Beer Branding At The White House

“…as does an uncouth presidential intervention…”

Uncouth? The only thing around here that is “uncouth” is a tire-swinger named Scherer.

Last week we were discussing whether it is the media or the audience that is more to blame for the horrendous priorities that are apparent in our political coverage. I blamed the audience. I’ve just officially changed my mind.

It’s you guys!

I say that because in spite of your self-referential disclaimers, you yourself just devoted 7 paragraphs to the non-subjectedness of the subject…..

Brad Delong: “This is an excellent and reflexive example of exactly what Massing earlier in the article had called “reflexive attempts at ‘balance’” the absence of which “makes the blogosphere a lively and bracing place”–and the presence of which sucks the lifeblood out of the mainstream print media and will soon consign it to a sodden death.”

Also: “uncouth”?

I say let it go and stop treating it as a top news story. You can hold your head up and say that you at least have higher standards the the Glenn Beck’s of the world.

I hope they do century club together, that’s a bond that will last a lifetime.

Uncouth? Better watch it. That’s dangerously close to pearl clutching territory.

All of this controversy about which brand of beer to drink is just one more reason to legalize marijuana. This bud’s for you Mr. President.

Guys, why is it so hard to admit that some bit of racial bias played a bit in Obama’s initial response? After all, isn;t this the guy that referred to his own grandmother as a “typical white person” and who was apparently comfortable with exposing his kids to the racism of Rev. Wright?

“Will Obama reestablish his role as primarily a mediator between racial and class tribes, not participant in the conflict?”
.
Michael, how in the world has Barack Obama acted as a mediator? When you’re a mediator, you have to be even-handed. I don’t see how his response to Jena was even-handed.

So, queen, is questioning whether Obama is racist verboten? I don’t think he’s racist like David Duke is racist–but I’d put him and Trent Lott in the same category.

I didn’t know males drank Blue Moon. Weird.

That’s the sum and total of what I learned from this post.

Buzz or Duff Beer. Buy American already – isn’t Bud now foreign owned (InBev)? Or just buy some Sam Adams.

Uncouth, nepotistic. Take you pick.

Blue Moon is actually quite good.

Mine sits in the back of the fridge with the fruit beers that get included in sampler packs. When my SO’s sister comes over i serve them to her.

I’m really annoyed by the judgment that Obama, who represents the American people, did anything wrong by wading into a police conduct issue. Far as I’m concerned he made only one mistake — he apologized.

Do you think it’s fair destor, that without knowing all the facts, he associated this case with racial profiling.
.
I wonder what Obama would have to say about the recent racial assaults in Akron.

There are several issues that arise from Obama’s decision to wade into this matter. None are very serious, but all indicate an imprudent bias on his part.

First, he, as President of the United States, chose to criticize the law enforcement handling of this matter before he was fully aware of the facts.

Second, he chose to nationalize a minor, local issue, seizing the opportunity to create another ‘teaching moment.’ It’s becoming quite silly that he insists upon teaching the nation about sensitive issues.

Finally, nepotism comes into play as he blindly sides with his friend, attempting to victimize Gates despite his provocative, contemptible behavior.

This entire event is minor. Gates acted like a self-righteous prick. However, at the same time, the arrest is certainly questionable. I do not feel that one should be arrested for disorderly conduct on one’s own property. Neither side is justified in this matter. Yet, Obama chose to come down decidedly on behalf of one party, nationalizing and publicizing an irrelevant incident that should have been all but ignored in the press. Now, we have another lecture from the federal government on race relations and sensitivity. The whole mess needs to disappear.

exiled–should Obama get a free pass, as he has not exactly been neutral when it comes to race here

His supporters will never see any problem with his actions. He is a beacon of justice and righteousness, defending the oppressed and disenfranchised (Harvard professors included) from the bigotry of the racist law-enforcement community of America. Pointing out his lack of clarity on these issues will never resonate with those who harbor the same views of racial inequalities and abuse of power by white authorities that pervades American society. Subsequently there is little to gain from perpetuating the coverage of this issue. Everyone will just shout about the racist attitudes of the other side. There is no ground to be won in this issue.

OK, Scherer, not a bad premise, but why not show ‘em how it should be done? Write substantive stories about the Administration’s activities on serious policy issues. Drop the cutesie YouTube links and extended analyses of your colleagues’ work. Lead by example.

I’m no teetotaler, but I don’t understand why there’s going to be alcohol at this meeting in the first place. When we sit down to discuss personal disagreements—let alone serious problems of national importance—we should have a buzz on?

Yeah, FO, Time Magazine could start by asking why a nasty racist assault in Akron, Ohio got zero ink and what Obama thinks about that. Or Time could write a story about the dismissal of judgments against Black Panthers.

A beer is the only way a normal human being could stomach meeting an arrogant prof from harvard . . . .

“First, he, as President of the United States, chose to criticize the law enforcement handling of this matter before he was fully aware of the facts.”

I’ve heard this argument used many times and I really want to understand- what facts have come to light that would negate Obama’s statement that the police “acted stupidly” in this incidence by arresting a citizen who was legally in his own home?

“Second, he chose to nationalize a minor, local issue, seizing the opportunity to create another ‘teaching moment.’ It’s becoming quite silly that he insists upon teaching the nation about sensitive issues.”

First off, you know, that the President is the chief law enforcer in the nation, right? That alone would justify his speaking out on the subject. Second, he was asked a direct question at a news conference and answered it honestly. Had he dodged the question, there is no doubt spongebob and his fellow Obama Derangement Syndromers would have seized upon the dodge as evidence of something nefarious, as they do with every utterance or non-utterance of this president. (I do not accuse you, Neo, of knee-jerk ODS, but we know where spongebob comes from.)

“Finally, nepotism comes into play as he blindly sides with his friend, attempting to victimize Gates despite his provocative, contemptible behavior.”

Umm, blindly? Again, what facts are you declaring Obama didn’t possess that is available now that would negate his charge that the police acted stupidly? Obama did not contend that Gates wasn’t a d1ck about the whole thing, which he most likely was, but it bears reminding the “contempt of cop” is not an actual crime.

Gates shouldn’t have been arrested and the cops acted stupidly. Other than giving the chatterers a chance to latch onto one of their favorite topics, racial conflict, I don’t see how what Obama said was wrong and I really don’t see how what he said would be different now in light of new facts coming to light. What are these new facts that Obama should have known before answering the question honestly?

wow piper1–you really know where I am coming from? Hmmmm.
,
In any event, remember, we have a federal system, and Barack Obama doesn’t preside over the entire law enforcement system, just the federal system. Care to revise your comment?
.
As for not knowing all the facts, that’s what Obama said.
.
You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

spob will only be satisfied when black people can no longer use the word ‘black’ in a sentence lest they be accused of tribalism.

It flows from his own frustration over his inabilty to say what he’s really thinks without using taboo language.

It certain qualifies as obsessive.

sorry, PD, amazing how you guys just cannot deal with an argument–Obama’s not even-handed when it comes to race. He’s shown this many times. You may not care, and that’s fine, you don’t have to. But the bottom line is that it is newsworthy, and this blog ought to at least raise the question.

Cannot wait until Friday morning when this ridiculous story will (hopefully) finally be put to bed…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

why is it so ridiculous? Certainly this incident says something about Obama . . . .

The President is Black. I know you really hate that fact but it remains true. You’re notion of evenhandedness is clearly born of a resentment that will never be assuaged by anything Obama may say.

I suggest you get over it.

Piper

First, let me say that I do not support the arrest of Mr. Gates. I firmly believe that short of threats or physical contact, a person has every right to behave how they please on their own property; disorderly conduct, in my interpretation, only applies to public property.

However, the imprudence of Mr Gates’ arrest does not warrant an executive intervention into the affair. True, Mr. Obama was asked a direct question. He was wholly within his bounds to answer that question. However, to call the arrest stupid is a stretch. The officer certainly shouldn’t have arrested Mr. Gates, however the invective diatribe and endless insult no doubt pushed the officer over the edge. He reached a rather crude interpretation of the law, in that Mr Gates’ ‘disorderly conduct’ was in public view witnessed by those gathering on the street. This is a stretch. However, to openly call the arrest ‘stupid’ is also a stretch. Why did Obama not call the actions of Mr. Gates ‘stupid?’ They certainly were. Hence, Mr. Obama, who admitted he did not know the facts (which I assume means he was unaware of the extent of what transpired, including the degree to which Mr Gates acted like a pompous ass), reached a conclusion that the arrest was stupid, yet failed to characterize the actions of his dear friend as stupid. Nepotism? Indeed.

Spooge,

What facts are you suggesting Obama didn’t possess that would alter the accuracy of his statement that the cops acted stupidly? No sideshows, misdirections or your usual idiocy. What are these facts?

If all this pent-up rage is still there before the drinks, then beer is not enough. Those three will need to down shots. Mix up jaegerbombs, premium russian vodka, cherry bombs, wild turkey, flaming dr peppers, etc.

out comes the race card–amazing
.
I still don’t understand what’s the big deal here. Obama’s has race issues. It’s obvious to anyone that looks at this objectively.

Neo,

Whether Gates acted stupidly or not does not change the fact that the cop acted stupidly. And the cop is an extension of the State and thus has a greater responsibility in this situation, right? Would you agree with that?

I don’t really have a problem with you adding attenuating circumstances to the cops behavior, but that really doesn’t change the fact that the cop acted stupidly and thus Obama’s statement was correct. Thus far neither you nor spoogy have offered up any new facts that have come to light that would negate Obama’s statement. Basically, your argument in the last post is that Obama should have chastised Gates. Well, fine I suppose, but that doesn’t let the cop off the hook.

Sgt. Crowley acted stupidly in arresting an upset citizen in his own home. Period. Full Stop.

Obama could have diffused the entire publicity of the situation with this simple statement:

“I find the arrest of Mr. Gates to have been unnecessary. I would hope that the charges are subsequently dropped. However, I also do not consider the conduct of Mr. Gates to have been productive or civil. I would hope that both parties can realize their mistakes and walk away from this unpleasant event. I will have no further comments on the matter.”

Case closed. No media frenzy. No publicity stunt at the White House. No ammo for anyone. The incident remains local, as it should, and it blows over.

Actually PD, Obama is half black and half white. Its a fact that seems to be largely overlooked by those like Spob who see dark skin color and assume it comes with a deeply ingrained bias against the melanin-deprived.

first of all, piper, you should address my criticisms of your post, moreover, I think I can take Obama at his word.
.
But since you ask, I will tell you. The issue is not Obama’s accusation that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly”, but rather Obama’s association of racial profiling with this incident, and he had zero idea about whether that was true or not. He also probably didn’t get just how abusive Gates was either.
.
His reaction here seemed a lot like his reaction to Jena. Looking at an incident through a racialist lens. But hey, he talks in terms of “typical white people”. I don’t expect much better.

piper1, it’s not full stop . . . .
.
given the vagaries of First Amendment law etc., we don’t expect cops to know the exact line between arrestable conduct and protected conduct
.
And I don’t think an arrest here, based on what I can tell, was justified. I also don’t think what Gates did was remotely justified either. Obama though linked all of this to racial profiling, which was, to put it mildly, nonsense.

