The President Is Not the Leader of the Free World

To the extent that the world has a leader, it is not free.

I should end this post there, but something else occurs to me.

Obama, by virtue of his international and liberal upbringing, Muslim father, and not least his African lineage, may be tempted to see Southwest Asian and African leaders as more like himself than not.

Perhaps that will be a net positive for civilization in the long run, but there remains a distinct possibility that he will presume a false familiarity. Like an undercover agent trying to infiltrate a criminal operation, there are shades of loyalty and of distrust that no American can ever cast aside, as long as he remains such. Will the mullahs and warlords play on his heritage, and if so, will he play along as the cat or as the mouse?

Sphere: Related Content

A Post Which Roils

One of the blogs I troll is called In Socrates' Wake, written by teachers about teaching, especially the teaching of philosophy. I'm not a teacher, except by the abhorrent personal habit of forcing my wisdom on others, unfettered by their acceptance or appreciation of same.

Usually, ISW is instructive, even enlightening, and always thoughtful.

This post, while instructive and enlightening, just made me want to scream.

Teaching Feminist and Race Theory: problematic assumptions and positive transformations

I teach feminist and race theory to five students, four of whom are white, none of whom are female. Yet, for all their lack of diversity, they understand the philosophical relevance of gender and race. Critical theory for them, however, was remarkably new when they began. While they began their studies with me in order to broaden their perspective in social and political philosophy, none of them had ever reflected on some of the contemporary social structures and implicit patterns of thought that are implicitly sexist and/or racist. None of the students were sexist or racist when they entered the course, and they would have been quite defensive about being labeled as such. Yet, on campus, and in other classes, this was the challenge they faced.

I dare you to read it all.

Instead of screaming, I wrote this:

The most interesting aspect of this is how self-absorbed and myopic is the entire field of feminist and race theory. I am critical both of your methods and your goals, either of which you may accept or reject.

Because while you complain to young learners how difficult life is for someone who is not white and male, millions of non-white non-males are out in the world ignoring, sidestepping, or overcoming the hurdles placed in front of all of us, striving, excelling, and winning.

With the assumption of systemic "oppression", you doom all who buy into your world view to a life of learned helplessness. All of their hopes and dreams must go into cheating the system which they have been told oppresses them, or into the ballot box, which is cheating by official means.

Because individuals are not bound by the nature or the common limitations of the groups to which they belong. It is profoundly racist or sexist to say that they do.

I was struck by your statement that the students coming in had a remarkable lack of diversity, listing as your only evidence that four of them were open-minded white males. That displays an amazing lack of introspection, even hypocrisy. Because I'm sure you would agree that people are not defined by their skin or gender.

On another level, by stating a priori that there is "systemic oppression", you as the authority in the classroom establish that principle as an inarguable tenet of the class. This puts the student on the defensive. That's great for establishing the power of the teacher in the classroom, but not great for actually learning anything other than that racism and sexism are bad, which your students already seem to have known coming in.

Further, it makes the students feel guilty for being who they are. If that is your goal, you're nothing but a jerk with a lectern.

So I will assume it is not your goal. But it appears to be your major accomplishment.

As I said, it's one of the blogs I troll.

Sphere: Related Content

Transcript From U.N. Chat Room

NDA: UR terist!1!!
Pak: UR infidL!!1!
NDA: UR unclen etr of ded things
Pak: mmm - tasT cows! LOL!!1!
NDA: unclen h8tr
Pak: U wash w/ p00
NDA: UR 3d world country liv in hut
Pak: will pwn U w/ nuke
NDA: from fish boat, terist?
Pak: from sutcas, infidL!!1!
NDA: 3d world country: no sutcas!1!! use fish boat!1!!
Pak: 1st world country w/ nuk 4 U!!1!
Pak: U ansr fon 4 joos & wash w/ p00
NDA: have job, not liv n hut lyk U
Pak: liv n city & eat tasT cows LOL!!1!
NDA: not aftr nuk on grass roof LOL!1!!
Pak: ur bom ki11 r cows 2 LOL!!1!
NDA: betr ded than smel ur stink
Pak: U stink !
NDA: O good 1 dum455!1!!
Pak: Dingaling oo! git fon iz joos!
NDA: LOL hear dat? iz osama? nope fon not ring cuz no fon in hut LOL!1!!
Pak: 3G ifon w/apps & not smel lyk p00
NDA: tru dat lyk on fish boat!1!! nuke on way kwik hide LOL put on burka!1!!

