First Sociologist Brack Obama explained to an audience of young people why race relations aren't improving:
President Barack Obama thinks that the recession has caused a temporary increase in racial tension by stoking “tribal attitude” among people in economic distress.
During an hour-long town hall with young people simulcast on MTV, BET and CMT Thursday afternoon, Kishor Nagula, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, asked Obama about race relations, saying he was disappointed the president hadn’t ushered in a post-racial era, as some of his supporters had once suggested he would.
“Oftentimes misunderstandings and antagonisms surface most strongly when economic times are tough and that’s not surprising,” said Obama, citing some “slippage” in racial understanding.
“When you’re out of work and you can’t buy a home or you lost your home and you can’t pay your bills… sometimes that organizes [people] around kind of a tribal attitude and issues of race become more prominent."
Whew - I'm just glad it wasn't a deplorably racist Tea Partier sending coded messages of hate and division by talking about "tribal associations".”
And maybe there is something to this latest recycling of Obama's subtle thoughts on race - after al, times were tough when the First Reconciler explained at a national press conference that he didn't need to know the facts - the (black) Harvard prof was right and the (white) working class cop was wrong.
Oh, well - it's always the fault of the Great Unwashed and never the fault of our "leaders".
When the going gets tough, the weak speak guff.
Posted by: Clarice | October 15, 2010 at 07:59 AM
Anyone bitterly clinging to the notion of slavery as an original sin is never going to improve race relations
Posted by: Abadman | October 15, 2010 at 08:12 AM
What an 'effin idiot. This SOB isn't worthy to be a middle school social studies teachers much less POTUS. Disgraceful.
Posted by: NK | October 15, 2010 at 08:12 AM
Obama -- how dare he blame us for the racism in our nation that he and his wife have stoked and cherished?
Posted by: Stunned Again | October 15, 2010 at 08:20 AM
Yikes, I wonder if that was on TOTUS or did he go off script?
Posted by: jimmyk | October 15, 2010 at 08:24 AM
Speaking of bitter clingers, can that not be
nature of this analysis, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 08:25 AM
Just think of all the times people sat on the edges of their chairs to hear this fool speak about such things in his non-Negro dialect.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 15, 2010 at 08:26 AM
I bet he was a bomb on MTV.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | October 15, 2010 at 08:26 AM
Did we really lose MayBee?
:-(
Posted by: Extraneus | October 15, 2010 at 08:28 AM
say it ain't so, ext....
Posted by: matt | October 15, 2010 at 08:48 AM
A Happy Birthday shout out to Matt!
Two days after the first annual National Fossil Day....Hmmmmmmmm....coincidence? I think not!
Posted by: Janet...off the couch & sportin Tea Party chic | October 15, 2010 at 08:50 AM
Happy Birthday, Matt!
Posted by: centralcal | October 15, 2010 at 08:51 AM
The racebaiter-in-chief
Posted by: bandit | October 15, 2010 at 08:55 AM
Happy birthday, Matt
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 08:55 AM
Happy Birthday Matt!
Posted by: rse | October 15, 2010 at 08:56 AM
HB, Matt. May Obama find your blog and attack you mercilessly.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 15, 2010 at 09:01 AM
Happy Birthday, matt!
Ex-
What do you know, and when did you know it?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 15, 2010 at 09:04 AM
Matt felicitous natal anniversary!
Posted by: peter | October 15, 2010 at 09:09 AM
For your birthday present, Matt, let me inform you of a lusty minus 19 at Raz, nicely complemented by a 43/56 overall. Have a good one.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 15, 2010 at 09:32 AM
HB Matt!
Was Peter saying something dirty at 9:09?
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 15, 2010 at 09:39 AM
Happy Birthday Matt!
(though selfishly I liked it better when I was the only one with The List. Or at least I wish I could have been recompensed for its distribution)
Posted by: hit and run | October 15, 2010 at 09:44 AM
HB,Matt!
Posted by: Clarice | October 15, 2010 at 09:46 AM
Seriously, what is wrong with these people, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 09:48 AM
Happy birthday, Matt; another youngster I'm sure. As a semi-educated guess to Peter's question, that phrase sounds like something the idiots at ESPN, and specifically Chris Berman, would come up with.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 09:49 AM
Party on, Matt.
