cool this one good post not to miss

It's funny, you are obviously a spammer, but there is something about this post that is particularly interesting to the extremely discerning eye.

Geez, John, don't you ever get tired of all that meticulous self righteousness? I mean, do you ever absorb information through anything less restrictive than the finely filtered uptake hose of your intellectualism? There was so much more to explore in this essay but you never got to experience it because of your own disqualifying preconditions on what kind of person or principle or attitude you'll consider. Your ability to hear is drowned out by your roaring defensiveness.

Changeling: With due respect, I am not being “defensive” for I have nothing to be “defensive” about.

I simply read a fairly lengthy, accusatory and victocratic monologue that someone chose to post on an interactive site and I chose to post a reasoned response. Please specify where you felt I exhibited self-righteousness in that response.

I absorb information in many ways, and through many filters, just as others do. My entire premise for the response I posted was to offer a differing point of view. Is that permitted? Are conservative, non-racist, non-victocratic, non-hate-filled, non insulting points of view permitted here or, as you seem to intimate, only the inverse?

I do my very best to consider all persons, principles and attitudes just as I considered Mr. Jacobs comments. It was for that reason that I visited his blog site to review other writings he has offered there in an attempt to better understand this article.

I do not claim to be perfect and do not expect others to be. But if a person chooses to put forth his ideas and his beliefs in writing on a site such as DW, I must assume he is doing so knowing full well that his comments could elicit a response from some, at least, who will disagree (just as my own comments do and should).

So thanks for being interested enough to reply to my comments. It’s a great big world, changeling, and room for almost everyone in it.

I would ask you to avoid judging me too harshly or, if you insist upon doing so, that you presume to judge Mr. Jacobs with at least as critical an eye.

Author Bruce A. Jacobs seems at once sincere and hypocritical, deluded yet well-meaning. I do not know Mr. Jacobs personally nor do I presume to dispute him on that basis.

I do, however, presume to dispute his comments as published here on DW.

Thus:

Jacobs: “Our choice in 2008: Shall we move closer to corporate and religious fascism?”

John B: “Fascism” sir, really? Author Robert O. Paxton defines fascism in this way: “A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

In light of the above definition, sir, can you please explain how, specifically, electing McCain moves us closer to “coporate and religious fascism”? In point of fact “A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood” sounds an awful lot like the prevailing attitudes and actions of many liberals these days, does it not?

Jacobs: “Yeah, Obama’s ahead. And he should win. But you know damn well that this country can still find a way to keep him out. One thing you can trust in America is for powerful racist white people to get dangerous black leaders out of their way and for ordinary racist white people to buy whatever scams and shenanigans are used to do the job.”

John B: “Powerful racist white people”…who, specifically do you feel to be racist in this context, sir and why? Within this “inner monologue” it apparently doesn’t occur to this hypothetical person that people (of any color) might well oppose the candidacy and election of any other person (of any color) simply because they disagree with the candidate’s platform or ideas for governing our nation. The only reason anyone could possibly have to oppose Obama is out of racism, is that it? How very convenient for (and deluded of) you, sir.

Jacobs: “Call it Post-Traumatic Black Voter Syndrome. Think of it as having had one’s hand burned too many times on a hot stove. Or having had too many surprise mortar shells explode in the midst of your driving past a white cop, or submitting your resume for a job, or expecting equal political treatment. Many blacks have had a lifetime of brutal lessons in the ways in which many whites, individually and collectively, have again and again proven themselves gullible, dishonest or ruthlessly mean on matters of race.”

John B: “Surprise mortal shells explode in the midst of your driving past a white cop” Let’s assume that the “white cop” in your hypothetical “exploded” a “surprise mortal shell” of racism while you drove by him, how does the President of the United states at the time have anything whatsoever to do with that? And, since he clearly does not, why would you vote for the next President based upon that “white cop’s” actions? “Many blacks…” and “many whites…” How convenient a quantifier is “many” and how equally impossible to support. And, once again, where’s the nexus, assuming you could support your assertion in this area, that the next vote for President will somehow correct this?

Jacobs: “Yes, this is partly about the electoral stunts of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.”

John B: In this comment you perpetuate the myth that Republicans did anything improper in Florida in 2000. Exhaustive independent investigations were conducted there and found no evidence of wrong-doing (at least not on the part of Republicans). A partial re-count in Ohio in 2004 resulted in no appreciable difference in the outcome. If the results of this re-count were so dubious, why did Senator Kerry concede? Contrast these tired victocratic whine-fests with the current election cycle and the actions of the decidedly NON-non-partisan association of community organizations…ACORN, whose current instances of voter registration fraud in several states is not a matter of mere allegation but of proven fact. Should Senator Obama prevail in this election, I’m sure he will rest easy knowing that his success was very likely assured, at least in part, by ACORN-registered cartoon characters, minor children and the deceased. “Electoral stunts” indeed!

Jacobs: But it’s also about our having watched white voters repeatedly crucify themselves economically and politically to feed their smug racial contempt for “those people” or their feeling that a tough-talking Reagan or McCain will run interference against some scary brown-skinned “them.” It is about black Americans having observed, from Andrew Johnson’s sabotaging of Reconstruction, to Reagan’s and W’s sabotaging of unions and job security, how easy it is for politicians to sucker legions of whites into the poorhouse by playing on their racial fears or rage or both.

