Obama Joker artist revealed

[madanthonywayne]

Now that is an impressive response. Put a lot of thought into that one.

They can't all be gems.

Two things here. First, many conservatives seem to think that if the KKK isn't out in hoods with some beefy-t redneck sheriff hosing down the blacks for them, there isn't any racism to be found.

Don't get me wrong; I understand it's convenient efficient to regard issues so simply. But I also think it's a paltry excuse put forth by people who are tired of defending a racist standard they refuse to give up.

Secondly, certainly it's policies and ideas. That's why they're never mixed with race. Take two examples from a liberal perspective. First is Chris Britt's cartoon for the September 19, 2009 State Journal-Register:

Cartoons aside, Obama's race has very little to do with opposition to him and playing that card reeks of desperation to me. Hell, as Obama himself pointed out on Letterman, he was black before the election, and yet he still was elected.

It reminds me of an old SNL skit ( I couldn't find it on the internet) starring Eddy Murphy as a guy who always blamed everything on racism. Whenever something bad happened to him, he'd blame it on racism. Finally, at the end of the skit, he's fired from a job and (for once) doesn't blame it on racism. He says, "Is this about my performance last month? Because I can explain that......" His boss interupts him saying, "No that's not it". "Well, what then? asks Murphy. "It's because you're a nigger!" shouts his boss.

The point being that while there is still some racism out there, it's not really that big of a deal anymore. But it still can rear its ugly head from time to time.

Look, at the core of the Obamanoia is a bunch of people who just can't deal with the fact that a black man is president. And that's their business. But then a bunch of partisans hop on that bandwagon, and those folks are just horrified to be accused of racism. I mean, sure they're willing to hop on a racist bandwagon, promote an essentially racist message, and distort common standards of both our society in general and our already twisted political history in order to carry out these obsessive attacks echoing the racists, but there's no way they could be racist, or that this could possibly be about race. After all, it just isn't fair to accuse someone who is speaking racism of being racist.

Right?

No. At the core is a president who is pushing a leftist agenda that a large portion of the country objects to and pushing hard. He is pushing on many fronts in an attempt to strike while he still has the political capital to do so and his attempt to move this far left this fast is scaring the hell out of a lot of people. Now, are there some racists in the mix, sure. Every large gathering has its kook element.

To the other, if your point was that the thread was still alive, why didn't you just say that instead of, "Give it a rest. Many of us see Obama as a joker. The joker wears face paint. Nothing racial about it." It's hard to claim your, "Give it a rest," was about the fact that the issue was still being debated when you were, in fact, still arguing the issue.

Good point. My "give it a rest" would have been more effective without the subsequent argument.

The whole thing is bogus. It's part of the larger racist tantrum against Obama. And you're happily going along with it.

I don't see any larger racist tantrum against Obama. I talk to plenty of people who don't like Obama. No one ever mentions his race as being the reason. As I said before, I could not care less about the race of the president. I wouldn't hesitate to pull the lever for a black conservative over a white liberal. Not for one second.

Madanthonywayne: And yet you, of course, are above it all. You are not making noise about my making noise about the usual suspects making noise about a noise. No. You are here to enlighten us with your erudite wit.

Tiassa: Indeed, as long as I am the issue here, let's review .... Where do I stand, sir?

Madanthonywayne: Well, on the Left. The far left, from my perspective.​

Would you like to try it again, and this time make the answer relevant to the underlying point? Or would that just be a futile effort?

The point was to point out your arrogance in describing the opinions of others as "noise" while your opinion was, well, certainly not noise. I'm reminded of a skit by George Carlin:

Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else's house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else's stuff is all over the place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven't used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven't moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there's usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there's NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else's shit is on the dresser.

Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff? God! And you say, "Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!"​

____________________

 

[iceaura]

Cartoons aside, Obama's race has very little to do with opposition to him and playing that card reeks of desperation to me. Hell, as Obama himself pointed out on Letterman, he was black before the election, and yet he still was elected.

He was elected with 55% of the vote from the half of the population that bothered.

That leaves plenty of room for 27% of the general population to act out their mental problems - and this Limbaugh crowd is blatantly, flagrantly, racially bigoted. And that's who's showing up in screeching packs of racist sign-wavers, that's who's sending round the charming little emails of jokes about white house janitor in a drum and pictures of Obama with a bone in his nose, and that's the voting base that bedrock bigots like Joe Wilson and Orrin Hatch adn Mitch McConnell and John Boehner pander to - by nature or by strategy - to get their sorry asses re-elected to the offices they have so thoroughly traduced and betrayed.

The point being that while there is still some racism out there, it's not really that big of a deal anymore. But it still can rear its ugly head from time to time.

It was the central issue of the last Presidential campaign, and is right now a daily theme of the intellectual leaders of the Republican Party - Limbaugh and Beck and Malkin and so forth.

 

[madanthonywayne]

It (racism) was the central issue of the last Presidential campaign, and is right now a daily theme of the intellectual leaders of the Republican Party - Limbaugh and Beck and Malkin and so forth.

The central issue? A daily theme for Limbaugh and Beck? How about some racist quotes to back that up from Limbaugh, Beck, and McCain? (I'm not too familiar with Malkin)

 

[Tiassa]

"I want to say what the racists say, but I'm not racist!"

Cartoons aside, Obama's race has very little to do with opposition to him and playing that card reeks of desperation to me.

