You are correct that people had long understood that a big Hurricane coupled with New Orleans being below see level was dangerous. What you are missing is that the city had also long requested funding to fix its levees, even stating that a Category 4 hurricane would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, for the city and its people the government and some of the American population looked at that as a "free handout" to the city and gambled that a hurricane wouldn't hit. Thousands of people died when the gamble did not pay off. As I stated, it wasn't only W's fault (although his slow movement in helping definitely is another nick on his presidency), but rather further evidence that the corporate takeover of our government is not a feasible solution to our problems.
You are correct that people had long understood that a big Hurricane coupled with New Orleans being below see level was dangerous. What you are missing is that the city had also long requested funding to fix its levees, even stating that a Category 4 hurricane would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, for the city and its people the government and some of the American population looked at that as a "free handout" to the city and gambled that a hurricane wouldn't hit. Thousands of people died when the gamble did not pay off. As I stated, it wasn't only W's fault (although his slow movement in helping definitely is another nick on his presidency), but rather further evidence that the corporate takeover of our government is not a feasible solution to our problems.
shouldn't the state of Louisiana have made this a priority through their own funding? why does that money need to come from anywhere but the city of New Orleans, local government, and the state government?
Nothing about Katrina is really worth dissecting as it was all very sad, but if you want to bring it up let's talk about all of it.
what did corporate influence have to do with Katrina decisions? I am confused by the last comment
I guess that sort of derails the thread a bit so feel free to not respond.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You are correct that people had long understood that a big Hurricane coupled with New Orleans being below see level was dangerous. What you are missing is that the city had also long requested funding to fix its levees, even stating that a Category 4 hurricane would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, for the city and its people the government and some of the American population looked at that as a "free handout" to the city and gambled that a hurricane wouldn't hit. Thousands of people died when the gamble did not pay off. As I stated, it wasn't only W's fault (although his slow movement in helping definitely is another nick on his presidency), but rather further evidence that the corporate takeover of our government is not a feasible solution to our problems.
shouldn't the state of Louisiana have made this a priority through their own funding? why does that money need to come from anywhere but the city of New Orleans, local government, and the state government?
Nothing about Katrina is really worth dissecting as it was all very sad, but if you want to bring it up let's talk about all of it.
what did corporate influence have to do with Katrina decisions? I am confused by the last comment
I guess that sort of derails the thread a bit so feel free to not respond.
Yeah I'll keep it short, but really it's a result of the drastic reduction in state tax dollars that is a byproduct of the tax reductions corporations have been able to take advantage of in this country. You are right that Louisiana should have been able to fix their problems, but they don't have the money to do so. Basically we are watching things like Katrina, bridges collapsing in Minnesota, super dangerous situations on our national highways, and so on getting worse because there is an increasingly smaller pool of money being allocated to the state because of corporate welfare. The shit of it all is that the same people who benefit from tax reductions are the one's trumpeting personal and state responsibility. So the very thing that would allow people and states to be "responsible", funding to fix problems, is continually being reduced by the people blaming them for their problems. Of course using a catchphrase like "personal responsibility" in America works because it's part of our national mythology, but doesn't really get to the intricacies leading to failures in "personal responsibility".
I can play mad libs all day with this one:
Years from now, historians may regard the 2000 “election” of George W. Bush as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Bush's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy life as a rich man’s son; a brief career as a governor where he fleeced the state so hard it hurt, so often did he attend ball games as a fan/owner; and finally an abhorrent record of killing people on death row, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the poor black-hating, puppeteer who for decades served as Bush's "string puller"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Bush's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no black candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Karl Rove and an unrepentant terrorist like Donald Rumsfield would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Bush was white, and therefore entitled in the eyes of conservativedumb to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Bush was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the 42nd white president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Bush phenomenon -- affirmative action for rich people. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make black people, and especially black liberals, feel bad about themselves.
Unfortunately, blacks often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Conservatives routinely help whites into schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Conservatives don't care if these rich students fail; Conservatives aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action for rich people. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action for rich people in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Bush.
True, Bush himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Bush was told he was good enough for Harvard despite undistinguished grades at Yale; he was told he was good enough to own the Texas Rangers and be Governer of Texas despite a mediocre record; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Bush was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Bush speaks?
In 2000, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Bush's oratory skills, intellect, and aww shucks character. Those people -- liberals included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Neoliberal Capitalism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 50 years.
And what about his character? Bush is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Clinton did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
Affirmative action.
