So if Obama is the stagehand, does that make McCain the… travesty? tragedy? On no level does this insult work. Stagehands, at least here on Broadway, are not predominantly black, are not particularly slender, do not look like GQ models.
And if it’s beyond stupid, Oliver, I don’t think it’s particularly racist. If you want the latest in blow-your-mind racism, go for the Curious George T-shirt out of Georgia:
I assume you’re aware of this one but didn’t want to stoop to cover it. It’s only a local bar owner, but the press was all over it. Sez the EARS and CLOSE-CROPPED HAIR reminded him of George. Suuuuuure…… However many secret service Obama has, there should be more.
This is dumber than the time the guy got in trouble for saying “niggardly.” This is even dumber when someone declared “spear carrier” as racist, apparently confusing it with “spear-chucker.”
What is the inherent racism in stage hand? It’s a comment on Obama’s utter lack of meaningful experience versus McCain’s long experience in government. You can argue the value of those two means of measure, but to say that pointing out that Obama’s a former state legislator who hasn’t even finished one term in the Senate is racist.
Oh, and while I think the “Curious George” thing is stupid, why is it fair game to call Bush “Chimpy” and “the smirking chimp” and the like, but a similar comparison to Obama is off limits?
Of all the things to go after people for, their physical appearance is probably the dumbest.
I don’t actually get why “stagehand” is racist. I think he was trying to make a bad joke based on the use of the word “theater” [of war], and to say that McCain would look more like the “star” in that theater, whilst Obama looked like a “stagehand”–that is, Madden was implying that Obama would appear less like he belonged in that theater.
Of course, Madden is an idiot to make such a metaphor. Stagehands know more about the theater than the actors onstage, to begin with, and when something goes wrong in that theater it’s the stagehands who both know how to fix it and who have the will to do so.
McCain has, of course, already been to Iraq to stage the first act of what he believes is his Broadway hit. In that particularly disingenuous scene, he walked through a Baghdad market wearing armor and surrounded by Marine bodyguards, and then sang an off-key song about how safe the place was.
Iraq doesn’t need another overblown, empty diva like John McCain. It needs a competent stage manager.
Jay,
The shirt is just “stupid”? Again you just don’t see how depicting an prominent African American as a monkey is RACIST. Its just “stupid”. That racism stuff is stupid if that is what you mean. I don’t find this particular instance to be racist but its going to be a narrative much like when they called him “boy”. Its the sort of “how dare you!” attitude Republicans get when challenged on defence issues. Republicans must be awfully pissed that someone would defy thier failed foriegn policy, because normally Democrats roll over and play dead. Republican policy has not proved to make us any safer or to stabilize and advance our/world interest in foriegn policy.
Calling a white man a monkey over some physical resemblance is OK.
Calling a black man a monkey over some physical resemblance is bad.
And while I thought the Obama shirt was stupid, I took it more as a commentary on his knack for getting himself in trouble (albeit through his words and incredibly naive beliefs in foreign policy) than anything overtly racist. And lord knows that there’s plenty of that floating around.
But back to the original point… the appropriateness of the “stage hand” analogy aside (I think it was clumsy as hell, and didn’t convey the message it was supposed to — better to stick with the “rookie” and “rookie mistakes” bit), what was so damned “bigoted” about it?
Actually, McCain looks like a shambling old ward-heeling politician from Central Casting (even his constant refrain of “My friends…” is perfect for the part) next to the dapper Obama.
Calling a white man a monkey over some physical resemblance is OK.
Calling a black man a monkey over some physical resemblance is bad.
Actually, both are inane, but if you can’t understand why the latter is significantly more outrageous than the former, it’s because you have no sense of history.
Since I don’t believe you have no sense of history, I can only assume you’re being contrarian for the sake of it.
Spider, a bit of contrarianness, also a bit of “what sorts of things can I not be called?” As a straight white male, I sometimes feel a bit left out when I hear that pretty much everyone else has certain things they cannot be attacked over.
And I STILL wonder what’s so bigoted (meaning, I presume, “racist”) about the term “stagehand…”
I’ll tell you what, how about we make it up to you by giving you a couple hundred years of power and privilege and manifest destiny? Better grab what’s left of it now, though, because supplies are limited and it’s going fast!
Calling a white man a monkey over some physical resemblance is OK.
Calling a black man a monkey over some physical resemblance is bad.
Well, yes. Since it apparently skipped your mind again (unless you’re just one of those “enlightened” conservatives who conveniently “don’t even see race”): there was sort of a two-hundred year period of American history where it was socially and culturally accepted and endorsed to suggest that black people were primates and less evolved than white people. If you’d like, I can produce a handful of fourth-graders from Ms. Abermarle’s history class at PS 14 down the street to run this by you on a blackboard in case visual aids would help assist refreshing your comprehension of one of the most fundamental aspects of America’s racial history that until five minutes ago I assumed was actually understood by everyone in America who can read above junior high level.
What’s really grating here is that I honestly don’t believe you’re this fucking stupid, Jay. You’re just pretending to be to convince yourself you’ve won an argument on a website. And honestly that’s about a thousand times more pathetic than you just being a stupid racist.
Can anybody explain the supposedly racist overtones with the term ’stagehand?’
I mean, what’s next? Will somebody do a comparison with McCain and Obama, referring to McCain as a Porsche while Obama is a Pinto and claim that is racist?
Since Jay appears to be ducking my calling him out on his feigned ignorance, I guess I’ll humor the naive idea that this is actually a legitimate question and some of you honestly can’t see the problem here.
It’s offensive because he didn’t say Obama would look like, say a lesser soldier, or a worse politican, or even “compared to McCain he’ll look like shit.” For reasons beyond me, he delved into his subconscious and declared that Obama looked like McCain’s lesser assistant. He said standing next to McCain, Obama would look like the help. And for no rational reason.
The “stagehand?” In a walking tour of Baghdad? Exactly what the fuck would a stagehand be doing there? How about “he’d look like McCain’s chauffer?” That makes about as much sense. It would have made as much sense to say “next to McCain he’s look like a shoe shine boy” but I guess those might have been a tad TOO obvious, y’think?
The Fox twit specifically decided to compare Obama to a service role based on… nothing. Except, of course, “appearance.” And of course, cue the morons who then respond with deliberately faulty arguments to laugh off the idea that (gasp!) there might actually still be racial bias in this country.
Like I already told Jay, you either don’t understand why that’s wrong or you’re choosing to pretend not to, and I truly don’t know which is sadder.
I think you have to reach a bit too far to make this a “racist” comment, although it’s clear that Madden was attempting to disrespect Obama by referring to him as hired help. I suspect Madden would have said the same thing about any young man, black or no–it’s an attempt to push the narrative that McCain’s age and “experience” trump Obama’s youth by default.
I repeat, though, that Madden doesn’t know what he’s talking about if he thinks that a stagehand doesn’t have any power or ability.
Whatever. Does Amazon sell this revised Racist Handbook so I know what terms I’m allowed to use and not use?
Oh and it seems to me that when a guy is using the theater is a metaphor for what he is talking about (in this case the war in Iraq), then using the term ’stagehand’ to compare Barack Obama to John McCain is reasonable in that context, especially when comparing the two men.
Sorry, Oliver, I missed the memo where Barack Obama now represents all black men, and John McCain represents all white men.
The “stagehand” term was clumsy, and probably technically inaccurate, but the intent was clear. In this particular case, if you’re comparing actual experience, Obama IS a neophyte when compared to McCain. And that’s a large reason why Obama keeps making rookie mistakes.
Feel free to denigrate the value of experience; it’s certainly a debatable argument. But if you’re expecting to shout “racism” in a crowded theater and drop a few f-bombs to emphasize your point in the hopes of shutting down the debate, you’re seriously deluding yourself.
I missed the memo where Barack Obama now represents all black men
Tell this to your friends on the right, who think if something is remotely black Barack Obama has to respond to it. I’m not trying to shut down any debate, I just think anyone who doesn’t see anything wrong historically with comparing a black man to a monkey is a fucking idiot.
It’s a matter of degree. It’s one thing to just be an idiot, but it takes a fucking idiot to be that clueless.
It’s offensive because he didn’t say Obama would look like, say a lesser soldier, or a worse politican, or even “compared to McCain he’ll look like shit.”
At which point someone would no doubt cry “Why? Because he’s brown?? How racist!!”
I suspect Madden would have said the same thing about any young man, black or no
And if that is the case, then how is his comment racist? Seriously, I’m trying to “get” this. “Stagehand” is not an inherently racist word. And if the speaker would have said exactly the same thing about a white man in Obama’s position, how is it he’s making a specifically racist comment?
I do “get” that there are subtleties and “code words” that are used to highlight Obama’s race which can be used and the speaker has a certain “plausible deniability” that they didn’t mean it as it was interpreted. But isn’t it also true that sometimes the offense is in the ear of the beholder.
IMHO, the ear of the beholder is looking for things to take offense at far too often.
Thinking a bit further on this, rather than respond to this with cries of racism, wouldn’t a better approach be the one suggested by SpiderJ?
Madden is an idiot to make such a metaphor. Stagehands know more about the theater than the actors onstage, to begin with, and when something goes wrong in that theater it’s the stagehands who both know how to fix it and who have the will to do so.
Take the comment from Madden and say “Exactly right. McCain is the prima donna actor who can only read lines scripted by someone else while Obama is the guy who can actually get things done.”
>Calling Obama a stagehand is yet another iteration of the idea that blacks are too dumb to do anything beyond grunt work.
Lame. Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism? Yet more evidence for the “Oliver is obsessed with race” theory I guess.
Jay Tea,
“I took it more as a commentary on his knack for getting himself in trouble (albeit through his words and incredibly naive beliefs in foreign policy) than anything overtly racist. And lord knows that there’s plenty of that floating around. ”
I have met this cretin before(the guy who sold the shirts) because I live in Marietta,GA and I will tell you for what it is worth, that was NOT his intention. The man throws around the Ni#$%^ word alot. This man is not that nuanced in his humor.He is a racist pig and proud. To the issue of the stagehand comment, like I have said before, if he were called rookie or naive or inexperienced…fine. But this condesending tone, calling him “boy”, or a stagehand is very disrespectful and is meant to infantilize and degrade him as a human being.
Oliver’s right on this one (and I was wrong), by two different metrics. First, Allan Colmes picked up on the racist undertone when he asked Madden whether he wanted to retract his statement. Why else ask? I give Colmes points because as a white he’s more socially astute than I am, and racial insults are nothing if not social.
Second, if you traipse in from LaLa Land, “stagehand” doesn’t sound racist, but it’s said in a context of 300 years’ history of the “grunt work” that Oliver mentions. I couldn’t relate because Obama is one of the sleekest, most eloquent candidates ever to grace a stage, but I’m sure HE would get the meaning intended, as much as it beggars many an imagination when applied to him. (The stagehands on David Letterman look more like Henry Hyde or Jerry Nadler to me, but I digress again)
It’s impossible to look at racist remarks out of the total context. Even a non-racist (and sociologist Andrew Hacker insists if you’re white in America, you’ve got the bug–we’re all breathing it–big dose or small) can make a racist comment. I hate to agree with Hillary Rosen on HuffPO, but I’m afraid she’s right: “I learned that it doesn’t matter if Bill Clinton (for instance) is a racist or not. The intentions of a person speaking are less relevant in the moment than the impact of the words being spoken. So whatever has been said about African-Americans by white people in this campaign has been heard by many African-Americans as one more layer of seemingly innocent comments built upon a lifetime of insensitivity and slights.”
“Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism?”
Yes: McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama.
There’s one of any number of plain, direct subjective statement that means exactly what Madden meant. Here’s the problem: Plain statements, no matter how direct or accurate (in the speaker’s mind) don’t stick with people, especially in the media world we live in today. Like any good writer, smart political operatives turn to imagery to establish visual impressions that make their point while extending well beyond the actual meaning of the content.
Madden didn’t just want to say that Obama is inexperienced compared to McCain. He wanted to leave his listeners with a specific image that would resonate with them longer and deeper than a simply stated declarative sentence. Longer, because images make more of an impression, and deeper because images, especially certain archetypal images, trigger their own connections and associations in the mind’s of the listener, based on their own personal and cultural history and experience. Stagehand, while not archetypal in any real sense, is just an image.
Despite what stagehands actually do, as per SpiderJ, the word doesn’t connote experience at stagecraft to the average listener. For most people it connotes a subservient position to higher skilled artists be they actors or directors. The point being that Madden whether or not Madden meant “Obama is inexperienced” the image he chose to express that, actually connoted something else, despite its actual meaning. That something else is subservience.
Did Madden chose the image consciously or unconsciously? Was he aware of its impression or not? Who knows. The trouble with metaphors and analogies is that there can be a lot of subconscious stuff at work in them so their meaning often slips away from us if we aren’t fully in command of them.
The intentions of a person speaking are less relevant in the moment than the impact of the words being spoken. So whatever has been said about African-Americans by white people in this campaign has been heard by many African-Americans as one more layer of seemingly innocent comments built upon a lifetime of insensitivity and slights.”
Which actually seems to support the idea that offense is being taken where none is intended. If “whites” need to be more aware of the sensitivities “blacks” may have because of history, shouldn’t “blacks” also recognize that “whites” are often truly not trying to cause offense?
A bit more understanding on both sides (”I didn’t mean to offend and apologize if I did.” “I realize that and no offense taken.”) would go a far way towards getting us off these manufactured irrelevancies.
I’d agree that something like this instance is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but I disagree that blacks need to be less sensitive to this kind of thing because most whites “mean well”. To me that’s to overlook the long, long history of this sort of thing and gives whites too easy an out, regardless of what they actually meant. If someone isn’t trying to cause offense, they should know or have at least a feel for what might be offensive and speak accordingly.
Madden could have just as easily said: “When you compare the two, McCain is a lion and Obama is still a cub.” That’s a totally inoffensive statement because the emphasis of the comparison is their levels of experience without triggering other, unintentional readings. To continue the theater analogy, he could have also said, “McCain is ready for a lead role but Obama is still only a bit player.” Again, not offensive for the same reason. There’s lots of ways to express an idea without giving offense, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
As someone who used to make his living as a writer, I don’t consider this an issue of “political correctness” or “bowing to the thought police” as so many on the right like to characterize it. I consider it a matter of understanding how language works and using it in a precise but expressive way, which all good writers and speakers should be interested in as a matter of course.
There’s a huge difference here. The GOP has a history of using racism as part of their national strategy. This is something that is not true of the Democrats.
And in the context, and context matters, ‘Stagehand’ is certainly a term that can be seen as racially insensitive. Had he used the term, ‘Rookie’ it wouldn’t have been an issue.
Stroke obviously hsa no sense of history. For about a century after the Civil War, the Democrats were the party of racism, segregation, racial repression, and the Ku Klux Klan.
Then they moved on to more subtle means — LBJ and his Great Society did more to destroy the black family than anything the Republicans could ever imagine doing.
But I guess to his diseased mind, “history” starts as soon as it is convenient…
And the willful con distortion of history continues. I don’t want to go over it again, but the racist conservative Dems left the party after the Civil Rights Act and went to the open arms of Reagan and the Southern Strategy.
Yeah, but Oliver, it’s also a distortion to pretend that those Dems weren’t entrenched in the party for the decades before the party came to its senses and let the liberals take charge.
fafaroo: …regardless of what they actually meant. …
There’s lots of ways to express an idea without giving offense…unintentionally. </I.
See, that’s where I have a problem with understanding being offended. Yes, offense, even significant offense, can be given unintentionally. But to completely disregard what was actually meant or to ignore the fact the offense is unintentional seems unfair if not hypocritical.
There is a difference between planning to harm someone and causing harm accidentally. And there seems far too often an unwillingness to acknowledge the accidental nature, which comes across to me as the offended being to quick to grab the role of victim.
“There is a difference between planning to harm someone and causing harm accidentally.”
Of course there is and we’ve been down this role before. Not knowing something is offensive doesn’t automatically relieve one of the responsibility for saying it. More often than not, the offense taken in that kind of situation has less to do with what was said than the fact that the speaker should have known how it might have/would be taken.
In the case of Madden, it appears the Colmes gave him the opportunity to re-think and re-approach his wording. Madden refused.
>>“Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism?”
>Yes: McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama.
I was being a little tongue in cheek here - I’m sure that there are some comparisons that wouldn’t draw the racism cry from Oliver, it’s just that he’s so willing to push that button that its kind of pathetic.
Look, back in school I learned as well as anyone else that you can relate just about anything back to race or class if you work at it. That doesn’t mean its right or that its a useful way to deal with the world. People in general won’t know every bit of (ir)relevant history and won’t know ahead of time that something might be offensive. Most of us grow up and realize that either you can spend your time finding things to be outraged about (*cough* Oliver), or you can do something useful with yourself and save the outrage for cut and dried cases. And this isn’t a cut and dried case - not even close.
it’s also a distortion to pretend that those Dems weren’t entrenched in the party for the decades before the party came to its senses and let the liberals take charge.
Take the comment from Madden and say “Exactly right. McCain is the prima donna actor who can only read lines scripted by someone else while Obama is the guy who can actually get things done.”
People in general won’t know every bit of (ir)relevant history and won’t know ahead of time that something might be offensive. Most of us grow up and realize that either you can spend your time finding things to be outraged about (*cough* Oliver), or you can do something useful with yourself and save the outrage for cut and dried cases.
I’m reminded of the recent dust up over Chris Matthews’ (??) aborted use of “cotton-picking”. I haven’t actually gone back and tallied the comments (forgive me, CSS!) but the majority of folks seemed unaware of any racial overtone, associating it only with something said by a giant rooster in Saturday morning cartoons.
>Not knowing something is offensive doesn’t automatically relieve one of the responsibility for saying it. More often than not, the offense taken in that kind of situation has less to do with what was said than the fact that the speaker should have known how it might have/would be taken.
I don’t entirely buy this. On one hand, you are of course responsible for everything you say. On the other hand, it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to know the vast set of things that people might potentially take offense to. (Categorized by race, gender, and class no doubt.) On top of that, someone might decide to take offense to something for no good reason at all, such as Oliver did today. Seems to me that in such a case, the burden of proof is strongly on the “offendee”, as it were, to make the case that a. they are justfied in being offended and that b. everyone else should change change their behavior to accomodate those feelings.
Personally, I think it’s a whole hell of a lot easier to just say, “don’t show a lack of respect for someone else unless you are trying to do so” and let the chips fall where the may.
Jay Tea: “Stroke obviously hsa no sense of history. For about a century after the Civil War, the Democrats were the party of racism, segregation, racial repression, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
I like how you ignore the past 40 years to concentrate and the previous century, because that’s obviously more relevant than what’s happening today. The GOP of today is the party of racism.
“Then they moved on to more subtle means — LBJ and his Great Society did more to destroy the black family than anything the Republicans could ever imagine doing.”
I’d be amazed if you knew what the Great Society was and how it affected blacks.
“But I guess to his diseased mind, “history” starts as soon as it is convenient…”
By the way, you can officially shut up about my insults. There is no way you can complain about my behavior because you are just as bad as you think I am. The only difference if my use of profanity.
Haplo9: “I don’t entirely buy this. On one hand, you are of course responsible for everything you say. On the other hand, it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to know the vast set of things that people might potentially take offense to.”
It is possible to be racist in a sub-conscious way.
Back to the Lou Dobbs example. Who uses the phrase ‘cotton picking’ anyway? The fact that he was talking about a black person and that phrase popped into his head is evidence of what is going on in his sub-conscious. It’s not proof that he’s racist, but as part of a pattern it could be.
And of course he is. As they say on Avenue Q, ‘Everyone’s a little bit racist.’
Me. My mom. The woman who occasionally sits for my kids. My boss’s boss. Foghorn Leghorn. Bugs Bunny. The guy at the lunch counter where I occasionally eat. My grandmother.