So, a voter registration issue involving a community organization that primarily benefits minorities is blown out of proportion. We hear for months about how Obama isn't an American. Conservatives exploited the "secret Muslim" name. The arguments we hear from "respectable" conservatives just happen to echo those put forth by the racists who call him "Osama" or "Hussein". I have at various points over the last year made detailed assertions about how racism comes into it, and nobody ever takes the time to refute the issue on its merits, but rather we hear a bunch of dismissive rejoinders like, "Cartoons aside, Obama's race has very little to do with opposition to him and playing that card reeks of desperation to me."

So go ahead, repeat the simple dismissals, and never make the case. That's certainly the proper and convincing way to go about making the case, isn't it?

Hell, as Obama himself pointed out on Letterman, he was black before the election, and yet he still was elected.

Dan Savage wrote on Tuesday:

It's exactly what the president should say, of course, it's what the president must say. Anyone with eyes can see that there's a racial element to the anger directed at the president .... And just because Obama was black before the election and still managed to get elected doesn't mean that racism isn't a problem and that racists don't exist .... But politically Obama has to avoid the angry-black-man label—which is why he's being baited with racist images and slurs and will go on being baited until sometime after 2012—because it would hurt him with middle-of-the-road white independents who don't want to believe that America has a race problem still.

So our first black president can't call clearly racist insults or acts or motives racist. He needs a crazy ol' cracker like Jimmy Carter to do that for him—and then he needs to go on TV and dismiss and downplay Carter's comments. And Americans are simultaneously upset with Carter because he's right and grateful to the president for letting them—and the country—off the hook ....​

I always find it interesting when you pretend that American politics are so simple, because I have a hard time believing you think so poorly of people. Look at your regard for Mark Sanford. Suddenly you want to introduce nuance?

We're all flawed. So go ahead and enjoy making fun of this guy. Just be glad the media's not there checking up on everything you've ever done. Oh, I know, you're not conservative. So the rules don't apply. But, seriously, have you never failed to live up to your own values? Even once in your life? Has your every action been in accordance with the grand ideals you espose?

(#2291169/19)​

You can't understand the idea of hypocrisy that affects other people's lives? I mean, if it was just telling his kids that masturbation was wrong and then go spanking himself in the toolshed at midnight, I wouldn't give a damn. But he helped impeach a president for sexual indiscretion, capitalizes on the suppression of people's civil rights because of sexual orientation—an argument that touts the sanctity of marriage—and then flies off to Argentina to have an affair? Hypocrisy is too simple when it's a white Republican, but American politics must necessarily be simple when it's a black Democrat?

What?

Really, what?

It reminds me of an old SNL skit ( I couldn't find it on the internet) starring Eddy Murphy as a guy who always blamed everything on racism.

You and Eddie Murphy .... Don't get me wrong, I'll give you points for trying, but you're still just reiterating the position without doing anything substantial to explain it.

The point being that while there is still some racism out there, it's not really that big of a deal anymore. But it still can rear its ugly head from time to time.

It is a big deal. It has an effect on all of society, not just the victims of racism. And when it does rear its ugly head, what are we supposed to think of the allegedly respectable folk who jump on the bandwagon?

No. At the core is a president who is pushing a leftist agenda that a large portion of the country objects to and pushing hard. He is pushing on many fronts in an attempt to strike while he still has the political capital to do so and his attempt to move this far left this fast is scaring the hell out of a lot of people. Now, are there some racists in the mix, sure. Every large gathering has its kook element.

If it's about ideas and policies, people need to put away the racism. 42% of Republicans surveyed recently believe President Obama was not born in the U.S. Another 22% say they're not sure. That's 64% of Republicans surveyed that will not accept that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. That's a bigger margin than Obama's presidential election. Republican Congresswooman Jean Schmidt was caught on camera comforting a Birther, whispering in her ear, "I agree with you, but the courts don't." Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), asked about the birth certificate at a town hall meeting in August, responded, "I haven't seen enough evidence one way or another." Rep. Roy Blount of Missouri said in July that he doesn't have a reason to believe Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, but also said the Birthers had a "legitimate question". Asked by local media to clarify, he responded, "What I actually think is that you guys don't have any capacity to talk about that in a legitimate way, so I'm going to stop talking about it." And he even went so far as to tell a reporter that Obama should produce a birth certificate, since Blunt didn't know anyone else who couldn't; except that we already have a birth certificate°. McCain voters in Virginia scored a pretty even split on the question in August, with 32% saying Obama was born in the United States, 36% saying he wasn't, and 32% saying they weren't sure. Nationally-known television personality Lou Dobbs has been pushing the birth certificate issue to the point that CNN found itself cornered after they rejected three advertisements from Media Matters because they criticized his reporting on the subject. To the other, Dobbs irresponsible coverage of the issue even drew criticism from Ann Coulter, although she also blames the liberal media for smearing conservatives with the birther issue. Up here in Washington state, Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, the House Republican Vice-Chair, said she wanted to see the documents. When a reporter called for a follow-up on that statement, neither she nor her office had a response. Rush Limbaugh described in July a dream in which he was a slave building a sphinx that looked like Obama. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) explained in July that the Birthers have a point; "I don't discourage them," he said. Regular presidential hopeless—and defeated opponent of Barack Obama—Alan Keyes even managed to get himself arrested on a trespassing charge with twenty-one other Birthers protesting the president's commencement speech at Notre Dame University in May.

That's just one issue. Over the last few months. And an incomplete list. It's hard to consider elected U.S. Senators and Representatives among the kook element. If it's really about ideas and policies, why are people stooping to echo the racists? Are you able to answer that? After all, it's what you're doing.

I don't see any larger racist tantrum against Obama.

