Pardon My Paranoia

The FT has an interesting article (by Christopher Caldwell of the weekly Standard) about race relations in the US; his launch point was the Obama speech, but we ended up here:

A very interesting book published this week shows why. In Racial Paranoia (Basic Books, $26/£15.99), the University of Pennsylvania anthropologist John L. Jackson Jr suggests that extravagant theories of white racism – from the widespread Aids rumour to Louis Farrakhan’s allegation that the US actually blew up the levees to cause the deadly New Orleans floods during Hurricane Katrina – have their roots in the decorous language that mostly white leaders have invented for talking about race.

The US has not managed to eliminate racism, Mr Jackson thinks, but it has succeeded in eliminating racist talk. Remarks the slightest bit “insensitive” draw draconian punishment. White people, because they feel thoroughly oppressed by this regime, assume that it must be some kind of “gift” to minorities, especially blacks.

It is not. It is more like a torment. It renders the power structure more opaque to blacks than it has ever been, leaving what Mr Jackson calls a “scary disconnect between the specifics of what gets said and the hazy possibilities of what kinds of things are truly meant”. If the historic enemies of your people suddenly began talking about you in what can fairly be called a secret code, how inclined would you be to trust in their protestations of generosity?

This is the core of the problem Mr Obama aims to address. Bringing subterranean racial narratives into the light of day, where they can be debated openly, is a risk. Although the early news coverage of his speech has been positive, polls appear show that what Americans most want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev Wright.

Here is the "Racial Paranoia" website and author bio, with a helpful encoded picture to answer the obvious question Mr. Caldwell was too PC to tackle.  The New Black Man also clips some reviews.

As an example of the PC police in action we need look no further than my previous post.  "Old Punk" of the InstaPunk crowd posted his thoughts on why specific behaviors of a specific subset of the black community annoys him [that is a willfully generous but defensible characterization - see below].  Frankly, there is very little in his post I would be inclined to defend, but I would be very curious to learn how widely held his viewpoints might be.  As an example, I would guess his aversion to the hip-hop gangsta sub-culture is widely shared.

Well.  Rather than trying to look for the message in his message, the Usual Suspects, led by Glenn Greenwald, seized on the offensive sections as an opportunity to brand Glenn Reynolds and the entire conservative movement as racists.

So let me summarize the exchange:

Obama: We should have a national conversation about race.

Old Punk: OK, here is what annoys me about some black people.

Lefties:  The Old Punk is a racist, as are all righties.

One might well argue that this does discourage anything like a candid conversation.

Ann Althouse provides an interesting perspective.

BELOW:  I assert that the Old Punk has problems with "specific behaviors of a specific subset of the black community".  Does that square with this:

I don't hate black people. I can't pretend to be color-blind because absolutely nothing in my culture will allow me to be. I admire Thomas Sowell, Duke Ellington, Roberto Clemente, Muhammed Ali, Alexandre Dumas, Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Count Basie, Tiger Woods, and Bill Cosby. There are many others but that's a sampling of the famous folks whose courage, genius, character, and achievements I would be proud if I could get anywhere in the vicinity of. The bald truth of the matter is that they're better than I am, and it doesn't arouse a flicker of racial feeling in me to acknowledge it. They have enriched and elevated my own experience of life.

On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it? I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings. It's like a broadcast dare: Go ahead! Call me a nigger! And then I'll cap your ass.

There are black people he likes but he hates them as a group - what does that mean?  I am opting for the notion that he objects to specific manifestations of a collective black culture, but folks intent on shutting down the dialogue will insist he just doesn't like all blacks.

MORE:  John Cole provides a chuckle:

That being said, this Tom Maguire post had me laugh out loud:

...If Tom Maguire thinks that when Obama was writing his speech and Caldwell was writing his piece, what they had in mind for a candid discussion about race was a bunch of jackasses stating “Here is what I hate about niggers,” then he probably really didn’t understand the speech or the FT piece.

