JANUARY 28, 2013 8:55AM

The Quality of Joy is not Strained...even by Race

Rate: 6 Flag



Here we go about my honesty again, Kosher. I definitely take that personally.

I have doubts about your honesty as well out of our previous contacts, but I am not particularly fascinated with internet flaming.

Insofar as any of us is concerned the knowledge we have about each other is rife with possibilities of misinterpretation about wild conjectures. Perhaps you are a rather clever Mossad agent, perhaps Beck is an intelligent crocodile with a computer eager to take revenge on humanity for turning his brother into wallets, perhaps extraterrestrials are involved. Neither you or I know but probabilities demand some response to face values and my experience with Beck supports my suspicions. Whether you agree or not is not up to me but the longer I interact with you the less easily I swallow your point of view without choking a bit or spitting it out. Take it or leave it this is my outlook on Beck.


Jan Sand

JANUARY 28, 2013 12:29 AM


“There is a most peculiar form of intellectual blindness going on here. My evidence, clearly presented, is that black people very clearly support Obama because he is a black person who attained the highest government office, not because he supports the general majority of black people suffering under the squeeze of elite selfishness which is openly Obama's agenda. That plus Obama's not only carrying forth Bush's stupid and vicious agendas but screwing the world with his energy policies and his extension of the US empire of trying to control the entire world with military force.

If I assume Beck is aware and intelligent and yet ignores these policies then something else is in his mind. Being black is what occurs to me as a policy. If you prefer to assume he is openly stupid and unaware, that is your viewpoint.

Frank, on the other hand, seems to me to be a rather congenial nut case and I feel I am being generous there.

I have presented my evidence.”


Jan Sand

JANUARY 28, 2013 01:07 AM



Incidentally, I never accused Beck of dishonesty, merely being joyous about Obama for being black and ignoring everything else about the president. That's not dishonest, merely very poor judgment.


Jan Sand

JANUARY 28, 2013 01:15 AM


There is a lot to unpack here.  Each individual subject, as they occur to me, has the potential to wind down paths to incoherence as each participant goes in subjective directions.  Just to be clear, this takes careful treading.  I’ll start with the simplest and proceed to the most complex.  The simplest is the concept of joy.


As human beings, the vast majority of us experiences joy.  Joy is not race specific or dependent.  I have experienced joy since before I had any awareness of it, or of myself.  I think we have all observed that babies experience joy.  It is part of who we are.  One of the things that connects us as beings is that we can share in one another’s joy.  We get together for weddings and funerals.  The joy in a wedding is the obvious, and the joy in the funeral can be the reunion of those who loved someone, the re-embrace in support, and the remembrance of a life lived.  We come together on joy.


Many of the animals that we love experience joy that we can see, understand, and share.  Dogs and cats experience what appears to us to be joy.  We share joy with them, and it forms the foundation of relationships that are very meaningful for some.  Some even speculate or imagine that plants experience joy.  Some people interact with their house plants, or believe that they do.  Presumably what they share with these plants are their good feeling and good wishes.  No one comes home to water a fern and argue with it.  It could happen, but it is more likely to be joy.  Joy is something that connects all of us, even beyond the group called human.  Joy is inclusive, not exclusive.


I experience joy, and I am a Black person.  These two pieces of information are facts, but not necessarily connected.  They exist independent of one another, even though elements of one may overlap on elements of the other.  There is such a thing and coincidence, and then there is cause.  In the vast majority of experiences blackness and joy are coincidence, not cause.  They are not exclusive, and they are not linked by necessity.  Blackness and joy exist independent of one another. 


My oldest best friend dates from a a time before we went to kindergarten.  His birthday is June 3rd.  Forty-five years or so ago, I gave him a toy for his birthday.  It was a boat with a mechanical rowing mechanism that used the character of a Viking as the propulsion.  I don’t recall how many times we played with that boat over the years, maybe a handful of times.  You outgrow a thing that that quickly, but I remember the joy of giving the thing to him.  That is joy.


Now blackness.  How do I communicate being Black as something distinctly separate from joy?  This is where it starts to get complicated.  In fact, I think it is beyond me, except to say that they exist independent of one another.  I have to tread into speculation to even understand for myself how to express this.  When I reconnect with consciousness each day, each morning, I do not start “blackness” like a coffee pot, or retrieving the paper from the porch, or grabbing my robe.  It is not something that I do.  It goes with me like the function of my organs, or the orientation of up and down, and balance.  It just happens automatically.  It is not a policy or an agenda.  It is like the rising of the Sun in the East.  It happens independently of what I say, or do, or think, and as a result, I do not channel all decisions through it.  It is not distinctly different from what anyone else is, or what they think they are.  


I think some in a common group peer into something relatively exotic and presume some conscious awareness that drives the superficial difference.  (Again, this is speculation.)  And I speculate that my lack of concern with what I am, in the superficial sense, extends to those superficially different from me.  I see that these things are surface and not substance.  I imagine others feel the same way because I can not imagine how it could be different. 


The flaw is imagining yourself to be inherently one way, and another human to be inherently different.  That is not an agenda.  That is an understanding.  It may be accurate, or it may be inaccurate, but it is perception based upon deconstructed history, absorbed stimuli from events in the moment, and constructed philosophy based upon facts and logic as I see them.  These things are driven by experience, mine and others, and not a wishes.


Race as a social construction is inherently political.  No question about it.  Everything social has a political aspect to it.  However  race is a universe unto itself, and politics is a universe unto itself. Racial choices, such that they are, are not necessarily aligned with politics.  And political choices, such that they are, are not necessarily aligned with race.  They may overlap, but they are not the same thing at all times.  The notion that race and political motivation align absolutely is a massive oversimplification of race, politics, the person making the choices, and human thinking in the broad sense. 


They may overlap, but that does not mean that they do overlap in all cases.  That is far from accurate. They can conflict, and people of the same superficial category can disagree about methods to reach the same end, or what the ultimate goals should be.  The examples of this are so numerous that a good list can’t be made here.  Blacks fought on both sides of the Civil War, and Blacks stand on both sides of the major political questions of the day today.  Some religious Black people oppose gay marriage rights as a social justice concept.  Some religious Black people favor gay marriage as a social justice concept.  Some non religious Black people favor gay marriage as a social justice concept, and some non religious Black people oppose it.  That is just one question with one variable, and it fractures into a kaleidoscope of possibilities at the first opportunity to choose.  That is just one issue.


As it applies to choosing a candidate for high office, say, President of the United States, the choice is infinitely more complex than deciding a single issue, with one or two variables, race, and religiosity.  Issues for choosing a candidate involve foreign policies, domestic, social justice issues, fiscal issues, the order of priority of issues where one agrees, and the presence of issues where one disagrees.  It has never been my experience or expectation that I would agree in all cases with a candidate.  I don’t think that is possible given the complexity of the world, and politics. 


I expect disagreement with regard to priorities in some cases, perceptions in some cases, and even personal values in some cases.  The hope is to select based upon the closest combination, with political viability and effectiveness, as close as one can ascertain such.  For me, viability is of particular importance because a principle with no ability to execute is pointless.  Like Ben Franklin said, “politics is the art of the possible.”  It is a balance, and in some cases it requires ethical compromises. 


Frank Apisa raised the question with the film, “Lincoln.”  Lincoln traded votes to end slavery.  Should he have done it?  I added, he also prolonged the war to do so.  I see that as the larger ethical compromise.  Should he have done that?  I see that as an easy, yes.  That will differ for some.  That is understandable.  But for me, the question of viability sets the priority.  The principle of abolition of slavery would not have been possible, in the calculation, had the war ended earlier.


Does the end justify the means in all cases?  No.  To me, it depends on what the end is, and what the means are.  Systems are good as organizing tools, but they are not perfect.  At times that require adjustment, repair, or replacement.  They can outlive their usefulness and they can have unintended consequences which create more problems than they solve.  One example is what is commonly referred to as the war on drugs.  Things like marijuana are illegal in most places in the U.S., and the federal government declares it illegal everywhere.  While I do not use it, I favor it being made legal.  The case against its use is poor, and it causes far more problems than it fixes.  I favor gay marriage and I am not gay, etc, etc, etc.  One’s political principles need not be absolutely aligned with one’s essence.  