Of course you don't. ACORN, secret Muslim, Rev. Wright, the birth certificate, "white slavery", Jews for Obama's ovens. The whole point is to cast Obama as an "other", to tweak the xenophobic nerve. And, quite clearly, it's working. The thing is that even when there are legitimate issues—such as with ACORN—the conservative talking points skip right past those and leap into the kind of histrionics reminiscent of Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

I talk to plenty of people who don't like Obama. No one ever mentions his race as being the reason.

Well, even as some members around Sciforums demonstrate, even the racists don't like to think of themselves as racist. It's not a politically viable position to admit it's about race.

As I said before, I could not care less about the race of the president. I wouldn't hesitate to pull the lever for a black conservative over a white liberal. Not for one second.

And would you bend your rhetoric for the black Republican the way you do for white Republicans?

I'm sorry, man, but as long as you take part in the racist echo chamber, you're going to be seen as a racist. Repudiate the histrionics; stop shoveling the racist bullshit at us.

The point was to point out your arrogance in describing the opinions of others as "noise" while your opinion was, well, certainly not noise.

Actually, you just need to learn to count. That's all.

But, hey, at least you're back in the neighborhood. So where do I stand? Go on. Take another shot at it. It's not like I'm selling tickets here, so take as many swings as you want. In fact, I'd be interested to see how long it takes you to get to an answer that, right or wrong, is actually relevant.
_____________________

Notes:

° except that we already have a birth certificate — Some Birthers make the argument that what we have is a Certification of Live Birth. But here's an interesting story, and true. My former partner never actually finalized her divorce in Oregon before my daughter was born in Washington state. Under Washington law, I could not be listed as the father on the birth certificate; her husband was. Obviously, when he found out, he was anxious to have that issue settled. But we had to go back and get a new birth certificate listing me as the father, else I would have no parental authority in my daughter's life. What we got was a Certification of Live Birth, just like the president produced. Now, then—who is going to tell me my daughter wasn't born in the United States? Come on, step up. I want to know.

Works Cited

Savage, Dan. "Obama to Letterman: I Was Black Before the Election". Slog. September 22, 2009. Slog.TheStranger.com. September 23, 2009. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...-to-letterman-i-was-black-before-the-election

Jensen, Tom. "Is extremism becoming mainstream?" Public Policy Polling. September 23, 2009. PublicPolicyPolling.blogspot.com. September 24, 2009. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-extremism-becoming-mainstream.html

"How Much Will Obama Help?" Public Policy Polling. August 5, 2009. PublicPolicyPolling.blogspot.com. September 24, 2009. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VA_805513.pdf

See Also:

Talking Points Memo. Birth Certificate. September, 2009. TPMDC.TalkingPointsMemo.com. September 24, 2009. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/birth-certificate/

 

[madanthonywayne]

So, a voter registration issue involving a community organization that primarily benefits minorities is blown out of proportion.

I'd say ACORN has shown its true colors of late.

We hear for months about how Obama isn't an American.

There are always rumors about presidents. Clinton was a serial Rapist, Bush was AWOL, etc.

Conservatives exploited the "secret Muslim" name. The arguments we hear from "respectable" conservatives just happen to echo those put forth by the racists who call him "Osama" or "Hussein".

His middle name is Hussain. His first name sounds like Iraq. And his last name sounds just like Osama. He couldn't have a worse name and I'm amazed he got elected with that kind of baggage. SNL did a bit early in the election saying he'd changed his name to "Hitler Jew Killer", and that it was an improvement. The point is, with that kind of name, or course some people are going to spread rumors about him being a secret Muslim or a non-citizen. I'd expect that even if he was Republican.

I have at various points over the last year made detailed assertions about how racism comes into it, and nobody ever takes the time to refute the issue on its merits, but rather we hear a bunch of dismissive rejoinders like, "Cartoons aside, Obama's race has very little to do with opposition to him and playing that card reeks of desperation to me."

I'll give you this much. Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him. .

You can't understand the idea of hypocrisy that affects other people's lives? I mean, if it was just telling his kids that masturbation was wrong and then go spanking himself in the toolshed at midnight, I wouldn't give a damn. But he helped impeach a president for sexual indiscretion, capitalizes on the suppression of people's civil rights because of sexual orientation—an argument that touts the sanctity of marriage—and then flies off to Argentina to have an affair? Hypocrisy is too simple when it's a white Republican, but American politics must necessarily be simple when it's a black Democrat?

Look at your own argument. On the one hand you're complaining about the impeachment of Clinton over an episode involving sexual indescretion; on the other you're delighting in the downfall someone else over a sexual indescretion. Is Sanford a hypocrite? Most certainly. But so are you for opposing using sexual indescretions against Clinton but celebrating them when used against Republicans.

I think this is one area where we should learn from Europe. Marital infidelity is very common and really shouldn't exclude someone from government service.

If it's about ideas and policies, people need to put away the racism.

Of course you don't. ACORN, secret Muslim, Rev. Wright, the birth certificate, "white slavery", Jews for Obama's ovens. The whole point is to cast Obama as an "other", to tweak the xenophobic nerve. And, quite clearly, it's working. The thing is that even when there are legitimate issues—such as with ACORN—the conservative talking points skip right past those and leap into the kind of histrionics reminiscent of Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

I think you've hit on the answer to your own question. As I said, race is not the motivating factor, it's policy. But some (such as the cartoonist you featured earlier) will use any weapon at hand to stop Obama. Not because he's black, but because they believe he's going to destroy what they believe is unique about America. Watch Glenn Beck sometime. He's a multimedia phenominum (TV, radio, books). He's published several books this year alone and every single one of them has been a number one best seller. No racism there, but plenty of alarmism verging on the apocalyptic.

