The Plank - All Comments

re: I Take Issue With "The Black Case For Obama-Skepticism"

Sirhc — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:01:33 GMT

I thought the whole article was simply Henderson discussing her own biases and hurt that many Black people (and people generally) have felt over the years. Society over-classifiies, flattens and insults all of us. That feeling is very common in the Black community. There is a word for people who become so bitter about they way that they've been treated that they try to pull others down, instead of lift themselves and other up: Hater. Henderson and Reverand Wright = Haters.

Trying to dig through all of what I'm sure is years of pain, here is what I think Henderson is saying: It is not fair that Obama, who is only half black, gets to put on the mantle of true blackness by marrying an all black woman and then still benefit from his half whiteness.

Actually, it is very fair, but, first, an aside: The whole idea that a light-skinned black man has any advantage over a dark-skinned black man is outdated. Certainly, it was an advantage to be related to the master. Certainly that advantage has carried down through the generations in some instances - mostly in the rural south. In many more instances, the black/white bi-racial children of today are the product of two working class or poor parents in poor urban areas. Definitely no advantage over the privileged southern, often dark-skinned black graduates of Morehouse, Fisk and Hampton.

Back to why it is fair for any person who is part of the African-American experience to claim the mantle of blackness to help Black progress : As a black person with all shades of black people in my family, I can say unequivocally that every black person, no matter what the color, has a story about hurt because of skin color. I can also so that there is no evidence that light-skinned men have it easy in the Black community, are more revered or are more successful. (Look around at the African-American judges, politicians, activists, entertainers and "sex symbols" aren't they of every color?). Likewise, I haven't seen any evidence that dark men, light woman, dark woman, tan, light, bright, chocolate, mocha, pecan, blue-black, high yellow, red-boned, so-bright-almost-white, so-dark-looks-like night or a person called any of the other names Black kidscall each other on the playground, have an advantage.

If Henderson doesn't like Obama because Clinton is better, fine. But she never really says that. She says Clinton knows her place and Obama doesn't. Apparently for her, Obama's place is somewhere outside the "true" black community. I'm sorry that she carries that much pain.

re: McCain and the G.I. Bill

AlanSP — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:54:01 GMT

Regarding McCain's claim about Webb's bill being a disincentive for retaining soldiers, isn't he ignoring the incentive that it would create for new soldiers to join? The promise of an education is a major recruitment tool for the army. I understand it's not simply an issue of manpower; new recruits don't have experience and need training. Still, I don't know if we can retain a viable army comprised entirely of career soldiers. If people want to serve for three years and then move on with their lives, we should encourage that.

I agree that it's hypocritical to praise the original G.I. Bill and not support updating it for the today's environment. The cost of college tuition has risen dramatically since the 1980's, when the benefits of the bill were capped at a static $9600. The current bill is not doing what it was designed to do. As to the cost, not only is the cost of the bill a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend in Iraq, but it's money that is being invested in our country, and that investment will pay off down the road.

re: Is Jonah Hill the New Johnny Depp?

psantillana — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:48:37 GMT

Where's the petition?!? WHere do I sign?!?

re: I Take Issue With "The Black Case For Obama-Skepticism"

psantillana — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:47:04 GMT

I figured it out. TNR prints those crazy ass articles just to elicit searing and hilarious takedowns by irony, williamyard, jhildner epic, spinks and the rest. Ha!

re: Apocalypse Soon

icarusr — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:43:15 GMT

One thing I have never understood - and would certainly welcome any light others can shed.

So this Hagee F***head and other Evangelists believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, that six days means six 24-hour days and that the Earth was created on 23 October 4004 BC, at 9 am (EST), that Leviticus should be read literally so that gays can be flung off rock-cliffs and uncles can marries nieces and so on.

How is it, then, that when it comes to Revelations, suddenly everything is symbolic, that the "Beast" takes the shape of the European Union (which, incidentally, does not have legal personality - or, some would say, any personality) - which is itself the creature not of John or the Pentateuch, but of the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 AD? I mean, I'm sure John was quite perceptive and all, but did he really mean European Union, post 1992, instead of European Communities pre-1992? Did he mean European Union after the Constitution (which failed) or before (hence the lack of personality)? Is this before or after Serbia and Croatia join - I mean, this is important for the poor people of those countries, no? Someone ought to tell them: "do not joint the Beast!" Or, alternatively, the good people of Luxembourg have to be informed that "if Serbia joins, the EU will become the Beast", in which case Luxembourg, or Malta, or Cyprus - all hotbeds of evil and sin, I guess - could simply veto the accession of Serbia or Croatia or Moldava to the EU and avoid the Beast from being completed, so to speak.

Here is another conundrum: the EU has "association agreements" with nearly half the world. If the EU is The Beast - and we have to assume it is, for John could not have been mistaken - what happens to all the countries that are Associated with the Beast?

A confused Biblical scholar

re: A Gift for Khartoum

liberal reformer — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:38:53 GMT

First off, I want to thank you for all your pieces in TNR on Darfur over the years, Mr. Reeves. I was surprised when I read the newspaper accounts of the JEM assault on Omduran. I too understand the frustration of the Darfuri rebels but it seems that no grand military objective was acomplished by their action and was counterproductive by causing further regime abuses. The UN has been absolutely craven on Darfur. It has been extremely sad to watch the suffering of the Darfuris that has been imposed on them by the thuggish regime in Khartoum.

re: McCain and the G.I. Bill

RichardDuBois — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:19:31 GMT

Way to go WaltB. We've had it pounded into our heads to "support the troops" so long as supporting them means keeping them stuck in this sand pit civil war. The moment anybody talks about actually rewarding the men and women who served by increasing their health benefits or education assistance then the tone changes.

Enough with the barstool patriots who demand ever greater sacrifice except when it comes to them or their children.

Obama 08 and let's sweep both houses of Congress with fighting Progressive Democrats and put Reid, Pelosi, Lieberman out to pasture.

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

blackton — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:18:43 GMT

Bush knows that an election of Obama represents a complete repudiation of him and everything he thinks he stands for by America. It will be very hard for him to stand by and risk that happening. It must gall and terrify him that America so hates him they will entrust the country to a skinny one term black Senator with the strange name of Barack Obama. What other things can he do to shore up his image? He already has given up golf in his support of the troops, must he give up yachting as well?

re: McCain and the G.I. Bill

psantillana — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:16:47 GMT

Propjoe, I think Obama IS pushing it as an R&D plan - he talks about how his grandfather took advantage of it, and how he, Obama, was a pretty direct beneficiary of that. As was his mother. The Dunhams didn't have that much, but they had more than they would have had were it not for the G.I. Bill, and when you don't have much, free college can really make a difference. There are a lot of people for whom a little difference makes all the difference, which is why health care is so important the other way - one stroke of bad luck and poof, all gone.

re: John Edwards In Retrospective

chmclean — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:16:41 GMT

VA - liberal reformer is about the only Hillary supporter here who can have a sane, civilized conversation about her.

Kudos to you lib ref!

re: John Edwards In Retrospective

liberal reformer — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:10:51 GMT

V.C: You are my favorite Obama supporter. So, what do you think of your home - stater Tim Kaine and how do you handicap him for the v.p. slot?

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

liberal reformer — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:07:38 GMT

This is a silly move on Bush's part. The Democrats are mightily trying to characterize a McCain presidency as a third term for Bush and here he is helping out by debating long distance with Obama, almost as a surrogate for McCain. Mac badly needs to differentiate himself from Bush because of the latter's failed policies and unpopularity. This is a craven attack on foreign soil and an untruth as well. Bush has demagogued on terrorism for nearly seven long years now.

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

ratnerstar — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:05:06 GMT

Let's not be so hard on Dubya; his family has long struggled against appeasement and he has a right to be proud of that legacy. While much of the world was caving in to Hilter's aggression, the Bushs of the 1930s patriotically gave up both tennis *and* polo to counter to NAZI menace.

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

icarusr — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT

"And making an attack this direct on a domestic political opponent while on foreign soil is generally considered out of bounds."

Let me see. So is lying to Congress, withholding evidence, torturing prisoners, pissing on allies at a time of War and handing over war-making to mercenaries. What's your point exactly?

Shouldn't Obama just have said, "there he goes again"?

re: John Edwards In Retrospective

psantillana — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:51:53 GMT

what timteeter said. wtf?

The Plank - All Comments

re: I Take Issue With "The Black Case For Obama-Skepticism"

re: McCain and the G.I. Bill

re: Is Jonah Hill the New Johnny Depp?

re: I Take Issue With "The Black Case For Obama-Skepticism"

re: Apocalypse Soon

re: A Gift for Khartoum

re: McCain and the G.I. Bill

re: The Republican Obama *Wants* to Run Against

re: McCain and the G.I. Bill

re: John Edwards In Retrospective

re: John Edwards In Retrospective

re: The Republican Obama *Wants* to Run Against

re: The Republican Obama *Wants* to Run Against

re: The Republican Obama *Wants* to Run Against

re: John Edwards In Retrospective

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against

re: The Republican Obama Wants to Run Against