And there is another side.  We are also joined, all of us, in conflicts of principle.  You may be be aware of them and you may not, but here is one broad example.  You, Jan Sand, use a computer.  I use a computer, several of them.  Computers use elements in their construction, and most often their actual construction, which involve what most in the West would consider slave labor.  At the very least, they exploit labor in order to make these items.  Slavery is almost universally opposed in principle. 


Conversely, as participants in a giant global economy, we are all complicit.  Now, when you say that President Obama is these various things that you have claimed (I’m not going through the list), and you presumably claim some moral superiority by assailing those who support him by saying that they are complicit with his evil, or merely swept up in racial joy and ignoring all other aspects, you are presuming to absolve yourself from participation in the grand global economy, such that it is. 


It is an inherently disingenuous position, and that is even if I grant you the “Obama is evil” premise.  (For the record, I don’t.  That probably does not need to be said, but to be completely clear, there it is.)  


Choices by humans are complex.  I choose much like other humans choose.  I experience joy much like other sentient beings experience joy.  I am not a “spaniel”, and I am not a “crocodile.”  I am human, like you, and like Obama.  Our differences, in my view, are far fewer than our similarities.  I do not make large choices based upon differences.  I don’t perceive myself as different.  It does not come to mind, generally.  My human-ness is presumed by me everyday, all hours of the day.  How you choose is up to you.  


Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Bill, I agree with so much of what you say here, it would take much too long to post a list. And I suppose there are some cynics who would see such a list as merely one person scratching another's back in expectation of a quid pro quo.

So instead I will focus on the entries at the top of your post...the quotes from Jan Sand.

If Jan can derive even a modicum of joy into his (what seems a terribly sad) life by considering me, at best, to be a "congenial nut case"...I say, "Go with it, Jan. You have my blessings."

As you note, Bill, joy comes to us in many ways...and one person's joy can be another person's anxiety...just as one person's joy can come from contempt toward of another.

I'm happy I am a content individual...I am sad, in a very real way, for those who seem to be watching constantly over-head to safeguard from pieces of what they perceive to be the falling sky.

We humans all have, as you mentioned, our similarities and our differences. How we deal with that reality determines how our lives go.

Good post. I hope it gets lots of attention and response.
Incidentally, I had considered redacting the portion that refers to you personally as "wacky" or whatever, but I left it. I don't want the appearance of sanitizing it to take away from the larger point that the argument of race and joy, and political choice is absurdly reductive. One person presuming to characterize millions of other people's choices is profoundly arrogant. One person presuming to characterize another person's motivations over their protestations is just disingenuous. The evidence for why I chose Obama as president exist beyond race. The argument is nonsense.

There is a narcissist in my family. In an effort to understand her, for the past several years, I have been reading up on it, and guided by a professional. Narcissists have this incomprehensibly inability to perceive another person's human-ness. One simple episode with tis family member involved trains and the moeny that Gov Kasich returned to the federal government after it had been awarded to Ohio. It was a purely political move by Kasich, and I considered it detrimental to our economy. This family memeber has regaled us with stories abot how she used to ride the trains from city to city in Ohio, and how their loss was...negative. When reminded of her position on that, and the fact that this act by the Governor delays or possibly elimimates trains return, she answered, "what do I care? I'm not going to use them." Narcissists have a cognitive disability regadring seeing beyond their own circumstance to that of a wider group, even a single other person. They have no empathy. It sounds small until you explore it. The concept is almost incomprehensibly deep.

Such is the case with insisting that Black people only selected their choice based upon "racial joy." It is so reductive, so absurd, as if to reduce humans to "crocodiles" or "spaniels." Humans are humans. I am certain of that.
Well said, Frank. Well said, Bill.
This is not a post I expected, neither its existence nor its direction. I find it unexpectedly interesting, given that the subject is an explanation of how your race is separate from your political allegiance.

I took that as a given. What bothered me was the assumption that you couldn't have it taken as a given about you by others. You are way, way too analytical to establish a political allegiance based primarily on race, particularly when you do not include race in your detailed analysis. If race were a major unacknowledged motivator, I'd have called that dishonest, in a similar way to how Birtherism is dishonest: I don't know if there is a single Birther in existence who would support Obama if confronted with irrefutable evidence that he was born in Hawaii; in other words, a Birther's opposition to Obama is never actually based on Birtherism, Birtherism functioning strictly as an excuse. And so, I felt that Jan was intrinsically accusing you of dishonesty by claiming that you ostensibly support Obama for one series of reasons but actually support him out of Black solidarity. When Jan says "I have never accused Beck of dishonesty," that's what he was answering. Actually, I disagree; I think ultimately that's exactly what he was doing.

I was not offended by most of the exchanges on that post (belonging to Safe Bet's Amy). You fired some shots across the bow with posts of your own and SBA's post is the response, to both you and Frank Apisa, who fired some shots of his own. Any other expectation would have been unrealistic. There's a certain amount of reaping what one sows going on here. If you guys want to shoot it out, go to town.

That being said, I think you have the right to have others make assumptions about your views by relying on the history of what you've said rather than relying on your photograph. If this were in the context of a discussion about race, that would be one thing, but it isn't. The fact that you and the President are both Black is more coincidental than germane, except in one respect:

Your background will result in heightened sensitivity toward racism directed at the President. Not toward opposition, disagreement, or even moral condemnation, but racism. I understand this completely as I expect to pick up on antisemitism a bit quicker than non-Jews in the room because my radar is set for extra sensitivity in that direction.

My objection to what Jan said, and the reason I initiated that discussion with him, is based on what appears to be his assuming motivations on your part based on your photograph. You can't be impartial in this case because you're Black, being Black is part of your hidden agenda. That looks racist to me. This isn't a stretch, because motivations that are not indicated - that have in fact been counterindicated - are still assumed to exist over denials for reasons of your race and your race alone.

I tried to steer Jan away from this. I hadn't commented on this thread at all until I learned of Jan's comment, and I started our exchange with the following comment:

"Whatever else you think of Bill, he is not in the habit of supporting or opposing politicians based on their ethnicity, including his own. That he might be more sensitive toward race-based insults aimed at the President or anyone else is inevitable because he has reason to be very aware of such insults, as he has frequently endured such insults here (not, to my knowledge, by anyone present), but that's the extent of it. I'd be really, really careful about making assumptions about why he supports anyone based on his photograph.

"To the rest of you: Sorry for the interruption."

I'd have thought such a comment would have brought a disclaimer. Instead, Jan dug in, stating that he had reason to believe that racial solidarity was indeed a significant motivator, but at no point elaborating or substantiating.

So, I'm being led to a conclusion here I'd rather not reach. Does anyone reading this think this path leads elsewhere and, if so, on what basis?
Kosh, on the subject of racism, if that is the path and destination, and as difficult as this may be to understand, no, that is not my interest. Racism in and of itself is not my concern. I dont find it remotely noteworthy. It is what someone does with racism that concerns me. They may be deeds, they may be thoughts, and they may be statements/conclusion. My concern here is the conclusion.

Like you said, his statement was that he did not question my veracity, but went on to say that essentially, I have a hidden agenda. That is an absolute conflict with what he said previously. The notion that I have an agenda, joined by millions of others, is the basis by which I say the argument is reductive. Simplistic. I don't know how to find a concept with such universial support. Many of my examples may seem silly, but give this some thought.

I have been opposed to smoking since I was a child. Could never understand it. I remember saying, as a child, that a person in a burning room will flee, clutching their chest and coughing. Animals too. But smokers voluntarily draw an uncomfortable substance into their lungs. It seemed to me to be a universal perspective. Clearly it is not. Diversity of opinion exists even as it comes to dealing with natural coding. Diversity exists. To presume that suddenly it does not with respect to race is just in defiance of all that we can observe...everywhere.
Kudos to you, Bill, for your completely unemotional response to what I felt was a monstrous personal insult by Jan Sand to not only you, but to me and any other person who works as hard as we do to understand the decisions we make on a daily basis.

I find the term "racial joy" extremely pertinent. It explains my own internal conflict between being joyful every time I see our President at work and my consternation when he does things I wouldn't have wanted him to do.