Regular presidential hopeless—and defeated opponent of Barack Obama—Alan Keyes even managed to get himself arrested on a trespassing charge with twenty-one other Birthers protesting the president's commencement speech at Notre Dame University in May.

Do you think Alen Keyes (a black man) is motivated by racism?

And would you bend your rhetoric for the black Republican the way you do for white Republicans?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but my concern is ideas, not race.

 

[iceaura]

We hear for months about how Obama isn't an American.
”
There are always rumors about presidents. Clinton was a serial Rapist, Bush was AWOL, etc.

And of course in wingnut world there is no difference between "true" and "false" even, let alone between "false" and " ridiculous" and "delusional, crazy".

There are not always delusional, crazy rumors - a whole series of them - about presidents, given serious air time on national TV.

There's Clinton, and there's Obama. That's about it, for barrages of crazy in the mainstream media. And the stuff about Obama has a pattern to it. And we all know what that pattern looks exactly like, don't we.

because:

But some (such as the cartoonist you featured earlier) will use any weapon at hand to stop Obama. Not because he's black,

So let me make sure I've read this correctly: racism is a weapon used by non-racists, not an important factor in itself - these people are not racists, they're just using racism as a weapon, and so calling them on the racism behind what they do and say is "playing the race card" and not fair?

Where is this racism stored, that is available to be used as weapon by these non-racists who merely disagree on policy matters? How do they get their hands on such an effective weapon, and how does it work?

 

[Tiassa]

And what are your true colors?

I'd say ACORN has shown its true colors of late.

So a couple of people running an entrapment sting nail some under-trained, street-level workers with a strange sex fantasy, and "ACORN has shown its true colors of late"?

But a bunch of Republicans who run "family values" platforms get themselves caught up—one after another—in ugly sex scandals, and ... what? Are they just "human"?

Or can we say that Republicans, in cheating on their wives (and sometimes spending public money to do so), having their parents pay off the family of their mistress, and actually committing sexual offenses against minors is the GOP showing its true colors?

Fair is fair, right? I mean, the Republican sex scandals didn't even require entrapment. They did it all to themselves.

There are always rumors about presidents. Clinton was a serial Rapist, Bush was AWOL, etc.

This is where I get really critical of Republicans, and one of the things that I find striking is that after these several years you still haven't figured it out.

Okay, my problem with your response is that it is too simplistic. Yes, there are always rumors about presidents, and yes, they're generally mean-spirited.

Now, one of the general differences between general mean spirit and racism is what the mean spirit focuses on. For instance:

• Clinton as a serial rapist is just a paranoid extension of Clinton's long history of infidelity and a sexual harassment charge that, while it never seems to have had much merit in itself, had spectacular impact on his presidency. Quite clearly, in this case, the rumor wouldn't have had any legs if Clinton wasn't a serial philanderer.​

Does that make sense?

• Bush as AWOL was an overplayed theme derived from a combination of factors. There was the "chicken hawk" argument that arose with the Iraq War. Bush, like Rumsfeld and the prominent core of neocon hawks didn't go to Vietnam. This really was only an issue at all because Republicans tried to crucify Bill Clinton for being a Rhodes scholar instead of a soldier. Add in that a number of records in Bush's National Guard file were missing, and there were even controversially "substantiated" (e.g., not well enough) claims that he was missing duties. The CBS memo obviously pushed that whole argument too far, but had Bush either (A) gone to Vietnam, (B) not appeared to treat his time in the Guard so flippantly, or (C) not invaded Iraq, the whole AWOL argument wouldn't have had any legs.​

Does that make sense?

• Obama being foreign-born is dependent on three primary issues: He is African-American, his father was Kenyan, and he has a Muslim-sounding name. Quite clearly, the rumor wouldn't have legs if Obama (A) was white, (B) had a different father, and/or (C) had been named something more familiar to American ears.​

And does that make sense?

With Clinton and Bush, the rumors depended in part on behavior they chose. The rumor about Obama, though, is invested in issues that are beyond his control.

And that's key. Those familiar with my posts and the arguments of other liberals should probably have encountered this basic point by now. Criticizing and exploiting what people choose is fair game. You know, if your buddy gets puking drunk and spews down some woman's blouse, it's not hateful to give him shit for that. If he runs off and takes line-dancing lessons, it's not hateful to laugh at his stupid spangly shirt and ludicrous cowboy boots. These are things he chooses.

To the other, is someone's skin color a fair reason to give them shit? Well, sure, if they manage to sunburn themselves in a tanning booth, why not? When I was in high school, my biology teacher spoke out of the left corner of his mouth and never seemed to look at you when you were on his right side. He was born in the days when they still used forceps to pull on the baby's head in order to facilitate its exit from the mother. He was one of those statistically significant cases in which the forceps caused nerve damage. He spoke out of the left side of his mouth because the right side was paralyzed since birth. And while the impersonations were, at one point funny, once that became known to students, they went out of their way to tell people who kept it up to shut the fuck up. Do you understand? Teenagers could figure it out: That joke was off limits because what it was based on was beyond the person's control. And you know me, I'm very critical of Christianity. But if these teenagers could figure it out, why can't you?