Look it up. That is what this thread is about. If you do not want to participate in a constructive way, please move on. I don't want to report you for not following g the posting guidelines. Please revisit or consider yourself warned for reporting. Derailing threads is not ok, neither is trolling.
Affirmative action.
Look it up. That is what this thread is about. If you do not want to participate in a constructive way, please move on. I don't want to report you for not following g the posting guidelines. Please revisit or consider yourself warned for reporting. Derailing threads is not ok, neither is trolling.
If the thread is about affirmative action, then why don't you participate in a constructive way and respond to those who have commented on the article you posted? Your comments have been about Katrina and that you pay taxes on your GE stock.
I voted Obama because I liked his plan better than McCain's, I felt McCain was too trigger happy, and Palin is an idiot.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
I voted Obama because I liked his plan better than McCain's, I felt McCain was too trigger happy, and Palin is an idiot.
not because he was black? i thought that's what it was all about last election. and what does the OP actually know about affirmative action, and the ways it has been declawed over the years? white victimhood is so funny.
what happened to the distinction that the people who paid no income tax got when people were discussing the bottom 47%? remember, all we heard was they pay sales tax, they pay payroll tax..blah blah blah...The economy gave them a shot to the face, especially their lending arm...they also benefit from a government that is too involved in loaning and giving money to the business community to promote technologies that should simply be promoted by the private sector. Take the favor doing business away from the government, get it out of the markets all together, and you eliminate this kind of situation. But that is just crazy talk because I hate poor people and want rich people to rule the world.
enough on this topic, if you want to continue by PM I would absolutely
now let's get back to calling Obama's success story simply a result of affirmative action and discredit his hard work...jesus...with all the things to go after this president for on policy alone, why do people insist on coming up with ways to make themselves sound petty and stupid.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
How does one's Dad pay for them to fly fighter jets for the AF?
Sounds like a bitter "professor" to me.
No i wrote that his daddy paid for the MBA you suggested he "earned". I suppose it's semantics, but earned is a loaded term in my mind. I prefer worked hard and received help instead, although in W's case don't believe the former is all that true. Maybe he flew the fighter jets, although I'm not sure how he didn't crash. Definitely did not win the first election (Democrats have cheated too see: Kennedy, 1960 and Chicago River).
Further, you certainly did not address any of my points like how he paid 100k (yes 100k) for his stake in the Rangers and turned it into a Presidency. How he fleeced the City of Arlington and simultaneously got people to love him. How his ineptitude as a President was so plainly obvious that even 9/11 couldn't help him in the end. How he and his predecessors reduction in state funding directly led to the death of thousands in New Orleans. We don't even have to get into the illegal war mongering and no-contract sales to his friend's companies do we? At this point it is hard to process how anyone could still like him and claim that Obama was an "affirmative action" President and be taken seriously.
On top of that each one of your responses to my posts seems more like an attempt to start an argument based on right vs. left-wing talking points ("bitter professor", "affirmative action", and so on), rather than a reasoned discussion about the article presented, the poor points it made, and a connection to the posts made about it. So let me try again. You could find and replace every Obama in this article with George W., and replace black with white and that's what makes this article stupid. It's lazy, uniformed, garbage. There's plenty to pick on Obama about (selling out to corporations, lobbyists, etc.) without breaking it down into something so crass and ignorant.
Whatever man. I disagree w/ your assessment of W's presidency, I think that history will prove me right. We'll see.
Hey man, I'm really not putting you down personally, but you have posted that you are a college professor, and even the name of your school. Then rant conspiracy theories and lib talking points about Bush in an Obama thread. A lot of companies would fire someone for that- people have been fired for what they post on Facebook, etc. But in the academic world, it's encouraged- in fact, its almost a prerequisite for tenure.
And it's just so exhaustingly typical of college. I've been. I payed. I've had to navigate the minefields of ultra-liberal indoctrinators posed as professors, and regurgitate talking points and bullshit, just to get the grade- just to get the diploma- just to get the job.
But to sit here and pretend we are carrying on an academic discussion about the 43rd Prez, well..... what kind of grade would I get in your class if I presented a paper claiming that Bush did something right? A bad grade, that's what. And you fuckin know it.
Thanks, but I don't have to pretend to be enlightened by ultra-liberal professors anymore.
Pearl Jam rocks. Im sure we agree on that. I kinda hit hard at the teachers in this one, so speak your mind, but after that, lets just agree to disagree on some things, and let it be?