Here is what everyone is overlooking. Sgt. Crowley did not act stupidly, he acted normally. While it is not illegal to be disrespectful to a police officer, anyone who has ever been involved in such a situation is well-aware that the officer will find a reason to arrest you, young, old, white, black, it matters not. I have many college friends who mouthed off to cops, crossed a line, and were slapped with some charge. It’s very common. No threats. No physical contact. And yes, on at least one occasion I recall it was on private property. This does not excuse the arrest, but this situation is so common that to accuse the arresting officer of racial profiling is absurd. It is even more absurd that such a routine incident has become nationalized with the President hosting a sit-down on the matter. Mr Gates knew where his behavior was leading. He welcomed such an arrest, no doubt. It only serves to further his profile and agenda.

by the way, anyone else catch the history-challenged Obama yapping about “Hirohito coming down to surrender to MacArthur”? This guy really doesn’t know much about history.

Congratulation on being the Featured Commentor on the main page. I was beginning to think rusty’s post was the 11th Commandment.

I am just a little disappointed that my MILFbilly comment didn’t make it though. ; )

Symbolically for a patriotic drink with two Cambridge guys, I’m thinking Samuel Adams.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/a-teachable-moment-and-a-beer/

spob,

No, I would not chalk of Obama’s initial response to the Gates matter as “racial bias”, I would chalk it up to personal experience.

As General Colin Powell so eloquently explained, it is doubtful that any African-American male over the age of 40 has not experienced some racial profiling.

As far as your comment comparing Obama to Trent Lott, that was trully trollish. Most Republicans are not has bad as Trent Lott. Lott was glorifying the days when African-Americans “knew their place” and put up with the crap in the old South. This was exemplied by the great hypocrite, Strom Thurmond who was impregnating black women while warning of the necessity of keeping black men away from white women. Well, African-Americans are not lighter skinned because of black men prowling on white women. Maybe you desire those “good” ole’ days.

As far as Lott, he typified what happened to the Republican party in the South. They became the party of former Dixiecrats, who were racist, but decided to join the Republican party who used race as an issue to rise in the South. When you look at Lott’s record of government largesse and bringing home the pork, eh, bacon home to Mississippi, he acted no different then the Liberals you so depise.

anon, not sure that matters . . . . how then did Obama proclaim himself inspired by the “white folks greed runs a world in need” racist nonsense?
.
In any event, he has issues. Not sure he should be trying to lead us on some national conversation.

I can’t but laugh at the wingnuts who are claiming that Obama is some type of “racist” because of his comments regarding the Gates matter. He never said Crowley was a racist. He commented that he thought the arrest was “stupid” and that Blacks are sensitive to racial profiling.

God forbid, Obama make any comment which makes reference that he is an African-American or that any experience he has reflects that. To the wingnuts, Blacks would not even think of racism, except for the “race hustlers” like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson (They maybe opportunists, but I digress). Wingnuts seem to long for the days when Blacks were “Happy Negroes” working away on the plantation, ready to say, “Ya, sir, boss!”

Glenn Beck’s comment is so laughable, immediately CONSERVATIVES condemned it as outrageous. “Obama hates White people. He hates White culture”. First of all, what the heck is “White” culture? Only Klansmen use such a ridiculous term. If someone can explain to me what “White” culture is please do. Of course, the Wingnuts would shout, “What is ‘Black’ culture?” Clearly that is reference to the African-American culture in the U.S., though it can not be easily defined as some would think. New York’s African American culture is as different from the culture of Blacks in L.A. as the overall culture of the East Coast is different from the West Coast.

The problem for Wingnuts, the minute an African-American or any minority speak up for their HUMAN (and not “civil”) rights, they are labelled a “racist”.

“The issue is not Obama’s accusation that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly”, but rather Obama’s association of racial profiling with this incident, and he had zero idea about whether that was true or not.”

Obama’s answer to Sweet’s question: “Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.” Did you catch that part?

“But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact,” Obama said.

Seriously, spooge, its just a fact. Sorry that you simply cannot deal with reality. One thing I like about President Obama- he will tell it how it is. His answer was impolitic, but accurate. Watching you and your ilk explode in your usual spasms of rage at a white police officer acting stupidly is really quite amusing. Would you be outraged if Master Limbaugh were arrested under similar circumstances by a black officer? Are you capable of seeing the irony in your stated outrage of police overreach in terms of Ruby Ridge and Waco vs. this incident?

“In any event, remember, we have a federal system, and Barack Obama doesn’t preside over the entire law enforcement system, just the federal system. Care to revise your comment?”

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/36-president-as-law-enforcer.html

Umm, no I don’t care to revise. Since you are incapable of reading and addressing what was actually written, I can’t say I’m surprised at your confusion. I didn’t say President Obama is Crowley’s direct commanding officer, genius. I said the President is the chief law enforcer, which is of course, accurate.

That’s really beside the point though, as obviously the Presidend can talk about whatever he chooses and frankly should try to answer direct questions honestly, as he did in this situation.

Were the President’s statement politically wise, probably not. Were they accurate, yes.

sacredh,

Thanks for the heads up. Can’t say I’m too proud replacing rusty’s comment, but I’ll take it.

spob,

Please enlighten us naive souls of the many, many cases where Obama was not even handed on race.

good God, FHM, Obama didn’t live the life of inner city guy getting rousted by cops–he’s got no personal experience with this.

piper 1,

I would have been happy to see ANYTHING replace it, but it’s good to see a rational comment make the cut.

Go easy on spob. The next 7 1/2 years are going to be rough on him. They might even seem longer to him than the Bush/Cheney years seemed to us.

In Waco and Ruby Ridge, innocent people were killed. Get that right, moron.
.
Second of all, moron, yeah, he said he didn’t know what role race played in it, but then he launched into a discussion of racial profiling. The implication was pretty clear.
.
The reality is that Obama has issues when it comes to race. His comments on Jena showed it.
.

I didn’t say President Obama is Crowley’s direct commanding officer, genius. I said the President is the chief law enforcer, which is of course, accurate.

