Is Criticism of The POTUS Racist?

There have been statements made by several elected officials of the US Gov't and NY state that it is.

Former President Jimmy Carter
Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York
Rep. Diane Watson of California
Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia
NY Gov. David Paterson

The POTUS himself denies that criticism of him and his actions as Chief Executive of the US Gov't are racist.

My answer off the top of my head... No. Does that mean that there aren't many people out there who are racist and dislike Obama for the color of his skin who will find find fault with anything he does because of their prejudice? No again.

Some is, some isn't.

Your premise is utterly false. I have been able to find no statement by any of those officials have said that criticism of Obama is racist. They have all said that SOME of the criticism of Obama is racially motivated. Would you deny that? There is plenty of evidence on the Internet that there is racially motivated criticism of Obama. The fact that you interpret their statements as you have done is the type of distortion that provides cover for racists. For example, would there be large groups of people (including a number of cynical Republican politicians) arguing that Obama is not a native-born American if he did not have an Kenyan father?

Criticism of any elected official is healthy and should be encouraged. But criticism based on racist pre-conceptions needs to be called out for what it is.

I would be an ignorant fool to deny that there are still problems concerning racial issues in the US.

But I cannot remember hearing that criticism of Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice was racist.

And if the racial issues in the US are still that bad then explain the well deserved and hard earned popularity and success of Oprah Winfrey. Who I would say has more power and influence in many ways than the POTUS.

Just ask Cody... It's probably just more of that shit that "white people like."

Though in all seriousness, I think the question that needs to be asked here isn't "Is there racism in the U.S.?", but rather "How pervasive/prevalent/influential is racism in the U.S.?"

Which is a question I'm not sure I know how to answer.

>4 hamartophobic:. I have seen and heard plenty of racist garbage concerning the person of Barak Obama as a candidate and as the POTUS. I never even thought of it as criticism, just ignorance and stupidity that made me question what century some folks are still living in.

But it seems that any criticism of the economic policies and health care programs of the Obama administration is way too easily being labeled as racist by high profile elected officials.

Rep. Joe Wilson's actions during the President's speech were incredibly rude and disrespectful. As were the actions of several others in the audience. But racist? So says Jimmy Carter and in his own words an "overwhelming portion" of demonstrations against the POTUS are.

I agree that some defenders of Obama's proposals are too quick to label negative responses as rooted in racism. However, some undoubtedly are.

I grew up in the deep South (central Georgia, down the highway from Carter's peanut farm), and I spend a lot of time in other parts of the South (primarily Alabama). Joe Wilson's rudeness was rooted in racism, in my opinion, because it exposed an attitude that is too prevalent in the South even today. The attitude is that black people should "know their place", whatever that means. No one raised with Southern manners would think of showing such disrespect to a white person in authority. It just wouldn't happen in the circumstances of an addresss to Congress.

I am old enough and well traveled enough to know what you are talking about unfortunately.

It's not just limited to that part of the country. I could tell you stories about NYC and NJ that would amaze you.

Well, if I recall correctly, Pennsylvania, where I grew up, still has some of the highest membership rates in the KKK of the country.

In #5 Sarge says, "But I cannot remember hearing that criticism of Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice was racist."

Okay I'm going to step on some toes here, but I think it makes the point. The people Jimmy Carter (who knows whereof he speaks) is talking about didn't say anything about Powell or Rice because they may be n______ but they were their n______. Barack Obama is not their n______.

The disturbances over the summer were as much racially driven as for any other reason.

While leaders of the political opposition may or may not be racist, I think some of them do consciously appeal to racist fears and hates in the "base"--whatever it takes to get The True Believer off his or her duff. And, unfortunately, it only takes a brief word or image to fire up some nutballs.

http://www.iwf.org/iwfmedia/show/18900.html

I don't remember the usual screamers of racism saying a word about this.

"There's an old saying, in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.

"Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

Harry Belafonte concerning Colin Powell.

>15 OldSarge:

Which is exactly what happened when he criticized the direction of the Republican Party.

No, it's not always racist. But it can be. It often is. However, it's fair to criticize and question presidential policies or plans. Tis the American Way.

I give GEN Powell more credit than that. He knew when sh*t stank like sh*t and he got as far away as possible from people he was in serious disagreement with. The man has too much integrity and honor to allow himself to just be discarded.

That still doesn't explain the deafening silence from the usual suspects when Mr. Belafonte made his remarks.

> 18 I think Clarence Thomas is a better example if you want to charge the left with racism, or insensitivity to same. I'm not sure what to think of him.

I agree with >3 lilithcat:. Depends which criticism you're talking about.

"Mainstream" criticism that I see in media isn't. It strikes me as the usual ideological arguments. Nothing new there.

But an angry fringe does exist and it can be racist. That's no scoop. Question is, is it growing or not? And does the particular identity of the current POTUS bring out the fringe more?

Re the previous administration: I heard racist remarks about Rice, and paternalistic ones about Powell, which could be racist, depending on how you want to argue it.

The various groups on the right are like a balloon. They've been all puffed up over the last fifteen years. But last November, the American public unstoppered the ballon and began squeezing it. The harder the balloon is squeezed, the louder it squeals even as more air is wrung out of it. It zips around in its dying throes and eventually falls to the ground, flat.

The wing-nuts are zipping around squealing as hard as they can. It's just a matter of time until they fall to the ground.

Nobody, but nobody, whines like a spurned Republican.

I do recall a fair bit of criticism within the Democratic Party about "Uncle Tom" comments directed at Gen. Powell; he has many strong supporters on both sides of the aisle (though they seem to be diminishing on the right). On the other hand, I don't think those levying such comments against Clarence Thomas have had many shout-downs.

Of course, the Republicans handed Thomas a Supreme Court seat about as fast as the Norwegians got the Nobel to Obama. I note that Justice Sotomayor has already asked more questions from the bench, and I suspect she'll have more authored more high visibility opinions before this session or the next is out. Too bad the seat has real meaning and isn't just an honorarium.

Appealing to sexism might also be employed to get out the base:

Wall Street Journal: “…the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, issued a statement saying it hopes Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, puts Ms. Pelosi "in her place" on Afghan policy. The statement accused Ms. Pelosi, a California Democrat, of putting party politics ahead of national security in her cautious statements* on expanding the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.”

“Ms. Pelosi Thursday called the statement sexist. "It's really sad. They really don't understand how inappropriate that is," she told reporters. "I'm in my place. I'm speaker of the House, the first woman speaker of the House. And I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. That language is something I haven't even heard in decades."”

* "His (McChrystal's) recommendation to the President should go up the line of command. They shouldn't be in press conferences." ... "The Vice President's views are ones that are widely shared, by members of Congress and people across the country."

Frightened Old White Men don't want anyone running their country except other Frightened Old White Men. Otherwise, they may have to share the goodies that is America with The Other. Oh, My! What a disaster that would be.

As I said elsewhere, I think an excellent case can be made that the most toxic substance on earth is testosterone.

#23

Is that necessarily sexist? I've not read the full comment, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me (though I can see how it could be read that way.)

25 > It can be either racist or sexist. It was used quit commonly to refer to either non-whites or women who were getting 'uppity' or getting 'above their station' in life and needed a reminder where they belonged, in the kitchen or behind the plow etc. Granted my generation and those younger generally don't see it that way but that was where it grew from, and I think Pelosi is old enough to have been subjected to those meanings at one time.