I voted Obama because I liked his plan better than McCain's, I felt McCain was too trigger happy, and Palin is an idiot.
not because he was black? i thought that's what it was all about last election. and what does the OP actually know about affirmative action, and the ways it has been declawed over the years? white victimhood is so funny.
what happened to the distinction that the people who paid no income tax got when people were discussing the bottom 47%? remember, all we heard was they pay sales tax, they pay payroll tax..blah blah blah...The economy gave them a shot to the face, especially their lending arm...they also benefit from a government that is too involved in loaning and giving money to the business community to promote technologies that should simply be promoted by the private sector. Take the favor doing business away from the government, get it out of the markets all together, and you eliminate this kind of situation. But that is just crazy talk because I hate poor people and want rich people to rule the world.
enough on this topic, if you want to continue by PM I would absolutely
now let's get back to calling Obama's success story simply a result of affirmative action and discredit his hard work...jesus...with all the things to go after this president for on policy alone, why do people insist on coming up with ways to make themselves sound petty and stupid.
The article, IMO, isn't saying that Obama is a bad president bc he is black. It's saying that he was never qualified, and it is "white guilt" that led to the election of an under-qualified person.
You should take my class before pulling a Newt and thinking you'd get a bad grade because of your opinion. I'm all about helping students become conscious of their surroundings and understand why they think and believe what they do, as well as maybe understand how others like them don't share the same values and beliefs. There are no games to play in my class, and the grading rubric for my paper spells that out clearly. If you write an essay that I totally disagree with, but actually defend it with a thoughtful response you earn a good grade. If you write an essay that I totally agree with, but don't do the work required to defend it you get a bad grade. No I don't pretend to hold back my political leanings in any way, but that's the point of college to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better - not learn how to be the next corporate drone pecking the keyboard for 30 years...there's time for that after college.
If you call white guilt coming to an understanding that I have unearned privileges in this life based solely on the color of my skin and the fact that I have a penis and am heterosexual then put me in jail. I am treated differently, and most times, for the better because of those things. Conversely, white victimhood is based on the belief that somehow taking steps to alter the aforementioned is making things impossible for white men in the face of almost irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I mean it's so hard being a white man now with our dwindling numbers in positions of power...oh wait.
what happened to the distinction that the people who paid no income tax got when people were discussing the bottom 47%? remember, all we heard was they pay sales tax, they pay payroll tax..blah blah blah...The economy gave them a shot to the face, especially their lending arm...they also benefit from a government that is too involved in loaning and giving money to the business community to promote technologies that should simply be promoted by the private sector. Take the favor doing business away from the government, get it out of the markets all together, and you eliminate this kind of situation. But that is just crazy talk because I hate poor people and want rich people to rule the world.
enough on this topic, if you want to continue by PM I would absolutely
now let's get back to calling Obama's success story simply a result of affirmative action and discredit his hard work...jesus...with all the things to go after this president for on policy alone, why do people insist on coming up with ways to make themselves sound petty and stupid.
The article, IMO, isn't saying that Obama is a bad president bc he is black. It's saying that he was never qualified, and it is "white guilt" that led to the election of an under-qualified person.
how many underqualified white presidents have we had who only got what they got because of rich daddy's? are we to believe that obama is the first? c'mon this is a joke right?
what happened to the distinction that the people who paid no income tax got when people were discussing the bottom 47%? remember, all we heard was they pay sales tax, they pay payroll tax..blah blah blah...The economy gave them a shot to the face, especially their lending arm...they also benefit from a government that is too involved in loaning and giving money to the business community to promote technologies that should simply be promoted by the private sector. Take the favor doing business away from the government, get it out of the markets all together, and you eliminate this kind of situation. But that is just crazy talk because I hate poor people and want rich people to rule the world.
enough on this topic, if you want to continue by PM I would absolutely
now let's get back to calling Obama's success story simply a result of affirmative action and discredit his hard work...jesus...with all the things to go after this president for on policy alone, why do people insist on coming up with ways to make themselves sound petty and stupid.
The article, IMO, isn't saying that Obama is a bad president bc he is black. It's saying that he was never qualified, and it is "white guilt" that led to the election of an under-qualified person.
I realize that. But I am disagreeing with that assessment. It is easy to look past a persons fault if they are well spoken and likable. I don't think it was anything sinister, nor do I see it as white guilt that caused it. He was a better option than mccain in many people's eyes.
I would say he got the nomination more because people have a problem backing a woman. so which is it, white guilt or sexism that got him the nomination?
