Letters to the Editor
-
@ David
"according to the philosophy behind critical race theory, it doesn't matter what your INTENT was, you EFFECTIVELY shut tom up. why? in order to give that victim-punisher, KateTex a wider canvas. why? i posited it was your aversion to tribal loyalty. you say you didn't understand that. perhaps you ARE that dull."
Ok, I take your point.
I think you presume a bit much, but ok.
-
Did Senator Hillary Clinton Face Sniper Fire When Talking with Richard Mellon Scaife?
Oh, dear me, from the way that you hear the Clinton fabulists tell it, Hillary again faced the threat of a fusillade of bullets – albeit of the right-wing caliber – when she ventured into an editorial board meeting sitting side by side with the key financier of the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons in the early ‘90s, Richard Mellon Scaife.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/075
-
@weep
ok, the reason behind the reason. we have VERY different impressions of KateTex. i thought her very MUCH blame the victim/ hiding the "inner racist"/ twisting Obama to be the monster. i was ANGRY at her. you seemed to think she was speaking from some sort of goodwill, some intellectual framework. i don't think ANYTHING, certainly not anything involving race (or religion) is intellectual. i think the best diviner is the gut. and mine said, THOROUGH RACIST (and i really don't think i'll EVER change that opinion). so though i wouldn't talk like tom, my feelings were the same - and i didn't like you evening the odds. capische?
-
sugarman
You're right, but it's sooooo tempting to poke the racist rat in a cage of its own creation. This is not a courtroom; it's not church. It's not congressional testimony (where "I don't recall" is all you really need to say). It's a free for all, a linguistic fling where dung is flung. LIghten up. Now off to market, where geezers get ten percent off on Tuesdays (sale items not included, nor, lamentably, is liquor). Tra la, tra la. screw dixie.
-
@ David
Thank you for your candor, David.
That's perfectly understandable and it reflects the sort of difference in world view (ideological, you called it?) between us.
I, too, have had the same reaction to Kate in reading her posts. I don't trust her and I'm very much put off by her.
This is precisely why I'm trying to engage her. I'm trying to make an effort to find some common ground even with someone I mistrust. I'm trying to find some sort of commonality, some basis by which we can develop a mutual trust.
I fervently believe that we sink or swim together (the "collectivist" in me), and to that end, we have to figure out a way to create bonds even with--especially with--the most unlikely of candidates.
So for personal reasons, I feel compelled to make an honest effort to find the commonality that can be the basis of mutual respect, if nothing else.
I'm trying to see Kate as a human being.
I appreciate others don't share this orientation, but all I was asking of Tom was that he step back so as not to bait Kate in this particular time and place. No more, no less.
I guess I just wouldn't call that "shutting up Tom," any more than I'd call it shutting someone up to ask them not to interrupt a conversation.
Anyway, thank you, David, for responding. I think I'm starting to get you, which is a good thing, no?
-
@ David
Oh, and just because Kate is a racist is to me not sufficient reason to cease trying to find common ground.
Again, this is the sort of reason Obama appeals to me: his ethos of reaching out even to our enemies (not that I consider Kate an "enemy").
It's my belief that people are not the enemy, but rather animosities amongst people which breed fear and lead to dehumanization.
To me, dehumanization is the ultimate enemy.
-
@ David
In the words of the candidate we both admire:
"And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. "
You see what I mean?
-
@ David
More from Obama's speech:
"That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Legitimate or not, productive or not, honest or not, her anger is real.
Kate is Pastor Wright, don't you see that?
-
weeping for brunnhilde
You are full of yourself for suggesting that Kate is Pastor Wright. I don't think you have a clue about what you are talking about. If you are even harboring a thought that Wright practices reverse racism, you are stubbornly ill informed and gratituously fanning the flames of racism.
-
@weeping
You say: "Oh, and just because Kate is a racist is to me not sufficient reason to cease trying to find common ground."
I am extremely disappointed in you for writing the above. I am a racist ONLY as defined by some of those posting on this site, those so filled with faux virtue that I sometimes want to scream. I know full well who I am, I know my faults and shortcomings. Racism is most definitely not one of them, so whale away, all of you. This will not change my awareness of certain realities, no more than it will change that of millions of other decent people in this country being subjected to the typically damaging, acidic intellectualism which permeates the far left. I have the courage of my convictions and I will continue to stand by them.
-
@WFB
It is very discouraging to see how easily you have bought into the notion that KateTex is a racist. Somewhat like how easily the Clintons have been successfully painted as racists despite their decades of work to support civil rights. What I have seen in monitoring these boards is that Kate is angry at Obama and his supporters for playing the race card and tarnishing the Clintons with it. And in that, I agree with her. So, I suppose I am a racist too.
You are perfectly free to mistrust her. After all, she is a Clinton supporter so by definition is untrustworthy. People like David, Tom, Manos etc., on the other hand, are totally justified in race-baiting, name calling, cursing, smearing, inciting, etc. because they are Obama supporters, and therefore, pure as the driven snow. Look back over their previous posts. The most vile invective. I don't know Kate and I don't know you. I only know what I read. I thought you were sincere in your attempt to have a civil discussion about race, but your eagerness to label someone a racist reveals the phoniness of the Obama "ethos" of reconciliation. Truly disappointing, to say the least.