Like there was this one time I was in art class, and the teacher and I were already on eggshells with each other because ... well, it's a long story, but I actually had nothing to do with it until the moment I was called in to answer. Anyway, I ended up in her art class because I needed the credit. So one day, I'm talking with a friend as we're working in class, and I do the classic Elmer Fudd bit, "Be vewwy, vewwy quiet. I'm hunting wabbits." And suddenly this woman just explodes. "You know, some things are funny," she stormed, or something like that. "But you don't make fun of the way people talk!" At which point my friend raised his hand and said, with calculated meekness, "Um, ma'am? He's doing Elmer Fudd." And then he held up the cartoon of a rabbit he was drawing. It wasn't Bugs Bunny or anything. It was more of a frat-boy rabbit, complete with a bottle in his hand instead of a carrot. The woman glared at me and stomped back to her desk and didn't say anything for the rest of the class. Now, I recognize that the teacher spoke with a thick German accent, but to the one it's a far cry from Elmer Fudd to imitating her, and, to the other, how the hell was I supposed to know that a woman who made her living teaching art to young people didn't know who Elmer Fudd was? Shit, had I actually been imitating her? No. I don't care how many speech lessons she might take; that accent will likely never disappear. Actually bagging on her for her accent would be way out of bounds.

Or one of my friends sophomore year. We had this English teacher who had developed something of a reputation for eccentric behavior, namely shaking her fist at or flipping off the students as they drove out of the school, cussing them out for ... well, you know, not all of them were speeding on school grounds. And, yeah, we thought that was hilarious. And when it became known that the school had finally pulled her aside and told her to go dry out or lose her job, everybody shut up. Jesuits are fairly liberal on many issues, and, yes, we were part of the generation that learned to view alcoholism as a disease. So later in the year—during the time that she is struggling to curb her drinking—when my friend told her, in the middle of one of her famous classroom tantrums, to calm the fuck down and go have a drink? Yes, he knew damn well before he opened his mouth he was about to take a vacation.

Am I making myself clear? Do you see the difference? What about that explanation is any different from my stance on, say, homosexuality and discrimination? The things that people choose are fair game. The things that people are according to nature are not.

Furthermore, the Birther routine is part of a larger pattern of opposition to Obama. When it was Bill Clinton, the question was whether he was a Commie. And, well, what do we expect when you head to England to study instead of pick up a rifle, and while you're there not only protest the war but actually meet with Soviet communists? Isolating Clinton on those grounds depended on his actions. Isolating Barack Obama as foreign-born (especially for months after the issue should be settled) depends on what he is according to nature. And the persistence of this attack has been ridiculous. We even heard that the newspaper announcements of his birth were planted, yet at the time—and it may still be the case today—those announcements were filed by the hospitals as part of the public record. There are elected officials in Congress demanding to see the birth certificate months after a proper and legal birth certificate has been presented. We cannot isolate this as a purely fringe phenomenon.

His middle name is Hussain. His first name sounds like Iraq. And his last name sounds just like Osama. He couldn't have a worse name and I'm amazed he got elected with that kind of baggage. SNL did a bit early in the election saying he'd changed his name to "Hitler Jew Killer", and that it was an improvement.

You know, over the years, SNL has gone downhill insofar as its humor has trended toward pabulum over the years. I mean, it was never high art to begin with, but the difference between Samurai Taylor and whatever happened to the show in the late '90s is vast. By the time we got to the Roxbury sketches, it was a wreck. I will say, though, that as simple and even stupid as I found, Amy Poehler, but her last "Weekend Update"—with a running joke about Governor Paterson, was truly a classic sketch.

But, here's the thing. You need to work on your understanding of humor. The Hitler Jew Killer joke wasn't really about Obama's name. It was about the people perceiving it just like you. His middle name is Hussein. His first name sounds like Iraq. His last name sounds like Osama. Well, you know, at the very least, fifty-three percent of the voters in the country didn't give a damn about that. As to the rest? Hard to tell. Polls suggested about four percent of voters would vote against him because of his heritage. So let's imagine, for a moment, that four percent being the "kook element" you referred to. How is it, then, that xenophobia is the leading theme of the opposition to Obama's "ideas and policies"?

• "Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side."
• "Why did the fly fly? Because the spider spied her."
• "What's green and flies? Super Pickle.
• "What can go up a chimney down, but not go down a chimney up? An umbrella."​

These are all fairly simple jokes. They are plays on words, obvious answers, or, in the case of Super Pickle, just silly. Very superficial. Very basic.

"Hitler Jew Killer" isn't about the actual words, though. It's about the people who look at Barack Hussein Obama, a Harvard-educated lawyer, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, and university lecturer, and would be more comfortable if he was a screaming Nazi lunatic. Yes, the phrase is kind of funny. But it's not what the joke is about.

The point is, with that kind of name, or course some people are going to spread rumors about him being a secret Muslim or a non-citizen. I'd expect that even if he was Republican.

Yes, and if it was a Republican, do you really think that "kook element" would be out demanding a public health care option? If he was a Catholic Republican from Kansas, would we look at the molesting priests and say the Catholic church was finally showing her true colors? Sure, a fringe element would probably say so. A liberal, atheistic kook element. But what about those liberal non-Christians like me—and in this I'm not so rare—who say, "Well, you cloister a bunch of men, make them take a vow of celibacy, send them out to counsel the community about all sorts of matters, including sexual relations, and allow them nearly unfettered access to little boys—what the hell did you think was going to happen?" If it was a Catholic Republican, would the anti-Catholic hysteria of fake grass-roots organizations trying to shout down the public discourse be viewed with such legitimacy that the U.S. Congress would attempt such drastic retaliatory measures as to endanger the qualifications and credentials of the ten largest defense contractors in the nation?