Sphere: Related Content

In Which Jeff Echoes Loren Heal

I asked this:

OK, so now you've got the power.

Now will you tell us that "white folks' greed runs a world in need"?

In his post "Racism = prejudice + power", JeffG at Protein Wisdom says:

A dubious and self-serving equation long espoused by those scholars reared on identity politics, postcolonialist theory, and the Balkanizing structural imperatives of multiculturalism — given perhaps its most popular airing by Spike Lee, who, rumor has it, once got into a fight with a swirly cone, accusing the vanilla of suffering from jungle fever while berating the chocolate for it’s desire to “assimilate.”

David Thompson explores the trajectory of such thinking, leaving me free to ask the following loaded question: Now that the President-elect of the US is a black man, what does that do to this whole idea of power as a necessary component of racism?

Not a thing, Jeff. The talking point will be: "It took 400 years to elect The One; 4 years won't fix the damage done." Poet, me.

Sphere: Related Content

Durbin Demands Blagojevich Not Put Another African-American In Senate

Perhaps seeking the role of outgoing Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Dick Durbin (D-IL) demanded that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich not choose an African-American to fill the Illinois Senate seat vacated when Barack Obama resigned amid a storm of controversy over corruption and other issues.

Still appealing to the right wing of his party after having recently won reelection on a "Drill here, drill now" platform, Durbin refused to endorse any of the candidates put forward so far, all African-Americans.

Durbin, who is White and has ties to rural downstate Illinois, cited race as a major concern. The senior Illinois Senator said if the decision were his, "I would look for the most talented person who could serve this state and who would be likely to run for reelection in 2010."

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not Racism Unless You Have The Power

For e x a m p l e.

OK, so now you've got the power.

Now will you tell us that "white folks' greed runs a world in need"?

Sphere: Related Content

Why Iowahawk is Pleased with Obama Regime

Frank J takes hyperbole and gives it snark, but Iowahawk has defines this whole 'nother category:

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.

Simply brilliant.

Sphere: Related Content

Peter Beinhart Race-baits

From The Washington Post:

And just as younger Protestants found JFK less threatening than their parents had found Al Smith, younger whites - even in bright-red states - don't view the prospect of a black president with great alarm.

Speaking as one of those younger Protestants, I don't view the prospect of a black president with any alarm at all. It's not that Obama's black, it's that he's a lying, terrorist-loving, anti-semite tolerating, racist propagator of class envy himself.

w/t Weekly Standard blog

Sphere: Related Content

Assimilist

Michelle Malkin reports receiving the following email from an Obamunist:

My sympathies. I did some research, and you are exactly what I thought - an assimilist with no knowledge of themselves. What a hater! You attract minions of jealous non-thinkers. Thank you for making me proud to have voted for Obama.

A person's ancestry matters only to geneologists and racists, though I don't mean to tar one with the brush of the other. The idea that a person must cling to the culture of her parents is so illiberal as to be its antithesis.

By the way, Michelle, I think assimilist is code for 'Uncle Tom'.

Sphere: Related Content

Talking Points Memo Thinks LA Times Khalidi Tape Issue is About Race

Josh Marshall claims the LA Times Khalidi-Obama-Ayers Tape issue is about race, apparently because the people involved are not all white, and claims Khalidi is just a harmless professor.

But Khalidi was a spokesman for a terrorist organization.

And the LA Times Khalidi-Obama-Ayers Tape issue is not about race; it's about what Khalidi and Obama say and do on the tape, who else is on the tape, and why it isn't being shown.

Is the LA Times suppressing anti-Obama information?

Does Obama express or approve anti-Israel sentiment?

Were Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn at the Khalidi going away party, and does the tape contradict Obama's claims of casual acquaintance and knowledge of Ayers' attitudes?

In short, it's all about Barack Obama's actions and Barack Obama's beliefs, not about Rashid Khalidi.

Sphere: Related Content

Lest we forget what else the LA Times brought us ...

Barack, the Magic Negro.

I'd never read that March, 2008 article by David Ehrenstein before. I had assumed it was a mere puff piece on Obama. Instead, it was a patently offensive smear on all white people as closet racists. Speaking of the Magical Negro type in the movies and American culture:

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

Listing inoffensive black actors such as Sidney Poitier and Morgan Freeman, Ehrenstein concludes that this pattern and the popularity of the type must mean that whites hunger for such a type to ease their guilt.

