Obama Flow Chart

[Paradox]

This gave me a chuckle and a cringe, since it's sadly true in terms of how criticism of our president is often interpreted.



Taken from: http://www.missourah.com/2009/09/15/obama-criticism-flow-chart/

[Inkidu]

Apparently I'm a racist... twice...

[Kate]

hmm.

Well i am white but i do beleive historically whites generally have been SUPER racist - yes racism exists between other races but the whites really did a show and dance and exploit racism in recent history.

One would expect the pendulum to swing the other way for a while before it settles (Ie being called racist when your reasons for a stance was not driven by racism but by policy disagreement or whatever).

I think this generation of "whites" (many white sub races existed all were killing and interbreeding for ages so any thoughts of "purity" really are unfounded I think, and in all honesty i think you get the best of both races when races mix - some eurasions etc ... wow .. let alone the blending of others, it could be the body has access to a larger gene pool and can select better ones - who cares really ) would do best just have to wear such remarks and turn the other cheek as best one can.

After bush ANYONE is good, and Obama more than anything has a presense of purpose and confidence which is very important during times of concern and fear.

Australia has a new head of state who has been weak on several issues that he campained for (mainly to usher radical and quick "green" movements to become "good" to the environment) and he has yet to deliver really, its still all talk and not as agressive as most think the world needs. But compared to Howard - (effectively australia's equivelent of Bush Jr) our current one is good

(howard replaced all the liberals (like republicans) with hard "rights" ... which is causing issues within that party ... allowing the current government to be weak on policies they promised without fear or loosing power really.)

Considering what other races have gone though (and still does) what is reflected in that diagram is a watered down backlash in comparison I feel.

[Vekseid]

The blind support of Obama is rather annoying. Apparently Rahm Emanuel is actually supposed to be 'keeping the Progressives in line', which is not going to work. I think the Republicans are hoping that the netroots movement is an Obama phenomenon - it isn't. Could have told you that a year ago.

When you have a classic psychopath with a multimillion audience, however, people are going to take his arguments - and those who repeat them - in kind. Glenn Beck is doing more to support Obama's policies through his antics than most of the people working for Obama.

[Kate]

blind support maybe.

But again the pendulum - by the time bush jr was out most of the world hated anything he stood for - many Americans included and anyone representing something completely different from that is going to be given a lot of leyway - simply because he is a breath of fresh air (and I do beleive he is more than that but even if he wasnt and was bland he would still get benefit of the doubts / how about we give him ago anyway as we are sick of the bush/clinton thing)

Republicans and capitalists are going to have a hangover from that for a while.

(frankly i think his policy concerning health is very sensible - and hearing Americans complain about 15 percent tax is just pathetic - its MUCH MUCH MUCH higher most places in the world)

To the rest of the world America is a lot more "right wing" on many policies things than most Americans think (copyright etc and IP) - they do however have exceptional freedom of speech laws and individual rights laws which are to be highly commended.

[Asuras]

This gave me a chuckle and a cringe, since it's sadly true in terms of how criticism of our president is often interpreted.

I remember Republicans accusing people criticizing Bush of being anti-American, unpatriotic, "not supporting the troops"...

The moron quotient is damn close.

[Kate]

i was following how the us government treated troups returning from the war
with psychological issues from it.

I am ashamed to say my first instinct was "well good - that really should bring it home to america that war = fkt up - as in war now ensures that even "victors" are not in the mood to do it again... then i thought to the troups.

Who really choose to be troups to DEFEND their country.

Then I felt ashamed.

One "good thing" that comes from vets coming back all messed up (gosh i feel for the families though ) is the US rallying domestic support for ANY war now with ANYONE = 0

(and thankfully the usa knosw wars cant be won with just air shock and awe now - unless the intention is a nuclear wasteland really )

pity it has to come to something that effects so many families before this happened.

... the reason i thought caused all this was the concept of "ownership"
(thus my other thread of ownership perhaps thrawting efforts for utopia.)

[Oniya]

i was following how the us government treated troups returning from the war
with psychological issues from it.

I am ashamed to say my first instinct was "well good - that really should bring it home to america that war = fkt up - as in war now ensures that even "victors" are not in the mood to do it again... then i thought to the troups.

Who really choose to be troups to DEFEND their country.

Then I felt ashamed.

One "good thing" that comes from vets coming back all messed up (gosh i feel for the families though ) is the US rallying domestic support for ANY war now with ANYONE = 0

Not to throw a damper on that 'good thing', but the same issues with the troops were seen post-Vietnam and Korea.  My father was in both of those, and still has some problems dating back to his service.

[kylie]

I agree with Kate that there are real grievances.  Many of the American inequalities fall all too neatly along racial lines.  The odds of Black youth (and especially Black men) being detained for no good reason, being incarcerated or under/unemployed, being denied access to certain neighborhoods primarily on the basis of color, etc. are still much higher than for White. 

There is a certain moral and egalitarian point in calling out the racial implications of opposition strategies and policies.  It also puts a face on who often loses out, and that is an historically poignant (if somewhat narrowly imagined) face.  Race may be oversimplified in identity politics, but the common conservative rejoinder of "issues having nothing to do with race" also rings hollow -- if not especially blind.

While I think rightist claims that "Democrats are playing the race card" is a terribly unspecific and all too convenient shirking of the matter...  I wouldn't go so far as to assume there is no hardball politics to it.  After an election when Black women and youth (as well as a few smaller minority groups) turned out in record numbers and most of them voted for Obama, it seems reasonable that there would be some added emphasis on race.  To the extent that it actually serves the interests of increasing equality, I wouldn't complain too much.  What is the alternative, Bush Jr. telling $800 a plate dinner guests, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."  How very Uniter and representative of him.   
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml[/i]]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml

[MercyfulFate]

The blind support of Obama is rather annoying. Apparently Rahm Emanuel is actually supposed to be 'keeping the Progressives in line', which is not going to work. I think the Republicans are hoping that the netroots movement is an Obama phenomenon - it isn't. Could have told you that a year ago.

When you have a classic psychopath with a multimillion audience, however, people are going to take his arguments - and those who repeat them - in kind. Glenn Beck is doing more to support Obama's policies through his antics than most of the people working for Obama.

I'm not comparing the two, but the blind support of Obama is reminiscent of the support of Bush.

I voted for the guy, and I think he could be doing a lot better.

[Scott]

That's great, thanks for the chuckle Paradox.

[Kate]

Oniya - i am sorry about my initial attitude towards knowing that.

When i think of the individuals that are messed up i do feel more and more ashamed of thinking it is a political statement.

When you hear

"I came back to my kids and wife and everything felt hollow wrong, like I am not the person she fell in love with that I have been tainted by something that changed me there- we are more distant now - I can't focus on many things as if a back of my mind is constantly reliving that place ... but I wasn't even injured nor really saw that much .. compared to some Im luck .. it just gets worse for many ..my friend cant get any support or help from the government who experiences far worse ... "

- shudder -

I guess there are always good reasons to fight - just better reasons not to.

I think many whites that dont consider themselves racist are subconsiously - culturally - but not intentionally or actively - still are though.

I think I am racist in some ways as I "notice" first they are anoter race and make 10000 assumpitions first before anything else happens. Like "they" are different - even though I have friends that are of other races that have proven to me all people are a lot simular than most think (having a lover of another race gos a long way).  I guess such strong divides exist in recent history even if everoyne behaved in ways that is "raceless"... racism would likely need at least another generation or so to "bleed out" ... minimum.... likely a lot longer for it not to be a mentionable issue.

[Oniya]

Oniya - i am sorry about my initial attitude towards knowing that.

It's nothing you need to feel sorry for.  Just about every major war has had people hoping that it would be the last - WWI was 'The War to End All Wars', the atomic bombs of WWII were supposed to make future wars too risky.  It's not (or it shouldn't be) that people join the military wanting to fight or wanting to go to war, but that they are willing to take that burden. 

At least people coming back from Iraq aren't dealing with the same public revulsion that people coming back from 'Nam did.  We've gotten to the point where we can hate the war without hating the warriors.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I think many whites that dont consider themselves racist are subconsiously - culturally - but not intentionally or actively - still are though.

I think I am racist in some ways as I "notice" first they are anoter race and make 10000 assumpitions first before anything else happens. Like "they" are different - even though I have friends that are of other races that have proven to me all people are a lot simular than most think (having a lover of another race gos a long way).  I guess such strong divides exist in recent history even if everoyne behaved in ways that is "raceless"... racism would likely need at least another generation or so to "bleed out" ... minimum.... likely a lot longer for it not to be a mentionable issue.

I had to give a physical description of someone the other day and I gave gender, height, weight, hair and eye color and the clothes they wore.  I was told I'm racist because th first thing out of my mouth was NOT "he's black".  I don't understand.  I wasn't actively ignoring his race.  Maybe I just wanted to remember all the other details better.  I don't know.

I don't think of President Obama as black.  I think of him as our President.  That's the aspect of his that's most important to me.

[Zakharra]

I think many whites that dont consider themselves racist are subconsiously - culturally - but not intentionally or actively - still are though.

I think I am racist in some ways as I "notice" first they are anoter race and make 10000 assumpitions first before anything else happens. Like "they" are different - even though I have friends that are of other races that have proven to me all people are a lot simular than most think (having a lover of another race gos a long way).  I guess such strong divides exist in recent history even if everoyne behaved in ways that is "raceless"... racism would likely need at least another generation or so to "bleed out" ... minimum.... likely a lot longer for it not to be a mentionable issue.

By that view, everyone is racist to some degree.  I always think it's how you deal and act is more important. You cannot control thought and it looks like you're willing to look past skin color. Which is a good thing.   ;D

[Zakharra]

I had to give a physical description of someone the other day and I gave gender, height, weight, hair and eye color and the clothes they wore.  I was told I'm racist because th first thing out of my mouth was NOT "he's black".  I don't understand.  I wasn't actively ignoring his race.  Maybe I just wanted to remember all the other details better.  I don't know.

I don't think of President Obama as black.  I think of him as our President.  That's the aspect of his that's most important to me.

0_o    I'd have called that person a racist since that was the first thing they were concerned about.

[Kate]

im bisexual and very sexist

when i see a guy im talking to i think mainly how large his cock may be or if he is married or something - if it is a girl i think of how beautiful she may be - and if i want to get with her lol :)

[Beguile's Mistress]

im bisexual and very sexist

when i see a guy im talking to i think mainly how large his cock may be or if he is married or something - if it is a girl i think of how beautiful she may be - and if i want to get with her lol :)

That isn't sexist.  That's just horny.  You're not looking at whether they're a man or a woman.  You're just wondering how well their parts work.

[Paradox]

I had to give a physical description of someone the other day and I gave gender, height, weight, hair and eye color and the clothes they wore.  I was told I'm racist because th first thing out of my mouth was NOT "he's black".  I don't understand.  I wasn't actively ignoring his race.  Maybe I just wanted to remember all the other details better.  I don't know.

I don't think of President Obama as black.  I think of him as our President.  That's the aspect of his that's most important to me.

If the first thing out of your mouth had been "he's black, this tall, weighs this much..", you'd still have been accused of racism for putting that detail first.  :-\

[Beguile's Mistress]

If the first thing out of your mouth had been "he's black, this tall, weighs this much..", you'd still have been accused of racism for putting that detail first.  :-\

"He's white... black...  Asian...  Middle Eastern...  Latin...  American Indian..."  If it's what you are I don't see how it makes you different from anyone else, me included!

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm a racist.. (have to be) since I'm southern, white, male, and republican (moderate)

[Rhapsody]

I'm a racist.. (have to be) since I'm southern, white, male, and republican (moderate)

So's a large portion of my husband's family.  I had to become racist-in-law when I married him.

[Oniya]

I can't help remembering a conversation I had with my mother when my sister was considering dating a young man (I remember him as being a valedictorian, as compared to her other boyfriend who was the acid dealer), who happened to be black.

My mother said: "I'm not prejudiced.  I just don't think blacks and whites should interact socially."  In her defense, she married my father back when miscegenation laws were still on the books (Loving v. VA was in 1967), but my jaw just about hit the floor.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I can't help remembering a conversation I had with my mother when my sister was considering dating a young man (I remember him as being a valedictorian, as compared to her other boyfriend who was the acid dealer), who happened to be black.

My mother said: "I'm not prejudiced.  I just don't think blacks and whites should interact socially."  In her defense, she married my father back when miscegenation laws were still on the books (Loving v. VA was in 1967), but my jaw just about hit the floor.

I just recalled an incident that happened about ten years ago.  I was at party celebrating a christening and my 3-year-old nephew was a guest.  I walked into a room were a group was watching a football game and hear some racist talk about black football players.  I was disgusted when I saw the children in there too and it got worse.  My nephew piped up from his spot on the floor with a question.  "Aunt ~~~~, what's a n---er?"

The first thing that popped into my head was:  "It's a word bad people use to talk about black people."  I was only twenty at the time and I don't know if it was fear or discretion that kept me from putting it that way.  "It's a bad word that some people use to talk about black people," is what I said instead.  "We don't use that word do we?" he asked, and I replied, "No, we don't."

[Cythieus]

I'm a black moderate, support Obama on a lot of the things he is trying to do and disagree with him on some. The issue I have is that a lot of the people in the argument don't know what they're talking about and sometimes they are opposing him just because they can. The flow chart is frankly not all that funny or easily taken seriously when I have seen people making real racist statements about him and people like Glenn Beck and Rush out there stirring up trouble.

Beck actually claimed Obama hates whites and tried to make the beating of a white kid by two random black kids an issue that was caused by Obama. It seems that some people on the other side want this to be about race and are making it so.

[Kate]

I really really like him.

[Callie Del Noire]

I really really like him.

By and far, I think he's done a good job. Setting the rules on how special interest jobs affect the position in his cabinet (and their staff) was a good start. Changing his approach to troop deployment timelines when he got his briefing (sorry.. you don't pull EVERYONE out of the gulf over night.. it's just not wise)

I do think he's trying. Sometimes he does boneheaded things (Olympics bid) but it's small things..and let's be honest.. they don't harm anyone truthfully.

I do think the media and certain groups have some unrealistic expectations of him (to hear some folks he should wave a magic wand and health care, the economy and the issues overseas will all be solved). Which leaves me wondering what will happen when they don't get what they want..

[Cythieus]

What gets me is people expect one man to undo mistakes of at least 8 years (I wasn't too fond of the previous 8 years either) and they expect this all to be done in less than a year. Our Intelligence community is still shit, Evangelical idiots are still forcing us to deal with their laws, Wall Street is out of control, and Congress went from being average people who represent us all to a pack loons...you can't expect someone to come in and not just change some stuff that should have been changed before, but make a system that never works, suddenly work for him. Couple this with the fact that half the media is finding anything he does as a screw up while the other half is pretty much making excuses and no one is going "It's been one year, calm the Hell down and let him at least try!"

[Callie Del Noire]

I've always felt that you don't realize the impact of policy changes and such for years after to actually show an effect on the real world. Too many John (and Jane) Q. Public voters want things to change over night.

My BIG issue with government is the fact that everyone wants things to work but no patience for the time it takes to do it. The Deficit didn't shrink because of one president. It took nearly 2 decades of progressive policies, changes as the economy changed, and compromise.

I do not even the president in his challenges to come. Too many folks think he can fix 8 years of stupid policies (by and far) in no time at all.

[OldSchoolGamer]

What most people don't realize is that, economically, America is now a failed state.

There's enough wealth still leftover that it doesn't look like a failed state.  Not completely, and not yet.  But we're right about where the Soviet Union was in the late Eighties, in terms of growing, fundamental imbalances in the system that simply cannot be rectified by policy tweaks, budget shifts, and so on.  A change in the fundamentals in how the system operates will be required.  But the public is too scared of the "socialism" bugaboo to embrace actual change.

The state I live in (California) is a perfect example of this.  They've cut the budget six ways to Sunday, furloughed state workers twice a month, raised college tuition...and according to projections we're still going to be $8 to 14 billion in the hole this year.  Something's broken.

What's broken is American capitalism itself.  Advocates of free-market economics trumpet how the hardworking and creative and productive are rewarded under capitalism and that's what makes it such a great system.  Trouble is, those aren't the kind of folks getting rewarded in America.  The rewards are increasingly going to people who produce little if any real wealth: the CEOs, the arbitrageurs, the inventors of exotic new "securities" that are at best greatly overrated and at worst downright fraudulent.  Those are the people getting the rewards.  There's little functional difference between our system and that of the Soviets in terms of nonproductive "managers" and bureaucrats and other entrenched interests getting wealthy while the working people who actually produce the wealth get the shaft.

If we still had $25/bbl crude oil, the system could probably totter on for another couple decades.  But cheap oil is running out, and that is bringing the issue of these imbalances and inefficiencies to a head. 

[Cythieus]

I don't think that anyone really is saying its a failed state, even the people who saw this all coming. Failing for one indicates that there's no change taking place and there is. Innovation is rewarded here, its just that the people doing it have to work hard. There's no system that recognizes the good ideas of everyone. It's pretty much impossible.

Every system has its classes, but I think the big difference here is that there's room to move up.

[kylie]

     Kicking up the usage in international relations differentiations, a "failed state" typically does not have military control of more than part of its territory (prototypically, the capital and perhaps other cities).  So it's hard to match that one.  There is an argument -- as example, the website following -- that the US could well be called a "semi-failed" state because it is within other criteria commonly cited with "failed" states.  On that site it's a skeleton argument, but I don't think the directional points are so disputable.  It would be more a question of what quality and degree of these one considers acceptable.  http://samvak.tripod.com/failedstate.html

     Namely:
Perceived as a threat by others; history of attacking peaceful or militarily incapable ("pacified") others
Weak institutions re: national disasters, environmental law, consumer protection
Corrupt legislators and unstable separation of powers
Reliance on private organizations to fulfill national priorities

     Also...  In my understanding the US is doing unfavorably compared to most other "developed" countries in terms of health care costs, satisfaction with its health care, literacy rates, infant mortality rates, and availability of public transit.  I don't know so well about crime rates, but we're also real infamous in Britain and Japan for the prevalence of gun violence. 

     The CIA (do they care to check such things?) lists us around 71 of 122 for reported unemployment in early 2009 (making 122 fewest unemployed) -- only slightly better than India or the EU average (at 69).  Included in the countries with higher employment are many of the Western EU countries, Canada, S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Australia, Vietnam, China, Russia and other CIS, Nicaragua...   
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/unemployment_rate_2009_0.html