You know, living up here in Washington, Dan Savage is even more prominent a voice to us than he is in the rest of the country. The former—and future—Real Time With Bill Maher correspondent and cable-news pundit, who also writes one of the most popular sex-advice columns in the country and serves as editor to Seattle's foremost alternative newspaper has, for a few years now, been blogging "Youth Pastor Watch" and "Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father". These criticize homophobic rhetoric by documenting youth pastors who are busted molesting children and the worst of the bad heterosexual parents. And the cases just keep piling up. (The most recent ECDMF is actually fairly mild, about an Oregon couple who let their daughter die of pneumonia because they were attempting to faith-heal a cyst on the fifteen month-old's neck. The father served two months in prison; the mother was acquitted.) Could we really say that Christianity, or heterosexuals, are showing their true colors?

Do you think it's possible to profit from xenophobia aimed at a statistical majority? That is, can you really cast a majority as the "other" and win? If we treated Christianity and heterosexuality the same as we've seen even members of Congress treating President Obama, would it really play in Peoria?

I'll give you this much. Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him.

"Absolutely" is a considerable overstatement. But why is the tool being used by so many allegedly "respectable" figures? Why are you using it, even?

Look at your own argument. On the one hand you're complaining about the impeachment of Clinton over an episode involving sexual indescretion; on the other you're delighting in the downfall someone else over a sexual indescretion. Is Sanford a hypocrite? Most certainly. But so are you for opposing using sexual indescretions against Clinton but celebrating them when used against Republicans.

You still don't get it. What was Clinton's contribution to homophobia? Let's see, he backed off repealing the ban on gays in the military when he lost the Georgia Democrat who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. In other words, he compromised when he knew he couldn't win. And he signed a veto-proof piece of legislation, which I think was a bad idea.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are the reason Clinton couldn't win out against homophobia. Pretending politics are as simple as your argument would have us believe is beyond simply disingenuous. Or maybe that's not fair. Maybe you really do think that there is no difference. Who did Clinton hurt? How heavily did the Democrats campaign against civil rights and sexual orientation?

Sanford's hypocrisy wasn't just a matter of his opinion. It was a matter of restricting other people's civil rights. And that makes it a little more important. Like I said, if his hypocrisy didn't impact so many other people—e.g., the masturbation example that you quoted but seem to have overlooked—I wouldn't give a damn.

For instance, Eliot Spitzer. What was it I wrote about him? It couldn't possibly have been—

Admittedly Greenwald misses a certain point; he quotes Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and now executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, and questions her use of the word reprehensible. It isn't so much the hiring of a prostitute that makes Spitzer reprehensible, but rather, as Sloan explained, that Spitzer "has held himself up as a paragon of virtue".​

—or maybe—

The point is that prostitution is illegal and Spitzer's a professional moralist. Therefore:

illegal + professional moralist = big f@cking deal​

—could it? Most certainly not.

Do you understand yet? Spitzer put people in jail for doing what he did. Extramarital affair? Banging a hooker? I don't care. But he was a professional moralist whose work affected—often severely—other peoples lives. That makes his hypocrisy a big fucking deal.

Do you get it? Are you capable of getting it? And I'm sorry if that last seems a rude question, but after having explained this so many times as related to various issues, I'm starting to wonder what it's going to take for you to understand.

If you disagree with it, try explaining why. That would help greatly, if you were to explain why the impact a person's hypocrisy has on the lives of others is irrelevant to your consideration of the issue.

As I said, race is not the motivating factor, it's policy. But some (such as the cartoonist you featured earlier) will use any weapon at hand to stop Obama.

Two points here:

• See Iceaura's post:

So let me make sure I've read this correctly: racism is a weapon used by non-racists, not an important factor in itself - these people are not racists, they're just using racism as a weapon, and so calling them on the racism behind what they do and say is "playing the race card" and not fair?

How is it unfair to accuse racism of people who are wielding racism as a weapon?

• Again, you need to work on your relationship with humor. The Britt cartoon lampooned people who used race as a weapon but claimed it wasn't about race. And I'm sorry if I made it too complex to pick up that point; let's try it without the actual pictures:

Now, what the hell could Britt be referring to? Especially since it's about ideas and policies, which are, of course, never mixed with race issues. Right?

So consider, then, some folks poking fun at these protesters ....

.... It's part of a joke currently going by the moniker, "What Teabagger Signs Say vs. What They Mean". And perhaps you think the translation is a bit unfair. To the other, one should not imagine that denouncing the Obama administration for "White Slavery"—apparently because it wants people to have health care—in any way mixes race issues with ideas and policies, right?

White slavery? Really? Of course, it's all about policies and ideas, right? So he may be using a racist attack, but it's unfair to call it racism. Could you please explain how that works?​

Really, how is it unfair or wrong to call deliberate use of racism racist?

Not because he's black, but because they believe he's going to destroy what they believe is unique about America.

Well, the funny thing is that they're not really explaining what's unique about America. For instance, I recall the Daily Show, early in the town hall fracas, running this amazing video of this forty-something woman bawling at a protest, wailing that she wants her country back. Nobody actually knows what country that is.

Watch Glenn Beck sometime. He's a multimedia phenominum (TV, radio, books). He's published several books this year alone and every single one of them has been a number one best seller. No racism there, but plenty of alarmism verging on the apocalyptic.

Don't get me started on Beck. He's receiving a key to the city of Mount Vernon, Washington, courtesy of the mayor. The city council rebelled, trying to stop the mayor. And the mayor even attempted a press blackout, but had to relent under the obvious pressure that comes with the idea that you're about to give a key to the city to a controversial figure and the media isn't going to be allowed to cover the event.