But if racial joy was the only explanation for my choice to vote for Obama, then I should have been equally as joyful over the potential candidacy of Herman Cain. I was not. Not even a little bit.

This piece is Bill Beck at his absolute best. I can't wait to see how anyone can argue with your brilliant (and patient) instruction on the way humans think -- even those who are not so intellectually gifted as you.

Thank you, L. That means more than I can express.
FWIW, I think you guys should stop reading each other's entrails and go for a walk.
Myriad...ya know, you could as well. If someone says I can't think beyond my skin, I dont think it is unreasonable to answer. This was not said here about Sand...or you. Ya know?
Look, I don't have the slightest clue what Sand writes about. I dont seek him out or comment about him. His way in is to state his view of the President, legitimate or not, then say ALL BLACK PEOPLE are suspect for voting for him either intellectually or on the basis of character. That's a pretty strong state. Now, I have made no statement about Sand, his race, or his politics, which oddly enough agree with mine on the spectrum, just not in the aspect of wild judgement of the politician in question, those who voted for him, or why. Do I have notions about how a person can think as Sand does? Yes. Have I made a case about them, or claimed to and then claimed the evidence is missing? No. There is a big damn difference. I am allowed to show up as I am, and my Blackness has nothing to do with my presence, my newspaper, who I vote for, what sort of shoes I wear, or whether or not I can think. This is not a case of moral relativism.
Nicely said, Lezlie. This is exactly what we need more of: razor sharp explanations, free from ambiguities and vagueries. This is why I read, why I've always read; to learn. Nice work!
Wow. This actually choked me up it was such a wonderful response. You can swap out "sex" for "race" or sexual orientation or anything else for that matter. Terrific job on this. Highly rated.
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. The state at which this stood was a post I was staying off of, just the usual dustup between parties who didn't have enough sense to ignore each other. Then something was said that wasn't a normal insult but was, instead, racist. That's different. So, I went over, just to speak to the guy who said it, and said it would probably be a good idea to back off that conclusion because it doesn't fit here. I wasn't aggressive or anything; in fact, the exact quote is above in my comments. Instead, he doubled down.

I like to learn things about people, but this isn't the sort of thing I like to learn.
Here is a little circular, self justifying garbage (lacking a better word) which attempts to explain why Black people must be racist because over 90% voted for a Black candidate.

There is no question that Obama has most black people in his electoral pocket by race alone. It certainly cannot be attributed to his intense kindness to black people since blacks has been horribly victimized by the financial sector that have scammed them into taking on mortgages they obviously cannot fulfill and then selling these mortgages to other parties as valuable properties when they are acknowledged obvious junk. This is criminality of a high order and te federal government has not in any significant way prosecuted this criminality. And this is the heart of the housing bubble that has severely damaged the economy of the entire world and monstrously rewarded the financial criminals by the federal government bailing out the criminals who paid for Obama's re-election. This is racism of a high order and Obama is hand in glove with the criminals. To deny that racism is involved in Obama's election is to go far beyond bad judgment. Let's call it by its right name.

Jan Sand
JANUARY 28, 2013 04:54 PM

I have given you the evidence and you repeatedly ignore it. When I confronted his assertion about Obama's promises and gave evidence, not by my comment but by merely providing a link to Obama making a false promise, he wiped me out from his blog twice merely for presenting this link and blasted me for invading his discussion. The only reason for not confronting me directly on this evidence is an open prejudice in favor of Obama, not because of his actions but only because of his race. In other words the predominantly obvious reason for his action was that he, along with much of the black population supported Obama by race alone, not policies. That is not an unreasonable presumption. As I said to you several times, this is not proof, merely strong suspicion. and that suspicion is amply justified.

Jan Sand
JANUARY 28, 2013 05:30 PM


As I indicated, my viewpoint is based on the incident described which reflects that any criticism of Obama was fiercely rejected even if raw data proved my point. The emotional intensity of that rejection was strongly indicated as not a logical response. A racial cause appeared to me as the most obvious motivation. As I continually repeat (which seems to be totally ignored) this is only a reasonable supposition in lieu of anything else.

Jan Sand
JANUARY 29, 2013 01:14 AM


It might also be noted that anybody who voted for Obama merely on his record and his continually false promises and actions to support almost everything that Romney advocated suffers from such monumental gullibility as to be ludicrous. No doubt Obama is a smoother operator than either Romney or Bush 2 but his totalitarian agenda is so obviously transparent that a supporter of him in any way is indicative of severe psychological problems.

Jan Sand
JANUARY 29, 2013 01:20 AM


This series of comments refernces "data fiercely rejected." I dont want to just say that this is false. (I see no data). But it also does not make any sense. Does this refer to data evidence that proves that 10 million or so Black voters voted for President Obama with a racist motivation? Does it refer to Obama's data proved evil in some other fashion? If such data exists, Obama's political opponents would reveal it. Jan Sand himself could send his "proof" to the NY Times.

Jesse Jackson once strongly opposed President Obama. Once claimed that he'd like to "cut his nuts off." Jackson was caught on camera saying so. If Jackson were aware of such "data", he would say so. There are other Black people who have prominently disagreed with Obama to various degrees. Tavis Smiley, Michael Steele, Alan West, the Black Congressman from Florida, to name a few. West once claimed that some segment of the Democratic Party were "card carrying communists." What is stopping West from revealing such "data" if it exists?

And EVEN IF such data did exist, this presumes that every single one of MILLIONS who voted for the man decide on the same thing for the same reason. It must be every single one because it confidently predicts specific ones, your truly.

To explain this notion requires a couple of words that hurt some feelings, but they are appropriate. This "data" referencing a multi million man and woman march to the polls for a single purpose, with a single motivation is a paranoid delusion. Such data does not exist. To believe that such data can exist to exlplain the actions of something in excess of 10 million voters on this question basically makes the point. It is an over simplification of reality.
Below is a list of current Governors who endorsed President Obama in 2012. Pick out the racist.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)[70]
Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY)[71]
Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA)[72]
Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI), former U.S. Senator (R-RI)[22]
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)[73]
Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN)[74]
Gov. Chris Gregoire (D-WA)[74]
Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)[75]
Gov. John Kitzhaber (D-OR)[76]
Gov. John Lynch (D-NH)[77]
Gov. Dan Malloy (D-CT)[74]
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD)[74]
Gov. Jack Markell (D-DE)[78]
Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA)[79]
Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC)[80]
Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL)[81]
Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)[82]
Gov. Peter Shumlin (D-VT)[83]

The racist is 5th formt he bottom. He voted for Obama, and he is Black, therefore...

That is how that logic goes. It is nosense.

Try with Senators.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)[3]
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics[4]
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)[5]
Sen. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL)[6]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and chairwoman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus[7]
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)[8]
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)[9]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)[10]
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)[11]
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)[12]
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)[13]
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)[14]
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee[15]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)[16]
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)[17]
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)[

Trick question. There were no Black Senators, therefore no racists.

How about Representatives.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA)[27]
Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA)[28]
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)[29]
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)[30]
Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA)[5]
Rep. Corinne Brown (D-FL)[31]
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)[32]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)[33]
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)[34]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)[35]
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)[36]
Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)[37]
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)[38]
Rep. Mark Critz (D-PA)[39]
Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL)[40]
Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT)[41]
Rep. Michael F. Doyle (D-PA)[42]
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)[43]
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)[44]
Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)[45]
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)[46]
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)[5]
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT)[47]
Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)[48]
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)[49]
Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT)[50]
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)[51]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)[52]
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA)[53]
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA)[54]
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA)[55]
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Minority Leader & Fmr Speaker of the House[7]
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)[56]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)[57]
Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA)[58]
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)[59]
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)[60]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee[5]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)[61]
Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL)[62]
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)[63]
Rep. Peter Stark (D-CA)[64]
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)[65]
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)[66]

I know Maxine Waters is Black. She must be a racist given that piece of "data" and the endorsement of Obama.

National political figures and former cabinet members.