Hmm.  I have put about as charitable interpretation on the Old Punk's tirade as I care to, but it does lend itself to a less nuanced summary.

Comments

[Other Tom]

Anybody still seriously think this guy can be elected in November?

[kim]

Typical Rethuglican. I'm tellin' ya, National Publican Radio had to be one of the funnist things I've heard this week. These people are from outer space.

Was Obama in church today? Why not?
=========================

[Other Tom]

Shedding some light on my own question:

"On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable."

I simply cannot believe that a "national dialogue on race" between now and November can help Obama's chances in any way whatsoever. I think it's the last thing he wanted. Starting with Bubba in S. Carolina, the Clintons have sought to make him a "black candidate," and now the whole church thing has blown the issue sky high.

[Porchlight]

Supposedly he's at the beach, kim. Which does make one wonder - would he and his family have been at TUCC today if the Wright story hadn't broken?

[PaulL]

Enough talk about race, already. Let's finally do something about it, with Barack in the lead.

Let's all unite behind reparations. Michelle Obama can figure out how much is owed.

Reparations need not cost *us* anything. Let's have Big Oil, Big Pharmacy, and Big Insurance companies pay for it.

[kim]

Whoa, PL, manboobs. Pecs are hung just a little higher.
================================

[Jane]

Not to take the race issue seriously, but aren't we actually talking about culture? And isn't the real distinction between people who don't share ideals and values and people who do, regardless of the color? And isn't the war about which set of values will prevail? And finally isn't the real problem that minority's values, require the majority's values to survive?

[Porchlight]

Heh, kim. Maybe it's just the camera angle?

[PeterUK]

BTW,Can anyone define hip-hop? I spent an afternoon with a music critic discussing this and we could find no defining stylistic features.Bebop yes,hip-hop no.

[buford gooch]

What actually seems to have happened with Obama's "Race Speech" was that a carefully kept cover has been ripped off of that minority of Black churches that rants like J Wright. The vast majority of Whites has never been exposed to this overt racism from the Black "Christian" community (although quite a few were aware of nutballs like Farrakhan). First, many saw, or at least heard about, J. Wright's awful excuses for Christian sermons. Then, Obama said Wright was a regular part of Black culture.

If Obama had told us he never understood Wright to be racist before, and now that it had been pointed out so forcefully to him he was going to leave that church and denounce wright, the cover could have remained. Now, finally, the entire country has to look at this enormous chasm between Black and White. I doubt that we will look at it for long, though. It's quite ugly, and it would be so nice to go back to petending it doesn't exist.

[Rick Ballard]

"Starting with Bubba in S. Carolina, the Clintons have sought to make him a "black candidate," and now the whole church thing has blown the issue sky high."

I'm aware of the Clinton's deep antipathy toward Jews and certainly Senator Clinton's service on Walmart's board is a clear indication of her deep seated union busting sympathies but I believe that the exhibition of anti-black sentiment on their part requires further explication. President Clinton did appoint blacks to cabinet posts, although he was remarkably absent in defense of Espy when he came under suspicion. Nor did he provide much in the way of rebuttal to charges that O'Leary was rather indiscrete in opening Los Alamos to the Chinese. Aside from those instances though, you must admit that his close relationship with Vernon Jordan, turning to him as he did in his hour of need, demonstrates an ability to at least attempt to bridge the racial divide.

The Clinton's attempt to use race as the wedge with which to drive Obama from contention may be simple political expediency rather than an example of racist tendencies on either of their parts. Senator Clinton did not hesitate to throw a Hispanic under the bus when she turned to a black woman to replace her as campaign chief as the campaign faltered.

Or could that just have been a subtle move to give cover for the racist attack on Obama?

It's a very puzzling situation which should be explored in depth and at length. Would Obama really have been forced to deal with the nut who was his pastor and mentor for twenty years had the Clinton's not forced the issue?

[anduril]

I'm with PaulL--let's cut the chit-chat and get right down to the bottom line. I suggest reparations as the subject of the next Dem debate. I only wish I could be asking the questions.

Although the early news coverage of his speech has been positive, polls appear show that what Americans most want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev Wright.

Why "although"? It should go without saying that news coverage will differ dramatically from the opinion of the vast majority of Americans. Shouldn't it read more like:

The early news coverage of his speech has been positive, but naturally polls appear [to] show that what Americans most want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev Wright.

[MikeS]

I do believe race is still a problem for some people in this country, but I don't think most or even a large percentage of black people feel the way Rev. Wright does about white people.

I don't think a conversation about race will solve the problem. We should take action immediately to rescue the people who are under the sway of Rev. Wright and other racist hate mongers whatever their race may be.

[narciso]

Seriously, what is wrong with these people, the fact that one refrains from using derogatory descriptions; which are freely
traded in the local idiom, is some kind of
'gift' to the African American community.
What they do pick up from the wider culture
is self selectively destructive. Consider:
The AIDS rumor was floated by the KGB
through Indian, Greek & other publications.
The 'we blew up the levees" rumor came from the same dank corners, that alleged cannibalism & murder, and gunfire at rescue
choppers at the Superdrome (which had the interesting side effect of keeping the Pres.
away from what was thought to be an American
version of Fallujah). Interestingly, Robert
Ferrigno's dystopian sequel, Sins of the Assassin, has the levees being destroyed by
Islamist; a conjecture supported by the home town of the US citizen of Saudi extraction; Yusef Hamdi, Morgan City LA; and it's devastating effect on the social fabric. To compound the effect, he was N.Orleans go the way of Atlantis after two
near future super hurricanes. A similar disinformation effort, blaming the Mossad for two nuclear detonations (a reverse take on the now cancelled 'Jericho')lays the groundwork for the Islamization of America.

The Christics floated the CIA cocaine rumor, promoting it through their media contacts in Hollywood. Their ally on the Kerry Committee, a former Church committee
staffer named Jack Blum, gave it a patina of authenticity when Gary Webb, took up the
charge, a decade later. You know hoe perverse the African American culture absorbtion of these memes are; one of the
leading rappers is named 'Rick Ross' the
marketer of the crack epidemic, socalled.

[centralcal]

At the top of this thread, OT asked a very simple question:

"Anybody still seriously think this guy can be elected in November?"

Several comments later, I can only answer equally as simply:

"No. Hell, no!"

[Rick Ballard]

"We should take action immediately to rescue the people who are under the sway of Rev. Wright and other racist hate mongers whatever their race may be."

Sorry. My give a damn about this "problem" got busted in '97 and I don't feel like getting it fixed. Besides, "rescuing" people with feet seems a tad coercive.

I suggest a close reading of "Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers" by Tom Wolfe followed by hearty laughter at the two bit hustlers like Wright, his replacement and their BLT (hold that mayo) Afrocentric farce. The church is stronger in Africa than it is anywhere else in the world and Wright's "brand" would draw either guffaws or condemnation from all but the African Marxist's who are abusing a very small number of congregations.

BHO laid down with dogs in order to advance his political career. Let him scratch his own fleas.

I think tracing the Clinton's use of the race card is more interesting. A day late and a dollar short should be the Red Witch's motto.

[Peter]

http://gopcatholics.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccain-wrong-on-trade.html

[clarice]

It breaks my heart--really it does to have to acknowledge that this two bit self promoter promoted himself out of any real chance of winning the general by making allegiance with hthis crazypants and then too slickly speechifying about the matter in such a way as to tap dance away from the one question he had to answer: Why did you endorse by your presence and contributions and praise this man for 20 years.

[Neo]

Did anyone posting here give the IRS the authority to look at their 2007 tax information for any purpose other than determining their 2007 liability ?