Obama mentions tribes and his Mrs. worries over spirits around her. You can't make this up.
Posted by: MarkO | October 15, 2010 at 09:50 AM
Narc, the comments from the posters at AoS (specifically the people that don't need an exorcism at the mention of Christine O'Donnell) indicated that neither of them came off as impressive or particularly articulate, but Angle came off either more positively or less negatively than Reid's pathetic performance. Assuming that's responsive to your comment....
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 09:55 AM
No, that LUN was supposed to be the glacier hugging suits, that prove that Darwin was wrong, it's off Malkin's site
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 09:59 AM
The Nevada papers seem to think Angle won. Drudge has links.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Ahhhhhh; I've LUNned the link in case anybody thinks that "glacier hugging suits" is an indication that Muffer Stalin-Rodham has added another growth ring.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Happy Birthday Matt!
I think Ext was refering to Maybee's threat to never post here again if macphisto's comment was not scrubbed.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 15, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Tribal like all conflict in Africa?
Tribal like the "civil war" in Iraq?
Tribal like the war lords of Afghanistan?
Tribal like Sunni vs. Shia muslims?
Tribal like Kashmir?
Tribal like Tibet?
http://www.balkanalysis.com/kosovo/2010/10/12/an-insider%E2%80%99s-view-of-recent-affairs-in-kosovo-interview-with-gerard-gallucci/>Tribal like Bosnia and now Kosovo?
One begins to to wonder if Obama's Secretary of State no longer believes It Takes A Village but a tribal elder. Hence, talks with the taliban and the new White House enemies list of American citizens.
Obama's Dreams From My Father may indeed be post-racial in these cases for black vs. white but...
... But Lee Kuan Yew, who was its leader from 1965 to 1990, is not so optimistic. He explains that it is due to that diversity that he didn't introduce democracy in Singapore - as its main effect would be http://nation-building.blogspot.com/2010/09/case-of-singapore.html#links>ethnic parties.
Singapore is 75% Chinese, but the Chinese are divided in dialects.
>>>The kind of open political combat they demand would inevitably open the door to race-based politics, he said, and “our society will be ripped apart.”
Did my president just call Affirmative Action racist?
Posted by: FeFe | October 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM
HB Matt!
Am at the OR coast and will track down a dungeness crab leg to eat in your honor:)
Posted by: glasater | October 15, 2010 at 10:37 AM
This can't possibly go wrong, right, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Scanning the aggregators this morning I couldn't find a single item that didn't suggest that Angle won. Even the guy in the New Republic.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Happy Birthday, matt!
OT, I know we already had a thread on it, but there is so much more to discuss in the NYT mag interview with Barry. I just saw this highlighted at HotAir:
Who was it that advised Obama in 2008 to enjoy the transition period, because it was the best part of the Presidency? Might have been Kristol or Podhoretz or Peter Wehner, I can't remember.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Matt-
Happy Birthday. Good write up, and additional information can be found in "The Big Picture". A French film would be heavily subsidized by France and the EU. I'm unsurprised the the NYT would get weepy eyed. FWIW, Carlos was cooling his heels in Khartoum with bin Laden before the Sudanese sold him out (and he was one of the hijackers during the Dawson Field attact).
Posted by: RichatUF | October 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM
I couldn't find a single item that didn't suggest that Angle won.
Same here. It seems to be the consensus.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Here's the guy in the Vegas Review-Journal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Might have been Kristol or Podhoretz or Peter Wehner
Just looked it up - it was George Friedman at STRATFOR. Last line of the article.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM
--"glacier hugging suits"--
CH, is there an intellectual property rights attorney here!?!?
This looks remarkable similar to my "hug a liberal and suffocate them suit."
It was designed so you don’t have to touch them. The unique twist is the suit will double as a
bodycarbon storage bag after they are no longer emitting.Posted by: Threadkiller | October 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Bernanke's speech this morning.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM
remarkableremarkablyPosted by: Threadkiller | October 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM
And here's the guy in The New Republic, sounding like somebody just shot his dog.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 15, 2010 at 11:03 AM
More dialectical materialism from Zero. The bleatings and moans of the benighted class may be explained away by the expert as merely the nonrational effects of economic forces.
