0
   

Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.

 
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 04:29 am
nimh wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
(Rice) hasn't shown much particular involvement with achieving things for other blacks, the Afro-American community.

Why does anyone think it is incumbent on blacks who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and achieve great things to have an "involvement with achieving things for other blacks, the Afro-American community".?

It isn't, at all, you're right. Unless you do indeed want to be receiving "accolades from blacks", be "ballyhood", have it be "mardi gras 24/7" on the account of your professional success, when you make it up there ...

I mean basically, you cant have your cake and eat it too. Either you choose the road of representing purely yourself, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and making it out there as, empathically, "just another professional", not any kind of representative or fighter for the wider black community - and thats fine, and if you make it, more power to ya - but then there's no reason to expect that wider black community to be celebrating your accomplishment when you do make it, either. Whereas if you make it big while having testified an acknowledgement of / a commitment to some kind of larger Afro-American community throughout (like Jesse Jackson had, whether you agreed with him or not), then obviously you are more likely to be celebrated as an Afro-American too.

If you insist on other people practicing colourblindness all your way to the top, they're not suddenly gonna celebrate you for your colour when you do make it there, thats all.

(I'm soo behind on the discussion ... I keep lagging a bunch of posts.)


Fine, don't celebrate Rice's success for her color. But why denigrate her and insult her with "lackey" slurs and insinuate she is somehow a traitor to the black community?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 06:39 am
Quote:
But why denigrate her and insult her with "lackey" slurs and insinuate she is somehow a traitor to the black community?


Although I would not describe her as a lackey, that is not a slur. It is merely ba criticism. To me, she is an incompetent liar. Those who feel that she has turned her back on the black community and opposes policies that the most blacks support have a perfect right to air her opinion.

As far as Lash demanding a plaque for Rice from NOW, since when did he receive the moral authority to speak for feminists?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:18 am
Harper wrote:
As far as Lash demanding a plaque for Rice from NOW, since when did he receive the moral authority to speak for feminists?


But do they have any to give?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:30 am
Republicans get one black out of millions and suddenly they think they are the blacks' choice for the future. He he.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:31 am
Lash wrote:


I'm not quite sure when Madison became the bastion of liberal AMerica, or when libertarians became equated with the liberal media, SOphia. WHat is your point here, exactly? Confused
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:41 am
Lash wrote:


This is succintly what I have been trying to say:
(From OpinionJournal)

We got an insight into contemporary liberal attitudes toward race on a taxi ride not long ago. We were en route to Shea Stadium along with fellow conservative commentator Joel Mowbray, and our driver was a youngish Haitian woman who had her radio tuned to Air America. Mowbray started a political discussion with her, and she told him that she doesn't like Republicans because "they hate black people."

"Does President Bush hate Condi Rice and Colin Powell?" Mowbray asked, to which she replied that Rice and Powell aren't "really black" because they "don't think like black people."

The idea that black people are supposed to think in a certain way is, of course, a racist assumption in itself. But what's most interesting about this exchange is that our driver had in effect redefined race so that it has nothing to do with race. When she said, "They hate black people," she meant merely, "They disagree with liberal ideology."

The charge of racism carries a certain sting because America has a long history of real racism. But the progress the country has made on race, especially over the past 40 years, has been nothing short of stunning. Here we have a president whose detractors describe him as a "radical conservative" appointing a black woman to replace a black man as the most senior member of his cabinet.

Even the liberals who attack Rice on racial grounds don't have anything against black people in positions of power per se. They're just desperately upset because those on their side of the political fence no longer have a monopoly on the belief in racial equality. They're lashing out in an ugly way because they've lost the moral high ground.

It's good for the country that no one occupies that high ground anymore--or, more precisely, that virtually everyone does. Secretary of State Rice will stand as an example of the greatness of America, a country where, after much struggle, people are judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. We're confident that one day even liberals will appreciate this.


At least I've heard of "Air America," unlike "Sly in the AM," Rolling Eyes one "youngish haitian woman"s opinions sum up all liberals opinions because why? Mobray is conservative, you are aware Mobray is conservative, according to the source you are citing, right, you are aware of that??? Rolling Eyes I still haven't seen you guys link any source where a liberal media source has discounted Rice because of the color of her skin or admired her achievement because of the color of her skin. It only becomes about race when you put race into it, and the liberals haven't done that, not any place *I* have seen, but then again, perhaps *I* am out of the loop, living about as far south and west as one can and still be in one of the United States of America. Find a legitimate cite that makes your point, and we can have at it, Lash. Until then, you are only blowing bubbles, even though I know you think you are debating. Laughing

(edited to add: I just reread this and realized that Mobray was in the cab, not speaking on the radio, however, what he got from questioning a young immigrant, and how his compatriot in the cab was able to infer that one immigrant's personal opinions sum up those of all liberals is beyond my comprehension, unless s/he was jumping to a heckuvalotta conclusions based on not especially hot air... Rolling Eyes )
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:50 am
Quote:
one "youngish haitian woman"s opinions sum up all liberals opinions because why?