Thought not.

So exactly how are they determining any curtailment of the full amount on your economic stimulus check ?

[BumperStickerist]

.

The flipside of the Jeremiah Wright issue is whether attending a church where the pastor's sermons are so bland as to be completely unmemorable or easily summarized into "God says go and do good" or "Help each other" or some such is presidential.

-

Also, if Barack is the nominee, I half-hope McCain would point out during a debate that he's lived overseas longer than Obama has.

-

[narciso]

True, Panama, Europe, his time at Yankee Station, and his Hanoi Hilton ordeal. adds
up to a large period of overseas experience.

[Other Tom]

"I believe that the exhibition of anti-black sentiment on their part requires further explication."

For my part, I can't discern any anti-black or anti-Jewish sentiment in either of them, any more than I could discern an anti-Tsongas or anti-Jerry Brown sentiment. It is simply that Obama now, and Tsongas and Brown in the past, stood between them and their truly neurotic lust for the White House, and thus had to be destroyed--as Spike Lee would say, by any means necessary.

In fact, it's hard to detect in either of them anything properly called "sentiment." There is presidential power, and it must be achieved, and in particular it must be achieved for the Clintons. Nothing else will do; nothing else matters. I doubt that either of them really has any hatred for anyone or anything, unless that person or thing stands in their way on their life-long and single-minded quest. But if he (or it) does stand in their way, it's every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost. They see themselves as survivors in a game without rules, and neither of them would apologize on their deathbed for that view.

[bgates]

Frankly, there is very little in his post I would be inclined to defend, but I would be very curious to learn how widely held his viewpoints might be.
Here's one guy who seems to be showing there's an enthusiastic audience for something very much like OldPunk's views within the African American community, so long as it doesn't come from someone with OldPunk's complexion.

Advice for improving police-community relations from the same source.

[RichatUF]

from the cliped section-

If the historic enemies of your people suddenly began talking about you in what can fairly be called a secret code, how inclined would you be to trust in their protestations of generosity?

Seems that we are going to get our dose of "power/knowledge". However, the interperation seems to not be so much "the primacy of language" but more "the primacy of race." Have Asians and Hispanics (and for that matter 1st generation African immigrants) been given the code book?

The idea that blacks are distrustful of whites (and prone to conspiracy theory about "whites") because of some sort of embedded language code of racism (by whites) seems a bit backwards. Maybe I'm getting a bit wide of the mark here and should get a copy of the book (or the entire FT review-register, humbug!).

Seems that conversation that Bill Clinton wanted to start about race has gotten off to a bit of a rocky start.

Rick-

It's a very puzzling situation which should be explored in depth and at length. Would Obama really have been forced to deal with the nut who was his pastor and mentor for twenty years had the Clinton's not forced the issue?

I'm not so sure. The stuff about Rev. Crazypants would have eventually come out, and its good that it is coming out now because BHO has a significant lead in delegates and can still limp to the finish with a razor thin lead. It now is up to the Clintons to steal it from him and blame it on the Republicans (a difficult prospect).

[Other Tom]

Sorry for the lenghty excerpt, but good God, dare we hope?

"On Sunday's 'Meet the Press,' Newsweek editor Jon Meacham hinted that if the Clintons were to execute a 'corrupt bargain' which gave Hillary the nomination, it could lead to a split in the Democrat Party akin to what happened in 1824.

"In that election, only one Party, the Democratic-Republicans, ran presidential candidates. Although Andrew Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, he didn't receive a majority of either resulting in the House of Representatives controversially giving the nod to John Quincy Adams.

"This skirmish led to a division in the Democratic-Republican Party such that four years later, Jackson ran and won the presidency as a member of the newly created Democratic Party defeating Adams who represented the newly created National Republican Party.