John B: So it’s not possible that voters (of all colors by the way) simply assessed both candidates according to their professed platforms and ideas and made their selections according to their conscience? And what of all the liberals that have been elected to the White House “since Andrew Johnson” (a Democrat by the way)? What of Franklin D. Roosevelt who took our nation off the gold standard and, in doing so, permitted deficits into our federal budget for the first time and who launched the “New Deal” (1st and 2nd) that was so socialistic that ultimately every facet of both versions were eventually either scrapped or replaced? What about Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat by the way) who tried to revise the “New Deal” through his “Great Society”. The “Great Society” gave us the failed welfare state that we currently suffer with today and which spawned a culture of entitlement and victocracy in so many.

Post Traumatic Black Voter Syndrome? Really? Because if this were true, most black voters should be so fed up with the failed policies and empty promises of liberalism generally and Democrats specifically that blacks should be among the most consistently conservative voting block in the nation by now! Liberals have been making promises to minorities generally and blacks specifically for decades and yet (if some are to be believed) nothing whatsoever seems to have improved for them. Talk about “Change”…perhaps if the change that is needed in this circumstance is a political paradigm shift of the highest order.

The “hot stove” of history that blacks (generally) should have long ago learned from is that which has caused the “burns” of failed leadership and vacuous promises that have been inflicted upon them (and, in fact, upon all of us) over and over and over again by incessant pandering from liberals that have provided a decided lack of anything even closely resembling effective public and social policy.

The motto of liberals is “Blame Others”. The Creed of liberals is “I am owed”. Liberals promise “justice” and “equality” but deliver nothing but unfairness, envy and entitlement.

While elected conservatives remained on the floor of the House earlier this year and demanded that action be taken on an energy policy, elected liberals turned off the lights, turned off the microphones, closed down the legislative session and left for their vacations and their book tours.

It is elected conservatives who time and time again have fought to properly represent everyone, as equally and fairly as possible, and elected liberals who, time and time again have pandered and made empty promises, incited class-envy and entitlement, then took the votes of so many that they did nothing to earn and changed NOTHING.

Who were the elected officials who, as a group, resisted ending slavery? Democrats. Who were the elected officials who, as a group, opposed Civil Rights? Democrats.

George Wallace who said: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”, was a Democrat.

Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Sr, late Senator from Tennessee voted, repeatedly, against Civil Rights legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was a Democrat.

Meanwhile, the Emancipation Proclamation was written ba a Republican.

Meanwhile, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (80% to Democrats 63%), an Act that would, in fact, not have passed at all, but for those Republican votes.

And yet, somehow, inexplicably, it’s the Republicans who are routinely blamed and vilified for the challenges experienced by some minorities.

Maybe it’s time for true “change”. Maybe it’s time to stop listening to those who pander; to those whose words are full of sound and fury but, at the end of the day, signify nothing. Maybe it’s time to start judging people by their deeds, rather than by their words.

Perhaps, before it proves far too late, it’s time to stop judging Obama solely by the color of his skin and start assessing his policies and his plans for indebting all Americans (regardless of race, color or creed etc.) still further.

you should post this at his blog john b, you might get an answer!

aliasbruce.typepad.com.

howardx: Thanks but no thanks.

I visited Mr. Jacobs' blog site before commenting, just to get an idea of whether anything else he was writing was any better than this column he wrote expressly for DW.

Other than his passion for fishing, which he and I share, he has virtually no common ground with me it seems.

I'm sure if he's concerned enough about my response to this column, he'll find the time to reply here if he chooses to.

If not, that's just fine also. I grow extremely weary of those who incessantly whine and moan about systemic and systematic victimization based upon race, especially in this great nation where there is more freedom and opportunity here than anywhere else in the world.

The people I choose to spend my time around are too busy striving and achieving and succeeding and helping one another to build stronger communities to waste even a moment on excuse making or dwelling overmuch on the past.

im thinking about getting into fishing, seems to be a bipartisan hobby!

You should and it is!

Well, if you can overlook all the bleeding-heart, liberal, environmentalist-whacko, Greenpeace and PETA goofballs : )

I would suggest hat you avoid fish caught around here, or even using local bait !

John_B, "powerful white racists" doesn't describe all whites. It describes those who are powerful and racist.

Similar errors litter your lengthy "response." It's pathetic.

Jupiter: Thanks for the response to my comments. You might have misunderstood them, however.

Never did I assert that Jacobs' phrase "powerful white racists" described all whites. That his phrase, in fact, did not apply to all whites, is quite clear when, just a little later in the very same sentence, he employs the phrase "ordinary racist white people" to describe what we must assume are all of the other white people who would dare to vote for anyone but Obama.

You'll note that I asked Jacobs to identify who, specifically, these powerful white racists were in this context and why. Clearly I would not have asked this had I believed that he was saying all white people were powerful and racist. Make sense?

I am more than happy to discuss any other comments within my response you feel to be erroneous.

Thanks again for reading!