I think we can all agree that it took many things for Barack Obama to become president...but to call it a result of white guilt, or affirmative action sounds petty and is a complete distraction from the real situation. It took no stronger candidate from the dems (in my mind Clinton was, but that is why we have elections, others didn't agree), weak candidates from the GOP, a country weary of more war and economic worries that came during and after 8 years of the GOP in charge of the presidency...the country was ready for change and he tapped into that...it hasn't worked out in my opinion, but that doesn't mean we should look back on his election and claim it was a matter of white guilt
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You should take my class before pulling a Newt and thinking you'd get a bad grade because of your opinion. I'm all about helping students become conscious of their surroundings and understand why they think and believe what they do, as well as maybe understand how others like them don't share the same values and beliefs. There are no games to play in my class, and the grading rubric for my paper spells that out clearly. If you write an essay that I totally disagree with, but actually defend it with a thoughtful response you earn a good grade. If you write an essay that I totally agree with, but don't do the work required to defend it you get a bad grade. No I don't pretend to hold back my political leanings in any way, but that's the point of college to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better - not learn how to be the next corporate drone pecking the keyboard for 30 years...there's time for that after college.
If you call white guilt coming to an understanding that I have unearned privileges in this life based solely on the color of my skin and the fact that I have a penis and am heterosexual then put me in jail. I am treated differently, and most times, for the better because of those things. Conversely, white victimhood is based on the belief that somehow taking steps to alter the aforementioned is making things impossible for white men in the face of almost irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I mean it's so hard being a white man now with our dwindling numbers in positions of power...oh wait.
Hold on, teach!! Nobody's talkin bout your wiener, man- so.....
Funny that you think the "point of college is to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better." And then you never leave... And what does "get our society somewhere better" even mean? Sounds like the stuff guys say to girls in college to get laid.
I think the point of college is to learn all I can about my field of study, so that I can "get" myself "somewhere better". But I am an individualist. I know that Statists feel differently.
Mike I would add that if we go through the laundry list of racist, philandering, sexist, homophobic challengers the GOP is throwing out there so far it's going to be 4 more years of Obama. If he's a two-term Prez what will the author and those agreeing with him attribute it to? I am actually interested in the answer. Oh I got it. His white (outside of Cain) challengers were unfairly held back in school because of the color of their skin and didn't get into Ivy League schools because underqualified black people took there spots. I mean look at the racial demographics of those campuses...there's like 50 black people enrolling EVERY semester the HORROR!
You should take my class before pulling a Newt and thinking you'd get a bad grade because of your opinion. I'm all about helping students become conscious of their surroundings and understand why they think and believe what they do, as well as maybe understand how others like them don't share the same values and beliefs. There are no games to play in my class, and the grading rubric for my paper spells that out clearly. If you write an essay that I totally disagree with, but actually defend it with a thoughtful response you earn a good grade. If you write an essay that I totally agree with, but don't do the work required to defend it you get a bad grade. No I don't pretend to hold back my political leanings in any way, but that's the point of college to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better - not learn how to be the next corporate drone pecking the keyboard for 30 years...there's time for that after college.
If you call white guilt coming to an understanding that I have unearned privileges in this life based solely on the color of my skin and the fact that I have a penis and am heterosexual then put me in jail. I am treated differently, and most times, for the better because of those things. Conversely, white victimhood is based on the belief that somehow taking steps to alter the aforementioned is making things impossible for white men in the face of almost irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I mean it's so hard being a white man now with our dwindling numbers in positions of power...oh wait.
Hold on, teach!! Nobody's talkin bout your wiener, man- so.....
Funny that you think the "point of college is to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better." And then you never leave... And what does "get our society somewhere better" even mean? Sounds like the stuff guys say to girls in college to get laid.
I think the point of college is to learn all I can about my field of study, so that I can "get" myself "somewhere better". But I am an individualist. I know that Statists feel differently.
what you are describing is trade school. University's are about critical thought, reading, study, and conversation that could then been applied in the students future occupation in a variety of ways. Now, in the era of the corporate University, Professors are evaluated on how much corporate grant funding they garner, and students are taught technical "how to" stuff rather than to think. Note I said to think not HOW to think.
You should take my class before pulling a Newt and thinking you'd get a bad grade because of your opinion. I'm all about helping students become conscious of their surroundings and understand why they think and believe what they do, as well as maybe understand how others like them don't share the same values and beliefs. There are no games to play in my class, and the grading rubric for my paper spells that out clearly. If you write an essay that I totally disagree with, but actually defend it with a thoughtful response you earn a good grade. If you write an essay that I totally agree with, but don't do the work required to defend it you get a bad grade. No I don't pretend to hold back my political leanings in any way, but that's the point of college to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better - not learn how to be the next corporate drone pecking the keyboard for 30 years...there's time for that after college.