Nicole Avant, United States Ambassador to the Bahamas[21]
Jeff Bleich, United States Ambassador to Australia[21]
Richard A. Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States [90]
Howard Dean (D-VT), former Chairman of the DNC; Fmr Governor of Vermont and 2004 Presidential Candidate[86]
Steven J. Green, former United States Ambassador to Singapore, former CEO and Chairman of Samsonite Corporation[91]
Douglas Kmiec, United States Ambassador to Malta, legal aide to former President Reagan[92]
Candace Gingrich, half-sister of Republican 2012 Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich[93]
Colin Powell, former United States Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor, four-star General (Ret.)[94]
Norman Mineta, former United States Secretary of Transportation, United States Secretary of Commerce[95]

This one is easy. Colin Powell is a big fat racist. Just ask Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.


Alexandria, VA Mayor William D. Euille[100]
Atlanta, GA Mayor Kasim Reed[101]
Baltimore, MD Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake[102]
Boston, MA Mayor Thomas Menino[103]
Charlotte, NC Mayor Anthony Foxx[104]
Chicago, IL Mayor Rahm Emanuel; former US Representative, and former White House Chief of Staff of Illinois[67]
Chicago, IL Former Mayor Richard M. Daley[105]
Denver, CO Mayor Michael Hancock[106]
Detroit, MI Mayor of Detroit Dave Bing[107]
Gainesville, FL Mayor Craig Lowe[108]
Houston, TX Mayor Annise Parker[109]
Jacksonville, FL Mayor Alvin Brown[110]
Los Angeles, CA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa[111]
Minneapolis, MN Mayor R.T. Rybak[112]
New Haven, CT Mayor John DeStefano, Jr.[113]
New Orleans, LA Mayor Mitch Landrieu[114]
New York, NY Former Mayor David Dinkins[115]
New York, NY Former Mayor Ed Koch[116]
New York, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg[117]
Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker[118]
Orlando, FL Mayor Buddy Dyer[119]
Philadelphia, PA Mayor Michael Nutter[5]
San Antonio, TX Mayor Julian Castro[120]
San Francisco, CA Former Mayor Willie Brown[121]
Tampa, FL Mayor Bob Buckhorn[122]

Dave Bing--racist.
Michael Nutter--racist.
Cory Booker--racist.
(Probably some others. There was no color key to the list. The ones above have either been observed being Black of have publicly admitted it.)

The actors are too numerous to list, but some interesting questions are posed by their list. Denzel Washington is clearly a racist. But Jack Black also endorsed Obama. While not technically Black, in another meaningless category, his last name is Black, so...

Robert Deniro is white, but his wife is Black, so he is probably an undercover racist mole.

Stevie Wonder---clearly a racist.
B.B. King--- Racist. (Rumor has it that the initials stand for "Black Black)

Paul Krugman's wife is Black. He belongs to the same racist club as Deniro.

And of course, Magic Johnson. That dude just oozes racism.
I made a similar argument over on SBA's blog where Jan said these things. One way I expressed it is that Frank Apisa, Oahusurfer, Tom Cordle, Jonathan Wolfman, you, and I have all expressed support for Obama to one extent or another and yet the only one of us for whom racial solidarity is assumed to be a motive is you. The rest of my argument gets into what other than simple racial solidarity might have motivated so much of the Black population to vote for Obama. Like, I don't know, maybe Romney had something to do with it?

To get past the racism involved in this argument - which is difficult because it's so blatant - the ultimate argument made by those who hate Obama is that he is so awful that the nature of his opponent was by definition irrelevant. That crowd reaches that point and stops listening. I devoted a post to saying: "Here are the differences - in order to say that the nature of his opponent is irrelevant, you have to claim that these differences are insignificant, so make that case, just please don't insult my intelligence by answering me with a mere laundry list of how awful Obama is because I've already seen plenty of them and they don't address my point." Most of these people answered me with laundry lists, and they wonder why I don't respect them. "We hold this laundry list to be self-evident." No matter how you dress up an answer like that, it's still both insulting and cowardly, insulting because it states that I am not worth really responding to and cowardly because it dodges the difficult part of the issue while hiding behind outrage.

That's how this crowd reacts to this issue. I guess in at least one case we can add racism to the mix.
For the record, let it be known that your concern is "racism." I have repeatedly tried to draw a distinction between racism (a personal preference), and a racist logical construction. One is internal and contained within one's recliner. The other projects outward and seeks to explain and define based upon a superstition of skin. SBA can't understand that distinction and conflates them. I am rather sick of being accused of accusing "racism." Not interested. And sick of the otion of "the race card." A person makes a claim such as these, and when answered is accused of "playing a race card." It is circular.

I looked up Finland. They keep no stats on ethnicities. It suffices to say that it is white in greater proportion than Blacks who voted for Obama. That being the case, isn't choosing to mover to Finland "proof" that one is racist...by the Sand logic? Furthermore, how does one in Finland express expertise about an event in the U.S. which conflicts with those in the U.S.? Wouldn't one have to come to the U.S. to do such a study if the study were to be considered credible? And wouldn't a credible study be reflected somewhere else other than, say, Fox News? Why is one dude in Finland an expert on American politics, and how Black people think or choose? Does that make any sense?
We're working on partially parallel tracks. I just made the point over there that those of us who live here can't afford to ignore the difference between Obama and Romney just because he happens to think that Obama is so awful as to make that difference irrelevant.

When most of us use a term like "racism" we don't mean the opinion of racism, we mean the application of that opinion into action. When you say "I don't care about racism" and SBA quotes you, I don't think she thinks you mean what you actually mean. I gather you're saying: Look, I don't care what you feel - hate my guts all you want as irrationally as you want, but that doesn't give you the right to translate those feelings into actual policy. If I read you correctly, you're splitting hairs for people whose vision can't make out individual hairs.
Yes, but it refutes the claim that I call anyone a "racist." SBA lies. SBA states as to the nature of a person and remains anonymous. It says, "liar", "troll", etc. I make my statements as a known person, image revealed, and open to be impeached. SBA is anonymous, uses terms like "asshat", assaults others FAR more than she/he is ever assaulted, and that is somehow credible? It is inherently dishonest to make such claims from anonymity. It is not dishonest to remain anonymous. It is dishonest to make personal assaults from anonymity. This is pretty widely held in jusirprudence.
This one is interesting. "Statistics don't matter." So much for the missing, "persuasive data" ruse.

"Frank's delight is the kiss of death". Superstition and determinism.

"Have fun sticking pins in each other." False. I made no general claim about the intellectual habits of white people. I made no claim that All who vote for white candidates are racists. I made no claim about Fins, or their politics.

You are "sticking pins", Sand. I merely said, Black people make choices for as broad array of reasons as anyone else does. I also do not play to crowds for "consensus of opinions." Facts and logic are all I need. And even so, I would not bet on "consensus of opinion."

Consensus of opinion is a mob rule concept which opposes a rights concept. Rights say that the minority is protected from "consensus of opinion." Your "data" excuse wears ever more thin, Sand.
If "consensus of opinion" is a valid measure, why is the majority who elected the President a flawed measure?
A pack of old farts getting their blood pressure up.

Jan Sand

There is such a thing as racial humor. I dont condemn it entirely. But using a political argument to "stick pins" is not political discourse, nor is it humor. It is just a lie. Thanks for admitting it, Jan Sand.

And SBA, no one claimed to be a victim. In the space of minutes, your accusations go from "alpha male beating his manly chest" to "victim". With you, it never did matter if it made sense.
The simple answer is that it's time to stop arguing and start diagnosing.

Jan just took a shot at Frank, I believe "kiss of death" was his phrase. Let's take this for what it is:

Guilt by association.

That isn't argumentation, it's desperation. Forget the insult to Frank for a minute, even though how one could respect Amy's analysis (and civility) while insulting Frank's with a straight face speaks volumes. If Jan has gotten to that point, he's looking for distractions.