There’s a huge difference here. The GOP has a history of using racism as part of their national strategy. This is something that is not true of the Democrats.
As I pointed out, the Democrats have a much longer and richer history of “using racism as part of their national strategy.” That’s because 100 years is longer than 40 (granting the validity of your argument against Republicans purely for the sake of argument). So you’re flat-out wrong — unless you pretend that the first 100 years after the Civil War didn’t happen.
I also know that the Great Society and its ensuing “social engineering” laws did more to destroy lower-class Americans than anything anyone has tried to do deliberately. The “War On Poverty” should be called “the War On Poor Families.” It set up welfare programs that rewarded broken families and single parents. Medicaid is a huge fiasco. Public Broadcasting has long outlived its value, nad should be sold off. (If Sesame Street and Car Talk can’t prop up PBS and NPR, then they need to fidn ways to pay their own bills.) And that’s just three examples.
As far as insults, Stroke… I dunno why you’re so concerned about insulting a “fucking subhuman” like me. I shouldn’t even be a blip on your radar — unless it’s that nagging feeling in the back of your head that you can’t stand how I routinely manipulate you into destroying what little credibility and respect you might have engendered among the other readers here.
And that STILL doesn’t explain the innate racist nature of “stagehand,” which was the catalyst for this whole discussion…
Like I said, I suspect the speaker was grasping for some variant of “amateur” or “neophyte” or “rookie” and pulled “stagehand” out of somewhere (probably his ass) and, once said it, was stuck with it… stupid, pointless, but hardly indicative of some deep racist intent.
On racial legacy, the Democrats bit the bullet and said we can no longer harbor racists in the party in exchange for electoral wins. LBJ gave up the south and the nation was better for it. For whatever electoral hurdles that presented to the party, no serious Democrat wishes Trent Lott style that segrationism had won. The GOP, on the other hand, has just recently sort of acknowledged the southern strategy, and as the rhetoric so far in this campaign shows us — they’re not going to give up the strategy this cycle. The amount of people who can be scared into voting based on racial animus is at an all-time low, but the right needs every vote it can get nowadays.
While there are clearly flaws to the Great Society, the policy preached by the GOP nowadays is a modern brand of Hooverism. The conservative ideal is a government that sits on its hands Katrina style while liberals have debates as to what degree government should be involved. The key difference is we think the government should be involved, and most Americans agree with that (how’d privatixing social security work out?).
I know many of you cons think that America is always on the verge of a right-wing wet dream, but that just ain’t true. Americans believe in a social safety net, and they think we ought to have at least one media outlet who can’t be persuaded to squash a news story because it makes the advertisers queasy. You guys have gone on for decades now about these programs and how supposedly destructive social programs are, but you can’t face the idea that America likes these things.
I’m not the sort of liberal who would prefer or even advocate European style socialism. But you guys need to disabuse yourselves of this fool-headed notion that the American people want a do-nothing government.
I’ve already explained the problem with the stagehand comment. You don’t think calling a black man a monkey is a big deal so I don’t expect things to penetrate.
>I’m not the sort of liberal who would prefer or even advocate European style socialism. But you guys need to disabuse yourselves of this fool-headed notion that the American people want a do-nothing government.
Who advocates a government that does nothing? Hardcore libertarians, maybe, but I think you are knocking over a strawman here. I think it’d be more accurate to say that you want a bigger (maybe much bigger) federal government than I do, and I think that your bigger version will probably not only not make things better, it will make things worse. Does that make me an anarchist and you a communist? I think not.
>I’ve already explained the problem with the stagehand comment.
Lets review. You tossed off a one liner earlier in the thread that mentioned stagehand, and that apparently constitutes explaining the problem. You didn’t engage with any of the abundant criticism of your position, which came from what I would describe as both “sides.” You didn’t “explain” anything.
“Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism?”
If McCain would be the star of the show (in a trip to Iraq) then, standing next to him, Obama would look like an Understudy.
There. Not that I agree with such an analogy but now it has the advantage of actually working as a metaphor of experience, and no longer has the awkwardly implied racism overtones of, as O-Dub the wise has pointed out, suggesting that the black guy is incapable of doing more than grunt work.
Honestly, thing is its sort of so obvious to me that this guy should have just come out and said he confused his theatrical terms and say he meant something else. Understudy, Supporting Cast, Chorus, Extra, Even to just say “I mean… okay, not a stagehand but what do you call…” to get to something else would have been much much better.
I’m sorry you can’t understand my very simple words. The stagehand attack is just another version of the step and fetch it, boy, argument that has been used against blacks for generations.
I’m not attacking a strawman, I’m attacking the con vision of government. They (you) believe it should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible. I don’t believe in big government, but I think we need to have a responsible government. We need a referee, we need an organization to do unprofitable big things. That’s why we have a government.
“I also know that the Great Society and its ensuing “social engineering” laws did more to destroy lower-class Americans than anything anyone has tried to do deliberately.”
Jay Tea, could you please provide links to statistical evidence that back up this claim?
Oliver, I live by a lot of aphorisms. One of those is “never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.”
Obama is about 25 years younger than McCain, and has spent his whole life on the public payroll. He’s been on the national stage for less than four years. McCain spent over 20 years in the military before going into politics, and he’s been in national politics for over 20 years. That’s a substantial differential in experience.
Likewise, here’s an alternate explanation for the “Curious George” bit. Some guy says to himself “you know, for over seven years people have been calling the president a monkey. I think I’ll call their guy a monkey, and see how they like it.”
Do a search of your own site, Oliver; while you don’t appear to have called Bush “chimp,” plenty of your commenters have. And I don’t say that to condemn you, but to point out how prevalent the theme is.
I’m not saying that these remarks weren’t bigoted; merely that there are other equally valid and less damning explanations available.
Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity. I don’t make it a habit to make excuses for racism. Call a black man a monkey, you’re engaging in a racial attack.
Jay Tea: “As I pointed out, the Democrats have a much longer and richer history of “using racism as part of their national strategy.” That’s because 100 years is longer than 40 (granting the validity of your argument against Republicans purely for the sake of argument). So you’re flat-out wrong — unless you pretend that the first 100 years after the Civil War didn’t happen.”
No. Democrats HAD a history. The Republicans HAVE a history. With the Republicans is is currently still going on. Or do you really think they care about job when they attack Illegal Immigrants?
Jay Tea: “I also know that the Great Society and its ensuing “social engineering” laws did more to destroy lower-class Americans than anything anyone has tried to do deliberately. The “War On Poverty” should be called “the War On Poor Families.” It set up welfare programs that rewarded broken families and single parents. Medicaid is a huge fiasco. Public Broadcasting has long outlived its value, nad should be sold off. (If Sesame Street and Car Talk can’t prop up PBS and NPR, then they need to fidn ways to pay their own bills.) And that’s just three examples.”
Actually, Medicaid is a major boon to the poor, and it is run more efficiently than private insurance companies are run.
Secondly, PBS and NPR viewers are more informed than those who watch nightly local news or cable stations. Unless you don’t think having a more informed populace is important, it would seem public broadcasting is worth the tiny amount of money it costs.
And complaining that welfare ‘rewards’ broken families and single parents stinks of some kind of crazy. It’s the same kind of crazy that makes people think free condoms cause kids to want to have sex. I don’t even know how to deal with this example without you explaining yourself. I would hate to mischaracterize your particular brand of insanity.
Jay Tea: “As far as insults, Stroke… I dunno why you’re so concerned about insulting a “fucking subhuman” like me. I shouldn’t even be a blip on your radar — unless it’s that nagging feeling in the back of your head that you can’t stand how I routinely manipulate you into destroying what little credibility and respect you might have engendered among the other readers here.”
Jay Tea, you can’t even get my heart beat to rise a single point.
I don’t use the word, ‘fuck’ because I’m angry. I use it because I like how it sounds. And because I find it amazing that so many people are scared of the word, and what it represents. I think it is a safe assumption that everyone here is the direct result of two people fucking, yet this is a word that under constant censorship. People who think ‘fuck’ is a bad word are children. People who never grew up and got over their fear of sex.
Jay Tea: “And that STILL doesn’t explain the innate racist nature of ’stagehand,’ which was the catalyst for this whole discussion…”
I think I’ll just quote Oliver here…
“I’ve already explained the problem with the stagehand comment. You don’t think calling a black man a monkey is a big deal so I don’t expect things to penetrate.”
Oliver: “Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity. I don’t make it a habit to make excuses for racism. Call a black man a monkey, you’re engaging in a racial attack.”
Of course skin color matter when it comes to racism. Something can be racist or not because of skin color because racism is based on skin color. Just like a man slapping a woman’s ass at the office would be sexist, but a man slapping a mans ass after her hit a home run would not be sexist. I can’t believe they don’t get this.
Actually, I can. It reminds me of a study I read about not too long ago. They people running the study came up with the conclusion that conservatives didn’t understand the nuance of language as well as liberals. I firmly believe that there’s a large chunk of conservatives who are conservatives because they are unable to handle change. They can’t handle uncertainty. They can only handle reality if is presented in clear, black & white labels, which is what conservatism gives them. ‘You’re either with us or against us.’ You can’t possibility think someone’s goal is noble but they plan sucks.
>Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity. I don’t make it a habit to make excuses for racism. Call a black man a monkey, you’re engaging in a racial attack.
Huh? Doesn’t the last 8 years of chimpy mchitlerburton count for something? It isn’t the same thing as slavery, but to say ‘no history’ seems a bit oblivious to the more recent example. Or would you claim that noone was ever attacking Bush’s humanity?
“Huh? Doesn’t the last 8 years of chimpy mchitlerburton count for something? It isn’t the same thing as slavery, but to say ‘no history’ seems a bit oblivious to the more recent example. Or would you claim that noone was ever attacking Bush’s humanity?”
So calling Bush a monkey is racist because people have been calling Bush a monkey for the past 8 years.
>I’m sorry you can’t understand my very simple words. The stagehand attack is just another version of the step and fetch it, boy, argument that has been used against blacks for generations.