I'm lost. Where is this referenced in Lash's posted article?
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:54 am
kflux wrote:
forgive me but dose anyone remember Waco , Janet reno was a shame to women and americans everywhere.
i love connie rice and would ask her to run for the white house if i got the chance


Confused What is your point? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Janet Reno's actions to John Ashcroft's? After all, he saw the reports that said there were threats to plane travel within the U.S. and got a private jet authorized for his use in July, 2001 based upon the information in those reports.

Condi Rice claims she saw those same reports, but didn't read any mention of any threat... Confused After the fact, she still claimed it wasn't her mistake in any way~shape~or form: the 9/11 travesty was unpredictable, based upon the information she received at the time... Now, I guess that means John Ashcroft was what? Looking for an excuse to get a private jet to use and found one that wasn't taken seriously by his superiors in gov't but worthy enough to get him authorised to get a private jet? That is plausible, after all we all know the horror storied of gov't waste... Rolling Eyes Janet Reno, on the other hand, made a bad choice and owned up to it. Condi Rice made a bad choice (to ignore memos in front of her eyes) and 1000s of people got killed on her watch, but it was not her fault!!! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 09:57 am
JustWonders wrote:
Quote:
one "youngish haitian woman"s opinions sum up all liberals opinions because why?


I'm lost. Where is this referenced in Lash's posted article?


Quote:
We were en route to Shea Stadium along with fellow conservative commentator Joel Mowbray, and our driver was a youngish Haitian woman who had her radio tuned to Air America. Mowbray started a political discussion with her, and she told him that she doesn't like Republicans because "they hate black people."

"Does President Bush hate Condi Rice and Colin Powell?" Mowbray asked, to which she replied that Rice and Powell aren't "really black" because they "don't think like black people."

The idea that black people are supposed to think in a certain way is, of course, a racist assumption in itself. But what's most interesting about this exchange is that our driver had in effect redefined race so that it has nothing to do with race. When she said, "They hate black people," she meant merely, "They disagree with liberal ideology."
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 10:00 am
Thanks, PP.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 10:33 am
I'm a little confused about how, when a Madison talk radio host says something demeaning, it represents the problem with or mindset of "the liberals" or "the Democrats", but when Democratic (and liberal) Senator Russ Feingold then openly condemns it, that, eh, does not say anything about liberals, remains irrelevant.

I mean, Lash has been condemning "the liberals" or "the Democrats" for being racist about this. I see some irony in a piece of 'evidence' being trotted out that includes the state's foremost Democrat liberal actually condemning it.

Its like if Gungasnake were to say something offensive and Lash were to condemn him for it, and I would quote the whole interaction as evidence of how "the conservatives/Republicans" are typically offensive.

Just doesnt make sense to me, but that could just be me I guess.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 10:41 am
dlowan wrote:
the broad left in the US I am sure would applaud, as I do, the fact that such appointments are possible, while decrying the incumbent's politics? And - I am sure that many can appreciate Rice and Powell's brilliance and achievements, even while criticising their ideologies and actions?

Perhaps ... someone already referred to how the NYT, the WaPo, have indeed been complimentary about such aspects of Rice's appointment, for example. But as to how the party folk view it, I dunno, I'm not in America, but as far as the US liberals on A2K are concerned, FWIW, I think my observation pretty much holds ... most would rather bite their tongue than say something overly complimentary about any Bush Cabinet member, black white or whatever. And in a way, considering the post-defeat bitterness and the anxiety about what trouble Bush II might wreck, I can empathise with how they must feel ... I have to swallow twice myself before saying something overly nice about prominent VVDers (though vice-PM Gerrit Zalm put in a fine debut acting performance in Cool! ... ;-))
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 10:46 am
princesspupule wrote:

Condi Rice claims she saw those same reports, but didn't read any mention of any threat... Confused After the fact, she still claimed it wasn't her mistake in any way~shape~or form: the 9/11 travesty was unpredictable, based upon the information she received at the time... Janet Reno, on the other hand, made a bad choice and owned up to it. Condi Rice made a bad choice (to ignore memos in front of her eyes) and 1000s of people got killed on her watch, but it was not her fault!!! Rolling Eyes


Janet Reno had far more reason to "own up" to misddeeds and incompetence than Rice.