If he's looking for distractions rather than conceding a point he can't hold onto, it's because he's not enough of a man to admit when he's screwed up. (I apologize to any women reading for my use of gender here but it's a linguistically convenient way to phrase this, in much the same way as a woman might use the phrase "grow a pair!" to indicate impatience with a lack of nerve.) Jan is now in sputter mode. He's lashing out and is no longer actually answering. It's frustrating to lose a point if you're committed not to use losing points as learning opportunities, but using losses as opportunities to adjust one's own views apparently entails more integrity than he has. The man has a great toolbox but no intellectual courage. There are plenty of arguments between him and me in various posts that display this pattern, but we both have better things to do with our time than review them. So now I know that the pattern doesn't end for anything, even racism. I can't tell you whether the racism itself or the abhorence of admitting a mistake is the greater factor here; frankly, it doesn't matter which.

You can't actually be taking SBA seriously any more. Don't even go there. I'm still taken in periodically because I once saw for a short period that she's actually capable of coherent thought and even objectivity and I keep hoping for another glimpse of Readers' Pick Amy, but there comes a point where I have to understand that Lucy isn't going to hold the damned football for Charlie Brown. I at least have that excuse. You have none. Accept her for what she is and expect nothing.

Graffiti artists. Screw them.
I dont take her seriously, I take her accusation seriously. She says "bully", "harass", stuff like that. She couches that in a male vs. female dynamic with her frequent use of the misogyny thing. This is not an accident. This is the same specious attack that got Emitt Till murdered, and many other nameless innocent men. I'm not a victim. I am keeping a record. It's an old game. Whether this stayed with OS, or went to court, there will be a record.
1. So call her bluff. She'll quote chapter and verse for you and you can answer her.

2. You realize that this conversation is going on in two places at once, right? Not that I'd suggest anything else, but it's being followed pretty closely. I just caught flak because it was assumed that when I didn't show up to answer instantly that I didn't have an answer. Had to take a business call. Some of us have lives. Not that the answer was necessary, the answer in question was already in the comment stream.

Maybe the trick to talking to her is to talk like this. Maybe the trick to talking to her is to talk like this. I keep on running into this problem where stuff I say gets ignored, where the answer to the comment is in my post or a previous comment. I keep on running into this problem where stuff I say gets ignored, where the answer to the comment is in my post or a previous comment. Anybody got a better idea?
Using logic doesn’t work regarding certain manipulative tactics. The Double Bind is one. The controller puts you in a seemingly impossible situation: You are wrong if you do and wrong if you don’t. Using reason doesn’t work on that type of situation. You can walk away, although that can reinforce the exact aggressive behavior in the future. It is not about the situation. If you try to address that you will just go in circles forever. If the issue is that you are dealing with an abusive or controlling person, nothing you do or say will change that. The problem is not the "issue" you think you are discussing.

That Bill Beck can compare himself with a 14 y.o. murder VICTIM, imply that I am a lying woman set on getting him murdered and that he is somehow going to go to court is a new record of insanity.

This is also a new level of attempted bullying and intimidation from him. Too bad I'm laughing so hard.----Safe_Bet's Amy


Ok, lots of false presumptions here. First of all, I did not say that you intend, or are able to murder. The point is about how that particular tactic has been used against Black men, up to and including murder. The "countless other victims" part refers to all levels of activity, not all murders or lynchings. You may or may not be aware. I am not concerned one way or another, but the cry of "the big scary Black man is hurting me" is not new. It has been used to villify Black men for years in this country.

My comment to you was, "Rachel Maddow calls herself gay." That was a direct response to the statement by you that Obama using the tem "gay sisters" is "misogynistic." (Had I thought of it at the time, I would have included that Ellen Degeneres referred to herself as "gay" on her famous episode where she outted herself...so to speak.) Both go to make the case that the President was not a misogynist for using the phrase "gay brothers and sisters."

Rather than let it stand, you deleted it and called it "harassment" and "bullying." That's fine. I wont comment on your blog. The ill-logic of that absurd accusation has been refuted. Not that you admitted it, but you did not admit the transgression regarding the Aunt Jamima box either. (You seem to be incapable of it.)

Anyway, keeping a record is not bullying and intimidation. It is just a record. Oh, court. The reference to court is also a reference to extent. I said, "whether it remains here, or goes to court, there will be a record.." You conveniently leave out the portion which does not match your rhetoric. Constantly crying "bully" and "harassment" is meant to involve OS. It is baseless, and I am sure they agree, but if they were to consider it, I have a record. The "court" end of the extreme means...even if it went that far....etc. Both ends of the extreme are in the statement. You truncate it to twist the meaning. It wont work. There is a record.
What it boils down to, in my case anyway, is that you cannot divorce Beck's unvarying support of Obama from the fact that Beck is black since any criticism of Obama whatever is a trigger for a violent emotional response such as totally censoring of direct evidence of huge amounts of clear open facts that Obama is, if anything, far worse than Bush 2 in his inexorable shredding of basic constitutional rights and forceful open support of his criminal Wall Street backers. The total lack of prosecution of Bush's coterie of torturers and the avid prosecution of people like Bradley Manning who reveal the illegal and disgusting behavior of official military policies is highly significant. These are not minor misdemeanors, they are major moral and constitutional crimes and they are totally revolting in a president who claims to be defending basic decent governmental behavior.

KS's continual defense of Obama on the basis that alternates would be worse means he has swallowed hook, line and sinker the phony line that Obama would be better than Romney. The evidence is overwhelming that the only difference between the two is that Romney doesn't have the basic politician's good sense to hide that he is a slimy traitor to all that was decent in government while Obama is rather clever about it. But either one has the same agenda of leading the nation into misery and brutality and immense stupidity and since he seems eager to live with that I can only use that as a measure of his intellectual capability

Jan Sand
JANUARY 29, 2013 05:09 PM

If Jan Sand cared to ask, he might discover that I have unwavering support of Jimmy Carter also.

The argument is circular. I don't buy his notions about Obama being evil. (Shorthand for the extreme cases that he cites.) I think they are absurd. I think one support for that is the virtual lack of appearance anywhere in media or lack of argument by the politician's enemies. And let's face it, I am a former member of the military. If that means I am also a war criminal, or whatever, so be it. I think it is an extreme view that is outside of any reasonable interpretation of reality. But it also works aganist the notion of support for President Obama being entirely based on race. How many times does a person have to say that there are plenty of politicians who are of the same race who I have never supported. No sane, intelligent person can put such a notion forward. It is loony.
I merely laid that out as a motivation for his total acceptance of Obama. I cannot figure any other cause.

Jan Sand
JANUARY 29, 2013 05:37 PM


How does one apply "total acceptance" to "voted for..."? And what does my acceptance have to do with anything? Why is it a concern?

Do I think the President is a war criminal? No. Do I think the President is a "misogynist"? No. Do I agree with the President's policy or priorities in all cases? No. Like I said earier in the post,

I expect disagreement with regard to priorities in some cases, perceptions in some cases, and even personal values in some cases. The hope is to select based upon the closest combination, with political viability and effectiveness, as close as one can ascertain such. For me, viability is of particular importance because a principle with no ability to execute is pointless. Like Ben Franklin said, “politics is the art of the possible.” It is a balance, and in some cases it requires ethical compromises. "

This is a real world perspective. It is not reasonable to expect agreement in all cases. I am not sure what "total acceptance"means, but this is as close as I can come to understanding it. In American politics, no one can expect "total acceptance/agreement in the selection of a candidate. I dont even think a single person can expect total acceptance or agreement with him or herself. People can and do change their minds. Setting up "total acceptance" is a false standard to justify unjustifiable criticism.

If you are interested to know why someone would vote for Obama, you have somewhere north of 60 million individuals to sample. Why would "total acceptance" be part of the equation? It isn't. It is nonsense.
Bill Beck asks me not to comment on his tirade : I stop.

Six months go by and I can't help myself : I have to say something. His schtick is too much, and nice people are being insulted, for commenting.

Then this.

He's been asked not to comment here, but persists.

Bill knows an awful lot about Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That's the main thing I know about him. That, and NPD is a disorder. I learned that.

Thanks, Bill.

Kim Gamble


Who lends their name to an obvious falsehood? Well, let's see.

Is it reasonable that President Obama is a misogynist for saying "gay brothers and sisters in the inaugural address" No. That is not reasonable.

Is it reasonable to describe "Rachel Maddow calls hersaelf gay" as a rebuttal to the claim re: the address as "bullying or harrassment? No. That is not reasonable. It addresses the issue specifically with no mention of personalities, or whatever.