*rolls eyes* Right. King Oliver expects to have his pronouncements accepted as fact. He doesn’t need to stoop to defend his position or engage his critics like the rest of us mere mortals. Grow up.
>I’m not attacking a strawman, I’m attacking the con vision of government. They (you) believe it should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible.
Oh! So its no longer “do-nothing government”, its government that “should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible.” Apparently in Oliver-land they are the same thing. I would call them different things. Or maybe you felt you needed to “clarify” a little bit. Whatever. Do I get to similarly mischaracterize your position as desiring a “do everything government”?
>I don’t believe in big government, but I think we need to have a responsible government. We need a referee, we need an organization to do unprofitable big things. That’s why we have a government.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your list of things that a government should do, but you are using very imprecise terms. I suspect that what you would consider about right is what I would consider ‘big government’, and what you would consider ‘big government’ i would consider a huge out of control leviathan. What does it mean to have a ‘responsible government’? If by referee you mean some entity that can uphold the rule of law and enforce contracts, then I agree. If you are talking about a referee that holds your hand any time some drama happens, not so much.
CS, words escape me in describing your dense-ness. Oliver said this:
>Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity.
I pointed out that saying there is no history here doesn’t seem entirely true to me, given that commenters attacking Bush as a monkey were most certainly attacking his humanity and were most certainly going for the whole ‘Bush is subhuman’ angle. Where did I say they were attacking him because of his race? That makes no sense.
Really, attacking someone’s humanity is a shitty thing to do, whether you do it for a really stupid reason (the color of their skin) or just merely a stupid reason (you don’t like their politics.) Oh wait! I forgot, I’m talking to CS! You know all about the second reason, don’t you.
>And the person who determines whether the listener is off their rocker is the person who gave offense in the first place? Yeah, sure, makes sense …
I agree that doesn’t make sense, but what you seem to be leaning towards doesn’t make any more sense to me - that the arbiter of what is worthy of being offended by lies solely with the person who ‘received’ the offense. Deferring to someone to that extent only encourages them to expect and abuse that deference, as I have come to believe Oliver does. The rest of us have to screech at each other for a bit, talk it over, and work it out in some way that doesn’t require one person to become subservient to the whims of the other.
“CS, words escape me in describing your dense-ness.”
Wow. So when I pointed out your argument was merely circular reasoning, you responded by… repeating your argument. It doesn’t get better the more you say it.
Seriously, I understood your argument the first time. It’s circular reasoning. You can’t argue calling Bush a monkey is racist because there’s a long history of racial attacks against white people by using the monkey insults against Bush as evidence. You need something more. Something that happened before Bush.
On the other hand, we have that evidence when it comes to the monkey insult with Obama. For a long, long time white supremacists argued that like monkeys, black people were somehow less evolved than white people. This is stupid on a number of levels, including the fact that there’s no such thing as less evolved. Scientifically that term as no meaning. But that’s another matter.
See, I can bring up independent evidence that shows the situation between Obama an Bush is different. This is indisputable, however, I sense that you will continue to dispute it. Am I correct.
“or just merely a stupid reason (you don’t like their politics.) Oh wait! I forgot, I’m talking to CS! You know all about the second reason, don’t you.”
And you are a liar as well. Congratulations. I don’t call people sub-human because I don’t like their politics. It takes more.
King Oliver expects to have his pronouncements accepted as fact. He doesn’t need to stoop to defend his position or engage his critics like the rest of us mere mortals.
I, by design, write in a way where I don’t need to explain everything in brain-numbing detail. What you and others desire is a style of writing who’s logical conclusion would end up being “George W. Bush, who is the 43rd president elected by the United States of America, said…” Come on, grow up.
Oh! So its no longer “do-nothing government”, its government that “should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible.” Apparently in Oliver-land they are the same thing. I would call them different things.
Those are the same things. Conservatives desire a government so small it can’t really do much of anything. Then they either give an honest answer and say they don’t give a shit about those who would be left behind and screwed by such a government, or they bullshit about how private charity will pick up all the slack and the magical market will police business on its own.
It’s not the size of government I care about. I want the right size government to get the job done. If it takes one bean counter, great. If it takes an entire office building filled with bean counters, so be it. I’m interested in a government that gets the functioning of a society done, not an idealogical exercise where we can giggle about the government getting smaller while ignoring its lack of response. We especially need government for long term expensive projects that corporations see no immediate upside to investing in. At the end of the day those same corporations tend to reap the benefits of government investment anyway. So be it.
CS: I think I’ll bow out of this one - when you seem to arbitrarily pick a meaning from my words that is quite a bit different than what I think is the plain meaning, then we have reached the point of wasting time.
I’m surprised you didn’t supply any links to support your claims about the Great Society. Do we put that down to malice or stupidity?
Of course, placing this passage is an easier call, I think:
Obama is about 25 years younger than McCain, and has spent his whole life on the public payroll. He’s been on the national stage for less than four years. McCain spent over 20 years in the military before going into politics, and he’s been in national politics for over 20 years. That’s a substantial differential in experience.
One look at Obama’s bio will tell you that from 1993 to 1996 he worked full-time as an associate attorney at a private law firm in Chicago. After 1996, when he was elected to the the Illinois Senate, he continued to work for the firm through 2000 on a part-time basis.
He has also worked as a part-time con law teacher at the University of Chicago Law School which is a private school.
So the statement that Obama has spent his entire life on the public payroll is just flat out wrong.
But while you applied the phrase “spent his whole life on the public payroll” to Obama incorrectly, you didn’t use the same phrase to describe McCain’s resume at all. I have to ask you why?
According to you, McCain spent 20 years in the military and then another 20 years as an elected official. Looking at McCain’s bio, he went straight from the US Naval Academy to the Navy in 1958. That was 50 years ago. So McCain has been on the public payroll himself for exactly 50 years, not 40 as your numbers imply. If we include the fact that McCain’s dad was a naval officer his entire life, that means McCain has not spent a single day of his 72 years on the planet off the public payroll.
“The rest of us have to screech at each other for a bit, talk it over, and work it out in some way that doesn’t require one person to become subservient to the whims of the other.”
Thus is the nature of language and meaning, my friend.
>I, by design, write in a way where I don’t need to explain everything in brain-numbing detail. What you and others desire is a style of writing who’s logical conclusion would end up being “George W. Bush, who is the 43rd president elected by the United States of America, said…” Come on, grow up.
Oliver, this is how the thread went:
Oliver: I assert A.
Variety of commenters: What about B? Or C? Or D?
Oliver: I assert A.
Your claim that you save on words is just a weak way of rationalizing a way for you to avoid dealing with B or C or D. It’s a common theme for you, and it’s crap. You’ve done the same thing when you mischaracterize political opponents words - commenters point out the flaws in your claim, usually by pointing out the context, and your response is to ignore those arguments and say, “They said these words!” again. I have a hard time believing that you don’t understand this and you think its easier to just play dumb (which is probably true), but you concede arguments when you don’t address counter points. Sorry.
>Those are the same things. Conservatives desire a government so small it can’t really do much of anything. Then they either give an honest answer and say they don’t give a shit about those who would be left behind and screwed by such a government, or they bullshit about how private charity will pick up all the slack and the magical market will police business on its own.
I think you have a caricatured view of people who don’t share your views. (Which is probably human nature, to some extent.) I would agree with your claim that we need government to do long term expensive things that companies wouldn’t do. How else would we get an extensive system of roads? Electrical infrastructure out to rural areas? You keep repeating that like its a contentious thing. There are some things that only the government can reasonably do, and all but the most hardcore libertarians would agree with you. I would personally have two general problems with what you said above though:
1. You seem to have the attitude that you want a certain level of government, and you don’t care what it costs to get that. Would you be as enthusiastic if it required 50% tax rates to get it? 70%?
2. You don’t seem concerned with the tradeoffs inherent in any government program. Social programs that give money to people will encourage dependency on those programs, for example. Regulations can discourage investment. Bureaucracy can inhibit innovation. This isn’t to say that these things should never be done, but the impulse in politics is to make it seem like you can solve a problem by waving the magical government wand, and avoid dealing with the tradeoffs. And there are always tradeoffs. Sometimes the tradeoffs are worth the benefit. Sometimes they are not. All to often, the tradeoffs are never mentioned.
Just like a man slapping a woman’s ass at the office would be sexist, but a man slapping a mans ass after her hit a home run would not be sexist. I can’t believe they don’t get this.
You’ve changed multiple variables. The sex involved and the context.
What about a man slapping a man’s ass at the office, or a man slapping his female teammate’s ass after she hit a home run? Would the former not be odd even sexist in some way (an unwanted contact because someone expressed their desire inappropriately) and the latter be an accepted expression of camaraderie?
So if Obama is the stagehand, does that make McCain the… travesty? tragedy? On no level does this insult work. Stagehands, at least here on Broadway, are not predominantly black, are not particularly slender, do not look like GQ models.
And if it’s beyond stupid, Oliver, I don’t think it’s particularly racist. If you want the latest in blow-your-mind racism, go for the Curious George T-shirt out of Georgia:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/outrage-at-obamacurious-george-t-shirts
I assume you’re aware of this one but didn’t want to stoop to cover it. It’s only a local bar owner, but the press was all over it. Sez the EARS and CLOSE-CROPPED HAIR reminded him of George. Suuuuuure…… However many secret service Obama has, there should be more.
This is dumber than the time the guy got in trouble for saying “niggardly.” This is even dumber when someone declared “spear carrier” as racist, apparently confusing it with “spear-chucker.”
What is the inherent racism in stage hand? It’s a comment on Obama’s utter lack of meaningful experience versus McCain’s long experience in government. You can argue the value of those two means of measure, but to say that pointing out that Obama’s a former state legislator who hasn’t even finished one term in the Senate is racist.
Oh, and while I think the “Curious George” thing is stupid, why is it fair game to call Bush “Chimpy” and “the smirking chimp” and the like, but a similar comparison to Obama is off limits?
Of all the things to go after people for, their physical appearance is probably the dumbest.
J.