But the logic isn't there. Just because a series of similar characters appears in popular films doesn't mean there is a hunger for its type. As a counterpoint, consider the decision faced by the screenwriter, director, and others involved in the film. Should the character be black or white? Should they tailor the script to the actor, or pick the actor based on the script? In designing the film, should they have the character be aggressively sexual, and if so, how does that affect the plot?

It's a lot more complicated than some imaginary racialist conspiracy.

Sphere: Related Content

Ross Douthat Starting to Clue In

Douthat finally notices that no matter what the McCain campaign (or anyone else who doesn't support Barack Obama) says or does this election cycle, he or she will be called a racist. That's because liberals think of liberalism as the definition of goodness.

Since they know conservatives don't espouse liberalism, they think conservatives must be somehow corrupted by some other external force that keeps the conservative from expressing his inner liberal.

That is partly why sex scandals among Republicans (not all of whom are actually conservative) get so much attention: it reinforces to liberals that Republicans (and by extension, conservatives) are all, or substantially, deviants suffering from repression of sexual gratification. Oddly, liberals typically don't see anything wrong with the behavior itself, as long as one shouts it from the rooftops.

Similarly, liberals see Republican financial corruption as greed luring what would otherwise be a fine and good person away from liberalism, corrupted by evil corporate interests.

And finally, to Douthat's problem: liberals charge Republicans generally and conservatives specifically with racism because racism explains to the liberal why anyone would be against the obvious goodness of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Never mind the obvious injustice to Paul; there are for more Peters, and each Peter gets to vote at least once.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama on LA Times Video: Israel Has No God-Given Right to Palestine, Has Committed Genocide on Palestinians

Treacher quotes a source:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Alleging genocide may go over well at going away parties for Jew-hating friends, but it doesn't play well in Tampa. Or in anywhere else in the United States.

Ya see, Mr. Obama, Americans like Israel.

Sphere: Related Content

LA Times Suppresses Obama-Ayers-Khaliki Tape - Cites Journalistic integrity, and all of that.

It has been known since April that the LA Times had a videotape (or recording) of Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn at a party for Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi. The Times story said

At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

First the Times refused to release the tape because they said they didn't want to unduly influence the election.

They said they would not reveal their sources. Journalistic integrity, and all of that.

Then they told readers who inquired about the tape that they'd already written a whole story about it -- wasn't that enough? Journalistic integrity, and all of that.


But the story is changing.

Now the Times reports that it received the tape from a source on condition that it not be released. Journalistic integrity, and all of that.

If they release it, why, their sources for tapes of messiahs heaping praise on anti-semites would just dry right up.

Sphere: Related Content

Around the Web

I used to do this a lot, but ... well, I did it once, I think.

Rachel Lucas has a girl crush on the insanely crushworthy Megyn Kelly.

Ace tells us that Democrat officials in Ohio probably broke the law trying to gather dirt on Joe the Plumber, but the LA Times won't release a video they have showing Barack Obama and Bill Ayers toasting and praising their mutual buddy Rashid Khalidi.

Frank J 'splains how the 21st century works to Syria.

Gateway Pundit shows Tito the Builder revving up Republicans at a Sarah Palin rally.

Michelle Malkin shows who is post-racial.

Treacher: Sarah Palin is smart. Joe Biden can't take the heat in the kitchen.

Brian Simpson does a fine writeup on health care policy at The Minority Report.

Jeff G at Protein Wisdom points us to the American Standard's timeline on the mortgage paper corruption crisis.

Sphere: Related Content

By Faith Are We Saved

In a 1995 interview, Barack Obama says:

EOB: I’m wondering if the ethnically-mixed couple of today, if when their child is thirty-four years old, if they’ll find it any easier to deal with these issues than you have found it?

Obama: That’s an interesting question. I’m not sure. I think in some ways there’s less novelty to the idea of mixed couples. They’re not seen as lurid or perverse in ways that I think they were thirty years ago. I think that this country is inevitably going to be undergoing changes simply due to demographics. There’s been a lot of talk about the “browning of America” ...

EOB: I was just going to use that same phrase ...

Obama: ... and I think that is going to be happening. We can’t ignore it. I think whether or not my children or your children will have to struggle with these same issues depends on what we do, and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now. And I really want to emphasize the word “responsibility.” I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children for them to go to school, or you’re an inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now.

So in his world, whites must pay higher taxes to heal racial division.

Thug.

Transcript (pdf) of the interview.