Is it reasonable to say that a Black person's choices are inseparable from his race? No. This is clearly not reasonable.

Is it reasonable to dissent an opinion which states that you are incapable of rational thought? The only alternative is to not dissent that opinion and leave it unchallenged. The only way to fairly dissent is on the facts of the discussion. How else can this be accomplished? Would one argue that such a thing deserves free passage without dissent? Why is personality relevant given the topic is applied to an entire population? Clearly personality is not relevant, and such a claim applied to an entire population is absurd.

Is the process of this post harassment, bullying, or insult of "nice people"? There are two ways to construct the logic which say no. First, I stipulate that I did comment on SBA's post twice. The first was an accidental posting of Jan Sand's comment which I had intended to place in this post...as I have with the previous several. One may easily use indictive reasoning to conclude that this is a continuing process, the most recent being like the half dozen previous...etc. The second comment was the explanation that the posting on her blog of the comment that I was collecting...and OBVIOUSLY not needing to be duplicted on her post, was accidental. Not harassment, acknowledgement and explanation. If memory serves, the comment said, "sorry, it was accidental. I figured if I asked, you would keep it." Something to that effect. Was not asking for the accidental comment to be removed slightly manipulative? Absolutely. I guessed that she would want to delete it anyway. Why interfere with that probability by possibly making her/him change the decision? After the acidental posting, it made more sense to let her remove it, and she did. We happened to agree. Why change minds when there is agreement? That would not be reasonable.

I am satisfied that the misogyny claim is demonstrated to be untennable. It is extreme and confounded by the fact that at least several prominent lesbians refer to themselves as gay.

I am satisfied that the notion that a Black person only voted for Obama, actually ALL Black people, purely for allegience to race. This is an extreme and illogical position which is confounded by plentiful evidence to the contrary.

Is this "schtick"? No. Is it bullying? No. Can one inductively reason that an entire post, ignored by me which links my posts, mentions me, and makes claims about me, yet goes completely unanswered by me, is suddenly worthy of comment given the explanation? Absolutely. As inductive reasoning goes, it is not ironclad. One must draw an inference, but the evidence is pretty clear. SBA's comments were not even lifted for this post. Why would I comment on them on the post? That is not logical given all of this, and the open admission that I commented twice. Once accidentally, once intentionally to explain the accident. No interest otherwise. None.
Jan Sand, you are not now, nor were you ever not allowed to comment on my blog if you will stick to a subject and avoid invective. My policy has been to keep subject dicipline and keep fights down. I have read and applied a deletion policy that is actually more restrictive than my own. I subscribe to the way Robert Crook monitors his blog...and I am even more liberal with regard to what I will allow. For example, he allows 3 comments max. I dont limit it. But I subscribe to his overall policy and apply it less strictly. What I do not allow is personal attacks on a person.

You may see attacks on an idea coming from a person as attacks on a person by me, but that is not the case. An example is "lies" and "liar" where they overlap. But no, you are welcome to post if your posts are subject oriented. If you're using diminutives of names like "Artie", etc, I wont allow that. I think it is unnecesary. People who do that repeatedly and will not refrain from doing so place the attention on themselves and away from the discussion. if you can discuss the issue with that sort of thing, you are, and have always been welcome.

Now, at one time I removed really indecent stuff becasue it is merely "grafitti. I have been asked if I would remove YY's comments becasue they are so vile. I have changed my mind about that because once removed, people lie about what was said. And frankly, people don't believe that extreme nature of some comments unless they are seen. So they stay.

I will say it again, as I have always said it, you are welcome to comment politely. You are ENCOURAGED to provide the evidence of your claims. From this point, of you don't, that is up to you. The claim that you can not, and have not been able to contribute real, genuine discussion free of invective is a lie, will always be a lie. Make a decent comment and watch it stay. The claim otherwise is as false as the claim that Black people can't make decisions separate from their race. If you have proof of that, if you have proof of the President being the things that you claim....I LONG TO SEE IT. A sane adult can figure a way to say that without saying "asshat" or references to "thorozine" or whatever. Figure it out.
It is perhaps presuming on Amy’s hospitality and indulgence to use her blog for my interchange with Beck but I took a quick look at his blog and it is overflowing with my comments in this blog and his responses. Logically I should confront him directly at his place but I tried that and was totally censored so that seems a bad idea. So this seems the best place to respond.

There is much exhibit of Beck’s fluency and his presentation of source material in his defense so I assume he is reasonably well informed on Obama’s behavior and he has admitted voting for Obama and therefore I must question why.

No need to go into great detail as to Obama’s smooth adaptation of much of Bush 2’s agenda with it’s scamming the public on Iraq and it’s attack on basic democratic freedoms, elevation of the interests of the extremely wealthy over the public good, preferences for oil and other major corporations over preservation of the environment and indications to sacrifice the safety nets in health and welfare over those in the country in dire need for these vital resources. And the preservation of the abominations involved in torture, and imprisonment without legal resource to Constitutional guarantees, etc. And of course the extreme preoccupation with secrecy depriving public knowledge of very important issues and severely punishing anybody revealing how badly the government is performing.

Does Beck approve of these horrible agendas and therefore is either at heart in favor of totalitarianism or too stupid to understand what is going on? I tried to give him credit for awareness and intelligence by assuming there is some other factor involved. There is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of black people were delighted in voting for a black president and no demonstration of a few blacks who did not has any significance, something Beck has attempted to do. I well understand the emotions involved in a sector of the US citizenry that has been horribly mistreated for centuries and I do not consider it dishonest that that factor alone would persuade them to vote for Obama. In his first term, Obama has done nothing for black people to relieve them of their continued miseries and since the bulk of these citizens comprise a large percentage of the lower economic classes Obama’s deference to the wealthy elite and the financial scammers has further punished these people to a huge extent. Aside from race, supporting Obama makes no sense at all for these people. Nevertheless, they vote for him.

So I am left with the choice of assuming either Beck is stupid and inclined towards totalitarianism or he is swayed by Obama’s color. I actually do not pretend to know the reason. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed race was the factor. There are other choices, of course, but that would put Beck in an even worse light.

KS and his friends before and since the election insist that their reasons for voting for Obama was the alternative of Romney who fully demonstrated in the election run-up his total asininity. So the toss-up in the election was between a clever manipulator for the upper classes or a clumsy asshole who also was for the upper classes. KS is evidently prejudiced against assholes which seems to put him at odds with a huge number of voters who did vote Republican. In an election between an asshole and a villain, I do not consider a vote as meaningful. At least, with Romney, there is a chance he might screw up his nasty agenda enough to benefit some part of the electorate outside the greedy class. Unlikely, but who knows? In any case it seemed to me that the energy involved in voting could be better spent elsewhere.

One other personal point. Beck questioned my right as a US citizen living abroad to participate in the discussions as to the fate of the USA. I reside abroad because my three year old son, born in Tennessee, was horribly injured by a reckless driver and rendered quadriplegic for the rest of his thirty-two year life and required hospitalization for that entire time. My wife was Finnish (she is deceased) and her government agreed to confer Finnish citizenship on my injured son to assure him excellent care for the rest of his life, something the USA would not consider nor even offer any help whatsoever for his case. The choice was not difficult to make.

I apologize for the length of this submission but I have tried to cover everything.

Jan Sand
JANUARY 30, 2013 08:00 AM

Jan Sand, if the facts of those "horrible agendas" were accurate, I would not approve of them. The fact is, you are wrong on the facts.

1) Scamming the public on Iraq. False. Obama doctrine was a strong departure from Bush and Neo-con doctrine regarding Iraq. Neo-cons(interchangable with Bush for these purposes) advicated staying in Iraq permanently. Obama said the war was not valid, and ended it. You can't get much more different than that.

2) Elevation of the wealthy over the public good. False. The Obama administration used a profund amount of political capital getting ACA (Obamacare)passed. This has been attempted for nearly a century in this country and could not be accomplished for a variety of reasons. Health care if a huge financial interest in this country, and the power was and is deeply entrenched. Passing ACA was not at the public's expense for the benefit of the wealthy.

