A week or two ago, I received a bizarre comment from a black man who insisted that, because Barack Obama is black, his Senate seat now belonged to black people. I called that attitude racist, and I said so no uncertain terms.
Shortly thereafter, I began to receive a series of bizarre emails asking "How dare you talk that way to Stan?" The writer or writers presumed that I knew who "Stan" was. I did not and still don't. I'll assume that this is not the same Stan who used to pal around with Ollie. And he's probably not the Stan who used to write The Fantastic Four.
Suddenly, the Friends of Stan (who, as far as I know, may be Stan's alternate personalities) have erected a number of insta-sites devoted to trashing me, and even to publishing fake "interviews" with me. These sites, like the emails which poured into my box, display a consistently demented writing style. The overall effect is very amusing; I'm reminded of the screeds that Dr. Bronner used to write for his soap labels.
For the record: I will always decry the bigotry inherent in the notion that any given Senate seat "belongs" to any group. I don't care if the Senate is 1 percent black or 99 percent black, as long as each individual senator reflects the will of his or her constituents.
Here in California, we happen to have two women filling two Senate seats. Do these seats now "belong" to females? Of course not. Must a woman hold onto one of those seats in perpetuity? Of course not.
I don't much care for Senator Diane Feinstein. Yeah, I've voted for her, but only because the person running against her was always more objectionable. If a male replaces her, fine. (Obviously, I would prefer for the male to be a true liberal, which Feinstein is not.) If a male replaces Boxer after her retirement -- which I hope does not occur for a good long time -- that's fine too.
And it'll be just as fine if a woman takes over either job. Or if two women take both jobs.
I strongly condemn the proposition, occasionally mooted on The Confluence, that Congress should be 50% female. Would you like to see 50 Ann Coulters in the Senate? Would the House be improved if most of the Democrats were clones of Nancy Pelosi? The voters in each state and district should choose the person they consider best qualified, regardless of sex. If Congress ends up 100% female, fine by me. If Congress ends up 100% non-female, fine by me.
And where I wrote "female" in the previous two sentences, you can substitute the words "black" or "Hispanic" or "gay" or "Asian" or "Muslim" or "Jewish" or what-have you.
If that attitude makes me a bigot in your eyes, I would, in all due respect, advise you to achieve carnal knowledge with an anally-applied length of barb wire. You're the bigot.
13 comments:
Perhaps you should have used the word, "bigot" instead of racist.
Well, aren't YOU special!
I have to share my deranged haters with Riverdaughter, Murphy and the rest of the PUMA bloggers.
Wasn't there some discourse when Bill "equal opportunities" Clinton was elected about how x% of Americans being lesbians meant that x% of US Army generals should also be lesbians?
But even if I disagree with Anon's words taken literally, maybe he or she has a little bit of a point. Both quotas and positive discrimination are undesirable, but the baby is chucked out with the bathwater when it's denied that when housing structures etc. are racist they are almost always anti-black or anti-Hispanic rather than anti-white.
When I get asked to specify my ethnic group on forms, I always refuse - on the simple grounds that it shouldn't matter what ethnic group someone is when they apply for something. Equal opportunities policies are used above all to help bosses and bureaucrats to defend themselves against often justified charges of racist discrimination on the spurious grounds that there's a lot of paperwork to prove that they're 'very serious about their equal opportunities policy'.
b
Joseph, I think The Confluence endorses the 30% solution. Which is that governments that are made up of at least 30% women tend to have more family/people-friendly policies.
I've never heard any of the authors at The Confluence endorse a 50% plan -- it's possible but, still not endorsed by the blog itself. (I've actually never read that in the comments either but, The Confluence gets a lot of comments so it's possible)
I consider the 30% solution idea to be a sort of tie-breaker. If I'm going to hold my nose, it might as well be for a woman rather than a man. But, I'm still getting used to being an Independent after a lifetime as a straight-ticket Democrat so it's mostly theory at this point.
Discrimination on the basis of race is a definition of racism, so your crazed stalker's insistence that the seat "belongs" to a black candidate is racist.
Of course if the stalker is right, then the other 99 senate seats are 'white seats'. Bummer for him, I guess.
Joe,
there have been studies done that find that when women make up at least 30% of the legislature - regardless of their political orientiation - the legislature is more likely to write and pass women and family-friendly legislation.When it comes to families and careers, women across the political spectrum have the same experiences, and while they may disagree on a lot of stuff, they are more likely to agree on family issues than men are.
I'll give you just a small example. Years ago in Ohio, they did a study where they allowed young mothers on welfare to finish high school by providing day care for the baby and other support. To the men's amazement, these girls were pretty quickly transformed into serious students. They were surprised to find that all the girls graduated. They really thought that they would prefer to sit around and collect welfare. But none of those men had ever been put in the position of trying to figure out how to pay for day care, keep a roof over your head and get through school. And those beliefs had colored all of Ohio's policies up until then. Here in California, when we created GAIN, the state build in all sorts of punishments for women who were qualified but didn't sign up. Within weeks, the program was full and thousands of women were begging to be funded. This, too, was a surprise for the men who were developing policy. There are very few men who deal with the front line famliy issues writing policy. Right and left, women are the ones who figure how to take care of the kids and deal with aging parents. Right and left, women deal with the same types of discrimination at work. So, those women get elected and work on different types of issues. That's why 30% makes a difference for women - we all benefit from having our basic needs represented effectively in the legislature - and that is not happening now.
that isn't bigotry because what this election made clear is that there is a huge amount of bigotry keeping women out of office based on their gender. If we don't do some voting strictly on the basis of gender, then we will never break through. And heck what this presidential election proves is that any guy, regardless of how unqualified his is, can beat a superbly qualified woman.