It could also be merely anti-democrat or anti-idiot, depending on your bent. I think it's a bit odd to impute a specific motivation to the comment (ie. she's "uppity" for a "woman") where they may not have been intended. I hear the phrase "put them in their place" very often, and often in contexts where it can't be used as a sexist or racist term (I've heard it directed at white males). While I can see how the history of the term may carry certain connotations that resonate with Pelosi, I don't see that the term as it's commonly used means anything more than to indicate that someone is getting above themselves (and that concept need not be predicated on race or sex.)

>23 margd:. While a slightly different wording might be better, the NRCC is essentially correct. Speaker of the House Pelosi is not in GEN McChrystal's Chain of Command. Nor is any member of the House or Senate.

>28 OldSarge: Though his budget originates in her "place", so if they're putting her in her place, she's pretty much got him by his place.

Whoever the RNCC was trying to help out here, it sure wasn't McCrystal. Indeed, I kind of think it was their own coffers at the expense of his.

27 > I was just explaining where she might have pulled that out, whether real or imagined. I agree that mostly people don't use it with any sexist or racist intent.

However, for a politician, claiming racism or sexism is the fastest way to get your opponent on the defensive. As effective as it is, it also has the ability to backfire spectacularly on the user if the claim is obviously false or for political gain.

Speaker of the House Pelosi is next in line for the position of Commander in Chief after the Vice-President. General McChrystal reports to the Commander in Chief.

She was well within her rights to make such--as the Wall Street Journal termed it--"cautious statements".

The NRCC was attempting to activate its base--you young 'uns might want to google "a woman's place is".

Withput going into a mind numbing flow chart about how the whole Chain of Command works, in short:

GEN McChrystal, commander ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) and USFOR-A (US Forces Afghanistan)

Reports to his commander-

GEN Petraeus, commander CENTCOM (US Central Command)

Who reports to the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense) as representing the POTUS (President of The United States)

or directly to the POTUS in his role as CINC (Commander In Chief)

While the Speaker of the House may be second in line for the order of succession, they do not exercise any actual command responsibilities or authority concerning the military unless that should happen.

Some is, some isn't.

Flip-flopper!

Is that necessarily sexist? I've not read the full comment, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me (though I can see how it could be read that way.)

Yes. Again, who knows? But people say "put someone in their place" all the time without any gender- (or race-) based connotation. I mean, if he had said that about a guy would people be confused about it, like if someone referred to Cheney as a she? Of course not. Nobody would even notice it.

In general, people who want to avoid the appearance of racism and sexism will steer clear of images that could seem offensive. For example, I'm sure you can find a million examples of a male politician talking about how another male politician "should stay out of the kitchen if he can't take the heat." But if you said that about Hillary Clinton many would see a sexist reference. Fine. Smart people will try to avoid that. But absent strong evidence of sexist intent, should this thing really raise angry accusations of sexism?

It was used quit commonly to refer to either non-whites or women who were getting 'uppity' or getting 'above their station' in life and needed a reminder where they belonged, in the kitchen or behind the plow etc.

Sure, but it was also used in regular conversation between sexual and racial equivalents. I'm sure you can find it used between two white men hundreds of times in the Congressional Record. I'm sure Thatcher is described as putting this or that MP "in their place" a hundred times, and Blair another hundred times.

Doesn't that count for something?

Tim, that's a nice apologia for the RNCC's sexism, but I really think you're just trying to put lipstick on a pig here.

Ah, that's another great one. It's particularly funny for me because "putting lipstick on a pig" is a famous quote in library circles, about dressing up terrible catalogs in superficial ways. I and others who critique library technology used it all the time when making "the OPAC (catalog) sucks!" arguments.

Then it became this hot-button phrase. Sexist? Not sexist? Or was Palin being compared to a library catalog?

I think it was indeed a criticism of her reading habits. Just because she couldn't identify anything she'd read, doesn't mean it wasn't bad.

Back to Pelosi. The problem, which resulted in the furor, was that Pelosi did not say anything different in quality or quantity from what hundreds of Congresssmen have said over the years when commenting on American military/foreign policy, Republicans and Democrats alike. The fundamental question is what is so different about Pelosi's comments that justifies a Republican response that she should "know her place"? That has certainly not been a typical response of disagreement with a political opponent. Telling someone (anyone) they should "know their place" is likely to elicit an emotional response from the target similar to being told to "go fuck yourself". I think Pelosi's response was unusually mild.

That's a good point. US politics is pretty rough; as we notice an uptick in nastiness we should not pretend it's a novelty. But, if she had emphasized how obnoxious and over-the-top the point was over the claim of sexism, I'd have no disagreement.

The genius (...) of the RNCC is to use language that is defensible on one level while appealing to the racists and sexists in their ranks in order to tie next fall's Democratic candidates to an African-American President and to a Speaker blessed with a full complement of X chromosomes. {;>

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi seem to have avoided direct acknowledgment of the racist/sexist appeals when defending themselves. To do otherwise would have them walk into the trap, only to be greeted with bleats of innocence and accusations of oversensitivity.

That's the way the game is played these days.

39>
This well played game was/is part of the "genius" of the Atwater-Rove school of political consultancy. Most Republicans know when they are coming too close to the line and skip along it. The pundits who perform for the conservative public sphere (notably Limbaugh and Beck) feel no hesitation to cross over the line: crossing the line sells.

A MAGNIFICENT CATASTROPHE: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

200 hundred years later and American politics is as partisan as ever.

>42 OldSarge:

Don't forget Aaron Burr and his shooting buddy, Alexander Hamilton, four years later. Imagine a duel between ever-smiling Eric Cantor and ever-smiling Nancy Pelosi.

I've always wondered how all these folks would do, slugging it out at my level.

Not very well.

American Aurora gives a good look at the quality of political discourse in America at the turn of the 19th century. Whenever I think the temperature is getting too hot, I think of this. We're pikers compared to the pros of the 18th - 19th century.

>39 margd:
Dogbert tweaks Tina the Brittle Tech Writer:

Dogbert: "The Venus de Milo has no arms."

Tina the Brittle Tech Writer: "Oh, I get it; you're saying women can't lift heavy objects!"

40> And if whomever is the KKK?

Whether or not it's false, calling it bigotry is the same type of smear tactic that calling all attacks on the President racists. There's nothing inherently bigoted about the claim.

Sarge, we have those folks where they are so that we don't all have to slug it out at your level.

> 49 oakesspalding, a Harvard study of social dominance orientation (one’s degree of preference for inequality among social groups) seems to show positive correlation between anti-black racism, sexism , political-economic conservatism, and Republican party preference--among other variables. See Table 9 of

Pratto, F, J Sidanius, LM Stalkworth, and PJ Malle. 1994. Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. J of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 67, No. 4, pp 741-763. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~sidanius/pubs/PrattoSidanius1994.pdf

> 19 OldSarge, the authors also studied reactions to Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which might be pertinent to our discussion. My eyes wouldn’t permit any more squinting at the screen this morning, though…

Hey folk! Have you heard the Italian president, Berlusconi, talk lately? His speeches were a bit more OBVIOUS than your internal racism-or-not feuds. He should have a diplomatic sanction because he is the shame of the European Union.

It's only racism if your criticism goes only skin-deep.

I would say it's more racist to assume that a president who is less than 100% white shouldn't be criticized, and as such, to denote all criticism as "racism." Just because Obama is part black doesn't mean we can't call into question his ability/inability to lead the country, as I don't think race has anything to do with ability to lead. At least, not the last time I checked.

I think Americans have just as much a right, duty, and obligation to criticize Obama as they do of any previous president, at least until we lose that whole First Amendment thing.

51> But much more importantly, the study measures "anti-black racism" in part by asking people (in 1994) how they feel about "Civil Rights Activists".

Of course. There's a well-known problem in studies that you cannot ask people if they have some trait despised by their culture, and expect to get a reasonable answer. Part of your group isn't going to admit it to a casual stranger, and another part may show all the attributes but have rationalized them internally to the point they believe themselves free of the trait. Even in 1963, if you asked most KKK members "do you hate black people", the answer would be "hey, I have nothing against niggers."

> that's a kind of bigotry right there

Personally, I'm bigoted against people who can't carry on a conversation without labeling everyone who disagrees with him a "bigot" or "fascist". But that's just me.

> the belief, based on ignorance, that if you don't like the sort of person identified as a "Civil Rights Activist" that you don't like black people.

There is no one uncontrollable trait that can be used to separate bigots from non-bigots. I won't argue that every single person who doesn't like the sort of person identified as a "civil rights activist" doesn't like black people. But if you stick that phrase into Google, the first article to come up is "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)", and a majority of the immediate following cites come right back to that group and time period, and yeah, if someone doesn't like the type of people who led the boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, they're a bigot.

Being called a fascist simply because I'm in the military is my personal favorite.

Being screamed at in a classroom that I was a "fascist-republican" and "had no right to speak my opinion because it was wrong" is my fondest memory of taking a class in international relations.

> It's only racism if your criticism goes only skin-deep.

That's not true. If you criticize a black man for something that you wouldn't criticize a white man for, it's still racist. Anyone who would demand the immediate impeachment of Obama for being caught in an inappropriate situation with a (white) aide who didn't or wouldn't have demanded the same of Clinton is making a racist attack, even thought it's entirely ostentatiously color-blind. The same thing, but on party lines, is pretty well-known in political circles.

> I would say it's more racist to assume that a president who is less than 100% white shouldn't be criticized, and as such, to denote all criticism as "racism."

Sure. But I would like a link to some of these supposed claims. It's something easy for a Republican to throw out and generate a lot of ranting and raving, but it's a pretty stupid thing for a politician to say. The statement that "most of the Obama criticism is racially-motivated" is just as effective politically and not subject to trivial dismissal.

As for the racist component of the Obama criticism, I seriously have to wonder if we'd still be having this debate about his citizenship if his father had been a Norwegian and he'd been schooled in England. I'm not familiar with any other president ever having to prove where they were born. Part of it may be a foreign thing, as there's been no other president with anywhere near as much foreign connection since Herbert Hoover (who had a Canadian mother; anyone ever question his citizenship?)

> Obama is part black

I'm curious why you insist on that formulation. It's a definitional debate, and for the past eighty years, in the United States, a man with a black parent and white parent has been considered colored, or black. He also classifies himself as black, not part black.

Is this guy racist?

(From the President himself) Obama replies to concerned fourth grader in New Orleans, who asked "Why does everybody hate you?":

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5387376....

>57 prosfilaes:.

> That's not true. If you criticize a black man for something that you wouldn't criticize a white man for, it's still racist.

Yes, it IS true. Why are you criticizing a black man when you wouldn't normally criticize a white man? Because of his race. Hence, skin-deep. We're saying the same thing here, I think.

> I'm curious why you insist on that formulation.

Because Obama's mother is white. The classification, in America, of people of mixed racial background is a product of latent racism. In Louisiana, someone who is 1/32nd black is still considered black. Charles W. Chessnutt was considered black, and he was 75% white. Do people make the same distinction with Alexandre Dumas? I'm not sure, as I never seem to have conversations that lead to the ethnic heritage of French authors. Nevertheless, I use this formulation because I don't think that being part anything makes you WHOLLY that thing. I don't go around calling myself Métis or Hispanic (I know, it's an ethnicity, not a race), but that's more because I don't go around calling myself anything other than me.

It just seems, well, wrong, in many ways, to say that a man who has a white mother, and was raised primarily by his white mother and white grandmother is not in some way white. I've talked with some Africans (from Africa) who claim that most black Americans are white to them, including Obama. In fact, here in Texas, I encounter a LOT of anglo folk with skin DARKER than Obama's. But, according to the government records, they're white as white can be.

Nevertheless, I'll feel free to criticize Obama, just like I felt free to criticize Bush, Clinton, and every other president before them for all the stupid things they do, because race, to me, determines nothing more than skin color.

>58 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Is the Pope Catholic?

#58/61: They didn't put in that article one of my favorite statements of his, which is that, in his defense, he lets blacks use his bathroom.

He said he had "piles and piles of black friends" but just did not believe in "mixing the races".

"They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else," he said.

(from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8310509.stm)

I posted a graph some time back which showed those who believed the races should not mix also had no problem voting for a black presidential candidate.

Kind of reminds me of the scene in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" when the reform candidate starts yelling "All you boys is miscegenatin'!"

Is this gentleman within the law by refusing to marry a couple based on personal reasons?

Left-leaning people have argued, both here and elsewhere, that Republicans delilberately play to racist Republican voters to gain votes.

This strategy can obtain a net gain of votes only if the non-racist voters repelled by it are fewer than the racist voters attracted by it.

Thus the argument assumes that more than half of Republican voters are racist.

But no bigotry here!

Just in. They are not racist, just crazy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/gop-base-driven-by-bizarr_n_323796.html

#65

That assumes that the entire field of demographics and targeted marketing doesn't exist.

>67 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
I take it that what you have in mind is something like this:

White male Republican voters in Louisiana are all a bunch of racists, so the GOP confines its racist messages to La. to avoid turning off voters elsewhere.

However, the very fact that liberals nation-wide "expose" this purported strategy proves that targeted marketing idea isn't effective: It's too porous.

One could argue, I suppose, something like this: Liberals in, e.g., Manhattan are always watchful for racist messages so they monitor the GOP's communications nationwide, including in Louisiana, etc. GOP voters in Manhattan (there must be a couple) just don't care about racism, so they don't bother.

That is, liberals care about racism, Republicans don't.

Still bigotry. Just a tad more "nuanced."

#68

I'm guessing that information is a lot less porous than you'd like to think. We may just disagree on this point.

And now there is this. Obama foes aren't race driven.

Thoughts?

>71 geneg:
Sounds like good news for everybody. I wish I could say that more often.

I'm curious why you insist on that formulation.

A few points:

1. I agree with Oakes' basic reality-check on this. The idea that any amount of black ancestry makes you black *is* a result of racism.
2. It is, nevertheless, hardly a meaningless result. Racial identification is part reality and part reception. An alien from Mars could descend upon the NAACP conference and declare that most of the delegates should be removed; some actual Africans might even agree, but an American person would recognize that what people think you are affects who they are. It's notorious that black people notice all sorts of skin-color differences between blacks, and white people don't. The common explanation for this is surely partially true: Among blacks light skin color is of social significance; among whites black people are black people.
3. Obama is, I think, fairly interesting insofar as he seems to have spent a lot of his life grappling with the weird issues here. His bio is very compelling on this point. And I don't think it's entirely accidental that our first black president came from outside the traditional civil-rights leadership machine and its often dated preoccupations.

> The idea that any amount of black ancestry makes you black *is* a result of racism.

Certainly. But the modern American conception also comes from a willful choice in the 1920s among the black community to drop the concept of mulatto and other distinctions in exchange for one black community, much like only a few orthodox Jew people still care whether a fellow Jew's parents were Jewish.

If Obama said that he was of mixed race, then I would accept that. But he says he's black, and since it's entirely reasonable within the American conception of races, I find it weird to argue with it.

