NYT: Where Did ‘We’ Go? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em)

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 29, 2009

I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

[More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em)]

Obama isn't the first controversial president. He isn't even that controversial.

He also isn't the first to be a target for assassins. He knew he would be when he started campaigning.

And our political discourse today is polite and intellectual compared to politics in the distant past.

Obama isn't the first controversial president. He isn't even that controversial.

He also isn't the first to be a target for assassins. He knew he would be when he started campaigning.

And our political discourse today is polite and intellectual compared to politics in the distant past.

But not compared to the more recent past ... and that is what is worrying some.

From what I can tell at this distance in space and time not even president Clinton, who was (made) in some ways a lot more controversial, was the recepient of a thinly disguised campaign to encourage civil unrest and assassination threats.
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" is no better a pretence of innocence today then it was when Shakespeare wrote that line.

Also, I am thinking you underestimate how controversial president Obama is in certain circles (both in the crowd that is stirred up to make trouble for him and in the darkest bowels of a political party that apparently has come to believe it is their divine right to govern the country).


Eri

He also isn't the first to be a target for assassins. He knew he would be when he started campaigning.
Threats against the president are up 400% since Obama took office. Considering the popularity of the president he took over from, that's pretty impressive.

And our political discourse today is polite and intellectual compared to politics in the distant past.
In the distant past the average nut couldn't buy a rifle that was accurate at over a mile, load it into their car, and be in Washington, DC in less than three days.

Good Op-ed. :)

Also, I am thinking you underestimate how controversial president Obama is in certain circles (both in the crowd that is stirred up to make trouble for him and in the darkest bowels of a political party that apparently has come to believe it is their divine right to govern the country).The only real point of controversy is that he is half black, otherwise he's more mainstream than Bill Clinton -- a generally popular president -- was. And that point of controversy only applies to the bigots, mostly clustered in the South.

If he were white, he would've won the election by a massive landslide, his approval ratings would be much higher, and there wouldn't be much controversy (or assassination attempts).

Here are the election results by county from Bill Clinton's first election in 1992 and Obama's election in 2008. Load both and flip back and forth, and you'll notice the main difference is that Bill Clinton (blue) captured a large part of the South, whereas Obama captured virtually none of it.

It's because Clinton was white.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/1992prescountymap.PNG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.PNG

Threats against the president are up 400% since Obama took office. Considering the popularity of the president he took over from, that's pretty impressive.The popularity of the former president among would-be assassins was pretty high, though.In the distant past the average nut couldn't buy a rifle that was accurate at over a mile, load it into their car, and be in Washington, DC in less than three days.And in the distant past, presidents didn't have the security they have today. It works both ways.

It didn't take much technology or sophistication to assassinate any of the former presidents, just fanatical determination.

Good Op-ed. :)
Ok.

I think a better analogy would have been Reagan, honestly.
He was demonized by the press and the Left from before the gate opened.

Would Friedman make the claim that the Leftist media, and the Left were responsible for Reagan being shot. That they winked at the loony far left, with tacit encouragement.


By the way, seen him on Bill Maher today. Not exactly a sharp wit. The whole show was stilted and uncomfortable. Maher even seemed to piss of Richard Dawkins by interrupting him with stupid silliness, Dawkins needs to lighten up, too serious.

Jeneane Garafalo looks sickly with an eating disorder. Her idiotic ramblings on the Middle East were embarrassing.

I think a better analogy would have been Reagan, honestly.
He was demonized by the press and the Left from before the gate opened.
Reagan wasn't demonized to anywhere near the same degree as Obama.

Would Friedman make the claim that the Leftist media, and the Left were responsible for Reagan being shot.
No, because his shooting wasn't politically influenced.

The whole show was stilted and uncomfortable.
Yeah, I'm not sure what happened but the shows have gotten a lot more hit-or-miss over the last year. It has been a while since Maher has had a genuinely funny monologue.

Reagan wasn't demonized to anywhere near the same degree as Obama. Really? Don't remember the Bonzo thing, huh? Or the 80s, it seems.

Unlike today where the mainstream media has to wear kneepads to Obama's speeches, they were out and out rude during the 80s.

No, because his shooting wasn't politically influenced. If some southern racist nutbag takes a shot at Obama, you can be sure that the media and the left will drive the connection.

Maher and his leftist guests already make it, repeatedly. Racist=Republican=Racist. Garafalo made it on this last show. If you are a racist, you are a Republican. I have heard it expressed here by leftist posters.

When Eddie Murphy made jokes about Jesse Jackson as President, and 'running' as President. The jokes were pointed at racist would-be assassins.

Now they are Republican would-be assassins, who just also happen to be racist. If you disagree with Obama's policies, you are a racist. Jimmy Carter said so. Don't exactly leave a lot of room, do it? Except that if some racist does take a shot at Obama, then you can rightfully say that it was politically motivated.

Yeah, I'm not sure what happened but the shows have gotten a lot more hit-or-miss over the last year. It has been a while since Maher has had a genuinely funny monologue. The Kathy Griffith episode was fantastic, front to start.

You don't understand. Disagreeing with The One's policies can only mean you're a racist. Jimmy Carter and Reverend Jackson wouldn't lie to us!
You can't disagree based on the consquences those policies would bring, if you are white, Asian, or anyone other than an African-American. Nope, you're only disagreeing because he is African-American. Or half African-American. Whatever.

I have to refer everyone to Walter Williams (http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/IsDisagreementWithObamaRacism.htm) and Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp) anytime Obama's name is brought up, for fear that I will be labeled a racist if I speak ill against The One. I will need to email Reverend Jackson and ask him if African-Americans disagree with Obama, are they racist against Obama, or are they allowed to disagree on matters of policy?

It will be nice when we elect a new president that we can criticize without fear of being labeled a Southern KKK high school dropout who bangs his sister-mother-daughter each night to the tunes of country music playing in the background, with a Confederate flag over his bed. And owns a pickup truck with a shotgun rack, Budweiser cans in the floorboard. Did I miss any descriptive terms to those that would speak against The One's policies?

Seriously, I just hope the policies Obama and his cheering section (i.e. Congress) ram through legislation are reversible. I am not hopeful. The closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program.

Really? Don't remember the Bonzo thing, huh? Or the 80s, it seems.
I remember. That was pretty tame compared to the vitriol directed at Obama though.

Unlike today where the mainstream media has to wear kneepads to Obama's speeches, they were out and out rude during the 80s.
The MSM has been getting progressively more critical of Obama. The less mainstream media has been far more nasty than anything from the Reagan era. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co .php?ref=fpblg)

If some southern racist nutbag takes a shot at Obama, you can be sure that the media and the left will drive the connection.
Well, the chances are pretty good that it will be a valid connection to drive.

If you are a racist, you are a Republican. I have heard it expressed here by leftist posters.
If you are a Republican it doesn't mean you are a racist. However, if you are a racist, it's pretty damn likely you are a republican.

When Eddie Murphy made jokes about Jesse Jackson as President, and 'running' as President. The jokes were pointed at racist would-be assassins.
Jokes.

The Kathy Griffith episode was fantastic, front to start.
Yeah, that was a good one. Clarke and Griffin seemed to be getting along well. :)

You don't understand. Disagreeing with The One's policies can only mean you're a racist.
When did Carter say that disagreeing with Obama can only mean you're a racist? Are you referring to this?

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American"

Carter's statement seems pretty clearly scoped to those expressing "intensely demonstrated animosity."

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Carter about it being an overwhelming portion. While I think racism drives some of the "intensely demonstrated animosity," most is there simply because Obama is a Democrat.

Anyone who thinks bigotry, particularly by Southerners, isn't a huge undercurrent in the whole anti-Obama movement is a moron.

Just compare the responses to Obama in the South today to the responses to Clinton (a more liberal president) in the South in the 90s.

Do you really think it's a coincidence that Clinton won nearly the entire South in his election, whereas Obama lost nearly the entire South in his election?

Seriously, I just hope the policies Obama and his cheering section (i.e. Congress) ram through legislation are reversible. I am not hopeful. The closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program.
Or wars started by George W.

Jokes.


Really? Are you saying that comedians do not have an effect on culture or indicators of it?

How many Liberals get their views, 'news', or opinions from comedians as Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart? Or Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

The MSM has been getting progressively more critical of Obama. The less mainstream media has been

Really? When ever did CNN ever do a fact check story on a SNL skit before joking at a President? Any news outlet.

Is Newsmax important? Is John L. Perry more than some blogger? Never heard of them before.

Anyone who thinks bigotry, particularly by Southerners, isn't a huge undercurrent in the whole anti-Obama movement is a moron.

Just compare the responses to Obama in the South today to the responses to Clinton (a more liberal president) in the South in the 90s.

Do you really think it's a coincidence that Clinton won nearly the entire South in his election, whereas Obama lost nearly the entire South in his election?

If you vote against someone because of their race, that is racist.
If you vote FOR someone because of their race, that is just as racist.

I'm quite sure there were far more Blacks voting FOR Obama because of race, than Whites against him. That makes them more racist than Whites.

If you vote against someone because of their race, that is racist.
If you vote FOR someone because of their race, that is just as racist.The moral, and practical, implications of hurting someone because they're a minority are quite different than those of helping someone because they're a minority.

On the issue of blacks voting for Obama it's academic anyway, since 90%+ of blacks vote for Democrats when they're white.

If you vote FOR a Black for being Black.

It is the same logical statement that you are...

Voting AGAINST a White for being White.

No matter how you want to fluff and puff it, to rationalize it, or to justify it, it is still RACISM.

Any White who voted for a Black just because he was Black, say to elect the first Black, is just as RACIST.

On the issue of blacks voting for Obama it's academic anyway, since 90%+ of blacks vote for Democrats when they're white
So Blacks got to be RACIST at least twice, one in the primary, then in the general. But you just can't tell in the general. Is that what you are saying?

George Jefferson was just as big a bigot as Archie Bunker.

The moral, and practical, implications of hurting someone because they're a minority are quite different than those of helping someone because they're a minority. If Racism is immoral, it is immoral both forwards and back.
If Rape is immoral, it is just as immoral if done to whores, as it is to nuns.

Personally, I think it is a little bit worse to rape a whore. One is stealing a real tangible from her in addition to the penetrative/theft of choice violation.

If you vote FOR a Black for being Black.

It is the same logical statement that you are...

Voting AGAINST a White for being White.

No matter how you want to fluff and puff it, to rationalize it, or to justify it, it is still RACISM.No, because the intent is different.

If you help out an injured veteran over other people because he sacrificed himself for your country, it's discrimination.

If you help out a white guy over a black guy because he's white and you hate blacks, it's also discrimination.

Both situations are discrimination. However, they don't carry the same moral and practical implications, because the intent in each case is different.

Not all racism, in its technical sense, is bad, or immoral. It's a question of how you use it.

The intent is the same.

To chose one over another.
One loses, one gains.
Hurt one, help the other.

Intent is exactly the same, in both scenarios.

What you are saying that it is less immoral to hurt a White, than it is to hurt a Black.

Where did you ever get that idea and notion? Who sold it to you, and how did you buy it?

The intent is the same.The intent to hurt someone is not the same as the intent to help someone.

And it is not a zero-sum situation either. It is not a two variable equation existing in a vacuum.

Of course this requires being able to see shades of grey, not exactly a libertarian's forte.What you are saying that it is less immoral to hurt a White, than it is to hurt a Black.No, that's what you want me to say, because that's the only argument you have a response to.

But that's not what I said.

We are not talking about tossing some coins to a Black SF beggar on one corner, and not tossing coins to a White SF beggar on the next corner. Because you want to allay your White Liberal guilt.

It is black and white in an election.

One's loss is definitely the other's gain.
One has to lose for the other to win.
One has to hurt, for the other to be not hurt.

Completely zero sum. It is binary. One up, one down.


But that's not what I said. You have said before in other threads that there are different grades, different shades of Racism, different degrees of Racism. That there is good Racism, and bad Racism. Which is what you are repeating here.

Which is totally against your typical Cultural Relativist ideology which you espouse normally.

I'm just saying. If there are different degrees of Racism what are they?
Do we have a scale of measurement of Racism? If there are levels 1 through 10 of Racism, is it not completely disingenuous(i.e. big fat fvcking liar) to say or suggest that someone with a level 2 Racist Quotient is the same as a level 9 Racist Quotient?

If I vote for a White for being White(against a Black for being Black), I get an 6 on the Racist Quotient scale.
But if I, a White, vote for a Black for being Black(against a White for being White), I get a 0 on the RQ scale.???

Or even negative RQ points. I get kudos and cookies from all my smart educated Liberal friends for being so progressive.?

It is black and white in an election.

One's loss is definitely the other's gain.
One has to lose for the other to win.
One has to hurt, for the other to be not hurt.Perhaps, in an election between only two opponents, where a fixed number of people always vote. But that isn't reality.If there are different degrees of Racism what are they?It's not a question of degrees of racism. It's a question of how you act on the racism. The notion of racism, in a vacuum, isn't inherently good or bad.

For example, you can offer reparations to an oppressed minority to make up for what they've lost. (No, I don't exactly mean affirmative action here.) Or you can offer greater protections to a group that still faces oppression.

Both acts are racist, but are different from the acts of racism by Southerners who want to lynch Obama because he's half black, or by Nazis who want to kill non-Aryans because they're inferior.

In other words, you can make decisions that are based on race but are still morally, and practically, desirable.

Or you can offer greater protections to a group that still faces oppression.
That is UnConstitutional.

Ironically, the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, you can make decisions that are based on race but are still morally, and practically, desirable.
Racism is moral and desirable, is that what you are saying?
And Racists are moral and good people having racism as a trait?

Perhaps, in an election between only two opponents, where a fixed number of people always vote. But that isn't reality. But it is exactly the reality of your comments, and the context. You know as well as I that more Blacks voted against Clinton or McCain because they were White, than Whites voted against Obama.

It's not a question of degrees of racism. It's a question of how you act on the racism. The notion of racism, in a vacuum, isn't inherently good or bad.


So Rush Limbaugh is a bad Racist.
But Al Sharpton is a good Racist.

hmmm.

Racism is moral and desirable, is that what you are saying?I'm saying, it can be. Even though in the majority of cases, it isn't.But it is exactly the reality of your comments, and the context. You know as well as I that more Blacks voted against Clinton or McCain because they were White, than Whites voted against Obama.Nearly the entire south voted against Obama, even though they all voted for Bill Clinton (who is at least as liberal) just a few years earlier. I posted the charts in another recent thread, take a look.

After the primary, racism worked heavily to Obama's disadvantage. Had he been white, he would've won by a landslide, capturing all but the reddest states.So Rush Limbaugh is a bad Racist.
But Al Sharpton is a good Racist.There are both bad racists. Whether you are good or bad isn't a function of your race but rather a function of your actions.