Yeah, it’s accurate, but supremely besides the point, dummy.

“Obama could have diffused the entire publicity of the situation with this simple statement:

“I find the arrest of Mr. Gates to have been unnecessary. I would hope that the charges are subsequently dropped. However, I also do not consider the conduct of Mr. Gates to have been productive or civil. I would hope that both parties can realize their mistakes and walk away from this unpleasant event. I will have no further comments on the matter.”

Case closed. No media frenzy. No publicity stunt at the White House. No ammo for anyone. The incident remains local, as it should, and it blows over.”

With all due respect, Exiled, you have had plently to time to think about your response. President Obama had all of, oh, 10 seconds. . . . . . .

However, I do agree it would have been better if Obama would have said the matter was “unfortunate” and left it at that.

Oh you mean that Obama said he didn’t know whether race had anything to do with this before he learned that the police report claimed the caller saw 2 black men with back packs when the tapes proved she didn’t know the race and that it was possibly one Hispanic that might live there because there were suitcases? Are those the facts you are talking about?

fhm, his comments on Jena were appalling in their lack of sensitivity for the victim
,
his “rural America” nonsense
.
being inspired by a sermon which contained the racist tripe “white folks greed runs a world in need”
.
“that’s how white folks will do you”
.
Jeremiah Wright
.
His weird nonsense on interracial relationships.
.
That enough for you?

Spob, you are not talking about any one failing to argue properly, because you have yet to admit that you promoted false information on this site, based on a source you offered but didn’t bother to read first. You’re an azz and you proved it with your own website.

well, it’s really unfortunate–isn’t this the guy who pledged to lead us on a national conversation on race (of course, he felt the need to do that after his rural America diatribe went viral)? So what’s this guy giving a non-even-handed assessment of the situation? Huh?

Obama’s solution to share a beer together is a simple and neighborly way to diffuse the heated actions and expressions by all 3 involved. It’s a fact that we all react without thinking at times, which means we are more alike than we are different. Even though we don’t agree on what kind of beer to drink, we can enjoy drinking a cold one together on a hot summer evening.

well, Dee, Gates revised the tax returns of his “charity” PDQ, didn’t he? You’re the azz.
.
In any event, Dee, if a white politician ever said “typical black person”, you’d be trumpeting that as evidence of his racism forever. If a white politician said “urban America” and then proceeded to parrot stereotypes, you’d be yapping about “code words”.
.
I’m just asking for one standard. That’s it.

Hmm no racial problems with law enforcement in Massachusetts: A Boston cop has just lost his badge for calling Gates a racial slur.

I just saw a tape of 4 cops lying to place blame of an accident on an innocent woman instead of themselves because they were too stupid! to remember that they had a camera in their own car and got busted with their own ta[e.

Clearly I was right when I said there for some folks if it wasn’t for stupidity there would be no brain activity at all.

good God, FHM, Obama didn’t live the life of inner city guy getting rousted by cops–he’s got no personal experience with this.

good God, spob, the man worked for a number years in inner city of a place called CHICAGO, a place that Martin Luther King described as worse than any city in the south.

“In Waco and Ruby Ridge, innocent people were killed.”

And in this case an innocent person was merely arrested, instead of killed. Yet your outrage is with the victim here, whereas it was with the cops in the aforementioned cases.

Yeah, you’re real principled there spoogy. When do you declare victory?

“And in this case an innocent person was merely arrested, instead of killed. Yet your outrage is with the victim here, whereas it was with the cops in the aforementioned cases.”
.
You are stupid, Piper. Gates provoked the confrontation. That hardly makes him “innocent”. He’s not comparable to the woman shot at Ruby Ridge or the kids at Waco.
.
Moron.

For those who think racial profiling in all in someone’s head, when you a 5 foot 5 inch fat guy who is mistaken for a 6 foot 5 inch skinny guy, then we can talk. I can’t tell you the number of times I have met that description.

hey moron, he didn’t have any experience with it . . . . that others did is a different issue.

“Please enlighten us naive souls of the many, many cases where Obama was not even handed on race.”

For the sake of your own sanity, I implore you to not try to argue with racially aggrieved white males.

“He’s not comparable to the woman shot at Ruby Ridge or the kids at Waco.”

That’s true. The kids at Waco were murdered by their parents. Lunatic.

I get it. White cop, racist. End of story…

Way to look past race, Dee…

In nearly every post of yours, there are hints, if not explicit tones, of ethnocentricity. It’s very clear that you will always look to the color of a man’s skin, first, before choosing sides.

It doesn’t come anywhere close to the harrassment minorities endure, but when I had hair a foot below my shoulders I got tickets all the time when I got stopped and usually got ordered out of my car. After I started getting buzz cuts I’ve only got warnings and haven’t been asked to step outside my car even once.

If something as minor as hair length can make such a difference, are we really surprised that skin color makes a huge difference in treatment?

I’m a 6’3″ white guy with blue eyes. I know I get treated differently.

Michael Sherer, all sorts of people jumped to your defense when I called you out for letting your unconscious racial bias slip into the open. And it has become clear to me that anytime you try to tell someone they are being racially insensitive you are accused of calling someone a racist or playing the race card. But I am going to risk it one more time anyway and call you out for the language you chose to use. Whether or not you are aware, I hold you responsible because you should be aware. You are a white house correspondent and a journalists educated in America you should have come in contact during the course of that education, with the history of how black politicians have been portrayed as uncouth in the media throughout our history. Now whether or not you meant to draw on those historic references is up for debate, but there is no definition of this word that I can think of that doesn’t bring those hurtful images to mind:

Uncouth: ill-bred, ill-mannered, bad mannered, rude, crude, boorish, loutish, uncivilized, churlish, base, coarse, impolite, ignorant, rough, foul mouthed or lacking courtesy.

Am I missing anything that would change the image represented here?

Be a man and take a lesson from the man you just insulted and either apologize for misspeaking or acknowledge that the defense against your racial bias was obviously premature.

And it was actually very kind (and racially even-handed) of Obama to offer Sgt. Crowley a beer and suggest that he had only acted stupidly. False arrest usually carries more serious penalties and there is nor law on the MA books that allows for arresting a man in his own home for being too uppity.

And, yes, Sam Adams all around (Bud or worse, Bud Light, could only be the choice of someone who doesn’t like real beer and I say that as the grandson of a Bud distributor).

Clearly those claiming that Obama doesn’t have any experience with this neither read his memoir or weren’t paying attention to the press conference. Obviously, they didn’t notice the President paused to reflect what would happen to a black man breaking into his home in Chicago and the moment he realized that his flippant reference to getting shot breaking into the white house would also apply to a black man breaking into his home in Chicago.

And I noticed that there is absolutely no discussion about the falsehoods (oh let me stop acting like the media) the lies on the police report. The woman said nothing about race except maybe a Hispanic after she’s asked and says they might live their because of of the suitcases, and the police report lied because they didn’t talk to the woman, she didn’t say anything about two black men with backpacks.

Last time I checked it is a crime to make a false police report. If we’re going to be nation of laws we ought to start with law enforcement.

I would like to know who is paying for this foolishness. Are the American taxpayers footing the bill for these two men to come to the White House and have this beer? We can’t afford to pay for health care for children but we can buy beer for two men who acted foolishly and now need our president to resolve this issue. I have seen some waste of taxpayer dollars in my time, I hope this isn’t another example.

Dee

So you are suggesting that it is off-limits to describe the actions of any black person as uncouth, regardless of whether their conduct was nothing less than uncouth, because of hyper-sensitive connotations? Mr. Gates should not have been arrested, given that he was on his own property entitled to behave in any non-threatening manner that he chooses. However, now it is insensitive to call his behavior uncouth? He was rude, foul-mouthed, impolite, ignorant of the procedures, crude, etc. Just because in other contexts ‘uncouth’ could imply ill-bred or uncivilized does not nullify it’s other perfectly applicable definitions with regard to Mr. Gates’ rhetoric and behavior. When someone acts uncouth, it is perfectly correct to label those actions as such, regardless of the man’s race. Uncouth, almost unequivocally, does not pertain to one’s ethnicity. That you would attempt to stretch that definition is clearly an attempt to insert racial overtone where none exist.

You are aware that you constantly employ racial bias yourself in nearly all of your posts here, regardless of the topic? You are clearly a progressive liberal, yet you debate with your fellow progressives when they criticize Obama. Racial allegiance? You insert the American experience in your commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attempting to equate the two. They bear little resemblance, especially currently. Occupation. Apartheid. Human rights violations. These do not describe 21st century American society. And now, you refuse to even acknowledge that Gates acted inappropriately, regardless of the fact, which I agree with, that he was arrested improperly. Your entire perception is viewed through a racial prism, which is painfully obvious, and you inject race into every topic, no matter how irrelevant. You are perfectly free to do so, however, you are no position to criticize anyone in this regard.

I see that MS has served up more logorrheic twaddle. How can anyone not weep for America given the state of our discourse.

“You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your sh!t….

Or [they] put out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that’s what we’ve got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish…”

Taibbi, Matt

Here’s the crux of why we’ll never achieve much of anything. As Shep said yesterday, it’s not dem vs. repub. It’s progressive vs. conservative (or at their roots, socialist vs. fascist tendencies present in every society since the dawn of man). So, while we feel somehow validated by our hatred of the other(s) we construct for ourselves, repubs or dems, whites or blacks, immigrants or gays, in the end we’re fighting ghosts. The aristocrats who are in fact screwing us (the corporatists and their retainers on Cap-Hill) go unchallenged. B/C half the country, respectively, worships at this or that president’s altar. We’re so clouded by the team(s) we belong to that we fail to perceive the united efforts of the mofos in Tammany Hall pulling the puppet strings. And I got news for you–they are having a beer or a cognac, and they’re laughing at us, and how easily duped and manipulated we are.

And of course, given the epic fail of our press and schools, where in the world is there cause for optimism?

You are stupid, Piper . . . Moron.

Well, I guess that ends the discussion!

Welcome to tonight’s edition of “Lonesome Spooge’s Cracker Barrel,” where the elite meet to laugh themselves silly – or stupid – or moronic!

Neo,

Scherer’s “uncouth” comment referred to Obama’s response, not Gates’ conduct. That should alter your incredulity directed at Dee.

Boy, the righties are outraged over this. But here is where I think we really are with this one…..
.
http://archive.perfectduluthday.com/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

I suppose I feel a bit like an ass, although only slightly. My overall perception remains intact. Dee has taken great offense at any and all criticism of Obama, as if it is a personal slight. Dee has also found it impossible to utter any word of criticism of Mr. Gates, while making many allegations as to the impropriety, stupidity, and racism of Sgt. Crowley. The overall assertion made by Dee is that white people are blinded by racial bias, even subconscious bias, yet the same does not apply to minorities whose actions and rhetoric are solely based upon a history of subjugation. Sgt. Crowley, Michael Scherer, and white America at large will forever be subject to the ills of the past, carrying the burden of past sins of others. This is remarkably unfair. Yet individuals like Mr. Gates should be given a free pass to conduct themselves in any manner they see fit, racism included, simply because of historical wrongs. There is something horribly wrong with this mind-set, something that will perpetuate racial antagonization so long as it is an acceptable and prevalent American perspective.

[...] here for the rest of the story from the [...]