Oliver did blog about the shirt, as I recall.
I don’t actually get why “stagehand” is racist. I think he was trying to make a bad joke based on the use of the word “theater” [of war], and to say that McCain would look more like the “star” in that theater, whilst Obama looked like a “stagehand”–that is, Madden was implying that Obama would appear less like he belonged in that theater.
Of course, Madden is an idiot to make such a metaphor. Stagehands know more about the theater than the actors onstage, to begin with, and when something goes wrong in that theater it’s the stagehands who both know how to fix it and who have the will to do so.
McCain has, of course, already been to Iraq to stage the first act of what he believes is his Broadway hit. In that particularly disingenuous scene, he walked through a Baghdad market wearing armor and surrounded by Marine bodyguards, and then sang an off-key song about how safe the place was.
Iraq doesn’t need another overblown, empty diva like John McCain. It needs a competent stage manager.
Jay,
The shirt is just “stupid”? Again you just don’t see how depicting an prominent African American as a monkey is RACIST. Its just “stupid”. That racism stuff is stupid if that is what you mean. I don’t find this particular instance to be racist but its going to be a narrative much like when they called him “boy”. Its the sort of “how dare you!” attitude Republicans get when challenged on defence issues. Republicans must be awfully pissed that someone would defy thier failed foriegn policy, because normally Democrats roll over and play dead. Republican policy has not proved to make us any safer or to stabilize and advance our/world interest in foriegn policy.
OK, White Whale, I think I got it:
Calling a white man a monkey over some physical resemblance is OK.
Calling a black man a monkey over some physical resemblance is bad.
And while I thought the Obama shirt was stupid, I took it more as a commentary on his knack for getting himself in trouble (albeit through his words and incredibly naive beliefs in foreign policy) than anything overtly racist. And lord knows that there’s plenty of that floating around.
But back to the original point… the appropriateness of the “stage hand” analogy aside (I think it was clumsy as hell, and didn’t convey the message it was supposed to — better to stick with the “rookie” and “rookie mistakes” bit), what was so damned “bigoted” about it?
J.
Actually, McCain looks like a shambling old ward-heeling politician from Central Casting (even his constant refrain of “My friends…” is perfect for the part) next to the dapper Obama.
Calling a white man a monkey over some physical resemblance is OK.
Calling a black man a monkey over some physical resemblance is bad.
Actually, both are inane, but if you can’t understand why the latter is significantly more outrageous than the former, it’s because you have no sense of history.
Since I don’t believe you have no sense of history, I can only assume you’re being contrarian for the sake of it.
Spider, a bit of contrarianness, also a bit of “what sorts of things can I not be called?” As a straight white male, I sometimes feel a bit left out when I hear that pretty much everyone else has certain things they cannot be attacked over.
And I STILL wonder what’s so bigoted (meaning, I presume, “racist”) about the term “stagehand…”
J.
As a straight white male, I sometimes feel a bit left out when I hear that pretty much everyone else has certain things they cannot be attacked over.
Oh, poor you.
I’ll tell you what, how about we make it up to you by giving you a couple hundred years of power and privilege and manifest destiny? Better grab what’s left of it now, though, because supplies are limited and it’s going fast!
Calling a white man a monkey over some physical resemblance is OK.
Calling a black man a monkey over some physical resemblance is bad.
Well, yes. Since it apparently skipped your mind again (unless you’re just one of those “enlightened” conservatives who conveniently “don’t even see race”): there was sort of a two-hundred year period of American history where it was socially and culturally accepted and endorsed to suggest that black people were primates and less evolved than white people. If you’d like, I can produce a handful of fourth-graders from Ms. Abermarle’s history class at PS 14 down the street to run this by you on a blackboard in case visual aids would help assist refreshing your comprehension of one of the most fundamental aspects of America’s racial history that until five minutes ago I assumed was actually understood by everyone in America who can read above junior high level.
What’s really grating here is that I honestly don’t believe you’re this fucking stupid, Jay. You’re just pretending to be to convince yourself you’ve won an argument on a website. And honestly that’s about a thousand times more pathetic than you just being a stupid racist.
Can anybody explain the supposedly racist overtones with the term ’stagehand?’
I mean, what’s next? Will somebody do a comparison with McCain and Obama, referring to McCain as a Porsche while Obama is a Pinto and claim that is racist?
Pretty we’ll see this:
Senator McCain: Senator Obama……..
Obamamians: RACIST!!!!!
Jay Tea - So far none of us on the thread see the racism. So I believe the onus is on Oliver.
Spider:
Shut up, you stupid STAGEHAND.
Will I get banned now for hate speech?
(Sorry, Spider, couldn’t resist.)
J.
Since Jay appears to be ducking my calling him out on his feigned ignorance, I guess I’ll humor the naive idea that this is actually a legitimate question and some of you honestly can’t see the problem here.
It’s offensive because he didn’t say Obama would look like, say a lesser soldier, or a worse politican, or even “compared to McCain he’ll look like shit.” For reasons beyond me, he delved into his subconscious and declared that Obama looked like McCain’s lesser assistant. He said standing next to McCain, Obama would look like the help. And for no rational reason.
The “stagehand?” In a walking tour of Baghdad? Exactly what the fuck would a stagehand be doing there? How about “he’d look like McCain’s chauffer?” That makes about as much sense. It would have made as much sense to say “next to McCain he’s look like a shoe shine boy” but I guess those might have been a tad TOO obvious, y’think?
The Fox twit specifically decided to compare Obama to a service role based on… nothing. Except, of course, “appearance.” And of course, cue the morons who then respond with deliberately faulty arguments to laugh off the idea that (gasp!) there might actually still be racial bias in this country.
Like I already told Jay, you either don’t understand why that’s wrong or you’re choosing to pretend not to, and I truly don’t know which is sadder.
Calling Obama a stagehand is yet another iteration of the idea that blacks are too dumb to do anything beyond grunt work.
And anyone who doesn’t understand why its wrong to call a black person a monkey is a fucking idiot.
I think you have to reach a bit too far to make this a “racist” comment, although it’s clear that Madden was attempting to disrespect Obama by referring to him as hired help. I suspect Madden would have said the same thing about any young man, black or no–it’s an attempt to push the narrative that McCain’s age and “experience” trump Obama’s youth by default.
I repeat, though, that Madden doesn’t know what he’s talking about if he thinks that a stagehand doesn’t have any power or ability.
Whatever. Does Amazon sell this revised Racist Handbook so I know what terms I’m allowed to use and not use?
Oh and it seems to me that when a guy is using the theater is a metaphor for what he is talking about (in this case the war in Iraq), then using the term ’stagehand’ to compare Barack Obama to John McCain is reasonable in that context, especially when comparing the two men.
Unbunch the panties fellas.
Sorry, Oliver, I missed the memo where Barack Obama now represents all black men, and John McCain represents all white men.
The “stagehand” term was clumsy, and probably technically inaccurate, but the intent was clear. In this particular case, if you’re comparing actual experience, Obama IS a neophyte when compared to McCain. And that’s a large reason why Obama keeps making rookie mistakes.
Feel free to denigrate the value of experience; it’s certainly a debatable argument. But if you’re expecting to shout “racism” in a crowded theater and drop a few f-bombs to emphasize your point in the hopes of shutting down the debate, you’re seriously deluding yourself.
J.
I missed the memo where Barack Obama now represents all black men
Tell this to your friends on the right, who think if something is remotely black Barack Obama has to respond to it. I’m not trying to shut down any debate, I just think anyone who doesn’t see anything wrong historically with comparing a black man to a monkey is a fucking idiot.
It’s a matter of degree. It’s one thing to just be an idiot, but it takes a fucking idiot to be that clueless.
Sorry it burns.
“In this particular case, if you’re comparing actual experience, Obama IS a neophyte when compared to McCain.”
Jay tea, maybe you should actually look up the words ’stagehand’ and ‘neophyte’. They aren’t synonyms.
It’s offensive because he didn’t say Obama would look like, say a lesser soldier, or a worse politican, or even “compared to McCain he’ll look like shit.”
At which point someone would no doubt cry “Why? Because he’s brown?? How racist!!”
I suspect Madden would have said the same thing about any young man, black or no
And if that is the case, then how is his comment racist? Seriously, I’m trying to “get” this. “Stagehand” is not an inherently racist word. And if the speaker would have said exactly the same thing about a white man in Obama’s position, how is it he’s making a specifically racist comment?
I do “get” that there are subtleties and “code words” that are used to highlight Obama’s race which can be used and the speaker has a certain “plausible deniability” that they didn’t mean it as it was interpreted. But isn’t it also true that sometimes the offense is in the ear of the beholder.
IMHO, the ear of the beholder is looking for things to take offense at far too often.
Calling Obama a stagehand is yet another iteration of the idea that blacks are too dumb to do anything beyond grunt work.
Wonder where they got that idea from…
Thinking a bit further on this, rather than respond to this with cries of racism, wouldn’t a better approach be the one suggested by SpiderJ?
Take the comment from Madden and say “Exactly right. McCain is the prima donna actor who can only read lines scripted by someone else while Obama is the guy who can actually get things done.”
>Calling Obama a stagehand is yet another iteration of the idea that blacks are too dumb to do anything beyond grunt work.
Lame. Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism? Yet more evidence for the “Oliver is obsessed with race” theory I guess.
Jay Tea,
“I took it more as a commentary on his knack for getting himself in trouble (albeit through his words and incredibly naive beliefs in foreign policy) than anything overtly racist. And lord knows that there’s plenty of that floating around. ”
I have met this cretin before(the guy who sold the shirts) because I live in Marietta,GA and I will tell you for what it is worth, that was NOT his intention. The man throws around the Ni#$%^ word alot. This man is not that nuanced in his humor.He is a racist pig and proud. To the issue of the stagehand comment, like I have said before, if he were called rookie or naive or inexperienced…fine. But this condesending tone, calling him “boy”, or a stagehand is very disrespectful and is meant to infantilize and degrade him as a human being.
Oliver’s right on this one (and I was wrong), by two different metrics. First, Allan Colmes picked up on the racist undertone when he asked Madden whether he wanted to retract his statement. Why else ask? I give Colmes points because as a white he’s more socially astute than I am, and racial insults are nothing if not social.
Second, if you traipse in from LaLa Land, “stagehand” doesn’t sound racist, but it’s said in a context of 300 years’ history of the “grunt work” that Oliver mentions. I couldn’t relate because Obama is one of the sleekest, most eloquent candidates ever to grace a stage, but I’m sure HE would get the meaning intended, as much as it beggars many an imagination when applied to him. (The stagehands on David Letterman look more like Henry Hyde or Jerry Nadler to me, but I digress again)
It’s impossible to look at racist remarks out of the total context. Even a non-racist (and sociologist Andrew Hacker insists if you’re white in America, you’ve got the bug–we’re all breathing it–big dose or small) can make a racist comment. I hate to agree with Hillary Rosen on HuffPO, but I’m afraid she’s right: “I learned that it doesn’t matter if Bill Clinton (for instance) is a racist or not. The intentions of a person speaking are less relevant in the moment than the impact of the words being spoken. So whatever has been said about African-Americans by white people in this campaign has been heard by many African-Americans as one more layer of seemingly innocent comments built upon a lifetime of insensitivity and slights.”
“Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism?”
Yes: McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama.
There’s one of any number of plain, direct subjective statement that means exactly what Madden meant. Here’s the problem: Plain statements, no matter how direct or accurate (in the speaker’s mind) don’t stick with people, especially in the media world we live in today. Like any good writer, smart political operatives turn to imagery to establish visual impressions that make their point while extending well beyond the actual meaning of the content.
Madden didn’t just want to say that Obama is inexperienced compared to McCain. He wanted to leave his listeners with a specific image that would resonate with them longer and deeper than a simply stated declarative sentence. Longer, because images make more of an impression, and deeper because images, especially certain archetypal images, trigger their own connections and associations in the mind’s of the listener, based on their own personal and cultural history and experience. Stagehand, while not archetypal in any real sense, is just an image.
Despite what stagehands actually do, as per SpiderJ, the word doesn’t connote experience at stagecraft to the average listener. For most people it connotes a subservient position to higher skilled artists be they actors or directors. The point being that Madden whether or not Madden meant “Obama is inexperienced” the image he chose to express that, actually connoted something else, despite its actual meaning. That something else is subservience.
Did Madden chose the image consciously or unconsciously? Was he aware of its impression or not? Who knows. The trouble with metaphors and analogies is that there can be a lot of subconscious stuff at work in them so their meaning often slips away from us if we aren’t fully in command of them.
Stagehand, while not archetypal in any real sense, is just an image.
Should read: “is just SUCH an image.”
Which actually seems to support the idea that offense is being taken where none is intended. If “whites” need to be more aware of the sensitivities “blacks” may have because of history, shouldn’t “blacks” also recognize that “whites” are often truly not trying to cause offense?
A bit more understanding on both sides (”I didn’t mean to offend and apologize if I did.” “I realize that and no offense taken.”) would go a far way towards getting us off these manufactured irrelevancies.
I’d agree that something like this instance is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but I disagree that blacks need to be less sensitive to this kind of thing because most whites “mean well”. To me that’s to overlook the long, long history of this sort of thing and gives whites too easy an out, regardless of what they actually meant. If someone isn’t trying to cause offense, they should know or have at least a feel for what might be offensive and speak accordingly.
Madden could have just as easily said: “When you compare the two, McCain is a lion and Obama is still a cub.” That’s a totally inoffensive statement because the emphasis of the comparison is their levels of experience without triggering other, unintentional readings. To continue the theater analogy, he could have also said, “McCain is ready for a lead role but Obama is still only a bit player.” Again, not offensive for the same reason. There’s lots of ways to express an idea without giving offense, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
As someone who used to make his living as a writer, I don’t consider this an issue of “political correctness” or “bowing to the thought police” as so many on the right like to characterize it. I consider it a matter of understanding how language works and using it in a precise but expressive way, which all good writers and speakers should be interested in as a matter of course.
“Wonder where they got that idea from…”
And the “But, But, But Clinton” fallacy returns.
There’s a huge difference here. The GOP has a history of using racism as part of their national strategy. This is something that is not true of the Democrats.
And in the context, and context matters, ‘Stagehand’ is certainly a term that can be seen as racially insensitive. Had he used the term, ‘Rookie’ it wouldn’t have been an issue.
Stroke obviously hsa no sense of history. For about a century after the Civil War, the Democrats were the party of racism, segregation, racial repression, and the Ku Klux Klan.
Then they moved on to more subtle means — LBJ and his Great Society did more to destroy the black family than anything the Republicans could ever imagine doing.
But I guess to his diseased mind, “history” starts as soon as it is convenient…
J.
Jay’s right. CS should have used “conservatives” and “progressives” instead of “GOP” and “Democrats.”
Otherwise, CS is correct that Lincoln’s party stopped having use for Lincoln’s principles some time ago.
And the willful con distortion of history continues. I don’t want to go over it again, but the racist conservative Dems left the party after the Civil Rights Act and went to the open arms of Reagan and the Southern Strategy.
Yeah, but Oliver, it’s also a distortion to pretend that those Dems weren’t entrenched in the party for the decades before the party came to its senses and let the liberals take charge.
fafaroo: …regardless of what they actually meant. …
There’s lots of ways to express an idea without giving offense…unintentionally. </I.
See, that’s where I have a problem with understanding being offended. Yes, offense, even significant offense, can be given unintentionally. But to completely disregard what was actually meant or to ignore the fact the offense is unintentional seems unfair if not hypocritical.
There is a difference between planning to harm someone and causing harm accidentally. And there seems far too often an unwillingness to acknowledge the accidental nature, which comes across to me as the offended being to quick to grab the role of victim.
Dang. Goofed the closing italics tag, but you can see where my own comments begin.
“There is a difference between planning to harm someone and causing harm accidentally.”
Of course there is and we’ve been down this role before. Not knowing something is offensive doesn’t automatically relieve one of the responsibility for saying it. More often than not, the offense taken in that kind of situation has less to do with what was said than the fact that the speaker should have known how it might have/would be taken.
In the case of Madden, it appears the Colmes gave him the opportunity to re-think and re-approach his wording. Madden refused.
fafaroo:
>>“Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism?”
>Yes: McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama.
I was being a little tongue in cheek here - I’m sure that there are some comparisons that wouldn’t draw the racism cry from Oliver, it’s just that he’s so willing to push that button that its kind of pathetic.
Look, back in school I learned as well as anyone else that you can relate just about anything back to race or class if you work at it. That doesn’t mean its right or that its a useful way to deal with the world. People in general won’t know every bit of (ir)relevant history and won’t know ahead of time that something might be offensive. Most of us grow up and realize that either you can spend your time finding things to be outraged about (*cough* Oliver), or you can do something useful with yourself and save the outrage for cut and dried cases. And this isn’t a cut and dried case - not even close.
It’s cut and dried to me or else I wouldn’t say it. I discuss pretty rarely, but conservatives reach for the fainting chair when I do. Please.
it’s also a distortion to pretend that those Dems weren’t entrenched in the party for the decades before the party came to its senses and let the liberals take charge.
That’s something I’ve never done.
Not knowing something is offensive doesn’t automatically relieve one of the responsibility for saying it.
There’s no ‘responsibility’ on the part of person saying it if the person taking ‘offense’ is off their rocker about what is offensive.
I discuss pretty rarely
Bwahahaha…..That’s about as credible as saying, “The sun rarely rises in the morning.”
Sorry, but those who think this was a racist comment are being stupid.
S-T-U-P-I-D.
Take the comment from Madden and say “Exactly right. McCain is the prima donna actor who can only read lines scripted by someone else while Obama is the guy who can actually get things done.”
Touche.
>It’s cut and dried to me or else I wouldn’t say it. I discuss pretty rarely, but conservatives reach for the fainting chair when I do. Please.
You want to find racism under every rock, knock yourself out. Just don’t expect to be taken very seriously.
People in general won’t know every bit of (ir)relevant history and won’t know ahead of time that something might be offensive. Most of us grow up and realize that either you can spend your time finding things to be outraged about (*cough* Oliver), or you can do something useful with yourself and save the outrage for cut and dried cases.
I’m reminded of the recent dust up over Chris Matthews’ (??) aborted use of “cotton-picking”. I haven’t actually gone back and tallied the comments (forgive me, CSS!) but the majority of folks seemed unaware of any racial overtone, associating it only with something said by a giant rooster in Saturday morning cartoons.
Lou Dobbs.
Thanks, Duros.
>Not knowing something is offensive doesn’t automatically relieve one of the responsibility for saying it. More often than not, the offense taken in that kind of situation has less to do with what was said than the fact that the speaker should have known how it might have/would be taken.
I don’t entirely buy this. On one hand, you are of course responsible for everything you say. On the other hand, it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to know the vast set of things that people might potentially take offense to. (Categorized by race, gender, and class no doubt.) On top of that, someone might decide to take offense to something for no good reason at all, such as Oliver did today. Seems to me that in such a case, the burden of proof is strongly on the “offendee”, as it were, to make the case that a. they are justfied in being offended and that b. everyone else should change change their behavior to accomodate those feelings.
Personally, I think it’s a whole hell of a lot easier to just say, “don’t show a lack of respect for someone else unless you are trying to do so” and let the chips fall where the may.
Jay Tea: “Stroke obviously hsa no sense of history. For about a century after the Civil War, the Democrats were the party of racism, segregation, racial repression, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
I like how you ignore the past 40 years to concentrate and the previous century, because that’s obviously more relevant than what’s happening today. The GOP of today is the party of racism.
“Then they moved on to more subtle means — LBJ and his Great Society did more to destroy the black family than anything the Republicans could ever imagine doing.”
I’d be amazed if you knew what the Great Society was and how it affected blacks.
“But I guess to his diseased mind, “history” starts as soon as it is convenient…”
By the way, you can officially shut up about my insults. There is no way you can complain about my behavior because you are just as bad as you think I am. The only difference if my use of profanity.