If you call white guilt coming to an understanding that I have unearned privileges in this life based solely on the color of my skin and the fact that I have a penis and am heterosexual then put me in jail. I am treated differently, and most times, for the better because of those things. Conversely, white victimhood is based on the belief that somehow taking steps to alter the aforementioned is making things impossible for white men in the face of almost irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I mean it's so hard being a white man now with our dwindling numbers in positions of power...oh wait.
Hold on, teach!! Nobody's talkin bout your wiener, man- so.....
Funny that you think the "point of college is to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better." And then you never leave... And what does "get our society somewhere better" even mean? Sounds like the stuff guys say to girls in college to get laid.
I think the point of college is to learn all I can about my field of study, so that I can "get" myself "somewhere better". But I am an individualist. I know that Statists feel differently.
what you are describing is trade school. University's are about critical thought, reading, study, and conversation that could then been applied in the students future occupation in a variety of ways. Now, in the era of the corporate University, Professors are evaluated on how much corporate grant funding they garner, and students are taught technical "how to" stuff rather than to think. Note I said to think not HOW to think.
Trade school? haha. "Corporate University?" Geez man... you're rife with it. Good luck to ya....
have you been on or worked for a University lately? how can you deny the corporate takeover of those spaces and jobs? that's pretty irrefutable. as for get somewhere better...I'll give you my student's final assignment. Most of them go on to work for minor league ballclubs and the like, and are asked to get more "minority" fans into the stadium. usually they have stupid shit like Latino Night and hand out maracas, sombreros. So I have them go to a space where they are the minority (over 4 to 1). It doesn't have to be race...some go to gay bars, others ride the 48 bus into the city, others go to figure skating competitions, take a tour at an HBCU or watch a basketball game there. Then they have to write up a marketing plan to get more of themselves to that space. Isn't that both learning how to write a marketing plan, but then also get somewhere better by not relying on old stupid ideas that don't work anyway?
Getting back to the point of this thread, the author of the story will argue that my minority students have it "easy" because they can just write about going to school at Towson if they want to.
Comments
shouldn't the state of Louisiana have made this a priority through their own funding? why does that money need to come from anywhere but the city of New Orleans, local government, and the state government?
Nothing about Katrina is really worth dissecting as it was all very sad, but if you want to bring it up let's talk about all of it.
what did corporate influence have to do with Katrina decisions? I am confused by the last comment
I guess that sort of derails the thread a bit so feel free to not respond.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Entrepreneuring. :?
Years from now, historians may regard the 2000 “election” of George W. Bush as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Bush's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy life as a rich man’s son; a brief career as a governor where he fleeced the state so hard it hurt, so often did he attend ball games as a fan/owner; and finally an abhorrent record of killing people on death row, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the poor black-hating, puppeteer who for decades served as Bush's "string puller"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Bush's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no black candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Karl Rove and an unrepentant terrorist like Donald Rumsfield would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Bush was white, and therefore entitled in the eyes of conservativedumb to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Bush was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the 42nd white president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Bush phenomenon -- affirmative action for rich people. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make black people, and especially black liberals, feel bad about themselves.
Unfortunately, blacks often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Conservatives routinely help whites into schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Conservatives don't care if these rich students fail; Conservatives aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action for rich people. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action for rich people in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Bush.
True, Bush himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Bush was told he was good enough for Harvard despite undistinguished grades at Yale; he was told he was good enough to own the Texas Rangers and be Governer of Texas despite a mediocre record; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Bush was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Bush speaks?
In 2000, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Bush's oratory skills, intellect, and aww shucks character. Those people -- liberals included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Neoliberal Capitalism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 50 years.
And what about his character? Bush is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Clinton did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
GE is OWNED by shareholders
What do you mean 1 is better than zero?
Thanks for derailing thread btw
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Here you go?
Like I said, I paid FEDERAL taxes in 2010 for owning my company GE
You guys don't get it do you.
I won't explain bc you won't understand
This thread is not racist either. Stop trolling
stop trolling? who posted the outright racist article? who is posting cartoons just to piss people off??
by the way, is the media being racist by covering cain's affairs and ignoring newt's??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Look it up. That is what this thread is about. If you do not want to participate in a constructive way, please move on. I don't want to report you for not following g the posting guidelines. Please revisit or consider yourself warned for reporting. Derailing threads is not ok, neither is trolling.
If the thread is about affirmative action, then why don't you participate in a constructive way and respond to those who have commented on the article you posted? Your comments have been about Katrina and that you pay taxes on your GE stock.
And why are you here posting and not contributing in a positive way. Take the high road, the view is nice up here.
You on the high road? You crack me up.
what happened to the distinction that the people who paid no income tax got when people were discussing the bottom 47%? remember, all we heard was they pay sales tax, they pay payroll tax..blah blah blah...The economy gave them a shot to the face, especially their lending arm...they also benefit from a government that is too involved in loaning and giving money to the business community to promote technologies that should simply be promoted by the private sector. Take the favor doing business away from the government, get it out of the markets all together, and you eliminate this kind of situation. But that is just crazy talk because I hate poor people and want rich people to rule the world.
enough on this topic, if you want to continue by PM I would absolutely
now let's get back to calling Obama's success story simply a result of affirmative action and discredit his hard work...jesus...with all the things to go after this president for on policy alone, why do people insist on coming up with ways to make themselves sound petty and stupid.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Whatever man. I disagree w/ your assessment of W's presidency, I think that history will prove me right. We'll see.
Hey man, I'm really not putting you down personally, but you have posted that you are a college professor, and even the name of your school. Then rant conspiracy theories and lib talking points about Bush in an Obama thread. A lot of companies would fire someone for that- people have been fired for what they post on Facebook, etc. But in the academic world, it's encouraged- in fact, its almost a prerequisite for tenure.
And it's just so exhaustingly typical of college. I've been. I payed. I've had to navigate the minefields of ultra-liberal indoctrinators posed as professors, and regurgitate talking points and bullshit, just to get the grade- just to get the diploma- just to get the job.
But to sit here and pretend we are carrying on an academic discussion about the 43rd Prez, well..... what kind of grade would I get in your class if I presented a paper claiming that Bush did something right? A bad grade, that's what. And you fuckin know it.
Thanks, but I don't have to pretend to be enlightened by ultra-liberal professors anymore.
Pearl Jam rocks. Im sure we agree on that. I kinda hit hard at the teachers in this one, so speak your mind, but after that, lets just agree to disagree on some things, and let it be?
No hard feelings.
So is white guilt.
The article, IMO, isn't saying that Obama is a bad president bc he is black. It's saying that he was never qualified, and it is "white guilt" that led to the election of an under-qualified person.
If you call white guilt coming to an understanding that I have unearned privileges in this life based solely on the color of my skin and the fact that I have a penis and am heterosexual then put me in jail. I am treated differently, and most times, for the better because of those things. Conversely, white victimhood is based on the belief that somehow taking steps to alter the aforementioned is making things impossible for white men in the face of almost irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I mean it's so hard being a white man now with our dwindling numbers in positions of power...oh wait.
I realize that. But I am disagreeing with that assessment. It is easy to look past a persons fault if they are well spoken and likable. I don't think it was anything sinister, nor do I see it as white guilt that caused it. He was a better option than mccain in many people's eyes.
I would say he got the nomination more because people have a problem backing a woman. so which is it, white guilt or sexism that got him the nomination?
I think we can all agree that it took many things for Barack Obama to become president...but to call it a result of white guilt, or affirmative action sounds petty and is a complete distraction from the real situation. It took no stronger candidate from the dems (in my mind Clinton was, but that is why we have elections, others didn't agree), weak candidates from the GOP, a country weary of more war and economic worries that came during and after 8 years of the GOP in charge of the presidency...the country was ready for change and he tapped into that...it hasn't worked out in my opinion, but that doesn't mean we should look back on his election and claim it was a matter of white guilt
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Hold on, teach!! Nobody's talkin bout your wiener, man- so.....
Funny that you think the "point of college is to share knowledge and beliefs in order to get our society somewhere better." And then you never leave... And what does "get our society somewhere better" even mean? Sounds like the stuff guys say to girls in college to get laid.
I think the point of college is to learn all I can about my field of study, so that I can "get" myself "somewhere better". But I am an individualist. I know that Statists feel differently.
Trade school? haha. "Corporate University?" Geez man... you're rife with it. Good luck to ya....
Getting back to the point of this thread, the author of the story will argue that my minority students have it "easy" because they can just write about going to school at Towson if they want to.