy but on race.
Same type of identification issue Wise is commenting on, yet Mr. Whiteguilt doesn't seem to piece that together.
Where did you hear that blacks are voting for Obama even though they disagree with him? White was responding to something that the media has said over and over (but seriously I think is largely untrue) that a significant number of Hillary supporters are not supporting Obama. If the republican party had traditionally recieved any significant support from African Americans that disappeared with Obama, I would agree with you, but that isn't the case.
And just because a blogger points out what they view as a contradiction in how people chose a candidate certainly doesn't mean they have to point out every contradiction that exists.
I do cringe when I hear someone on our side make reference to souless old white guys.
Besides perpetuating a stereotype, this kind of talk is unfortunate because of course we need old white guys to cast their vote for our candidate.
You need the support of old white guys to win anything in the U.S.
We are just about the only country that has really had a civil rights movement. Most other countries have not even taken their first step down this path.
You have to look back to the time when the Moors ruled Spain to find another culture that has been as open and tolerant as we hope to be.
Most other countries are still locked into colonial thinking. We are a culture largely divorced from history undertaking a bold experiment with sex and race and social mobility.
Of course when we talk about our beautiful mosaic that includes white folks too.
For all the uneducated crackers!
Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.
Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.
More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.
Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.
"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.
The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.
The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.
Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.
Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.
On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.
Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.
Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.
Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.
Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.
But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.
The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.
Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.
"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boa****l," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.
Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.
The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."
Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.
Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."
Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."
The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.
Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.
Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.
Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.
The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points."
Ron Fornier, used to work for McCain and is his shill in the press.
The issue, in this election, is NOT the color of Obama's skin, but the repudiation of the Bush years.
Obama represents a Change. McCain, well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer!
Still a lot of ignorant white folk in the Democrat party.
Obama will play well to the urban centers but I think he's going to struggle in rural America.
He better have a 10% lead going into Nov. 4 or the "Bradley Effect" may become known as the "Obama Effect".
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Still a lot of ignorant white folk in the Democrat party.
Obama will play well to the urban centers but I think he's going to struggle in rural America.
He better have a 10% lead going into Nov. 4 or the "Bradley Effect" may become known as the "Obama Effect".
The color of racism
Larry Elder
Are blacks really more racist than whites?
When three white men dragged black James Byrd to death in Jasper, Texas, President Clinton quite properly called the crime "shocking and outrageous." "In the face of this tragedy," Clinton said, "(the people of Jasper) must join together across racial lines to demonstrate that an act of evil like this is not what this country is all about. I think that we've all been touched by it, and I can only imagine that virtually everyone who lives there is in agony at this moment. They must re-affirm, and so must we, that we will not tolerate this."
Thus, the bigots who dragged James Byrd became Exhibit A, a national symbol for white racism and hatred against blacks.
But what about Colin Ferguson? In 1993, Ferguson, a black man, boarded a Long Island Railroad commuter train and proceeded to mow down white passengers, killing six, wounding 19. Before the killings, Ferguson made frequent outbursts declaring his hatred against whites.
But somehow, Ferguson never became Exhibit A for black racism and hatred against whites. In fact, when Nassau County executive Thomas Gulotta called Ferguson an "animal," Jesse Jackson accused Gulotta of "stereotyping"! Most Americans, quite reasonably, considered Ferguson an abhorrent, hateful, deviant murderer, not some symbol for black bigotry. Of course, both cases -- the Byrd killing and the Ferguson rampage -- are aberrant instances of racial hatred. But where we see black/white crime, the bad guy is usually black.
In one recent year, the FBI recorded 1.7 million violent acts -- murder, manslaughter, rape, and aggravated assault -- of interracial crime. Of that figure, nearly 1.2 million involved black-white crime. Ninety percent of these cases involved a black perpetrator and a white victim. Thus, blacks, while comprising 12 percent of the population, committed over one million acts of violent crime against whites. On the other hand, whites, while comprising 70 percent of the population, committed about 100,000 acts of violent crime against blacks.
Look at hate crime. In 1995, the FBI recorded 7,947 incidents of hate crimes. But blacks, again while comprising 12 percent of the population, committed 27 percent of hate crimes. Whites, 70 percent of the population, committed 59 percent of hate crimes. And of the nearly one million black violent acts against whites, how many were driven by racial animus? During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Damien "Football" Williams assaulted white trucker Reginald Denny. Williams clearly targeted Denny because of his race, even allowing a black motorist to proceed unharmed. But despite hate-crime laws on the books, authorities never charged Williams with a hate crime.
Similarly, when a group of black teenagers assaulted then raped the so-called "Central Park Jogger," few called the assault a "hate crime." Instead, many called the attack a case of "wilding," a practice where youths go on a rampage.
Are the majority of blacks racist? Of course not, no more so than are the majority of whites. The point here is perspective. When blacks condemn white bigotry, we must be equally vigilant about black bigotry.
Blacks face bigger issues. Inner-city public schools need competition. Blacks stand to benefit disproportionately from the privatization of Social Security. Calling off the war on drugs will, among other things, diminish the number of interactions between the police and civilians, decreasing the frequency of "DWB" -- Driving While Black. Screaming "white racism," and spending time and energy exaggerating its effect steals attention from deeper problems -- illegitimacy, bad schools, high crime -- which have little to do with white racism.
Black defense attorney Johnnie L. Cochran tells us, "Race plays a part of everything in America." But, recently, America's pre-eminent white racism fighter, Jesse Jackson, busied himself settling a municipal bus strike in Los Angeles (and receiving a $100,000 fee in the process). Jackson recently co-authored a -- get this -- financial advice book, "It's About the Money," with his son. So, just how bad can things be?
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton tells us, "It Takes a Village." Now, Reverend Jesse Jackson says, "It's About the Money." Maybe Mrs. Clinton and Rev. Jackson can team up on a new book, "It's About Hard Work, Good Values, Schools at Work, Responsible Parenting, and Avoiding Counter-Productive Behavior."
Conan, you need to avoid your counter-productive behavior!....
Landslide coming!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Conan, you need to avoid your counter-productive behavior!....
What, clinging to my guns and religion? I'm bitter I tell you....