I think you are both taking the 9/11 PDB bit out of context, and exaggerating the complicity of the then six-month old Bush Administration in the series of errors that let the preparations for 9/11 go undetected and unopposed.

The first attempt to take out the World Trade Center occurred in the first year of Clinton's first term. It was followed over the next seven years by a series of escalating attacks on U.S. facilities overseas, and throughout the Clinton administration treated them as criminal problems, and not as the organized world-wide conspiracy that it was subsequently revaled to be. Apart from wasting a few billion dollars worth of cruise missiles blowing up sand hills in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan, the Clinton Administration did nothing to effectively thwart the growing threat.

Bush and Rice are certainly due some criticisn=m for failing to focus on the glaringly bad situation they inherited, however it is the worst form of hypocricy (and deception) to imply that they were at fault in some fashion that escaped those who preceeded them. (Images ofSandy Berger stuffing his socks and vest with relevant documents purloined from the National Archives come to mind here.)

Finally the supporters iof the Administration that appointed Madeline Albright as Secretary of State, should have little to say with respect to Condi Rice.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 11:01 am
Albright did great work in the Balkans ...
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 11:06 am
georgeob1 wrote:


Janet Reno had far more reason to "own up" to misddeeds and incompetence than Rice.

I think you are both taking the 9/11 PDB bit out of context, and exaggerating the complicity of the then six-month old Bush Administration in the series of errors that let the preparations for 9/11 go undetected and unopposed.


How is it being taken out of context? And what sort of jobs have you held that you aren't held accountable for making egregious blunders occuring 6 months into your position that you were supposed to be watching for? I knwo that when I've screwed up, I don't get promotions and the jobs where I am reviewed and rehired each period have not been renewed when I've screwed up. Condi's getting herself promoted after making a huge blunder in her current position. We have to assume that she has more than made up for it somehow behind the scenes in some confidential area of her position. Jmo, but it's b/c she's taken some of the heat for Dubya's erroneous actions. He's rewarding her loyalty and her ability to follow his directions to the nth degree. It takes a certain skill to follow such a man. Of course, since her original position of employment to Dubya was as his tutor, perhaps she's more invested in his actions than we could possibly imagine... Shocked
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 12:01 pm
nimh wrote:
Albright did great work in the Balkans ...


In fact she did. However, the European powers had, by then so thoroughly mishandled this situation, that it was difficult not to improve it. Her blunders with respect to North Korea and the Gulf Region were what I had in mind.
0 Replies
 
kflux
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 12:04 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Republicans get one black out of millions and suddenly they think they are the blacks' choice for the future. He he.


forgive me if i'm a little off , but blacks voteing repoblican went up 8% this year alone , maybe they are getting tierd of pandering Democrats , that promise a shot of morphine for a broken leg , while ignoreing real solutions to real problems
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 12:15 pm
kflux wrote:
forgive me if i'm a little off , but blacks voteing repoblican went up 8% this year alone

You're forgiven, but you are indeed off ... ;-)

In 2000, 9% of African-Americans voted Bush; in 2004, 11% did.

Among Latinos/Hispanics Bush support did indeed go up by 9% (from 35% to 44%), perhaps that's what you were confused with.
0 Replies
 
kflux
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 12:37 pm
thanks , but still minorities voting republican are on the rise.Maybe that is the statistic i'm remembering.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 02:29 pm
nimh wrote:
I'm a little confused about how, when a Madison talk radio host says something demeaning, it represents the problem with or mindset of "the liberals" or "the Democrats", but when Democratic (and liberal) Senator Russ Feingold then openly condemns it, that, eh, does not say anything about liberals, remains irrelevant.

I mean, Lash has been condemning "the liberals" or "the Democrats" for being racist about this. I see some irony in a piece of 'evidence' being trotted out that includes the state's foremost Democrat liberal actually condemning it.

Its like if Gungasnake were to say something offensive and Lash were to condemn him for it, and I would quote the whole interaction as evidence of how "the conservatives/Republicans" are typically offensive.

Just doesnt make sense to me, but that could just be me I guess.


It isn't just you - it's ridiculous - but evidence of the entrenched enmity and tendency to no longer see the "enemy" as anything but a sort of humungous, undifferentiated, mob - defined by the worst public utterances of its most extreme fringes - that has become typical of the more extreme posters here from both sides.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 04:40:26