Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
The election of Barack Obama has made certain fault lines in our country appear more vividly and while it is not 1859 by any means, it appears that there is a large region of the country that is committed to ignorant reactions when confronted with the case of the first black president.
Really?
From Wiki:
The following classification of red and blue states (as well as purple/battleground states) was determined by compiling the average margins of victory in the five presidential elections between 1992 and 2008. Three of these past elections were won by Democrats, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Barack Obama in 2008, while two were won by Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. [edit]
Red states Among the states within the region alluded above by "party like it's 1859," Alabama annoyingly (as regards efforts of this poster) waits until no. 9 to show up for the "clear fault lines" claim.
quote:
The election of Barack Obama has made clear that regionalism is alive (halt; see above, and see any map of R/B to refute that outright. Ed.) and the South remains distinctive in an exceedingly negative way.
This a classic case of projection. The unabashed negativity of the poster towards a region is presented as negativity of the region itself.
quote:
Indeed, absent the South, the United States would be a far more educated, progressive and humane country. While this appraisal seems harsh, it is electorally inescapable.
Wow. That accomplishes quite a lot in one go; assuming lower education level in the general description of R voters (which demographic analysis refutes) , and claiming the already-proved bogus notion of strict regional "fault lines" as providing us with an "inescapable" appraisal. No difficulty at all to escape from a paper cage.
quote:
The front page of the New York Times (OK here we go, the NYT, the "perpetrator of myth and corporate shill of record," this should be fun ... Ed.) almost a year ago ran a fascinating article on how David Vitter, of DC Madame fame, is the favorite in his race for re-election because his opponents were supporters of Barack Obama, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11vitter.html?_r=1&ref=politics
This is indeed truly fascinating. A politician finding favor with some voters because his opposition is aligned with someone those voters don't like. Wow. That is so wacko. It's never happened anywhere before. Not at all, not ever. We can see here where the evidence is being carefully gathered for yet another inescapable conclusion yet to come ...
quote:
as well as an equally relevant article on Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and the lack of universal condemnation in his district, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/politics/11wilson.html?ref=politics.
Right. In the first place, where do either the NYT or this poster find any district where the sentiment on anything is universal? Aside from that, as many or more quotes of support for the outburst were from people not only outside the district, but far away from the region entirely. The headline of the article proposes to lead readers to a conclusion before even reading the content (typical of most mainstream media), while even a half-paying-attention reading of the content itself easily refutes the headline. Again, this is Orwellian standard MO for mainstream media, and the most prominent ones are experts at it. No surprise that this poster finds relevance in it. People with an agenda of perpetrating preconceived notions commonly operate this way.
an egenda of
quote:
These stories coupled with the simply shocking poll results that a majority of Southerners (53%) don’t accept that President Obama was born in the United States
Adding the 30% who answered "not sure" to those who state disbelief is not merely misleading, it is patently false to claim "not sure" as outright non-acceptance. Either that or complete lack of comprehension of the distinction and difference of the terms. Most thinking people avoid phone polls to begin with, and in statistics it is well known that the majority of "not sure" answers are actually the respondents' way of saying "what a stupid question" or "next." Also note that the poll did not even present the two question as "do you think that" but rather "do you believe that" ... , on questions of fact. I would answer "no" or "not sure" on almost any such question because I don't "believe" a fact, I know it to be true or false or unknown. This is an intentional and calculated distortion of the process on the part of the poll takers, but par for the course in any poll/questionnaire I have seen. While on the subject of statistics; in the section called "how to sample badly" contained in every statistics text book, phone poles are given as the first example because they provide the most comprehensive list of practically every form of bias error that can be demonstrated in a single misapplication. It is little wonder that the media and political science departments are the only ones who actually use them.
,quote:
indicate a region addicted to ignorance and a threat to the future of democratic governance in America.
The only thing indicated here thus far is the level of desperation required to propound inherently unsupportable preconceptions.
quote:
... a picture of a hippie on them, that nearly extinct species that in large numbers abandoned their youthful anti-establishment views and embraced cocaine, Wall Street and uber-capitalism.
Wow.
Wow.
quote:
Because the South is the focal point of the anti-Obama rhetoric, ...
No, the South is the focal point of this poster's ignorance-based and obvious unabashed regional bigotry. The the focal point of anti-Obama rhetoric resides in national AM radio, Fox news, etc. whose stations are located outside the region and whose listenership and viewership are well represented across all regions.
quote:
it becomes impossible to discount the role of race ...
Not to say we didn't know this was coming, but all the above preparation for this moment makes makes it 10 times funnier than I thought it would be.
Give me a moment here ....
quote:
The Southern conservatives did not become the least bit overheated over Reagan’s record deficit spending or George W. Bush’s reckless fiscal policy that turned surpluses into record deficits (most of the deficits now allegedly animating these tea-bag morons, are a direct legacy of President Bush).
OTOH the conservatives in other regions became quite overheated at Republican deficits, right?
quote:
As far as a small government philosophy providing principled opposition to Federal expansion, that falls apart under historical analysis.
What limited Federal government (I reworded to make it more accurate) philosophy falls apart under historical analysis? The part where Federalism was a major concern of many writers of the constitution? The part where the Bill of Rights are included only because of insistence by those of principled opposition to Federal expansion?
quote:
Putting aside the irony that the two regions of the country most dependent on Federal largess are the most opposed to the ‘government,’ we must ask how the South came to be so opposed to Federal powers.
Right. Two regions are identified as being of concern to the argument, but we must confine our curiosity about opposition to Federal powers to only one of them, lest we blow the whole original premise away.
By the way, the South did not "come to be" opposed to Federal powers; along with significant swathes of other regions they always have been, before during and after the War for Independence and before and after the Constitution came into being, and long before any slavery issue arose,.
All the remaining pointlessness consists of more "the South did/didn't object to Federal imposition" with the now to be expected blithe ignorance of same occurring elsewhere.
quote:
While the racial problem is not exclusive to the South, the region retains a distinctiveness as revealed by the inexplicable agitation following President Obama’s election. You can disagree with the President’s policies, but to fail to acknowledge his legitimacy (the most decisive election since Reagan’s second term), his grace, class and fundamental decency reveals a deeper cultural pathology. He might be wrong on particular policies, but to view him as a threat to America is a reflection of the insecurity of the protesters confronted with a President who finally doesn’t look like them.
Before and after Obama's election there were/are nut cases all over the country, and especially on national right wing broadcasters that questioned Obama's place of birth and made not-so-subtle references to race.
There are great agitations among losing side voters after every election, either party. If the poster finds such agitation as being "inexplicable" in this instance it can only indicate that it is his first exposure to such a phenomenon.
Wow.
That's all I can say is wow.
This is getting exasperating. This poster's boat anchor preconceptions and blatant hostility towards one region of the country provides some decent bit of comedy, but overall it is just a tsunami of annoyance for any thinking non-bigoted reader.
quote:
The question is how does the rest of the nation deal with a region still so out of synch with American values.
The question is how we could allow susceptible audience to be academically exposed to such inveterate bigotry and anachronistic distortions so out of sync with reality.
The fact of the matter is that the South as a region contains greater independence of thought and opinion than any other, by far. This can be perplexing for those who think that movies are reality, and more especially for those in areas where the "hive mind" is most prevalent.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/9/2010 3:17:19 PM >
|
RE: the Burden of Southern History (apologies to C. Van... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread