Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Page 3 of 3 pages « First  <  1 2 3

1. Harry

   “In just the same way as it must have appeared shocking when, for example “That Was the Week That Was”, Private Eye and similar groundbreaking media broke on the conservative, pro-establishment media in the 1960’s. Hannity and Limbaugh and O’Reilly only appear shocking if you’ve never had your pre-conceptions challenged before.”

   The only preconceptions they challenge are my preconceptions about basic manners and constructive discourse. I have heard rightwing arguments before, and put much more compellingly by much more serious commentators. TWTWTW, Private Eye etc had the alleviating balm of humour – people can say anything as long as they’re funny. I reckon, for example, that South Park is a pretty right wing show, but first and foremost, it’s a hilarious one. Whereas you’ll find more humour at a “Marxism: Where Now?” conference than on Foxnews.

   Also, to suggest that there’s an “overwhelming ‘left/liberal’ media consensus” in America is crazy. When rightwingers say there’s a “liberal media consensus”, what they actually mean is that the media isn’t rightwing enough for their tastes. If it’s any consolation to you, I find the mainstream US media to be staunchly conservative. Anyone who followed the buildup to the Iraq war knows that even the so-called “liberal media” can be relied on by rightwing warmongers in the White House when push comes to shove. Even the more “liberal” organs such as the NY Times are in fact nothing of the sort. Far from being genuinely liberal, or genuinely sceptical of power, they are the leftmost gatekeepers of acceptable discourse, beyond which one dare not go. I mean, this is a country with the freest media in the world, in which a poll found that more than half the population thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and a later poll found that almost two thirds believed WMD had been found in Iraq, in which journalists call the president “sir”, in which the military budget accounts for half of GDP yet no serious debate about military expenditure seems possible.

   “Equally I reject that conservatives “attack” single mothers, they attack the belief that single-motherhood is just as good as bringing up children in a context where both parents are married.”

   I completely support the nuclear family, I completely reject the notion that the absence of a father doesn’t really matter. I believe that the benefits/tax system should reward married couples. (Including same sex married couples.) But the right has never come remotely close to figuring out a way to do this without punishing single parents – few of whom, we must assume, would have chosen to be single parents. When faced with the reality that their proposals would hurt people who are already highly vulnerable, the right tends to respond either with a shrug of the shoulders (as in, “you can’t make an ommelette...") or in more extreme cases, wild-eyed glee (as in, “the sluts deserve it”.)

   I agree that the world would be a much better place if every child had two parents (show me an unstable child and I’ll show you an unstable family) but if you want to implement policies that will devastate single-parent families, then you’re declaring war on people in my life that I love very much, and though we might have theoretical common ground, I’ll defend my loved ones from you and your zeal with everything I’ve got.

   “(well, ok, I admit I don’t subscribe to the smug trope about GW Bush being some sort of retard…)

   Actually, I don’t think Bush is a retard. I have a friend who’s a psychiatrist, and pretty conservative in her politics, who says – neither facetiously nor flippantly but totally seriously – that Bush displays several characteristics of a psychopathic personality.

   And I don’t think Obama is some sort of a messiah either, but his speech was remarkable, and raised him up considerably in my estimation.

   Posted by  on Mar 28, 2008 @ 07:24 PM

2. Dread

   This was the line, to which I replied that you were making assumptions:

   “...despite your seeming belief to the contrary...”

   Clearly you misunderstood what I was referring to. Happy to clarify.

   Posted by  on Mar 28, 2008 @ 07:27 PM

3. Dread

   I concede the point that Johnson talked about a “war on poverty”. I’m familiar with the argument that the Great Society played a role in social problems, though I don’t accept it. But that’s another debate.

   I would point out though, that it was you, not Ray Nagin, who called Philadelphia a “black city”. I’m not sure what Ray Nagin or New Orleans has to do with it, to be honest.

   Of course you’re right that voters of any colour have the option of staying home. However I would suggest the historic nature of Obama’s candidacy all but guarantees he would take nearly a hundred percent of a high-turnout black vote in November, even if his running mate was David Duke. But who knows?

   Either way, I don’t think Obama’s speech was all about shoring up the black vote - he’ll be keenly aware that it’s white voters who’ll put him on the ticket and perhaps into the White House.

   Posted by  on Mar 28, 2008 @ 07:36 PM

4. Billy Pilgrim:  “Clearly you misunderstood what I was referring to. Happy to clarify.”

   To acknowledge a seeming is to not make assumptions, William, but to state the appearance whilst reserving final judgment.  Glad to clarify the point as well.

   Billy Pilgrim:  “I concede the point that Johnson talked about a “war on poverty”. I’m familiar with the argument that the Great Society played a role in social problems, though I don’t accept it. But that’s another debate.”

   He also proposed and got passed the legislation to fight his ill-conceived war, Billy, to tragic economic consequences. 

   Billy Pilgrim:  “I would point out though, that it was you, not Ray Nagin, who called Philadelphia a “black city”. I’m not sure what Ray Nagin or New Orleans has to do with it, to be honest.”

   A couple bits of orientation, Billy.

   1) Whites, in the United States, do not vote as blocs, Blacks do.  As such, being the second largest population group, by that slim margin, makes them the politically dominant group.  When a Republican presidential candidate approaches 8-9% of the black vote in the US, this is considered remarkable.

   2) I was noting that the term in vogue was “chocolate” and not “black.” I do find it odd that it is permitted for African Americans to lay claim to political domination of a city, yet somehow wrong for me to acknowledge the same.

   Billy Pilgrim:  “Of course you’re right that voters of any colour have the option of staying home. However I would suggest the historic nature of Obama’s candidacy all but guarantees he would take nearly a hundred percent of a high-turnout black vote in November, even if his running mate was David Duke. But who knows?”

   Let him get branded an “Uncle Tom” and see what happens.

   He would have the overwhelming black vote that turns out on the basis of being the Democrat in any event, so no major victory there.

   Billy Pilgrim:  “Either way, I don’t think Obama’s speech was all about shoring up the black vote - he’ll be keenly aware that it’s white voters who’ll put him on the ticket and perhaps into the White House.”

   And that’s not what I said it was about, William.  I said it was about mollifying the white vote without alienating the black vote.  Hardly the same as “shoring up the black vote.”

   Posted by  on Mar 28, 2008 @ 07:56 PM
Page 3 of 3 pages « First  <  1 2 3

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.