Suffice to say it's not only liberals who would dispute your claim that there's no racism in Beck's rhetoric:

On MSNBC Tuesday morning, host Joe Scarborough joined the growing group of conservatives to denounce Glenn Beck's harmful rhetoric.

"You cannot preach hatred." Scarborough said, "You cannot say the president is racist. You cannot say things that have very deadly consequences. I was in Congress in 1995. I know where this can end."

Scarborough went on to say that he was starting an "honor roll" of conservatives willing to come out against Beck. He made multiple references to Beck's "race-baiting," and "wallow[ing] in conspiracy theories." Scarborough concluded: "Not only is Glenn Beck responsible, but conservatives who don't call him out are responsible."

(Huffington Post)​

Do you think Alen Keyes (a black man) is motivated by racism?

Actually, I think Alan Keyes is insane.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but my concern is ideas, not race.

Well, as I had noted previously:

I always find it interesting when you pretend that American politics are so simple, because I have a hard time believing you think so poorly of people. Look at your regard for Mark Sanford. Suddenly you want to introduce nuance?​

When it's the black Democrat, you pretend politics are simple. When it's the white Republican, you want politics to be more complex and nuanced.

It's an interesting difference. Of course, even if your disparate standards are merely partisan, it still speaks to the irrationality of your position.
______________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "Salon Radio: Rep. Alan Grayson on de-funding corrupt defense contractors". Unclaimed Territory. September 23, 2009. Salon.com. September 24, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/index.html

Savage, Dan. "Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father, There Is No Morality Without Religion, Etc." Slog. September 23, 2009. Slog.TheStranger.com. September 24, 2009. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...her-there-is-no-morality-without-religion-etc

Huffington Post. "MSNBC's Scarborough Denounces Glenn Beck's Racist Rhetoric". September 22, 2009. HuffingtonPost.com. September 24, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/msnbcs-scarborough-denoun_n_295309.html

 

[quadraphonics]

Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him.

Hilarious. Personally, I'd rather preserve my pride and integrity, than hoist myself on such a preposterous dodge.

Race was not the motivation for the Slave Power, but was used by some as a tool in the pursuit of developmental and other policy goals.

 

[pjdude1219]

well with the recent flood of comic movies I got interested in comics and looking at the character of the joker the implied comparision that the people who made the socialism poster were trying to make was linking the agent evil of status of the joker to obama and to make socialism evil but which in my opinion fails. the joker wasn't an agent of evil because even though evil is not good it is still order. the joker however malign he may be is an agent of disorder not evil

 

[GeoffP]

Quite. But the distinction failed the guy making the poster.

Who could he have used that would be current and not hokey?

 

[pjdude1219]

You don't think his little poster is loony? He supported Kucinich, a loon. So, scientifically, he is a loon by association.

Kucinich was the shit i almost voted for him

 

[pjdude1219]

The media crucified W. They portrayed him as a chimp, Hitler, an idiot, a moron, stupid, redneck, hick etc. He is none of these. He is a smart, funny, awesome man of God.

not the mainstream media they like you kissed his ass. now the list as for chimp its was do to his tendency to make chimp like faces(though you could probably compile lists like that for anybody we are after all apes like chimps). as for the hitler comparison it was due to as a neocon his fascist and neo fascist tendencies as well as his faimlies buisness ties to the nazi's as well as his grandfather taking part in the aborted fascist coup. he diffently was all that bright and did give the impression of being well stupid. as for a hick or redneck that was an image he PERSONALLY cultivated when he went to texas he wanted every one to think of hims self as a down to earth texan rather than what he was a spoiled and rich kid of the new england elite.
Smart he was definitely not he was of average intellect as for funny I'll give you that as for an awesome man of god I'm sorry to break your heart sandy but he is about as much of a man of god as he is a texan. You have been had. it's merely a ploy to get votes which you gladly obliged him.

 

[Randwolf]

You know, after reading part of the thread, then going back up and looking at the pic...

I'm not sure what to say. This is the first time I've seen the actual picture, though I had heard of it.

It never occurred to me that there could be a racist angle here, until I reread (and continued reading) the thread.

Now, I'm not sure what that means...

Am I too stupid to catch the racial implication? Too smart? (i.e. consider and dismiss) Too enlightened?

I have no idea, and I feel a "disengenuity" attack coming on here, but I just don't get it. I would never have thought of the racial slur on my own. Well, maybe not never, but I'm thinking it would require additional input from somewhere.

It's very clearly a play on "Joker", most likely the Batman character, but the playing card angle is not bad either.

The only way I can see people getting directly to the "whiteface" Negro interpretation would be if they were already looking for the race card - everywhere. I've known people like this, and I think it's about the most "disingenuous" ploy I've seen - in most cases.

And I'm not exactly spring chicken material either, approaching the half century mark here. To reiterate, I just don't see it as racist... :shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

It's being kept alive by those who staunchly reject the whiteface argument

The only way I can see people getting directly to the "whiteface" Negro interpretation would be if they were already looking for the race card - everywhere. I've known people like this, and I think it's about the most "disingenuous" ploy I've seen - in most cases.

Well, the usual suspects made the usual charge. Perhaps it would have been easy enough to laugh them off, then. But this issue came to Sciforums because those who disagreed with the usual suspects wanted to keep the issue alive. This could have been over by now, but it was only on my third iteration of something I find quite obvious—

The thing about the whiteface is that it's sort of paradoxical. There is, somewhere in the annals of American cinema, this hilarious scene where a black butler is frightened by a ghost. They essentially did a stop-motion animation in which pieces of clay or putty were applied to the actor's face; you could see each new piece in the frames—he was scared white by a ghost.