If Obama said that he was of mixed race, then I would accept that. But he says he's black, and since it's entirely reasonable within the American conception of races, I find it weird to argue with it.

Agreed, although I think his self-identity is a little more complex than that. He wrote practically a whole book about it.

My apology!

It was aethercowboy who said what I was referring to, "Because Obama's mother is white. The classification, in America, of people of mixed racial background is a product of latent racism."

Presumably he means something by it or he wouldn't invest it with such importance.

I think we'd need to lay out all his statements on the topic. I don't find him investing as you say, or anyway I've read him going around in complex ways on the topic.

why would Obama (among others) think that it was more appropriate to call himself "black" than say "half-black", or anything else?

I had a friend back when I was on the P-Coast with whom I had a similar discussion. Hanif's mother was "white" while his father was "black". I'd asked him at one point why he considered himself "black" and why his friends and he went around referring to each other as "nigga."

Hanif explained to me that just the previous week, he'd been stopped by a police officer while getting off of the BART system and heading to work. After asking for his ID, the police officer had called the license number from his ID into dispatch over his radio and asked them to check the files. In doing so, the officer described Hanif as an "African-American Male."

One of our running jokes revolved around the time that I'd gone to the East Bay (Hanif's territory) to play some poker at a card-room in Emeryville). As I stepped out of BART, I was accosted by a panhandler who said "Hey, white boy, gimme some change." When I declined to hand over the change, the panhandler said, "C'mon, Backstreet Boy, I know you got some money on ya." I was thereafter greeted by Hanif as "Backstreet Boy". Hanif explained to me, though, that when he walked down the street, no one would ever call out "Hey, white boy."

Hanif's mentality was that when people walked down the street, no one said "white man." They looked at him and called him "black man," "black boy," or less frequently, but perhaps more offensively "nigger." And Hanif's response was "If they want to call me black, then I guess I must be black. If they want a "nigger," then a nigger's what they'll get."

How one is viewed by others does seem to shape our views of ourselves.

It was something of an eye-opener for me, at 19 or 20, to move to California. I'd pretty much just took a train out with a couple of duffel bags and a bit of money in my pocket and checked into the first hotel I came across after getting off of the train.

After being in San Francisco for a couple of days and having had a chance to look around a bit more, I decided that checking in to a youth hostel was probably my best bet for affordable lodging at the time. While the hostel was populated largely by foreigners, there were always at least a couple of other Americans staying there at any given time. There was one conversation that seemed to repeat itself at regular intervals...

You'd have a bunch of people sitting around the common area, introducing themselves to each other. Maybe one guy from Germany, a married couple from Italy, a few girls summering from France, and, of course, an American or two that were making a go of moving to the city. As everyone introduced themselves and told their names and where they were from and why they were there, you'd invariably have an American that would meet someone and say something like "Oh, you're from Italy? I'm Italian."

The foreigner's pretty much inevitable response would be, "You're not Italian, you're American."

Growing up outside of Philadelphia, there was always quite a bit of talk about what our various families' ethnicities were. It seemed to be something that came up in various school situations quite frequently and people came to view that as no small part of their identity. It was an entirely different situation to step into a hostel and have that idea smacked down.

Though (and of course not to fault your friend) this sort of thing seems to happen less with other sorts of racial or ethnic classifications.

Of course not. But for the most part, one isn't able to walk down the street and say "Look at that Hungarian guy". Hey, Hunky!

I think it goes back to Codyed's repeated statement during the election that if Obama is half black, then it's obviously the outside half.

What other "group" in America is so easily defined purely by their appearance? Asians? Most Asians I know don't necessarily view themselves as Asian at all. They might be Korean, Chinese, Japanese, etc., but most of them don't view themselves as Asian.

I think that most "African-Americans" would be hard-pressed to tell you which part of Africa their ancestors came from. I'm guessing that the conditions in which their ancestors came to the country might have something to do with that. Whereas, most "Asian-Americans" have something of a cultural memory of which part of Asia their forebears are from.

Then again, I think most Americans in general have some basic ideas of the differences between Vietnam and Japan, whereas most Americans wouldn't be able to differentiate between Nigeria and Zimbabwe (not to mention the fact that Nigeria and Zimbabwe might not even be valid cultural signifiers in Africa.)

Kind of in the same way that while my mother's family may be Italian (with all of the stereotypes that that seemed to entail growing up), I only know that we're northern Italian by virtue of the fact that I looked around for that information. From what I understand, the distinction between northern and southern Italians is viewed as somewhat valid from within Italy. It doesn't seem to get much play in the states.

Sigh...

In grammar school I asked my parents what we were and they replied American. The kids in school told me that was impossible because I wasn't an Indian, that I had to be from somewhere.

I am, from Noo Yawk City. My parents? Brooklyn and New Jersey. Their parents? Brooklyn and New Jersey again.

I've had this merry go round of a conversation all my life. When told I cannot be an American because I'm not a "native", I get out a dictionary and show whoever it is, the definition of native.

I am not an "Insert whatever ethnic identity here-American". Growing up, I never knew a single relative who spoke with an accent. Never celebrated any holidays except Christmas, Halloween, Fourth of July, and Easter. There were no family traditions or recipes from the "old country". Hell, my family has been US Army since 1865.

Apparently, young children notice skin color first, then eye shape. My Thai children , high-school and college age, with their brown skin, straight black hair and Asian eyes were just recounting at dinner the myriad ways their classmates classify them. Mexican seems common now, but Asian Indians, Philippinos, and North American Indians have claimed them in the past--African-Americans when their hair was covered! Some classmates guess Japanese or Korean, which must mean those folks discount the difference latitude makes to skin color?

ETA: There's an article in Atlantic this month or last about a window we all have when our kids notice differences and begin to categorize--that is when they look to you for explanation of what, if anything , these differences mean. It's important to talk to your kids then.

Growing up, I never knew a single relative who spoke with an accent.

Yet you're from "Noo-Yawk City"?

That is correct. We don't have an accent, youse guys do.

76> what appears to be unique in the classification "black", as opposed to other racial classifications, is the implied view that there is this metaphysical thing called "blackness" that you either have or you don't

I don't buy it. Do you think the "white man's burden" has anything to do with the color of the "white man's" skin? Both then and now there are many people who would consider Greeks white and Turks not, and there are many Spaniards with darker skins than the Japanese.

92> After detailed analysis of the data, I believe it is you who have missed the point.

To get back to the original question as posted (and I'll admit I'm not taking the time to read all the posts since then), here are my thoughts:

I don't criticize Comrade-Presidente because he's half-African-American. I criticize Comrade Presidente because he's an power-hungry, anti-American, anti-Semetic, cowardly, uninformed, know-nothing-about-economics-moron. At least, in my opinion.

Those are my criticisms, and none of them are based on race. I can't speak for anyone else.

Those are my criticisms...

Not really "criticisms" as much as the same ol' crap. Maybe someone could loan you an original thought.

>94 drbottlecapper:

For someone who doesn't care about his race, you sure do care about everything else.

It is my conclusion that criticism of the President is racist if the President is black.

>97 Amtep:.

So, what you're saying is, you're racist?

>98 aethercowboy: I'm not sure you appreciate the subtle racism behind your comment.

Some of you are racists and some of you are racialists. Many of you are both. But not drbottlecapper. He's just angry. I know a lot of folks like him. Just angry at the world for no apparent reason.

Not all monsters are related. What are you trying to say?

Probably that everyone's a little bit racist. And some of us are a lot of bit racist. Cough. Cough.