Your stalker might be Happy/Hopeful/Angry Black Guy who stalks myiq2xu. He has multiple personalities and various names at Tennessee Guerilla Women, the Confluence, and No Quarter.
That's not ABG - his writing style is evident in all his sockpuppet personas.
Sadly, there's more than one weirdo in the intertoobz.
In Québec, we have a 50/50 government. Half of the ministers are woman, and it's not only "soft issues" like "Families" or "social services", but Finance and other important positions. And don't worry, these woman are not just there because they are woman, they are strong and competent administrators. The opposition party leader is also a woman.
Some examples:
Monique Jérôme-Forget, Minister of Finance, Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Kathleen Weil, Justice
Nathalie Normandeau, Vice Prime-Minister
Yolande James, immigration
Julie Boulet, Minister of Transport
It's only a matter of time before this happens everywhere else.
"A week or two ago, I received a bizarre comment from a black man who insisted that, because Barack Obama is black, his Senate seat now belonged to black people. I called that attitude racist, and I said so no uncertain terms."
Joe:
Thank your lucky stars you don't live here in Chicago!
I have been hearing this shit for years as it pertains to the AA's that hold or have ever held, office here.
True, not everyone of "Color" believes this and never have. To say that all blacks hold this view would be a disservice to those of "all" colors, that believe that skin color should not matter in today's world. I know many people that do not hold this ridiculous view and think that those that do are full of shit! But sadly, there are many, of all race's that believe they are "Owed" something!
With the "Selection" of O'Blah Blah, The view that was posted above seems to have taken root in the minds of many. ( To be honest, it has always existed) Once the race card was used and once the media legitimized the use of it by helping to spread O'Blah Blah's talking points, some took that as their cue to unsheathe this blade and strike when and where it would silence any opposition to them. sadly we have only seen the tip of this blade Joe!
The "Race Card" is nothing new. It has always been used to great effect by those like Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, to name a few. Those two men hold Black belts in this disgusting art. We can go on and on with the names of those that have used the race card to their benefit and the Media's faux outrage to legitimize it. There have been instances where it was blatantly used and those that do need to reap what they sow, but to believe that a Senate seat belongs to anyone of Color or that it "Belongs to a Woman or a Man simply because the previous holder of that office was such is utter nonsense!
It is sad is it not? I have heard this same argument above, escape the lips of some pretty "Educated" and supposedly "liberal" people lately. Men and Women who you would have never thought held such beliefs have made this comment to me thinking it was safe because I am "Native American," therefore they assume I prescribe to this nonsense. I have let it be known that I do not and never will prescribe to this crap!
We all witnessed what transpired in Chicago when Burris was being denied the seat O'Blah Blah vacated. Right from the jump it was said that Burris was being denied the seat because he was "Black!" This out of the mouths of politicians sworn to represent "all of their constituents!"Not, mind you, that there may have been some "Pay to Play" action happening.That was not their argument.
It was said that Burris was being denied because he was BLACK!
The look on Reid's face was priceless! All of a sudden he was spitting out the lame comeback..."I have many Black Constituents!" So forth and so on.
There will always be racism in America! Anyone who believes that we are in a "Post Racial America" has their head too far up their ass. Racism has and always will be, a part of the human experience.
We all witnessed the lengths some will go to to "Force" an unqualified" candidate down the throats of the American people. Remember the up-roar when Hillary was accused of Racism by the Media and O'Blah Blah's supporters?
"Post Racial America?"
Bullshit! Once that card was used to great effect on Obama's rivals, the script was written and now we are witnessing to the disgust of many, that this genie will prove difficult to put back in it's bottle.
You can all thank Obama and Co. for this.
Maybe, just maybe, one day we will all come together as Human beings and learn to appreciate what each of us brings to this dream we call life. Until then, I can only hold my nose and try not to breath in the stench that is "Racism!"
This is what I've been saying for a while. There are people that aren't expecting this. They think that black people will embrace white people forever and ever after Obama is inaugurated. They also think it gives them brownie points with the black community for voting for Obama.
I'm from a minority (not black) and assuming the status of a victim brings many advantages. They'll suck it for all its worth. Happens all the time. Obama even said that being black in politics brought many advantages. But push it too far and it'll backfire. Your blog entry shows that it's already begun. I'm the same way. I call BS when I see it.
Thank you for speaking up against racism no matter where it rears its ugly head!
This is only an extension of previously existing 'quota' numbers.
For example, after a Jewish American or an AA or a woman became an associate justice at the SCOTUS, it was said, without much dissent, that these were 'x' seats.
You are right that this is insulting and partially racist (although in the affirmative action way that not everyone agrees is racist). And it has unexpected and bad results, as when Bush 41 replaced the retired Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas (the 'best qualified' of all possible candidates, according to the liar Bush).
Although Thomas did NOT receive a majority vote out of the Judiciary Committee, which normally puts a nominee out of the running, then-Chairman Biden and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate at the time felt under pressure from the AA community to let the guy in. Bad idea.
XIslander
Post a Comment