Neo: I suppose that you have not read my posts as carefully as perhaps you should if you are going to criticize them. Just as you missed that my comments referred to Obama, the comments that spoke on subconscious racial bias, began with the statement that we all have racial bias and more importantly it said that simply because someone had an unconscious racial bias did not make them a racist. I said that until we accept that about ourselves and talk to each other honestly and so that our experiences can be validated nothing would ever change.

Now yes,. I pointed out the racial component in the Israeli case, because race is about “other” Neo. I find it helpful when talking about foreign issues with my fellow Americans to use analogies that are closer to home so there will be no misunderstanding. If that makes you uncomfortable I’m sorry but it doesnt make it any less true. In many ways the middle east conflict is as much about race as it is about religion. Most Israelis are not religious Jews they are just ethnic Jews in struggle with ethnic Arabs so why shouldn’t I comment on the impact of tribalism isn’t it at the heart of their war.

Now do I speak about race in other instances? Absolutely, but the great majority of my comments critique the behaviors of the media and yes I question their motives and how they exploit race to drive controversy. Just as I did tonight. I think the GOP exploits our racial division for political gain and that has not abated since Nixon introduced the southern strategy — not my idea, didn’t Pat Buchanan just advocate to double down on that strategy once again just last week.

But I suppose the racial debate just began with me. What you ought to applaud and you didn’t seem to comment on is that I don’t just blame conservatives for exploiting race to gain a political objective. I am just as likely to point it out when I think Joe Klein does it or Mike Sherer, Conservatives or progressives. You say that I am a progressive liberal, when you are wrong. there are issues that I am very progressive on but other where I am not.

I am very pro military and pro-business, but at the same time I don’t believe that I can be so wedded to what is best for me and my corporate interests that I am willing to destroy my country in the process. I’m an American Neo and if I think someone is advocating positions that will make our reality worst I will call them on it.

Now yes, I am an advocate for Obama, but I am a student of history and I won’t let folks get away with holding him to an impossible standard. As an African American in the corporate world I know how easy it is for the bar upon which we will be judged to become perfection, an unattainable goal that we can never meet that time and time again sets us up for failure. Now I am a realist and as long as Obama is acting in good faith with his pledges I can live with the compromises that are a part of the reality of politics. You think my support of Obama is because of race. It was Clinton that brought me to Washington. What I won’t do is let everyone project every wish they have or have ever had on to Obama and when he can’t possibly be all things to all people that he is labeled a failure.

I know that Washington tends to reinvent reality for personal gain and I accept that this is what this town does. So I will continue to advocate for Obama just as you advocate for your positions. The difference between us is that I recognize that we are both entitled to our own opinions, but there are only one set of facts and in my professional capacity I just happened to know that the facts are not on your side..

A very thoughtful and civil reply, for that I thank you. I apologize, sincerely, if I offended you in any way. That was not my intention. It is simply my humble opinion that race is often injected into discussions that have little to do with race. For example, I am sure that Michael Scherer’s use of the word ‘uncouth’ had nothing to do with race and spoke more to an elementary and vulgar response to the incident. Referring to the arrest as ‘stupid’ is not exactly all that thoughtful, Obama should have chose more professional wording in his criticism and I am confident that was MS’s intent with such word choice. It is likely that Michael is not even aware, as I was not, that ‘uncouth’ has historically been a derogatory word leveled at black politicians. I use the word frequently in an entirely different context.
~
In any case, while I agree that we all harbor subconscious racial bias and stereotypes, that is not to say that every action and thought is inherently influenced by this underlying sentiment. People are certainly capable of avoiding such indulgences of the mind.
~
In the case of Mr Gates, what bothers me is that you and I are in agreement that his arrest was unwarranted, and yet you have avoided any criticism of his actions. You have deflected all blame onto the media, the neighbors, the cops, but naught a word about Mr. Gate’s unprovoked and ‘uncouth’ behavior. It is that such racial deference that bothers me, when people see things as purely black and white, no pun intended, without acknowledging that both parties involved made mistakes. I am willing to see the faults of both Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley, without holding fast to petty racial allegiances.
~
Finally, I am curious as to your implication, though, on the facts not being on my side. Initially the protocol on a potential B&E is to identify the individual. During this routine investigation of the home, Mr Gates refused to identify himself and immediately made wild and provocative allegations against Sgt. Crowley. His behavior was completely uncalled for. However, Sgt. Crowley upon finally learning that Mr. Gates was the property owner should have excused himself, ignored the insults and left. His arrest was a gross misreading of the law and it was justifiably dismissed. Now, I do not see how I am on the wrong side of the facts. I may reach a different analysis of the culpability involved, but I am informed as to the general event. Rather than making this out be a one-sided affair, I have the objectivity to appropriately hold each accountable for his failures.
~
Again, though, I appreciate your response and I sincerely hope to keep an open dialogue with you in the future.

Neo–

First let me start with a very sincere acceptance of your apology. And thank you for the opportunity to have a honest and meaningful dialogue with someone who while having different political views than my own, has expressed a desire to move beyond our traditional corners and reach for the greater clarity of common ground.

I can understand the reluctance of anyone to engage in any conversation where race becomes part of the discussion. Far too often well meaning individuals, regardless of race, have found themselves on the wrong side of a misunderstanding. However, I would look forward to continuing the discussion provided we can both agree from the outset to take as a given that the mention of race or racial bias is not in anyway an accusation of intention nor a judgment on individual character.

Frankly, I think one of the toughest obstacles preventing racial harmony is our inability to say to one another honestly, something with racial overtones has been said or done and it has wounded me. For example, you brought up that Sherer may have not known about the history of black politician’s and the term uncouth. And you’re absolutely right he may not have had any idea of the historical relevance. However, it is equally true, that regardless of what he meant, the statement still hurt my feelings.