>102 codyed:

Anger takes many forms. We focus on striking out at whatever is most alien to our world view, or which will help us cope with out own alienation. You exhibit it by your racialist ideology, which is just as corrosive to understanding as racism. drbottlecapper exhibits it by striking out at a person who is so different from him that nothing about that person merits respect. If racism were more acceptable, he would likely have admitted that he doesn't like Obama because he perceives the man as black and alien.

Assuming that it IS racist to criticize a black president, is it racist for a black person to criticize a black president? What if a black person criticizes a white president? What if a man criticizes a female president? Or a woman criticizing a male president? Or a Protestant criticizing a Catholic president? Or a Christian criticizing a Muslim president? What about an atheist president? Or a heterosexual criticizing a gay or lesbian president? Or vice versa. How about a young person criticizing an elderly president? Or vice versa. Which of these are "wrong" (racist, sexist, bigoted, ageist, etc.) and which are "okay", regardless of what the actual criticism may be?

Drbottlecapper's anger is very understandable, just misplaced. The people he should be angry at are the ones egging him on through the smoke and mirrors. He needs to stop watching FOXNews so much and pay closer attention to what's really going on here.

No the financial industry as it is currently contstituted doesn't create anything. Part of the problem with them is they receive hundreds of billions of dollars from my pocket and yours and think they made money. What a crock of shit. That $140,000,000,000 they intend to pay themselves from the public coffers would go an awful long way to save a lot of jobs. If they can't take a hiatus from this ponzi scheme they've got working and live off the billions they gave themselves last year, tough. People are starving out here.

Heads on pikes. That's the ticket. Some of these douchebags see their friends smiling down from a ten foot tall stick they might think a bit about what they've done and what they continue to do. If someone makes the enormous sums these people pay themselves something is definitely screwed up, it's not Obama.

For one, it's not an ideology. I use "race" as one of many means of analyzing social phenomena. Race is a fact of life. Conflict between races is, too, a fact of life. To deny this is akin to denying the fact that humans came about through a process of evolution. Whites, especially white progressives, have an inflated sense of themselves, so when someone comes along and claims they aren't as enlightened as they like to believe they are, they, understandably, become very angry and lash out.

>107 codyed:
Mainly I'm perplexed and unconvinced.

And some of us hang onto "race" like a life preserver, as we drift in seas of resentment.

To get back to Sarge's original question: No, criticism of President Obama (or more particularly, his policies ) is not in and of itself racist.

The problem is when criticisms are so forceful but vague ("He's a socialist!" "He's an anti-semite!"), or if they betray some weird fantasy xenophobia ("He's a Muslim!", "He wasn't even born in this country!"), then one can understand that maybe the problem is really something more visceral that his opponents wish to hide by resorting to such vague or crackpot "criticisms".

Well, it is vague. It can be used to mean "against any and all things Jewish" or "having some positions critical of the State of Israel", and any number of attitudes in between.

I will agree that it certainly shouldn't mean "having some positions critical of the State of Israel", however, I have very definitely seen it used ad infinitum as a means of silencing those critical of Israel.

Regarding the Holocaust/Palestinian formulations: Mass murder is mass murder, it's not a numbers game. One horror doesn't excuse another by virtue of comparison.

But calling the term itself vague is, well, I think we know what that is.

Since some of us are hungover, mayhap you can spell that out a bit more explicitly.

115
I wouldn't be surprised if the response was an:
**drum roll**
accusation of anti-semiticism.

116
Ok, you tell me how many murders is acceptable without crossing the line.

Re: 95> If I'd praised Obama for all the "great things" he'd done (Nobel Peace Prize?), I'm curious if my comments would have been lumped into the "same ol' crap"? The original question asked is answerable by opinions--there will be people who agree with one side or the other or even choose to sit on the fence. I'm simply stating my opinions. Implying that I'm not capable of original thought is your best response?

Re: 96> I'm not sure why you don't think I care about my race? What did I say that led you to that conclusion?

Re: 110> You do make an excellent point that what really should be discussed here is criticism of Obama's policies, and I mean that quite sincerely.

I also find it interesting that you brought up the "criticisms" about Obama being socialist, Muslim, and not born in this country. Perhaps I'm misreading things--and my apologies if I am--but it appears that you are trying to make it sound as if I include that in my list of things I don't like about Obama. Perhaps it's the use of "quote marks" around the word "criticisms," which is the word I used. I could elaborate on the vagueness of my criticisms, if need be--again, assuming that you were referring to my post.

Re 100> I'm generally happy for no apparent reason, not angry. I feel anger when I think about my country that I'm rather fond of going in what I feel is a wrong direction and there's not a lot that I can do about it. Again, I'm only able to speak for myself here, so please don't lump me in with other "angry" people you know. You don't know me; you only know what I contribute to the discussion and perhaps what's on my profile.

Re 104> I grew up in rural East Texas, so my idea of what a "typical" (if there is such a thing) Black experience is admittedly limited to that and what I see in mainstream media. Obama is half-white with a "typical white woman" as a grandmother. He was raised in Indonesia, then moved back to Hawaii and attended a fairly prestigious private school. I can't really say I perceive his upbringing as "black"--although I do see it as "alien." While I'm half in agreement with you, you don't know me, so please don't put words in my mouth.

Re 106> "He needs to stop watching FOXNews so much and pay closer attention to what's really going on here." Hmmm...no cable or satellite at my house = no FOXNews (and that's by choice). I read news online from a variety of sources, conservative, "mainstream", and liberal. I go to different sources precisely because I like different viewpoints and I can draw my own conclusions by paying attention to what's really going on.

Based on your second paragraph, it appears that you feel capitalism is not working well. I'll agree it's not perfect, but I still believe that capitalism has done more positive than negative. Capitalism, when left alone, has done more to increase the standard of living around the world than any other type of economy. Electric lights? Affordable cars? Affordable phones and internet? Sure, there are those here in our country that don't have even those things, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of the population is really, really small. Even our poorest people here in America are arguably better off than in other countries around the world.

That being said, I also believe people have a responsibility to be good stewards with what they have, including sharing with those less fortunate. You are correct: there are some more productive things companies and individuals can do with the profits they earn.

Re 107> I'd challenge you to name a race or ethnic group that doesn't have an inflated sense of themselves.

Wow! This has been fun! It brings back fond memories of those undergrad years when all of us acted like we were intellectuals even though none of us had much life experience. Next time, someone will have to bring pizza and beer!

I grew up in rural East Texas, so my idea of what a "typical" (if there is such a thing) Black experience is admittedly limited to that and what I see in mainstream media. Obama is half-white with a "typical white woman" as a grandmother. He was raised in Indonesia, then moved back to Hawaii and attended a fairly prestigious private school. I can't really say I perceive his upbringing as "black"--although I do see it as "alien." While I'm half in agreement with you, you don't know me, so please don't put words in my mouth.


Any chance you can expand on what you mean by "alien"? Or by that, do you just mean foreign to your own experience?

I'm glad you turned up. Since it was your comment that labeled Obama as "anti-Semetic" (sic), maybe you could explain what you meant. As a whole your post was little more than a litany of name-calling with no critical substance. Same ol' crap is a pretty fair assessment.

BTW, post 110 had nothing specifically to do with you or your statements, although one could suggest that the "comrade" thing implies socialism.

including sharing with those less fortunate.

Socialist!*

*this is meant as a joke. I used to have a disclaimer around, but I seem to have misplaced it.

Yes, I just meant foreign to my own experience.