At the core of Marxism is the idea that all anti-communist points of view may be dismissed out of hand as the nonrational result of economic structures. There is really nothing else of any importance to Marxism.
Marxism is not just a political theory. It is also a behavior; a Marxist is as a Marxist does. If you dismiss arguments for liberty and small government merely by appeal to economic forces which you imagine to have caused those arguments to be made, then you are engaging in Marxist behavior. If you do this frequently, you are a Marxist.
Many Democrats are so deeply steeped in Marxism that they cannot think without it. The mind long-hamstrung in this way is permanently crippled. Think of adolescents with their critical thinking abilities stolen from them by Marxist educators: minds ruined.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM
DoT, The New Republic story is great.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Matt,
Don't know if it's in honor of your Birthday, but if so, those wacky French Protestors have ">http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE69E1AN20101015"> severed the fuel lines leading to the Nations Airports.
Flights are being cancelled and now the truckers are set to join the students and the fuelers and the waitresses and the cooks and the dog catchers and whoever else in France protests about something or other, but since I can't figure out what I'll just hope it's in celebration of your Birthday. Will be there in a couple days and will try to find out.
Regardless, will hoist one in your honor. Viva la Matt!
Posted by: daddy | October 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Rick--your credentialed mrons theme is catching on..From Insty:
"CLARENCE PAGE: WHAT’S SO BAD ABOUT ELITES? The problem we have is that our “elites” — a reader keeps telling me that “gentry” is a better term, and he’s right — aren’t really elite. That is, they’re not actually especially smart or well-educated or competent. They’re just credentialed. That’s not the sort of elitism that commands respect, which is why it’s not getting so much anymore, as people catch on."
Posted by: Clarice | October 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM
You gonna fuel up with foie gras, daddy?
Posted by: Clarice | October 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM
American liberals' faith in credentialism is as hard to shake as their faith in scientism. It is hardwired. It's what (they believe) separates them from the rubes, and separation from the rubes is their greatest goal in life.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Just read DoT's New Republic link wherein the reviewer, obviously a bummed Harry Reid fan, says in closing:
"Anyway, the biggest problem wasn’t that Harry Reid is a bad debater, though that he clearly is. The trouble was that Reid faced an opponent of far stronger beliefs and far fewer scruples."
Right...Harry Reid. Man of scruples. That's how I'm sure we've always thought of Harry Reid. Tells the truth. Doesn't Lie. Scrupulous to a fault. Here's my favorite Harry once again, scrupulously telling us ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg"> Paying Income Taxes In America is Voluntary.
Posted by: daddy | October 15, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Dear God in heaven that NR article is outstanding. I particularly liked this comment How is it that of the 72 million registered democrats in this nation, chicken***t Harry Reid managed to snag one of their three most important spots?
It takes a party that can be put in the hands of a self-medicating lunatic like Yeeeaaarrrgh to entrust a position of responsibility to a disgusting creep like Reid who looks like he smells bad and sounds like a NAMBLA member. His appearances on Sunday chat shows early in his Senate career were early WTF moments that should've sent red flags rising throughout the donk hierarchy to get that mutant a primary challenger ASAP.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Clarice,
May have to rely on JiB's Chile Cook Off Winning Recipe for gas:)
Bye bye.
Posted by: daddy | October 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Credentialed Morons = Identity Liberals
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM
daddy, it's about the retirement age being pushed from 60 to 62. I got a hint last night to watch the French this weekend.
=======
Posted by: Please, take care. Too much is riding with you. | October 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Wow, if you're starting to lose people like Clarence Page....
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Lisa M. campaign http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/124199-murkowski-backers-worry-about-write-in-spoiler>worried that opponents will come up with another Lisa M. to run a write-in campaign.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM
At the core of Marxism is the idea that all anti-communist points of view may be dismissed out of hand as the nonrational result of economic structures. There is really nothing else of any importance to Marxism.