Now, I am willing to accept that he didn’t mean to be offensive, and if he had chosen to say he meant no offense once he learned why his words were hurtful, I would have gladly accepted that on face value. However, I think you can agree that it is not wrong for me to bring this to his attention. Especially since as a reporter covering a historic figure, the historical context is one he should have already been aware of if he had planned to do his job effectively — but I digress.

In any event, I am willing to stipulate that Sherer’s inadvertent racial insensitivity, doesn’t make him a racist provided you will stipulate that telling him about his racial insensitivity doesn’t make me an accuser.

Now, I suppose some people will ask if the alleged insult was so obviously unintentional why bring it up at all? And the truth is, I do let many if the little daily dings go by everyday. You asserted that my posts often refer to subconscious bias and you may be right. I won’t deny that I often take the media to task for relying on stereotypes rather than questioning their assumptions and sometimes those lazy little short cuts are based on race. Should I let them have a pass — I don’t think so, because too often they allow bias to masquerade for convention and they allow it to shape narratives and perceptions and then perpetuate those biases under the umbrella of conventional wisdom.

After I heard Obama give his speech on race in Philadelphia, I began to think that maybe I shouldn’t just let these little dings pass. Maybe the mistake is expecting 400 years worth of hurt to just vanish, without ever having heard someone say we’re sorry or ever having someone hear our pain. I thought about South Africa and Rwanda and realized the key to getting passed their ethnic tribalism was giving the hurt and the hurtful an opportunity to face each other, hear each other, and validate each other’s realities before putting them to rest and moving on.

After Obama won the primary I had hope that maybe if we began hearing each other we could also put this to rest and move on. I don’t suppose whites relish the role of villain any more than blacks yearn to be cast as victims. So I stopped letting things pass. But I don’t accuse people of being racist, I illustrate how the words and actions of others can be viewed by many who share my experience. Now, does that mean just because I see the actions of others through a prism of racial bias that this must be the reality? Of course not! But it doesn’t mean its not true either. And dialogue is the only way we will ever learn how to tell the difference.

Now, as for Mike, maybe sometimes he doesn’t know the power of his words and perhaps I hold him to a higher standard than I would the average Joe. But frankly, he should know better. I would expect a reporter of any race, covering a historic subject, would have done enough basic research to put his subject into context. I would think he would have at least read the stories and seen the cartoons depicting blacks entering the capital as a completely boorish lot, whether it was during his college years or the cliff version during the campaign.

As to my alleged unqualified support of Gates. Well that had very little to do with race. In fact, it had more to do with my expertise in group dynamics. My defense of Gates comes from the same place as yours — police overreach. However, it doesn’t matter to me why the cop overreacted, he gets trained and paid not to overreact. My real concern was the false reporting from the group, both police and media. The willingness to tear this country in two just to hide mistakes and the real possibility that it would happen again because no one in the media was questioning the voracity of those making accusations. Our media, fresh off a year of recriminations for being asleep at the switch for the last eight years. A media, virtually silent while the constitution is shredded in the name of security, our national morality is sacrificed on the alter of expediency and lies are provided to justify war. To me Gates’ behavior was not only irrelevant, it was little more than another shiny object getting in the way of the real story. The story of the failure of those we trust to hold themselves to the minimum standards expected from rest of us. If we are going to be a nation of laws, then law enforcement must must be the first and most ardent supporters of those laws, regardless of the behaviors of others.

We may never see eye to eye on this event and that’s okay because good people can agree to disagree. However, at the end of the day if we can learn something that allows us to walk in another’s shoes it would be worth it. If one child in the next generation to come could never feel less than because of their race it would be worth it, if one person of good intention could live without the fear of being destroyed by an honest mistake, it would be worth it. And lastly, while we can never know where this will lead in the end, I can say with certainty that as long as there are those who will judge through a prism of race there will be those who will use our racial distrust for political and financial gain. Perhaps, if more good people can have these kinds of conversations and come to a place of understanding on both sides, we can take a weapon out of the hands of those with ill will.

[...] Scherer says that while everyone has hit their marks in the great beer debate — “The microbrewers declare their preference for beer with taste. The nativists point out the foreign ownership of Bud. The [...]

Good post Dee. The discussion between you and Exile has been interesting.

After reading a good bit of the fodder written this morning I only have two comments:

1) Who died and left “Dee” in charge?

2) After reading a good bit of “Dee’s” postings I beieve she has serious issues, maybe Mommy and Daddy didn’t show her enough love.

Well reasoned and perfectly rational sentiments. However, at the risk of appearing to speak past you I would like to paint a different caricature of racial interactions in America, please do not interpret this as a challenge or refutation of your analysis, but merely as the other side of the coin.
~
The predominant factor that induces hostility in such discussions involving race, at least in my specific case, is sweeping generalizations. That is to say, indictments based on historical race relations. We both agree that most people’s perceptions are colored, if sometimes only slightly, by subconscious racial bias. This is nearly unavoidable, and racial deference is bound to influence one’s perspective on occasion. However, while stereotypical perceptions are difficult to avoid, there is often more than mere racial bias involved. As a young person I am wholly unfamiliar, in personal experience, with injustices such as segregation, voting rights denial, and sweeping police brutality. These are a thing of the past. For a million Americans, this history is only something we have read about. And while it is relatively recent and no one expects those who endured it to ignore their scars, I often ponder why I should bear any burden for sins committed before I was born? Most white Americans today played no role in the institutionalized racism of the 20th century, we cannot be held accountable for those actions. For hundreds of years white America was an oppressor, and the wounds are still fresh for older generations, however, I am innocent in this strife. Yet, for many I am still a symbol of oppression, merely because of my race. This is what has alienated so many millions of Americans from taking more sympathetic views of the sensitivities of the black community, because so little care is taken to consider how we, the new generation of Americans, played no role in past racial injustices. The mindset becomes one of apathy, because if we are to be portrayed as oppressors why should we care about sensitivities in matters as simple as word-choice? My point is simply this: for the black community to attain wholehearted sensitivity on racial discourse, it must first be able to distinguish between two strikingly different generations among the white community. I am not implying that all or even most cannot see this distinguishing element, however, all to often the most vocal on matters of race ignore this crucial point when addressing or referring to white America.