>122 bunkie68:
I assume that is your wife's account. She says she is happily married and who am to disagree. So maybe you are not a raving lunatic, but I still think you have a level of anger toward Obama that can't be attributed to his shortcomings. The statements you make about him are ridiculous and would not be made by anyone thinking rationally. Specifically:

1. "anti-American"--that is certainly an attack word often used by those who want to denigrate those with whom they disagree. It is highly improbable that the President of the United States of America would be anti-American. There certainly is no evidence that he is plotting against his own country. Why can't you just disagree with specific policies?

2. "cowardly"--this is a popular code word used by those on the left and right to imply that someone has some deficiency in the intestinal fortitude department. Again, it is an easy way to be dismissive of a political opponent, but the word has become absolutely devoid of meaning from its frequent misuse in political discourse.

3. "uninformed"--I would suggest that someone with Obama's experience and stature is unlikely to be less informed than the rest of us. I will even go out on a limb and suggest that he is probably better informed than most of us. Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with the conclusions he has reached from the information he has received. But I doubt that he has a deficit of information.

4. "power-hungry"--I would like to suggest that anyone who runs for President of the United States would have to have some level of hunger for power in order to undertake the demeaning requirements of running for office (not the least of which is putting up with people like us questioning the motives behind every bowel movement). We tend to describe politicians we don't like as "power-hungry" and those we like as self-sacrificing patriots.

5. "know-nothing-about-economics moron"--This is my favorite. I would suggest that he probably knows more about economics than the average Joe (plumber or otherwise), and he certainly has better access to the best and brightest economists in the world. Could it be that you disagree with his economic policies? That doesn't mean he knows nothing about economics. "Moron" is just an insult word. I assume that you don't actually expect anyone to believe that he is a moron, do you?

My point is that you, and too many on the right, have reduced Obama to being something that he clearly is not. He is an accomplished guy who became President and with whom you disagree. Unless, of course, you are one of the conspiracy crowd that thinks there are some darker forces using him as a front to accomplish their evil purposes. If that's the case, I can only suggest bed rest and plenty of fluids.

Are you a racist? I certainly don't know and I would not presume, like you have about Obama, to know a person's thoughts and motivations. You do, however, have a level of contempt for the man that is certainly not justified by anything in his character or actions to date.

Having said that, I believe that George W. Bush was a power-hungry, draft-dodging, war mongering, murderous, stupid, arrogant, bigoted asshole. The difference between you and me is that I freely admit my disgust with Bush is irrational and unfair.

>123 subspeciesone: Whoops! I hate it when I forget to check which account is up on the home computer. Good detective work on your part.

I still maintain Obama is anti-American; we can agree to disagree on this, but here's why I believe so: During his first few weeks in office, he went on his "Apologize for America" tour, saying a lot about how America has done evil in the world (and I'm paraphrasing here). He did not once mention how many Americans sacrificed their lives for the freedom of Europeans during WWII. He played nice with anti-American dictators who have spent years telling the world how horrible we are and how much we have contributed to the destruction of everything. He's still pushing for economic policies (Cap and Tax, socialized medicine, setting pay and compensation for privately-owned companies that provide jobs to the American people, etc.) that I believe will have a huge negative impact on the economy as a whole. And lest we forget, he signed the HUGE bailout mess that if nothing else goes on to make things worse, our grandchildren will still be paying for. By "anti-", I mean policies that end up making America look bad or contribute to the downfall of our country. In my opinion, those things, and therefore the person who deliberately chooses to do them, are anti-American. If a CEO went around trashing his company, it's products, and policies, how long do you think he would remain in that position?

My dictionary says a coward is one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity. Obama needs to pick a side--send in more troops to Afghanistan, or pull them out. Sitting on his hands and leaving the ones we have in harm's way without making a decision that will keep them safe(r) is in my view disgraceful timidity. Again, feel free to disagree that that's an appropriate use of the word. Call me old-fashioned or out of touch if you want, but I'm one who believes "He who sits on the fence stands for nothing," and if you can't pick a side, right or wrong, that makes you a type of coward.

I'll agree you made a valid point about my use of "uninformed." Looking back at it after a good night's sleep, that probably went in there because at the time I thought it flowed nicely. "Inexperienced" with executive power and foreign and economic policy is probably a better choice. Good call on that one.

I chose the phrase power-hungry to describe his unconstitutional takeover of privately owned companies, the use of unconstitutional "czars" who are not vetted and Congress has no oversight, which negates the checks and balances the Founding Fathers intended. I know, other presidents, including Republican presidents, also used czars. That doesn't make it right for them either. There's another good point you made about people who run for office tend to have hunger for power--I should have been more specific with my choice of words. (And you question the motives behind his bowel movements? Ewww!)

Point 5--Again, I concede you are correct in part. "Moron" was simply meant as an insult. I am indeed aware that "moron" is a technical term that is no longer politically correct to describe a person of a limited IQ. As to the "know-nothing-about-economics": If you had a friend who was thousands of dollars in debt and couldn't pay his bills, if he told you he was going to get another credit card with a line of several thousand dollars more because that would "fix" things, what would you conclude about his level of economic competence? I'm not sure we've had a president since Reagan who I believe understood economics. Well, maybe Clinton had some sense, because as much as I hate to admit it, the economy was doing pretty good during his years. I have other issues with him, though. (And yes, they are probably irrational and unfair because they are based on moral judgments that come from my religious background.)

Again, we can agree to disagree on most of these points. Some things we can agree on. I appreciate the fact that you are capable of actually making points of an argument and explaining where your opinions are coming from and not just attacking me and offering nothing of substance. It's been a pleasure!

(My apologies if any of these points have been too "vague.")

I hardly think Obama falls into anyone's conception of moron.

But if he did, would it be wrong to criticize him?

By that reasoning, was it wrong for people to criticize Bush II?

124

Keep those blinders on, buddy. Drill, baby, drill and all that shit.

It's interesting how many of the problems you have with Obama - the bailout mess and the war in Afghanistan chief among them - come from his having to deal with the consequences of the neglect and bad decisions of the Bush Administration. Do you really think these problems only popped up in the last 10 months?

And since you are giving your own interpretations of "coward", try this on for size: a president sends troops into harm's way for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained, lets them do the heavy lifting, and then decides to dishonor those troops by putting on a flight uniform and flying in to accept accolades like he was some kind of Luke Skywalker. Need we forget that this particular "hero" had his daddy pull all possible strings to keep him out of the combat zone when it was his turn to serve. I would say that this coward wouldn't even be worthy of licking John McCain's boots.

Given that you are so concerned about the troops in Afghanistan, I'm sure you were right up front demanding more support for them while the former president's attention and support was diverted to a trumped-up war in Iraq. That war has been drifting for years, yet you have the temerity to accuse Obama of dithering?

Finally, any president who runs roughshod over the Constitution, weaseling his way through it for his own purposes, subverting and dishonoring the very basic ideals of this country by allowing torture - in effect treating our country like one of those banana republics you so much despise - I can't think of anything more anti-American than that.

Your expanded post has really shown where you are coming from - a cesspit of fear and loathing dressed up in platitudes and false truths. People like you don't support America - you only support your resentful little whitebread slice of it, because, after all, you are (in Ms. Palin's wonderful phrase) the REAL America. The rest are just ungrateful traitors. You sicken me.

Just waiting for Godwin's law to come fulfilled, now...

Tell Godwin to keep his ass out of it....

Are people who criticize Obama from the Left racist? Help me out; I'm trying to stay in step with the bien-pensant.