"With this in mind, here's what Meacham said Sunday:

"'Well, my sense of--at every point in this race, Senator Clinton has benefited from a kind of, if not a majority, a silent big plurality of largely female voters who have stepped in at different points and said, "No, not yet with Senator Obama, and we're going to register our belief in her, and her capacity to deal with issues that we believe in strongly." And I think Chuck's exactly right. I mean, what, what some Clinton people have said to me is they have to win someplace they weren't expected to win, and then they could begin to make that argument. I think, depending on where you end up with the, as you were saying, the popular vote, or the pledged delegates, you do have the capacity for a kind of corrupt bargain charge, echoes of 1824, which I think we should always be talking about every Easter. I apologize for that. But that was when...Oh, very quickly, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams. Adams becomes president. Four years later, running on a, running on a campaign saying, "That was a corrupt bargain," Jackson takes over, founds the modern Democratic Party, and here we sit.

"Carrying Meacham's suggestion forward, if Obama has the most popular votes and elected delegates heading to Denver, but the Clintons wangle a deal that gets her the nomination, Obama and his supporters furiously branch off to form another Party."

And in the meantime, John McCain travels to meet with world leaders...

[clarice]

I loved that, too, OT. When even the dull blades at Newsweek have caught on ................

[anduril]

Sorry for the lenghty excerpt...

What the hell? Are we all walking around on eggshells now? Go ahead, OT--post the whole blooming thing!

[GMax]

Whaaa? I dont think the Republican party came into existence that early. Lincoln was the first Republican President and that is about the time the Republican Party arose.

Newsweek is either playing fast and loose with the facts, or they have history books quite different than the ones I had in school.

[clarice]

A British paper has compared what is happening in the Dem party to a jump the shark "Dynasty" episode..HEH

[anduril]

Fastest cut and paster in the land:

Wiki:

The ad-hoc coalition that supported John Quincy Adams fell apart after his defeat for reelection in 1828. The main opposition to Jackson, the new president, was the National Republican Party, or Anti-Jacksonians created and run by Henry Clay. It shared the same nationalistic outlook as the Adamsites, and wanted to use national resources to build a strong economy. Its platform was Clay's American System of nationally financed internal improvements and a protective tariff, which would promote faster economic development. More important, by binding together the diverse interests of the different regions, the party intended to promote national unity and harmony. The National Republicans saw the Union as a corporate, organic whole. Hence the rank and file idealized Clay for his comprehensive perspective on the national interest. Conversely, they disdained those they identified as "party" politicians for pandering to local interests at the expense of the national interest.[1] The party met in national convention in late 1831 and nominated Clay for the presidency and John Sergeant for the vice presidency. The Whig Party emerged in 1833–34 after Clay's defeat as a coalition of National Republicans, along with Anti-Masons, disaffected Jacksonians, and people whose last political activity was with the Federalists a decade before.

**************

The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. Its initial base was in the Northeast and Midwest. The Party nominated Abraham Lincoln and ascended to power in the election of 1860. The party fought for the Union in the United States Civil War and presided over Reconstruction.

[anduril]

No conscience and no apologies. :-)

[Rick Ballard]

"It now is up to the Clintons to steal it from him and blame it on the Republicans (a difficult prospect)."

That's the strategy as far as I can see. That's why "having this discussion" might not be the best premise that was ever accepted.

Accepting OT's premise that the Clintons loathe without discrimination and have neither morals nor ethics nor any compunction about attempting to shift the responsibility for what is to come to Republicans, I am left with idea that studying the Clinton's perceived profit is probably the most advantageous avenue to pursue.

Will they succeed in convincing the superdelegates to wrest the prize which BHO hs legitimately won from his grasp?

[GMax]

Per World Book Encyclopedia ( not wanting hear how Wiki might garble this ) :

The Republican Party grew out of a series of antislavery meetings held to protest the Kansas-Nebraska bill.

On JUly 6, 1854 at a party meeting in Jackson Michigan, the delegates formally adopted the name Republican.