I assure you Dee’s statements command more respect than yours do, whether they’re agreed with or not. Shove it, Kirby.

IMHO, Dee isn’t in charge. None of us are. What Dee provides is a window into a world that non-minorities have never had to deal with. Rascism can be overt or it can be subtle. If we never have had to deal with either, we can’t honestly know what it’s like to be a victim of prejudice.

I think that many of Dee’s posts come from a lifetime of experience that are foriegn to our (white) way of looking at the world. I’ve disagreed with Dee in the past and don’t necessarily agree with everything she writes, but then again, I’ve never had to deal with issues that minorities confront just about everyday.

If a police cruiser came tearing into my driveway my first thought would be that someone in my family had been involved in an accident and that they were going to give me bad news. It would never occur to me that my safety was in jeopardy. Same country, different worlds.

[...] Source Share and Enjoy: [...]

Very well put “sacredh” . It is not “Dee’s” message that I am at odds with, it is her delivery “piper1″. Command of Intellect is not a license to be condescending. I apoligize to everyone for my immature rant. I was definitely being “Old Testament”

Not to belittle what minorities endure, and certainly not to put my own experiences on an equal ground as those suffered by minorities, but there are many situations in which prejudices and bigotry affect non-minority Americans. As a New Yorker, Italian and Catholic, moving to the mountains of Western North Carolina was very difficult. I had more than my share of unwarranted encounters with aggressive local cops. Pulled over on a weekly basis for months. Baseless searches of my vehicle. Fictitious tickets for traffic violations I did not commit. Pure harassment. A clear message was sent that my family were outsiders, unwelcome in rural Western Carlina. These things passed, however, with time and now things are relatively normal. However, it is rare that a family member visits and is not pulled over somewhere in NC or VA…Gotta love those NY plates. My point is simply that regional and cultural divides in America are the cause of much animosity and result is varying degrees of harassment and abuse of the law. While clearly the superior factor, racial bias is not always the cause of police abuse.

“What Dee provides is a window into a world that non-minorities have never had to deal with.”

It’s as though having the experience of being a minority or woman might give “wisdom” that could never be had by a white male.

George Bush must be kicking himself over this missed opportunity.

The one “qualification” Americans saw in him, but it’s Obama who actually delivered.

Did Barack just out-Bush Bush???

sherherdwong,

When the controversy first broke about the “wise Latina woman” comment, I thought it was a complete non-issue. Of course she would bring a viewpoint that was different from that of a white male. If she couldn’t be more sympathetic and understanding toward discrimination faced by women and minorities then she would have been a terrible choice.

When and if we ever get to the point that sex, race, ethnicity and religion (or no religion) aren’t factors, then the phrase “freedom and justice for all” might be more than just something that Superman might say.

Good point. As you alluded to, the ultimate irony of Bush winning the “guy we’d like to have a beer with contest” is that Bush himself is a recovering alcoholic/ dry drunk and thus would not be able to partake in said beer.

spob,

Colin Powell talked about being profiled, why would you think that Obama would be spared he experience? African-American lawyers, doctors, athletes and celebrities haves stories of being profiled.

Two sides have to participate in a dialog. You obviously note problems with Obama’s approach to race. Do you see any issues for those on the Conservative side of the aisle?

I think Bush would win now if the contest was changed to “The President you’d most like to break a beer bottle over their head”.

I meant no condescension, so I apologize for my failure to communicate without giving anyone that impression. Sacred and Piper thanks for the defense.

Neo, I recognize that younger people, including younger minorities may have a different experience from me. And I am the first one to agree that your experience being different, doesn’t make it any less valid, or important for all of us to understand. However, you should know that its not a position that has gone unexplored. A number of whites, some even far older than you, have expressed their dismay at being unfairly burdened by the the sins of others. Now, I can’t say that you have no right to feel that way. However, I would hope that you would also acknowledge that while you may be unfairly burdened by what has transpired before your birth, there is also a privilege or benefit you now receive as a result of those actions.

For some, it may be as simple as never having to worry that your dreams will be limited by things beyond your control. As a white person in America you are raised believing the sky is the limit — As Chris Rock noted when you are black you learn quickly that the limit is the sky. Whether you are talking about the benefit to whites from privileges we were denied in the past or benefits derived from the subtle transgressions still happening everyday.

Now Neo, none of this is your fault, you are not responsible for my perceptions or anyone elses. However, as a fellow traveler I would hope you could understand that the fault does not lie with me either and that Having to always consider if race is a factor in the outcomes I face is equally unfair and burdensome to me.

When you’re discriminated against because you’re fat you can lose weight.
When its long hair you can get a barber
When it’s being an outsider you can move
When its your name you can change
If its religion you can leave it
Hey even if you’re Gay, we know it ain’t fun but you can hide it.
but when you’re black you either take it or fight and run the risk of everyone thinking you faked it.

Now I will stipulate that being judged based on criteria beyond your control sucks. I know plenty of black folks who would love not to be asked to explain what’s wrong with black folks whenever they are the only one in a room. They would love not to receive those looks when some other black person does something heinous. And we wish that we didn’t feel like Obama’s success or failure will determine whether another black person will ever again gets a chance at leadership.

So let’s use this opportunity to get understand each other’s points of view. Invent a new drinking game and hope this ends up being a learnable moment for us all.

[...] Scherer på Time analyserar vidare: The next step is obvious: Everyone jumps on board. The microbrewers declare their preference for [...]

[...] finally, a little light branding piece from Time on the focus of what kind of beer will be served at the White House beer summit, earlier this week. [...]