130
Are you assuming that all people who criticize him from the right are being characterized as racist? (To be explicit: I don't know if drbottlecapper is racist or not. He says he isn't. I have no proof that he is. I suspect the old saying may be true of him: Prejudice is unnecessary - there are so many reasons to dislike people on an individual basis. I can't imagine him having any more of a warm and fuzzy feeling for Bill Clinton than he does for Obama, although his feelings might be just as contrived.)

To get to your fey question: I wouldn't be surprised if some of those criticizing from the left are, in fact, racist. But the racism isn't necessarily the grounds for their criticism, just as it might not alwasy be for those on the right.

In short: Are there racists who dislike Obama? Yes. Are all who criticize him racist? No.

To wander even farther off topic: The "Socialist!" tag was thrown at Clinton as well. Curious, then, that he ended up being an enabler of the economic wizards whose policies of non-regulation would end up beating the shit out of our economy:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

And, yes, some of these geniuses are part of the Obama Administration. So I guess you can count this as one aspect of the current Administration that I'm not happy about, and an indication of the larger problem of the cozy economic establishment that, no matter how badly it f*cks up, maintains its power and influence.

At present the cozy economic establishment knows, or thinks it knows, that no matter how badly it f*cks up the American people, who have been bred and brought along specifically for this purpose, will bail them out. Why should they care? They'll get their multi-bazillion dollar bonuses.

The best thing that can happen to America would be for all those bright boys on Wall Street to go Galt, ASAP, if not sooner.

Here's their genius. I buy a house, the initial lending institution sells my mortgage to a market basket of other banks, at this point no one holds my mortgage as defined in contract law. If you are about to lose your house to foreclosure, make the foreclosing entity prove they own your house and are entitled to your payments. Anyway, they sell my mortgage in chunks to other financial institutions. Then they buy insurance on their investment so if the loan defaults, they make money. So, they make money no matter how it turns out. Great. Until the number of defaults puts a strain on the insurance companies to pay the gambling losses. Of course some companies made zillions on the insurance payouts before the insurance companies realized they were falling off the cliff. It's like I buy the house, insure it for more than it's worth and burn it down. It's illegal when I do it, but not when the investment banks do. Why do they get to do that when I can't? Why is it criminal when I do it, but not when they do it?

I heard on NPR this morning (and will research this further) that some people who predicted this in 1998 and earlier were threatened by the Investment Bankers, including Paulsen, then head of Goldman-Sachs, if they pushed a regulatory regime meant to deal with the systemic problems underlying the events of 2008. Instead the Republicans just exacerbated the problem by repealing Glass-Steagal and other protective legislation as well as opening up the entire investment system to massive irresponsibility.

If I were they, I wouldn't count on the American people bailing them out again. The next time, if there is a next time, I won't be the only one calling to close the airports and for heads on pikes. I am now including freezing all their assets in my litany of things to do when this happens again.

Why do the investment banks get to run a ponzi scheme and are seen as heroic innovators while poor Bernie Maddow and that other fellow from Houston (Sterling?) are made common criminals. I don't see it. Of course, all insurance is a scam and a racket. It's just a legalized ponzi scheme. They use my money to pay for your illness. They require a constant influx of new suckers, and are working to ensure the government requires all of us to be a part of the pyramid. I know, you're going to tell me Social Security is the same thing. I paid a lot of money into Social Security and what I get out is as much mine as the guy (or gal) who paid for my last check. The major difference is Social Security benefits me, not some for profit outfit that is using the government to abet its illegal schemes.

133: Just try that "no one holds my mortgage" argument. See how far you get. The contract almost certainly included a transferability clause.

You also don't understand what a ponzi scheme is.

Two bits of interest:

Dianne Rehm, this morning. About an hour but very, very informative.

A litle bit about Brooksley Born who tried to warn the Clinton White House that what we saw in 2008 was going to happen.

No one saw this coming is a bigger lie than no one saw 9/11 coming. Plenty of people saw it coming. Nobody wanted to believe it.

Insurance is the definition of a ponzi scheme.

>127 Makifat:

I am happy you have joined the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crusade. Welcome!

135: Like I said, you have no idea what a ponzi scheme is. Maybe you should go and look it up before you make yourself look any sillier.

You also don't understand what a ponzi scheme is.

And you can't see the forest for the trees.

136
Why, thank you. Is your shift over already?

>137 StormRaven:.

Maybe geneg doesn't know what "insurance" is.

140: A definite possibility. Since the two use completely different methods of acquiring and distributing money, one wonders how they could be confused though.

Its especially amusing since he expressly removes Social Security from the discussion, which is much more like a ponzi scheme than insurance on the grounds that he "paid into it so it is his money". Perhaps he doesn't realize that the average beneficiary gets out two to three times as much as they put in.

I think "Ponzi scheme" has entered the English (American) lexicon in a way similar to "jihad," in as much as it's used to describe things that it clearly isn't.

Ponzi schemes are illegal ways of getting my money for the benefit of the schemer. I know what a ponzi scheme is. Insurance is a legal scheme of getting my money for the benefit of the schemer. I know what insurance is, and I know that Social Security is a pyramid scheme. all three require a constant supply of fresh meat to feed the beast. With the exception os Social Security I, as the consumer, an being abused for the purpose creating wealth in others. If I got ten shares of stock in the insurance company with every premium payment I made then I might not feel so abused. But I don't. If I'm healthy, which I have been all of my life, then I pay a lot of money for next to no benefit. If, on the other hand, I require constant medical care, I may or may not get it, depending on how easy it is for the insurance company to back out on the deal. In the meantime, since no one is paying for care and there is all this money, it just gets more and more expensive as various groups get there hands on the pile. Other people pay for my care. Other people paid for Charles Ponzi's profits. I'm not sure I understand the difference. I'm being fleeced both ways.

Medical care was a lot less expensive before insurance go involved.

We're being ripped off. It may not technically be a ponzi scheme but we are still being ripped off in essentially the same manner.

Oh, and just to toss out a red-herring here, for all you free marketers out there, what's this about the health insurance industry legally conspiring to fix prices? Educate me, isn't this counter to the fostering of competition, the core of free market capitalism? One of the things I learn more and more about is anyone who thinks Wall Street represents a free market is smoking funny stuff. Of course I've known this all along. You and I StormRaven are at the bottom of a siphon from our pockets to the pockets of Wall Street and this siphon was constructed by the USCongress in collusion with Wall Street. That's why I hate Republicans. Everything they do is designed to rip me off.

No, that's not what insurance is. Insurance is pooling risk.

In a ponzi scheme, the schemer collects money with the promise that they will invest it and the people investing weill get a return on their investment plus their principle back. What makes this a ponzi scheme is that they don't invest the money, they simply recruit more people get their money and pay off the earlier investors. The paying off earlier investors give the schemer a reputation, which encourages more investors to join. The intention is to eventually build up a large enough amount of money "invested" that the schemer can abscond with the cash.

Insurers are about pooling risk from multiple people. Let's look at car insurance (for example). In a given group of, say 100 car drivers, there is a small chance that any one of them will have an accident. This adds up to a predictable rate of accidents that would require repairs to their car and possibly medical bills, and maybe the other car (if the person in question caused the accident). The cost in question would be substantial for one person to pay if it happened to them. That's where the insurer comes in: they collect a small amount of money from many people and spread the risk. Let's say it is predictable that 10 people out of the 100 will have an accident that year that will cost on average $5,000 to repair. For 100 people, the insurer needs to charge at least 50,000 total, or $500 per person for the year, plus an amount that will allow the insurer to pay their expenses and the salaries of their employees.