2a.) Removing "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" (the law which allowed for thw absurd loophole to ban gas from the military as long as no one mentioned it) was also a political risk, not a self serving position.

3) "The sacrifice of safety nets in healthcare and welfare..."

I wonder where you are getting this information. This is also so far from true that it can not be over stated as to its incorrectness. The Obama admin has repeatedly bargained to extend unemployment. ACA was already mentioned. The tax cuts were bargained to extend for middle class and lower. Lili Leddbetter (sp) was the first act signed which allows for women to sue when they become aware of pay discrepancies. The law was profundly different and regressive previously. (some goes unseen like...) The Justice Department has a profoundly different set of priorities with regard to financial crimes. Insider traders have been jailed in ways that had previously been ignored. Scrutiny over Wall Street is of an entirely different nature than previous administrations. Wall Street campaign donations were HEAVILY toward his opponent because of this shift in scrutiny. A new head of the S.E.C. was named who had been a U.S. Atty in the Southern Dist. of New York State (a co-worker of a family memeber) who is HEAVY into prosecuting organized crime. This woman prosecuted John Gotti, a former mafia boss. This is HUGE signal to the industry of the Justice Dept. new focus.

I consider torture, not just the use, but also the mere existence of policy, to threaten a free society. So, not only should torture not be practiced, it should be openly banned. I have stated that previously. I will continue to. I am to the left of Deshowitz who famously holds that "ticking nuke justifies torture" argument. I think that argument is garbage. That said, I can't state that Obama is not torturing because I do not know. I can only know that he has not banned it. I disagree with him on that. I also stipulate that I can not know what he is dealing with regarding its use. Ask me on a principle level if I would approve suspension of habeas corpus as Lincoln did, and I would say I do not approve. Ask me if I think Lincoln was a great president and I say yes. In my view he was the greatest. The point is, on some levels the choices are complex and there are not perfect solutions. With no other reason to believe that he is a villain, I grant exigent circumstances in this one...as I did with Bush.

Let's see, questioning your "right to comment from Finland." False. I have never, ever done that. If I had, or if I ever would, I would not imply that subtley. I do not happen to hold that view. What I said was, how do you know the minds of Black people so well, over TWO in this thread who state otherwise, and over MILLIONS who voted similarly. That is not questioning your right in any way whatsoever, it questions your SIGHT, as it were, from a distance. It questions your ability to ascertain such certainty over conflicting testimony of participants on the scene. An analogy is court cases dont ask people not present and relatively disconnected to impeach those present. You said Black American voters in a particular election vote a specific way for a specifi reason. There was A LOT of specificity to your claim. My question was, what makes you an expert OVER those present? No question of rights, or whatever.

"So I am left with the choice of assuming either Beck is stupid and inclined towards totalitarianism or he is swayed by Obama’s color. I actually do not pretend to know the reason. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed race was the factor. There are other choices, of course, but that would put Beck in an even worse light."---Jan Sand

Well, it is for you or any and everyone else to determine for yourselves if I am stupid. That is not a matter that I can claim objectivity. I have my view.

As for favoring totalitarianism, this is moving into the absurd. First of all, your blanket assessment here not only applies to me, but rather ALL BLACK VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR THIS PRESIDENT. All of them/us. As blanket generalizations go, that is a big one. Now, you can stabnd by that, and I have no concern one way or another if you do, but what you can not do is claim, 1) it is only about me, or 2) that you are forced to come to tat conclusion. There is evidence to te contrary everywhere. There are testimonies to the contrary in this thread. To do this, you must ignore them, or cover them with the same blanket generalization. It gets harder and harder to do becasue the demographic gets wider, the geography gets wider, etc. In fact, the statement that you "are left with the choice of assuming"is not accurate. You are not left with that. If you are left with that, it applies to over 60 million voters, PLUS at least several million philosophical opponents, PLUS hundreds if not thousands of lawyers with the direct means to bring legal action on the grounds of constitutionality today, yesterday, the day before, and the day before, etc. Your "assumption" that you are left with must cover them all togther as a choice, and independently as probabilities for action. Millions times tens of millions times thousands, times hundreds, times Wall Streets money, times Lezlie and me, times me...is virutally infinite.
Bill, I see that SBA’s smear tactic (deleting a person’s comment, then banning them from her blog and immediately posting a comment of her own accusing that person of harassment and abuse) has had the desired effect.
Since she did the exact same thing to me, I felt obligated to put it on record here.
On the post accusing Pres. Obama of being a misogynist, I commented to SBA that since her last post presented Pres. Obama with Aunt Jemina I could just as well as ask, Are you a racist or just stupid, using the type of stretch she employed. She immediately deleted my comment, and using quite a few exclamation points declared me a bully and told me not to comment on her blog. I replied (and I saved this one as I knew I would be deleted):
“Your Question was "Mr. President or you Misogynistic or just Stupid?" based on Pres. Obama using the the words "gay sisters" to refer to homosexual women vs. Lesbian. My question was "Amy, Are you Racist or just Stupid?" based on your post that placed Pres. Obama with Aunt Jemima. Why is that bullying? Are you saying you are a bully, because if one of us is, we both are. “
Deleted. Many capital letters and exclamation points used in calling me an abusive, bullying harasser, and, I believe, “an asshole”. I’m sure her comments to me are still there.
So, for the record, her accusing you of abusive tactics while erasing the evidence that there was no abuse is not unique to you.
You know, the thing that stands out is that you (Jan Sand) do not consider the possibility that you might be wrong. You presume Obama is a villain. Absolute certainty then work back. Anyone thinking otherwise is corrupt in their thinking of character.

Those are not the only variables, Jan Sand. The big one is, you might be wrong. If you just take constitutionality and grant everything else, if your view regarding the constitution were accurate, Obama would have been removed. They tried to drum up removal on his place of birth, why would they ignore all of those things that you claimed? You leave out entirely that you might be wrong.
Thank you, Onislandtime. Perhaps that will assuage Kim Gamble's concern that I was harassing SBA.
SBA is batshit crazy.

~ Joisey Shore - Redux -
JANUARY 26, 2013 11:27 AM

Is this the fruit of a mind which can not be refuted? Or is this just racist invective, assembled from lies and disguised as analysis?

Bill Beck
JANUARY 27, 2013 12:21 PM

Safe_Bet's Amy is a character from anonymity who is smearing a good person for attention to herself. She will stop at nothing to garner that attention to herself, including misrepresenting the truth. She can't allow the fact that Rachel Maddow refers to herself as "gay" because it reveals her to be a loony smear merchant...from anonymity.

Bill Beck
JANUARY 24, 2013 08:00 AM

compared to:

What I do not allow is personal attacks on a person.

Bill Beck
JANUARY 30, 2013 09:09 AM

uhhhh, hypocritical motherfucker much, Bill????

Safe_Bet's Amy
JANUARY 30, 2013 10:22 AM


SBA, I said personal attacks on a person. SBA is a screen name that makes wild attacks on the essence of people, myself included, and does not stand behind them as a PERSON. I dont see attacking and accusing from anonymity as the same thing. Not even close. Courts dont allow it, why should I?

I'll go him one further, not only are such arguments "bat shit crazy", they are also dishonest by design when they presume to hide behind a FALSE IDENTITY" and attack. That is not "personal attack" by a person, in my view.

Also, you are not required to attack personally in the manner you choose. I keep using "Artie" as an example. You dont have to do that. You choose to IN ADDITION" to anonimity. You gotta stand by your point personally to get that consideration.
Might as well add this one to the assorted nuts above. First I was told that I would be added to the "Deleted Comments Graveyard." Then I proved the big gotcha theory wrong. Then I was told that my comment would be deleted from the "deleted comemnts graveyard." You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Actually, Joisey, you're wrong. I recall suggesting that you let Mishima666 speak for himself, and you speak for you. It is easier to keep things straight that way.

Here is the actual time that I FIRST asked Mishima666 to tell me his "experience."
...I would be interested in knowing from your experience why this is not valid.

You're on, Mishima666.

Bill Beck
JANUARY 24, 2013 05:52 PM
That was the first request which was made 3 DAYS and 5 HOURS before the 31 minute period that you cited. The comment is still there on the previous thread if you care to check it. So, this post is incorrect. I warned you it would be.

Bill Beck
JANUARY 30, 2013 04:21 PM
"Have you ever been in the military, Mishima666?" Bill Beck, 1/27 9:38 PM

"Mishima666, you give a 600 word comment about stuff that I could not care less about. But you can't or won't answer a 8 word question with a 1 word answer ... Tell you what, Mish, spare me. if you can't answer a 8 word direct question...spare me the rest." Bill Beck, 1/27 10:09 PM


"Have" - 1st word
"you" - 2nd word
"ever" - 3rd word
"been" - 4th word
"in" - 5th word
"the" - 6th word
"military" - 7th word
"Mishima666" - 8th word

Your 10:09 comment (obviously) references Mishima666 not answering an 8-word question at the 9:38 PM mark.

Your Jan. 24th comment "I would be interested in knowing from your experience why this is not valid" is more than 8 words and can't be answered by a 1-word response.

So it is wrong to mislead readers to believe that you waited days for a response. Mishima666 answered you numerous times with specific examples on multiple comment threads after your January 24th statement.

As I said in a PM, I'm sorry that you are disabled and can understand now how many things don't make sense to you. I mean that and won't engage in comments/conversation/debates with you going forward.

As such, I must also delete any further comments that you leave on my blog, as that would give the appearance of legitimacy and/or recognizing your contributions which I no longer plan to do.

Good luck to you, Bill Beck. I mean that.

Joisey Shore - Redux -
JANUARY 30, 2013 04:49 PM
For a very important clear analysis of why and how Obama is destroying the democracy of the USA and the long history of its occurrence see http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/01/how-to-sell-hard-choices/

Jan Sand
FEBRUARY 02, 2013 12:00 AM

I read this entire article. The article is not at all left wing nonsense. I agree with it top to bottom. It is a valid recounting and analysis of history.

What it is not is any sort of proof, or even an indication of Obama "destroying democracy." Even in the statement by Jan Sand, this has a "long history." One can't come at the end of a long history of something and be its "cause."

Does the U.S. have an oligarchical system? I believe it does. Does it take working within the system to achieve power in the system? I believe it does. Does it make one complicit with what the system is doing? I believe it does. To that extent, I do not disagree with the professor, and I do not disagree with Sand. My point of disagreement is that change, to whatever degree is necessary or possible must bether be brought thru the system itself, or by revolution and overthrowing the system. As for myself, I'll take the change within the system. Any suggestion of revolution, especially with no explanation of HOW, is not a worthwhile criticism or complaint. It is noise.
Let me take one step back. Not only is the United States not a democracy, but it has never been a democracy. The Unites States has been an oligarchical system since its origin.

Second, No President of the United States can work outside of the system. No President of the United States can overthrow the system. By definition, a President of the United States is within the system.

Given that the U.S. has always been a democratic republic, and never, not one hour of its history, been a democracy, and given that the President is by definition within the system, the criticism of not destroying something that never was, and the criticism that by being President of the U.S., he is not sufficiently revolutionary, is so absurd as to be insane. It makes zero sense as a criticism.
More assorted nuts. And if this statement about being the last, this is something of a collectors item.

I'd go a step further, and suggest in Bill Beck's case, the colour of his skin or his upbringing ( whichever ) has created a person immune to other people's perspective.
There's nothing in any of his ranting blogs that suggests empathy for any any other point of view than his own.
It's a kind of reverse-intolerance.
We see it here in Australia.
It all comes down, in the the end, to a feeling of inferiority reversed and amplified as an argument.
Not just people of another skin are prey to this either.
Bill's posts are convoluted, and I'm beginning to wonder if it's because of his limited skills, or whether he depends on the deconstruction of whatever it is he's raging about in comments ~ ie.
" You thought I said that ? You ignoramus I said this ... " etc, to boost his readership. It comes down to nothing but invective.
It's a little boy's pissing contest.
It's schtick.
Whatever, it's tiresome.
This will be, I hope, my last comment on Open Salon.
Good luck, everybody, with the likes of Bill Beck, Osmand and so on.
Salon has come into its own.

Kim Gamble
FEBRUARY 02, 2013 04:43 PM
I can't remember the last time I had a discussion with Kim Gamble. I'm certain that it does not matter. But since this functions as something of a diary notepad, consider this.

Gamble's theory is that my "skin colour or my upbringing" are possibly responsible for some character flaw that makes me incapable of seeing another person's perspective. (For the record, I disagree with that, but who wouldn't.) What I do find interesting about that comment is not merely that it mentions color and upbringing, about which he could no nothing about, but he also says, "we have this in Australia." Again, I can't say for certain what he means about those in Australia who are incapable of seeing another person's perspective because of skin color. Maybe he means people who have his "skin colour", but that would not make sense because it would cancel out his speculation against me. If it is not true of his, then it is not true of mine, and therefore immediately and obviously irrelevant. Therefore, if it has any shred of logic, it means people there with other than his skin color. Again, I am not familiar with what ethnic group Gamble is referring to. He could mean one other group, or ALL others, given that reference to his own would make no sense. Furthermore, the one large case of racial strife history in Australia is Europeans and the Aboriginals. The English began using that term for all of the people that they found indigenous to the continentbefore they began colonizing in 1788. It is not important whether this skin determined inability to see another perspective is from the indigenous people of the continent that he sees as the "problem in Australia", or just some other group than his own. The point is the same. It sounds like you, Gamble, use the skin color to "not see perspective" rather than the other way around. Again, I can't speak as an expert on Australia's situation, but my "skin colour" does not determine my perspective here. I'm afraid that's garbage.
Sheesh, Bill, I was hoping my comment on Amy's might have been my last. Not so. You upped the ante, as is your schtick, and I simply can't let you have it like that ...

The difference between what you describe as a 'character flaw' and what I called an 'immunity' is vast. I suspect you realise that.
I wonder why you even do it.
Please pay me the courtesy of re-reading my comment. 'Character flaw' wasn't mentioned. It deviates. You know all about 'deviation,' don't you, Bill ?
I'm glad your skin colour hasn't distorted your perspective. On one of Lezlie's recent posts I was responded to as a woman.
It had sure distorted that person's perspective.
Please don't assume that I'm a white man either. Thanks. And please don't anyone try to tell me that the colour of my skin hasn't altered my perspective.
That's garbage.
Gamble, "character flaw" is my word, my interpretation, and my understanding. Anyone who is incapable or unwilling (IN MY VIEW) to not see another person's perspective has a character flaw. I consider "character flaw" an understatement for that notion. Yes, it is my word. They are my WORDS.

Gamble, not only do I see other's perspectives, but I seek them. I advocate for them. I once wrote a blog about "getting" how smokers desire smoking. It was hugely accepted by smokers as accurate. There are few things that are more foreign to me than smoking.

Here's the thing. It is reasonable to presume that you know nothing of my perspective. Not a damn thing. Your best access would be to ask me rather than to proclaim. That is true for anyone. To go further to say that my perspective is based upon my "skin colour" is just insane. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but noone asked you. And such a statement about race being inextricably linked to perspctive is insane.

Don't take my word for it. Ask L in the Southest. She feels exactly the same way about the way Jan Sand, and not you have attempted to marginalize thought by basing it on skin. Or...ask some of those people in YOUR contry. The ones you referenced. But yeah, "character flaw" are my words. Are we done finally?
Gamble, you used the phrase "altered my (your) perspective." That is reasonable. That is easily the case. That would apply for anyone. The phrase I used was "determine my perspective." There is a big difference. The difference is matter of degree. Altering means having an influence. Determines means it is the deciding factor. There is a big, big difference.

Here is what is safe and fair. Don't make statements about what determines another, and don't accept statements about what determines you. I made no such statement about you. I suggest that you make no such statements about me. That is fair. Self determination. I have no concern otherwise for what you race is or is not, who or what you are in any way, or what you are doing. I can't fathom why it is important for you to concern yourself with me. Maybe you will let it go, maybe you wont...some time in the future. Who knows. But know that between not and then, I wont be thinking about some dude in Australia that I dont know about. Stretch yourself to graps that if you must. It really is not a pressing issue.