Haplo9: “I don’t entirely buy this. On one hand, you are of course responsible for everything you say. On the other hand, it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to know the vast set of things that people might potentially take offense to.”
It is possible to be racist in a sub-conscious way.
Back to the Lou Dobbs example. Who uses the phrase ‘cotton picking’ anyway? The fact that he was talking about a black person and that phrase popped into his head is evidence of what is going on in his sub-conscious. It’s not proof that he’s racist, but as part of a pattern it could be.
And of course he is. As they say on Avenue Q, ‘Everyone’s a little bit racist.’
Who uses the phrase ‘cotton picking’ anyway?
Me. My mom. The woman who occasionally sits for my kids. My boss’s boss. Foghorn Leghorn. Bugs Bunny. The guy at the lunch counter where I occasionally eat. My grandmother.
Stroke, here are your own words:
As I pointed out, the Democrats have a much longer and richer history of “using racism as part of their national strategy.” That’s because 100 years is longer than 40 (granting the validity of your argument against Republicans purely for the sake of argument). So you’re flat-out wrong — unless you pretend that the first 100 years after the Civil War didn’t happen.
I also know that the Great Society and its ensuing “social engineering” laws did more to destroy lower-class Americans than anything anyone has tried to do deliberately. The “War On Poverty” should be called “the War On Poor Families.” It set up welfare programs that rewarded broken families and single parents. Medicaid is a huge fiasco. Public Broadcasting has long outlived its value, nad should be sold off. (If Sesame Street and Car Talk can’t prop up PBS and NPR, then they need to fidn ways to pay their own bills.) And that’s just three examples.
As far as insults, Stroke… I dunno why you’re so concerned about insulting a “fucking subhuman” like me. I shouldn’t even be a blip on your radar — unless it’s that nagging feeling in the back of your head that you can’t stand how I routinely manipulate you into destroying what little credibility and respect you might have engendered among the other readers here.
And that STILL doesn’t explain the innate racist nature of “stagehand,” which was the catalyst for this whole discussion…
Like I said, I suspect the speaker was grasping for some variant of “amateur” or “neophyte” or “rookie” and pulled “stagehand” out of somewhere (probably his ass) and, once said it, was stuck with it… stupid, pointless, but hardly indicative of some deep racist intent.
J.
On racial legacy, the Democrats bit the bullet and said we can no longer harbor racists in the party in exchange for electoral wins. LBJ gave up the south and the nation was better for it. For whatever electoral hurdles that presented to the party, no serious Democrat wishes Trent Lott style that segrationism had won. The GOP, on the other hand, has just recently sort of acknowledged the southern strategy, and as the rhetoric so far in this campaign shows us — they’re not going to give up the strategy this cycle. The amount of people who can be scared into voting based on racial animus is at an all-time low, but the right needs every vote it can get nowadays.
While there are clearly flaws to the Great Society, the policy preached by the GOP nowadays is a modern brand of Hooverism. The conservative ideal is a government that sits on its hands Katrina style while liberals have debates as to what degree government should be involved. The key difference is we think the government should be involved, and most Americans agree with that (how’d privatixing social security work out?).
I know many of you cons think that America is always on the verge of a right-wing wet dream, but that just ain’t true. Americans believe in a social safety net, and they think we ought to have at least one media outlet who can’t be persuaded to squash a news story because it makes the advertisers queasy. You guys have gone on for decades now about these programs and how supposedly destructive social programs are, but you can’t face the idea that America likes these things.
I’m not the sort of liberal who would prefer or even advocate European style socialism. But you guys need to disabuse yourselves of this fool-headed notion that the American people want a do-nothing government.
I’ve already explained the problem with the stagehand comment. You don’t think calling a black man a monkey is a big deal so I don’t expect things to penetrate.
>I’m not the sort of liberal who would prefer or even advocate European style socialism. But you guys need to disabuse yourselves of this fool-headed notion that the American people want a do-nothing government.
Who advocates a government that does nothing? Hardcore libertarians, maybe, but I think you are knocking over a strawman here. I think it’d be more accurate to say that you want a bigger (maybe much bigger) federal government than I do, and I think that your bigger version will probably not only not make things better, it will make things worse. Does that make me an anarchist and you a communist? I think not.
>I’ve already explained the problem with the stagehand comment.
Lets review. You tossed off a one liner earlier in the thread that mentioned stagehand, and that apparently constitutes explaining the problem. You didn’t engage with any of the abundant criticism of your position, which came from what I would describe as both “sides.” You didn’t “explain” anything.
“Is it possible to make an unflattering comparison between McCain and Obama that *wouldn’t* result in you claiming racism?”
If McCain would be the star of the show (in a trip to Iraq) then, standing next to him, Obama would look like an Understudy.
There. Not that I agree with such an analogy but now it has the advantage of actually working as a metaphor of experience, and no longer has the awkwardly implied racism overtones of, as O-Dub the wise has pointed out, suggesting that the black guy is incapable of doing more than grunt work.
Honestly, thing is its sort of so obvious to me that this guy should have just come out and said he confused his theatrical terms and say he meant something else. Understudy, Supporting Cast, Chorus, Extra, Even to just say “I mean… okay, not a stagehand but what do you call…” to get to something else would have been much much better.
I’m sorry you can’t understand my very simple words. The stagehand attack is just another version of the step and fetch it, boy, argument that has been used against blacks for generations.
I’m not attacking a strawman, I’m attacking the con vision of government. They (you) believe it should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible. I don’t believe in big government, but I think we need to have a responsible government. We need a referee, we need an organization to do unprofitable big things. That’s why we have a government.
“There’s no ‘responsibility’ on the part of person saying it if the person taking ‘offense’ is off their rocker about what is offensive.”
And the person who determines whether the listener is off their rocker is the person who gave offense in the first place? Yeah, sure, makes sense …
“I also know that the Great Society and its ensuing “social engineering” laws did more to destroy lower-class Americans than anything anyone has tried to do deliberately.”
Jay Tea, could you please provide links to statistical evidence that back up this claim?
Oliver, I live by a lot of aphorisms. One of those is “never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.”
Obama is about 25 years younger than McCain, and has spent his whole life on the public payroll. He’s been on the national stage for less than four years. McCain spent over 20 years in the military before going into politics, and he’s been in national politics for over 20 years. That’s a substantial differential in experience.
Likewise, here’s an alternate explanation for the “Curious George” bit. Some guy says to himself “you know, for over seven years people have been calling the president a monkey. I think I’ll call their guy a monkey, and see how they like it.”
Do a search of your own site, Oliver; while you don’t appear to have called Bush “chimp,” plenty of your commenters have. And I don’t say that to condemn you, but to point out how prevalent the theme is.
I’m not saying that these remarks weren’t bigoted; merely that there are other equally valid and less damning explanations available.
J.
Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity. I don’t make it a habit to make excuses for racism. Call a black man a monkey, you’re engaging in a racial attack.
Jay Tea: “As I pointed out, the Democrats have a much longer and richer history of “using racism as part of their national strategy.” That’s because 100 years is longer than 40 (granting the validity of your argument against Republicans purely for the sake of argument). So you’re flat-out wrong — unless you pretend that the first 100 years after the Civil War didn’t happen.”
No. Democrats HAD a history. The Republicans HAVE a history. With the Republicans is is currently still going on. Or do you really think they care about job when they attack Illegal Immigrants?
Jay Tea: “I also know that the Great Society and its ensuing “social engineering” laws did more to destroy lower-class Americans than anything anyone has tried to do deliberately. The “War On Poverty” should be called “the War On Poor Families.” It set up welfare programs that rewarded broken families and single parents. Medicaid is a huge fiasco. Public Broadcasting has long outlived its value, nad should be sold off. (If Sesame Street and Car Talk can’t prop up PBS and NPR, then they need to fidn ways to pay their own bills.) And that’s just three examples.”
Actually, Medicaid is a major boon to the poor, and it is run more efficiently than private insurance companies are run.
Secondly, PBS and NPR viewers are more informed than those who watch nightly local news or cable stations. Unless you don’t think having a more informed populace is important, it would seem public broadcasting is worth the tiny amount of money it costs.
And complaining that welfare ‘rewards’ broken families and single parents stinks of some kind of crazy. It’s the same kind of crazy that makes people think free condoms cause kids to want to have sex. I don’t even know how to deal with this example without you explaining yourself. I would hate to mischaracterize your particular brand of insanity.
Jay Tea: “As far as insults, Stroke… I dunno why you’re so concerned about insulting a “fucking subhuman” like me. I shouldn’t even be a blip on your radar — unless it’s that nagging feeling in the back of your head that you can’t stand how I routinely manipulate you into destroying what little credibility and respect you might have engendered among the other readers here.”
Jay Tea, you can’t even get my heart beat to rise a single point.
I don’t use the word, ‘fuck’ because I’m angry. I use it because I like how it sounds. And because I find it amazing that so many people are scared of the word, and what it represents. I think it is a safe assumption that everyone here is the direct result of two people fucking, yet this is a word that under constant censorship. People who think ‘fuck’ is a bad word are children. People who never grew up and got over their fear of sex.
Jay Tea: “And that STILL doesn’t explain the innate racist nature of ’stagehand,’ which was the catalyst for this whole discussion…”
I think I’ll just quote Oliver here…
“I’ve already explained the problem with the stagehand comment. You don’t think calling a black man a monkey is a big deal so I don’t expect things to penetrate.”
Oliver: “Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity. I don’t make it a habit to make excuses for racism. Call a black man a monkey, you’re engaging in a racial attack.”
Of course skin color matter when it comes to racism. Something can be racist or not because of skin color because racism is based on skin color. Just like a man slapping a woman’s ass at the office would be sexist, but a man slapping a mans ass after her hit a home run would not be sexist. I can’t believe they don’t get this.
Actually, I can. It reminds me of a study I read about not too long ago. They people running the study came up with the conclusion that conservatives didn’t understand the nuance of language as well as liberals. I firmly believe that there’s a large chunk of conservatives who are conservatives because they are unable to handle change. They can’t handle uncertainty. They can only handle reality if is presented in clear, black & white labels, which is what conservatism gives them. ‘You’re either with us or against us.’ You can’t possibility think someone’s goal is noble but they plan sucks.
>Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity. I don’t make it a habit to make excuses for racism. Call a black man a monkey, you’re engaging in a racial attack.
Huh? Doesn’t the last 8 years of chimpy mchitlerburton count for something? It isn’t the same thing as slavery, but to say ‘no history’ seems a bit oblivious to the more recent example. Or would you claim that noone was ever attacking Bush’s humanity?
“Huh? Doesn’t the last 8 years of chimpy mchitlerburton count for something? It isn’t the same thing as slavery, but to say ‘no history’ seems a bit oblivious to the more recent example. Or would you claim that noone was ever attacking Bush’s humanity?”
So calling Bush a monkey is racist because people have been calling Bush a monkey for the past 8 years.
Circular Reasoning.
Would you like to try again?
>I’m sorry you can’t understand my very simple words. The stagehand attack is just another version of the step and fetch it, boy, argument that has been used against blacks for generations.
*rolls eyes* Right. King Oliver expects to have his pronouncements accepted as fact. He doesn’t need to stoop to defend his position or engage his critics like the rest of us mere mortals. Grow up.
>I’m not attacking a strawman, I’m attacking the con vision of government. They (you) believe it should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible.
Oh! So its no longer “do-nothing government”, its government that “should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible.” Apparently in Oliver-land they are the same thing. I would call them different things. Or maybe you felt you needed to “clarify” a little bit. Whatever. Do I get to similarly mischaracterize your position as desiring a “do everything government”?
>I don’t believe in big government, but I think we need to have a responsible government. We need a referee, we need an organization to do unprofitable big things. That’s why we have a government.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your list of things that a government should do, but you are using very imprecise terms. I suspect that what you would consider about right is what I would consider ‘big government’, and what you would consider ‘big government’ i would consider a huge out of control leviathan. What does it mean to have a ‘responsible government’? If by referee you mean some entity that can uphold the rule of law and enforce contracts, then I agree. If you are talking about a referee that holds your hand any time some drama happens, not so much.
CS, words escape me in describing your dense-ness. Oliver said this:
>Except theres absolutely no history of calling white guys monkeys in order to attack their humanity.
I pointed out that saying there is no history here doesn’t seem entirely true to me, given that commenters attacking Bush as a monkey were most certainly attacking his humanity and were most certainly going for the whole ‘Bush is subhuman’ angle. Where did I say they were attacking him because of his race? That makes no sense.
Really, attacking someone’s humanity is a shitty thing to do, whether you do it for a really stupid reason (the color of their skin) or just merely a stupid reason (you don’t like their politics.) Oh wait! I forgot, I’m talking to CS! You know all about the second reason, don’t you.
fafaroo,
>And the person who determines whether the listener is off their rocker is the person who gave offense in the first place? Yeah, sure, makes sense …
I agree that doesn’t make sense, but what you seem to be leaning towards doesn’t make any more sense to me - that the arbiter of what is worthy of being offended by lies solely with the person who ‘received’ the offense. Deferring to someone to that extent only encourages them to expect and abuse that deference, as I have come to believe Oliver does. The rest of us have to screech at each other for a bit, talk it over, and work it out in some way that doesn’t require one person to become subservient to the whims of the other.
“CS, words escape me in describing your dense-ness.”
Wow. So when I pointed out your argument was merely circular reasoning, you responded by… repeating your argument. It doesn’t get better the more you say it.
Seriously, I understood your argument the first time. It’s circular reasoning. You can’t argue calling Bush a monkey is racist because there’s a long history of racial attacks against white people by using the monkey insults against Bush as evidence. You need something more. Something that happened before Bush.
On the other hand, we have that evidence when it comes to the monkey insult with Obama. For a long, long time white supremacists argued that like monkeys, black people were somehow less evolved than white people. This is stupid on a number of levels, including the fact that there’s no such thing as less evolved. Scientifically that term as no meaning. But that’s another matter.
See, I can bring up independent evidence that shows the situation between Obama an Bush is different. This is indisputable, however, I sense that you will continue to dispute it. Am I correct.
“or just merely a stupid reason (you don’t like their politics.) Oh wait! I forgot, I’m talking to CS! You know all about the second reason, don’t you.”
And you are a liar as well. Congratulations. I don’t call people sub-human because I don’t like their politics. It takes more.
King Oliver expects to have his pronouncements accepted as fact. He doesn’t need to stoop to defend his position or engage his critics like the rest of us mere mortals.
I, by design, write in a way where I don’t need to explain everything in brain-numbing detail. What you and others desire is a style of writing who’s logical conclusion would end up being “George W. Bush, who is the 43rd president elected by the United States of America, said…” Come on, grow up.
Oh! So its no longer “do-nothing government”, its government that “should be uninvolved in as many cases as possible.” Apparently in Oliver-land they are the same thing. I would call them different things.
Those are the same things. Conservatives desire a government so small it can’t really do much of anything. Then they either give an honest answer and say they don’t give a shit about those who would be left behind and screwed by such a government, or they bullshit about how private charity will pick up all the slack and the magical market will police business on its own.
It’s not the size of government I care about. I want the right size government to get the job done. If it takes one bean counter, great. If it takes an entire office building filled with bean counters, so be it. I’m interested in a government that gets the functioning of a society done, not an idealogical exercise where we can giggle about the government getting smaller while ignoring its lack of response. We especially need government for long term expensive projects that corporations see no immediate upside to investing in. At the end of the day those same corporations tend to reap the benefits of government investment anyway. So be it.
CS: I think I’ll bow out of this one - when you seem to arbitrarily pick a meaning from my words that is quite a bit different than what I think is the plain meaning, then we have reached the point of wasting time.
Jay Tea,
I’m surprised you didn’t supply any links to support your claims about the Great Society. Do we put that down to malice or stupidity?
Of course, placing this passage is an easier call, I think:
Obama is about 25 years younger than McCain, and has spent his whole life on the public payroll. He’s been on the national stage for less than four years. McCain spent over 20 years in the military before going into politics, and he’s been in national politics for over 20 years. That’s a substantial differential in experience.
One look at Obama’s bio will tell you that from 1993 to 1996 he worked full-time as an associate attorney at a private law firm in Chicago. After 1996, when he was elected to the the Illinois Senate, he continued to work for the firm through 2000 on a part-time basis.
He has also worked as a part-time con law teacher at the University of Chicago Law School which is a private school.
So the statement that Obama has spent his entire life on the public payroll is just flat out wrong.
But while you applied the phrase “spent his whole life on the public payroll” to Obama incorrectly, you didn’t use the same phrase to describe McCain’s resume at all. I have to ask you why?
According to you, McCain spent 20 years in the military and then another 20 years as an elected official. Looking at McCain’s bio, he went straight from the US Naval Academy to the Navy in 1958. That was 50 years ago. So McCain has been on the public payroll himself for exactly 50 years, not 40 as your numbers imply. If we include the fact that McCain’s dad was a naval officer his entire life, that means McCain has not spent a single day of his 72 years on the planet off the public payroll.
Would you care to explain yourself?
“The rest of us have to screech at each other for a bit, talk it over, and work it out in some way that doesn’t require one person to become subservient to the whims of the other.”
Thus is the nature of language and meaning, my friend.
>I, by design, write in a way where I don’t need to explain everything in brain-numbing detail. What you and others desire is a style of writing who’s logical conclusion would end up being “George W. Bush, who is the 43rd president elected by the United States of America, said…” Come on, grow up.
Oliver, this is how the thread went:
Oliver: I assert A.
Variety of commenters: What about B? Or C? Or D?
Oliver: I assert A.
Your claim that you save on words is just a weak way of rationalizing a way for you to avoid dealing with B or C or D. It’s a common theme for you, and it’s crap. You’ve done the same thing when you mischaracterize political opponents words - commenters point out the flaws in your claim, usually by pointing out the context, and your response is to ignore those arguments and say, “They said these words!” again. I have a hard time believing that you don’t understand this and you think its easier to just play dumb (which is probably true), but you concede arguments when you don’t address counter points. Sorry.
>Those are the same things. Conservatives desire a government so small it can’t really do much of anything. Then they either give an honest answer and say they don’t give a shit about those who would be left behind and screwed by such a government, or they bullshit about how private charity will pick up all the slack and the magical market will police business on its own.
I think you have a caricatured view of people who don’t share your views. (Which is probably human nature, to some extent.) I would agree with your claim that we need government to do long term expensive things that companies wouldn’t do. How else would we get an extensive system of roads? Electrical infrastructure out to rural areas? You keep repeating that like its a contentious thing. There are some things that only the government can reasonably do, and all but the most hardcore libertarians would agree with you. I would personally have two general problems with what you said above though:
1. You seem to have the attitude that you want a certain level of government, and you don’t care what it costs to get that. Would you be as enthusiastic if it required 50% tax rates to get it? 70%?
2. You don’t seem concerned with the tradeoffs inherent in any government program. Social programs that give money to people will encourage dependency on those programs, for example. Regulations can discourage investment. Bureaucracy can inhibit innovation. This isn’t to say that these things should never be done, but the impulse in politics is to make it seem like you can solve a problem by waving the magical government wand, and avoid dealing with the tradeoffs. And there are always tradeoffs. Sometimes the tradeoffs are worth the benefit. Sometimes they are not. All to often, the tradeoffs are never mentioned.
Just like a man slapping a woman’s ass at the office would be sexist, but a man slapping a mans ass after her hit a home run would not be sexist. I can’t believe they don’t get this.
You’ve changed multiple variables. The sex involved and the context.
What about a man slapping a man’s ass at the office, or a man slapping his female teammate’s ass after she hit a home run? Would the former not be odd even sexist in some way (an unwanted contact because someone expressed their desire inappropriately) and the latter be an accepted expression of camaraderie?
I’m sur