According to your logic the 90 people who didn't have accidents were ripped off. But they got exactly what they paid for: insurance against the possibility they would have to pay $5,000 in auto repairs following an accident. Insurance is trading uncertainty for certainty. To avoid possibly having to make a big payout, you make a small one and share the risk with the rest of the people in your pool.

Health insurance is currnetly a mess, but not because it is "insurance", but because people treat it like a candy store. People don't want to spread risk, they want to get routine goodies. But if the predictable cost of something is 100% (like for preventive care), then the insurer has to charge its subscribers the full value of that care plus a premium in order to stay afloat.

Suppose the auto insurers offered to cover the cost of getting routine oil changes on the insured poll members' cars, which would cost $25 each. Let's say they cover four oil changes per year. They would have to increase everyone's premium by more than $100 to cover this ($100 plus the cost of processing the paperwork). The kicker is that, if this were like health insurance, the insured members would have demanded that this service be covered, and then complained that it drove up the cost of their insurance.

The problem with the health insurance industry isn't the industry. It is us, and what we demand of it.

>132 Makifat: policies of non-regulation would end up beating the shit out of our economy

The Lefty is an infiltration unit, part man/part machine. Underneath it's a hyper-alloy combat chassis, micro-processor controlled, fully armored, very tough. Totally immune to fact and logic. But, outside it's living human tissue -- flesh, skin, hair, blood -- grown for the cyborgs...The 600-series had rubber skin, we spotted them easy, but these are new, they look human.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/46549

Wow. You guys really do make your own reality.

BTW, your link isn't functional. Thank you!

This has turned into an interesting conversation. I have a question I've been itching to ask you Yanks. What makes you think that insurance is the appropriate method of financing a healthcare system? It is unlike most other risks that are insured, in that everyone eventually needs healthcare. You can go through your life without an motor accident, or a estate fire, so insurance seems a reasonable method of protecting against that unknown risk. For-profit health insurance companies have a conflict of interest with their customers that doesn't exist with other types of insurance. When compared to most countries using an insurance model (Bismarck plans, which are used in about 30 developed countries) the US is a glaring anomaly. The other countries require that insurance companies be non-profit and their objective is to collect enough premiums to cover costs. The US model is to manage benefits to maximize profits. That is not an attack. Ask any insurance company executive and they will freely admit that is the objective of any for-profit insurance company. Does that make sense as a way to finance healthcare?

147: I have pointed that out before, numerous times. What people in the U.S. are demanding is not insurance, but we try to shoehorn it into insurance anyway. And then everyone gets mad when it doesn't seem to work and blames the insurance companies we demanded provide a service they are ill-suited to provide.

So, StormRaven, what would you recommend we do about the health insurance system?

149: Well, the first thing I would do is stop trying to make the insurance system offer non-insurance. Insurance is designed to pay for things that are risks, not things like routine care, regular medications and so on. You break your arm, have to have your appendix removed, get cancer, or need a kidney transplant, that's something insurance should cover. You need to go to the doctor every six months, and your kids need routine injections? That's not.

If we need a system to pay for that sort of thing (really, to subsidize that sort of thing, since that is pretty much the only version that would be a better deal than paying for it out of pocket), then let's divorce that from "health insurance" and deal with routine care seperately.

>150 StormRaven:.

Hear, hear!

I was always confused why Congress was pushing "Universal Health Insurance," and not "Universal Health Care." It seemed like they were trying to put a Band-Aid brand adhesive bandage on a bullet wound. Do they just think we're not paying attention?

Also, I've always thought that health insurance was the biggest misnomer I've ever seen, being that most people use it as a discount program instead of actual insurance. Of course, I've been in or around the insurance industry for as long as I can remember.

I agree with you on the great divorce of Insurance and Subsidy, 100%.

Link in 145 fixed.

#124, DrBottlecapper: "During his first few weeks in office, he went on his "Apologize for America" tour, saying a lot about how America has done evil in the world (and I'm paraphrasing here). He did not once mention how many Americans sacrificed their lives for the freedom of Europeans during WWII."

Maybe it was just common sense, because it would have gone down very badly indeed in Europe? Of course, for you as an American it is important. But the total number of Americans who died in Europe in WW2 is about two percent of the ten million Russian soldiers that died. Many European nations lost more men than the USA. Plus the civilian casualties, which for Poland, Germany and Yugoslavia have been in the millions, for the SU in the tens of millions.

Most of us will readily agree that the USA made a valuable contribution to end the war, but standing in front of a European audience and counting numbers would be considered poor style.

144> Insurers pay for routine things all the time, either directly or indirectly, if it will cut down on their future expenses. If a health insurer pays for a dozen primary care visits, and prevents one person from spending a week in intensive care, then they've saved money.

Health insurance is different from most insurances, too. For one, if you have lung cancer, you get treatment or die. For another, if you don't have health insurance, your costs frequently end up dumped on someone else; if a poor uninsured person shows up in an ambulance, the hospital is likely to end up eating the cost.

154: The problem is that to pay for those routine visits, the insurer has to charge those who purchase it the amount the visits cost plus the insurers administrative costs. Hence, insuance is a bad deal for those buying it. And thus they complain.

Ask yourself this: why don't auto insurers pay for routine care of cars? Why don't auto insurers pay for driving classes for their insurees to make them better drivers? Sure, they might offer discounts for things like that, but they don't foot the bill. Think about why that might be.

One problem with the current proposal is the portabilty provision, which seems designed to unravel the insurance market because it is not accompanied by a corresponding coverage mandate.

There will not be a bill without the mandate. The insurance companies will not allow that to happen. I think people who wish not to participate should have that option. If they don't, of course, it all becomes cash on the barrel head. That would be a big enough penalty for all but the most stubborn or wealthy.

156: People not wishing to participate being allowed to do so is what would cause the insurance market to unravel. People for whom coverage is a bad deal would drop out, and then insurers would have to raise premiums (because those left would be riskier insurees) and then people for whom insurance is now a bad deal would drop out, and so on.

To return to the original topic of this thread, a personal observation.

I've just completed a mini- (or, more accurately, micro-) speaking tour, talking about socialized medicine to about a dozen conservative and libertarian groups, in the West and Southwest. Audience sizes ranged from 75 to 1, ages from 80+ to 18. Mainly white, with a few Asians and Hispanics, and two Blacks (in Texas!). All on the Right in one way or another.

I tried to chat informally to as many people as I could, which was sometimes possible, sometimes not. I was/am interested in the nature of the rank and file of American conservatism, whom I only know from on-line discussion forums.

I encountered some lamentable ignorance: young people -- young conservatives, mind you -- who know almost nothing about the Soviet Union, for example. And I ran into more wing-nuttery than I wanted to. "Obama the communist" and similar nonsense.

But if any of these people were racists in a meaningful sense -- and surely some of the older ones were, at least a bit -- they kept it well hidden. I didn't detect any of the sly ways that anti-Semites and racists "ping" for one of their own, not once.

I hve also noticed, on on-line conservative forums in which I take part, that when an open racist appears, he is hammered by everyone else. (I recall one occasion when a neo-Nazi turned up on a right wing forum and met the full wrath of a rather hardline former Marine First Sergeant who was a forum moderator. Treated the poor chap rather harshly.)

I think that two generations of official anti-racism has pretty much driven real racism out of the public arena, even within the Right, just as three generations of official anti-anti-Semitism has pushed this disease under a rock. Even a shameless demagogue like Al Sharpton has to retract his statements about "diamond merchants" after he has made them.

I believe a similar process has taken place with respect to sexual equality, and will eventually occur with respect to homosexuality. I think it takes about three generations.

It may be a mask to start with, but the mask eventually grows into the face.