[anduril]

[anduril blows the smoke from his mouse-hand index finger]

[ben]

http://www.getoverobama.com/

If you know anybody afflicted with Acute Obamism there is a recovery kit.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

I am left with idea that studying the Clinton's perceived profit is probably the most advantageous avenue to pursue.

I had a long comment and deleted it because it didn't seem to work...

It's the impeachment fight all over again-its about winning. It doesn't matter if it is ugly or if it hurts the party or their defenders in the long run. If I remember my Clinton trivia correctly, she was the one who pushed for the tough stance regarding the Jones lawsuit and dragged her feet regarding Whitewater (talk about paranoia).

One thing that I'm starting to question is if the party will fracture as badly as we imagine (on race, gender, and union support) or will the bloom fall completely off BHO (sort of like Milli Vanilli).

[Sara]

Was Obama in church today? Why not?

While John McCain spent his Easter vacation time in Iraq and Vice Pres. Cheney is spending his Easter in Israel, Barack and Michelle have jetted off to St. Thomas. So his sainted typical white Grandmother in Hawaii is too ill to travel, but Barack "the dutiful" hasn't bothered to visit her in over a year, not even when the beaches beckon.

[Ann]

Mark Steyn at NRO has a great post tonight:

Tough call [Mark Steyn]

Maybe, Obama's grandmother was a "typical white person" and didn't care what color you were. Maybe, she was just a decent loving person who took care of her grandson.

By the way, hope everyone had a great Easter!

[Peg]

Chrysler Aspen

[Lit3Bolt]

In Greenwald's defense, the entire flap about Reynolds aside, Oldpunk did coach his speech in such terms as to ensure retaliation from the left, so he could then appear as a martyr for "saying what people think." The fact of the matter is, you can hate rap music and black thug culture without hating African Americans en masse or holding them responsible for the actions of their youth. The reality is, black people are very conservative. However, conservative kneejerk responses about affirmative action, welfare, drugs, crime, anti-Americanism, etc, etc, seemed targeted explicitly at black people, driving them into the smiling arms of the Democratic party. When blacks or liberals decry racism, conservatives leap to the defensive of WASPs, which is a kneejerk response that only makes a conservative appear as if he has something to be defensive about. Whining and complaining about reverse racism doesn't help, even though it is easy to find examples. Holding blacks accountable for rap music is like holding white people accountable for racism. The many are suddenly responsible for the few. We all know that aside from signing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts into law, Democrats haven't done blacks any favors by and large. However, Republicans must also acknowledge that the South, which voted solidly Democratic over and over again, suddenly stopped in the 60s and switched en masse to the Republican side.
Why is that? (Hint: It wasn't the Vietnam war.)

The fact is, there are 4 things that are totally toxic to political discourse today, and the PC police swarm over every comment. They are:

-racism
-sexism
-patriotism
-religion

The first two are policed by liberals. The last two are policed by conservatives. To approach a dialogue on ANY of them, this "Gotcha!" BS has to stop.

[Barry]

3bolt, you have it wrong. Conservatives are happy to discuss all 4, including patriotism and religion. The left "polices" those as well. They really can't afford to discuss them.

[ben]

Lit3Bolt
Your post has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, hard to know where to start. The reasoning is common in Leftwing blogs, where you see "and blacks are 10% of the population but 30% of the prison population"(leaving out the little secret that perhaps they have committed 30% of the crimes). Many people are defending Obama by saying Wrights ideas are typical of black churches, so maybe the anti-Americanism shoe fits.
But the silliest argument you make is this idea that Democrats in the South switched to Republicans because they are racist. No, they actually didn't switch at all, the Democrats left them. They went from Truman and Johnson and even Kennedy to Mondale, and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry. The Democraty Party abandoned the South when it got taken over by the left wing of the party.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Peter, hip-hop isn't easy to define because it's not a very rigid category; still, musically, it's usually in four-four time, it has a back beat, it usually depends on comparatively complicated rhythm structures and is often polyrhythmic, the spoken-work chants ("rap") are usually in iambic pentameter --- in fact, most any Shkespearean blank verse can be rapped, eg,

NOW is the winter of OUR dis-con-tent

Made GLO-ri-us summer by THIS son of York

and it usually depends on "found sounds" from samples to album "scratching".

[Elliott]

Anybody still seriously think this guy can be elected in November?

Yes. I'd say Obama is in the position McCain* was in last summer. He's absorbed a savage drubbing and his prospects have dimmed, but it's nothing some good fortune can't fix.
_______________

With respect to McCain, this is an entirely retrospective analysis, since I thought he was finished.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Did anyone posting here give the IRS the authority to look at their 2007 tax information for any purpose other than determining their 2007 liability ?

Thought not.

So exactly how are they determining any curtailment of the full amount on your economic stimulus check ?

Uh, Neo, you're kidding, right? The enabling legislation says "they'll use your gross income" or something to that effect. Where did you get the idea they needed some other permission?

[Uncle Pinky]

Lit3bolt:

In Greenwald's defense, the entire flap about Reynolds aside, Oldpunk did coach his speech in such terms as to ensure retaliation from the left, so he could then appear as a martyr for "saying what people think."

Perhaps so, but few would have seen Oldpunk's "look at me" post if not for Greenwald's d-baggery. The link from Reynolds went only to the poem, and he most likely got it as a link that went only to the poem. Then the Thing With No Chin (but many names) went looking for smear fodder and dishonestly brought it to a far larger audience by starting a blog-spat.

Whining and complaining about reverse racism doesn't help,

Would reverse racism be just plain racism as defined by Mr. Jackson's code of "decorous language" or are we using one of those other definitions? Because if you strike the "reverse" as unnecessary, you have a standard that could be applied equally.

Holding blacks accountable for rap music is like holding white people accountable for racism.

Honestly don't know what you're getting at here. Are you saying that to hold an individual black person accountable for rap music is like holding an individual white accountable for racism? Explicate, please.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Chrysler Aspen

Ford Prefect

[Bruce Moomaw]

So, lemme get this straight: there’s “very little” in Old Punk’s post that Maguire “would be inclined to defend”, but it’s awful for lefties not to “look for the message in his message”? I mean, is there some important message in his message that isn’t apparent from his actual words, which contain very little that Maguire “would be inclined to defend”? Maybe we all need a Captain Midnight Decoder Ring?

[ben]

"Anybody still seriously think this guy can be elected in November?"

I think Obama has permanently alienated part of the white Democratic blue collar vote he need in some key states to win in November. Part of them will switch from Hillary to McCain, others will vote for McCain because of the Wright tapes and other indications Obama is very left. I don't think he can overcome those losses with increased black turnout.

[Elroy Jetson]

I don't care if Obama was in church today or not. And I certainly don't care about Hillary's whereabouts on Easter or McCain's.
Bottom line- Obama still has not advocated one policy position except that he says he was right on the Iraq war. But that was when he was an state legistlative backbencher. If he was so against the war, why didn't he join ANSWER and Code Pink and get out there and protest? Where was he when Bush was addressing the UN? What was Obama doing to try and keep America from making this so called "terrible mistake"?
Underneath his soaring rhetoric beats the heart of a candidate for president who has no backbone. No love for country. No love for all Americans. He is an opportunist, a charlitan and would be an absolute disaster as president. He would huddle with Iran and dismiss Iraq. He would summit with Chavez and snub Uribe. He would claim he's for the poor and disadvantaged. But his policies would put most of the 15 million that were removed from federal tax liability under the Bush tax cuts back on the tax rolls.
We don't need a conversation on race because Obama thinks we need one. What we need now more than ever is a conversation about Obama's policies and character.
My two cents- they both stink for reasons described above.