Marxism is not just a political theory. It is also a behavior; a Marxist is as a Marxist does.
So you're saying they're like Muslims?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Herbert and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (GDW), invested well. Selling it to Wachovia for $24 billion dollars in 2006. The fact that it lead to Wahovia failing in 2008 .. no matter, I guess.
Since when has any Democrat held back on a question of how somebody got their wealth ?
Posted by: Neo | October 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM
I think the fact that's he's right out of 'There will be Blood' is the tipoff,
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Happy happy Birthday Matt!
~~And many more....
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | October 15, 2010 at 11:33 AM
daddy -- liberal self-protection myth #3 is "anyone opposed to me is an ideologue, a radical, an unscrupulous, corrupt, and evil person". They're just deploying that in defense of their egos.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 15, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Cap'n, Clarence's article defends elitism. Zero will never, ever lose Clarence.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Neo -- Reid's line about doing a good job investing should be read in light of the revelation that the insider-trading laws do not apply to members of Congress and their staff.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Lisa M. campaign worried that opponents will come up with another Lisa M. to run a write-in campaign.
So Elitesa is worried about a potential write-in candidate spoiling her chances, huh? Wow, cry me a freaking river.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Rob, yes, except the one uses the more efficient gulags, whereas the other sticks with the beheadings.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Did you see the part where Reid says he and Petraeus are best buds and were in agreement on http://thevimh.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-harry-reid-supports.html>the surge?
Posted by: hit and run | October 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM
This is my favorite line in the debate coverage:
Excellent, with the greatest financial collapse of the past seven decades, we’ve got Byron and Heather looking into it. Check that one off. And maybe, with all the progress on that Fed audit since 1987, we’ll get there by 2030.
The only thing I am worried about now is if we have peaked too soon. I really hope not.
BTW Sean Bielat also cleaned Barney Frank's clock last night.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | October 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Off topic, but if ignatz and others interested in off-grid power, as a practical thing, not obeisance to greenie gods, are reading this thread, then I would recommend going to www.absak.com and look in the suggested design schematics and topic library. These are Alaska folks interested in real world solutions, not ideological flacks.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | October 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Can't forget his attaboy to Scalia, he's more
transparent than a Macy's display, btw, Ras has O'Donnell down 11
Posted by: narciso | October 15, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Happy Birthday, Matt!
Posted by: DrJ | October 15, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Narc,
11? How could that be? She was down 20 yesterday. And it is only a coincidence that Obama is headed there.
Go, Texas Rangers!!!!!!
Posted by: Sue | October 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM
thank you all so very much, not that I like to be reminded anymore. But it's better than the alternative.
I would suggest that I invited Dear Leader out here to California for a wine summit. We can discuss Cambridge police tactics and the writings of Louis Gates; Reverend Wright; the politics of the personal, and Chicago style election tactics and strategy.
I would counsel him to form a kinder, gentler vision for his interactions with his disputants. And maybe not to just plain bullshit people so much.
Posted by: matt | October 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM
She was down 20 yesterday. And it is only a coincidence that Obama is headed there.
It will be single digits very soon.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Happy birthday, Matt!
Go Rangers!
Posted by: Sue | October 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I'll have to remember to stop at TNR for their reader comments on Nov. 3. Think I'll take the day off, in fact. I have a number of places to visit.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Porch,
I hope so.
Go Rangers!
Posted by: Sue | October 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Narc & Rob, have you noticed that Ace is getting hammered for being an eeyore douche in the comments to the Angle/Reed newspaper verdict thread?
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Unfortunately, Raz has Jerry Brown up six now, but Fiorina is within three. If we only get one of those races, I would strongly prefer the latter.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Notice it, CH? I thought I was contributing to it!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Good on ya, Rob; I was reacting to the first few comments but saw that you subsequently weighed in. I swear if Christine O'Donnell wins I'm ramming my cyber-foot up his ass. It might get me banned but my work will have been done.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Wow - the prosecutors in the Geert Wilder case have asked for a full aquittal! Guess Dutch law says the trial has to go forward to the finish, but that it will be impossible to convict him anything now.