(w/t Gateway Pundit)

Sphere: Related Content

Who Injected Race Into This Campaign?

Barack Obama did, that's who.

When the jarring, hate-filled sermons of Jeremiah Wright (popup warning) were revealed, by which sermons Obama claims in his books to have been led to Christian faith, he gave a laggard response, followed by a speech on race.

But while we all enjoyed hearing from him on the subject, the question wasn't how he felt about race relations in America. The question was why he spent 20 years listening to sermons about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people.

In a June campaign rally in Florida, Obama said

They are going to try and make you afraid of me. They’re gunna say you know what he’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. Did I mention he’s Black!

No one was mentioning that. It's irrelevant, except to Obama's supporters. Perhaps that's because the candidate himself has been blaming his lack of unanimous support not on the undeniable fact that he's a Marxist, but on supposed provincial attitudes, including racism (my emphasis):

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

By proclaiming in his Berlin speech that "I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city", he was injecting race, and intentionally.

There have been boatloads of stories and opinion pieces published saying that if Obama loses, it will be because of some white people can't bring themselves to vote for a black one. That argument is garbage: there is a small, tiny percentage of whites who won't vote for a non-white, but there is an order of magnitude more people voting for Obama because of his race.

Furthermore, it's a false dichotomy to say (as Jack Cafferty did in the link above) that either people want to elect Barack Obama, or they are against him because he's black. There are plenty of reasons to be against Barack Obama.

I will not stand down in the face of such an argument.

Obama's apologists are quick to cry "Racism!" whenever he's criticized, even when the charge has nothing to do with race and everything to do with politics.

Yet apart from his profound lack of qualification for the Presidency, Obama's skin color is the only thing that makes this campaign "historic". Why do people say, with some truth, that it would be wonderful, "historic", "powerful symbolism" for an African-American to be elected President, and then in the next sentence deny disingenuously that race is a motivating factor in their favor of Obama? Why is it okay to say that Obama's nomination is "historic", and yet deny that people want to see history made?

I, too, think it would be good to have a black man as President — just not this black man.

Sphere: Related Content

The Ultimate Primer on Barack Obama

Courtesy Ace and some heavyweights.

Sphere: Related Content

The Most Poisonous Well in History

For all the talk of his "historical" campaign, Barack Obama has shown perhaps his greatest skill at poisoning the well. In June at a campaign stop in Florida, Obama said:

They are going to try and make you afraid of me. They’re gunna say you know what he’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. Did I mention he’s Black!

The only one talking about race is Obama.

Again on the campaign trail on Monday, October 20, Obama said:

In the final days of campaigns, the say-anything, do-anything politics too often takes over. We've seen it before and we're seeing it again — ugly phone calls, misleading mail, misleading TV ads, careless, outrageous comments.

Victor Davis Hanson notes that Obama has spent more money on negative ads than anyone in history, and has stood silent while high-profile supporters or campaign create misleading TV ads, and carefully crafted and targeted outrageous comments.

But this hypocrisy is not the real point. The point is that Obama has made a pattern of denouncing attacks that haven't come. It also characterizes all phone calls, all mail, all TV ads, and all comments made by his opponents as desperation. Never mind the facts or evidence of Obama's lack of readiness to be President.

Sphere: Related Content

Yes, Nicole, You Are A Racist

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, commenter Nicole writes:

Today I referred to my hair as "brown" ("dark brown" to be exact). I then proceeded to say "I hate the color brown--it's not strong enough; it's boring."

Am I a racist?

The obligatory reply from Scott in OC:

Yes, Nicole, you are a racist. Not for hating the color brown, but because you used the word "dark" in a potentially insensitive manner that could incite hatred. Shame on you. The only way to absolve yourself from this unspeakable act is to dye your hair blue and vote for Obama.

But neither Nicole nor Scott fully plumb the depths of the PC pogrom which would take place in the event of an Obama Administration, enjoying majority support in both Houses of Congress.

Nicole used the word 'color' and even labeled something a particular color. Obviously racist.

Nicole noted that something being a particular color was not 'strong' enough. Truly racist.

Nicole said she hated something for being a particular color. Clearly racist.

In the looming Obama Administration, no mention of color, except perhaps in the abstract, will be acceptable. A notable exception to this will be teaching preschoolers the names for all the colors, which will be seen as the fulfillment of a basic human right to be maintained by a Children's Administration, with a Cabinet-level Secretary of the Child.

Sphere: Related Content