And while those roles are oft derided in the modern day for their appeals to stereotype, I do find interesting the idea that a black man becomes white when he's scared senseless.

Likewise, the Obama whiteface. If we must drag race into this, we should also consider the value of making Obama white in order to depict him as a sociopath.​

—before any conservatives really noticed.

Furthermore, I noted at the outset:

As agit-prop goes, that one's pretty good. The whiteface is obvious enough that the artist could not have overlooked it and made certain decisions.​

And it's not that the point didn't get any play. As Pandaemoni put it:

" There is no way to know what was in the heart of the poster's creator. That said to assume that every black man in America will look at that poster and think "Oh, it the Joker from Batman" is to assume that all black men have the same geeky interests as the average internet poster, and is a mistake.

For many Americans "the Joker" is a an extra card in a playing deck and if you say "No, the character," they will have no idea what you are talking about. From the perspective of black men within that subgroup (which likely includes a lot of, especially middle aged black men), the first impression is that is Obama in "whiteface."

That said, if the poster maker did not realize that there was a 'whiteface' element to portraying a black President this way, then he or she is not what one would call a 'deep thinker.' As it strikes me that it should take the most ardent Batman fanatic less than a minute after the skin re-toning process begins to think 'Hmm....wait a minute....'"​

What is keeping this discussion alive is that so many people want to denounce the suggestion of whiteface without considering these points. I'm quite certain that there is, in fact, a reasonable middle ground to achieve in this argument. However, that middle ground must necessarily overcome the presupposition that everyone should know Heath Ledger's "Joker" on sight. I have to admit that, were it not for a friend waving a ticket under my nose while another shoved a phat bowl into my hand, I probably wouldn't have seen the film.

Oh, wait, I take that back. I saw part of the film in June on satellite television while getting insanely drunk, playing poker and, in a macabre twist, getting in a fight. Then again, I probably also saw some press photos and at least one trailer, but I don't actually recall. Still, though, it took a lot to get me to see that film. And even in June, I was sitting out the hand, attempting hair of the dog in the middle of the night, and nursing my right hand as well as the nasty scrape from ankle to knee I acquired falling down a hill while blind drunk the night before, shortly before the fight.

But, yeah. It's a difficult assertion that the Joker-psycho aspect should be the first thing to everyone's mind.

 

[Randwolf]

Granted...

But, yeah. It's a difficult assertion that the Joker-psycho aspect should be the first thing to everyone's mind.

I'll happily grant you this point, Tiassa, as I have no idea as to how "everyone" views things. I can only tell you the truth about my own, personal reaction.

I even left open the whole "subconscious" reaction thing...

If you can't believe my post came from the heart this time, at least as I believe it to be, then I fear we will start with whole "disengenuity" thing all over again. Please say it ain't so...

Edit: You also are probably right on the necessity of prior knowledge of the "Joker" character, or at least the playing card image...

 

[Randwolf]

Furthermore, it's not like I would have done an in-depth analysis of the whole thing, as I should have were I the artist. I would have simply glanced at the picture and thought "Oh, that's the Joker".

My thoughts would have continued down that line. Also, in my case at least, it's not so much the films, it would be the comic books from my youth that I would recall to get the reference...

 

[Gustav]

in that case, mr randwolf........

..................., but he's not a deep thinker if the possible racial interpretation never occurred to him.

 

[Randwolf]

in that case, mr randwolf........

Hey, I'm not playing this game again. If that is what the popular conclusion is, so be it....

I'll just follow you around for awhile, Gustav, I need retraining.

 

[iceaura]

I'm not sure what to say. This is the first time I've seen the actual picture, though I had heard of it.

That's not the picture at issue.

The picture at issue is a poster and a few other borrowings, by people who lifted the original and put it to use in their own ways.

Edit: You also are probably right on the necessity of prior knowledge of the "Joker" character, or at least the playing card image...

I doubt very many wold see the playing card image in that. I've never seen a playing card joker with much resemblance, anyway. It's the movie, for reference, or the cultural implications alone.

The only way I can see people getting directly to the "whiteface" Negro interpretation would be if they were already looking for the race card - everywhere.

Or if their first sight of the thing was in an email with "He's not here to eat watermelon" for caption, or slightly amended with "socialist" written across the top. Or if they'd been following the demonstrations and sign-wavings and had become sensitized to the semiotics and code words of the past few months. And so forth.

It is a fact that many of the people who spread the thing thought of it as racist immediately. As did many people who saw it and took it for granted as part of the standard bigot reaction.

 

[Randwolf]

That's not the picture at issue.

Sorry, it's the only one I've seen.

The picture at issue is a poster and a few other borrowings, by people who lifted the original and put it to use in their own ways.

Great. Produce the images and I will review them.

I doubt very many wold see the playing card image in that. I've never seen a playing card joker with much resemblance, anyway.

Sorry about that, mate. Pretty common here in the states, at least for the last 75 years or so.

It's the movie, for reference, or the cultural implications alone.

Proof?

Or if their first sight of the thing was in an email with "He's not here to eat watermelon" for caption, or slightly amended with "socialist" written across the top. Or if they'd been following the demonstrations and sign-wavings and had become sensitized to the semiotics and code words of the past few months. And so forth.

Again, can't comment, haven't seen them.

It is a fact that many of the people who spread the thing thought of it as racist immediately. As did many people who saw it and took it for granted as part of the standard bigot reaction.

Cite your sources, Statistics? Exactly what constitutes many?

My post stands alone. It was a personal reaction and opinion thereof, and very clearly noted as such. I am not responsible for what others choose to read into the image. Or not to.

End of story, people.