Posted by: centralcal | October 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM
--Wow - the prosecutors in the Geert Wilder case have asked for a full aquittal!--
That would seem to raise the question, to put it mildly, why they brought a case against him in the first place.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM
I have a feeling the Connecticut senate race may tighten up in the next few days:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/15/obamacare-bending-the-cost-curve-upward-47-in-ct/>ObamaCare bending the cost curve upward 47% in CT
The state’s largest insurer has been approved to raise health premium rates by 41 percent to 47 percent for some of its policies sold to individual buyers, in the largest price hikes yet seen in Connecticut since the adoption of national health care reform.
For all of its individual market plans, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield has received approval to raise rates by at least 19 percent — including a range of 30 percent to 44 percent for the brand of plans in the individual market that was most popular in 2009, Century Preferred.
Posted by: Ranger | October 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM
ObamaCare bending the cost curve upward 47% in CT
The arc of ObamaCare is crooked, but it bends toward higher prices.
--stuff Martin Luther King Jr. (almost) said
Posted by: hit and run | October 15, 2010 at 01:02 PM
Robert Spencer has raised the important point that the prosecutors have tried to assert that truth is not a defense. That if a write or speaker should know something will likely have an inflammatory effect, they should be liable for proceeding.
Sounds much like speech codes on US college campuses.
Posted by: rse | October 15, 2010 at 01:22 PM
Over at The Corner, someone pointed out that the prosecuters were forced to bring the case because they had refused to file charges on their own, and were ordered by the court to file charges anyway. Basicially, the trial is the prosecutors explaining to the court why they they didn't want to file charges in the first place.
Posted by: Ranger | October 15, 2010 at 01:35 PM
Thanks for the explanation Ranger.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 15, 2010 at 01:46 PM
prosecutors have tried to assert that truth is not a defense. That if a write or speaker should know something will likely have an inflammatory effect, they should be liable for proceeding.
Kind of like Bill O'Reilly uttering the obvious truth that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" and giving Joy and Whoopie the vapors.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 15, 2010 at 02:48 PM
Every legal system, including our own, is chock full of inanities.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 15, 2010 at 02:49 PM
pagar, re the VFW story, I am unable to get a response from Boxer's office, but you might be interested in this:
http://bigpeace.com/bpatterson/2010/10/15/treason-in-america-move-over-hanoi-jane-meet-baghdad-barbara-weasel-waxman-and-jihad-jodie/>Waxman letter for Code Pink
Posted by: Clarice | October 15, 2010 at 02:57 PM
A common Democrat talking point on ObamaCare is that they promise health insurers will not be able to deny coverage (come 2014)
Like promises of transparency.
Like promises of deficit neutrality.
Like promises of the bill "creating" jobs.
Be skeptical of this claim.
Joe Leiberman "the Senator from Aetna", Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln were owned by a few healthcare companies who called the final shots in the Senate bill (the final bill).
There is a reason Howard Dean is so pissed about this.
It will not go like (Patty Murray) Democrats are claiming.
Posted by: Army of Davids | October 15, 2010 at 05:59 PM
Ranger--that 47% increase article was at the top of the front page of Today's Hartford Courant. I was stunned. Then I realized that the editors, who are truly clueless libs, probably thought that it supports their view of the insurance companies as rapacious criminals.
I think most of their ever diminishing (but still large and significant by Connecticut standards) circle of readers, think otherwise. I think you are absolutely right that the polls will show the race tightening considerably.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | October 15, 2010 at 07:59 PM
I should add a qualification. Not all are clueless; there are some very sharp grownups at the top who are tied in to the insurers, Lieberman, and UTC, but generally let the clueless libs have their way with the day-to-day stuff. I suspect that the placement of the article was a consensus decision.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | October 15, 2010 at 08:07 PM
UTC = United Technologies
Posted by: caro | October 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM
...to any people without denying coverage to all people. So they will deny coverage to all people. They will shut down their insurance operations (a small corner of what they do) in order to focus upon working with the government to deny all of us health care.
Absolutely true -- as far as it goes. Let's complete the thought: A common Democrat talking point on ObamaCare is that they promise health insurers will not be able to deny coverage...Posted by: cathyf | October 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM