Jane Fonda Endorses Obama
[Guest post by DRJ]
In what the LA Times’ Top of the Ticket blog admits may be a “less desirable” endorsement, Jane Fonda told photographers yesterday that she is voting for Barack Obama for President:
“Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.
But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, “Who are you going to vote for?”
There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, “Obama!” Then she got into a car and drove away.”
As the Times’ blogger Andrew Malcolm notes, this endorsement probably won’t help Obama lure crossover Republican voters away from McCain.
— DRJ
What, has Mike Gravel officially dropped out?
JVW (0b3fa7) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:04 pmHuh… I figured he’s be pulling for Ho Chi Minh… But Obama will do in a pinch, I suppose…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:12 pmIn her youth, Jane Fonda was a devastatingly beautiful and breathtakingly sexy actress. She became quite a good actress, at least as good and probably better than her brother or their famous and iconic father.
Her looks, career status, and pedigree were enablers for her transformation into the easiest to mock, easiest to hate hard-core violent radical leftist in America.
She and Ted Turner — another icon, another celebrity, another radical, and now in their elder years far more of a kook and a crank than she is — have been married since 1991. By Hollywood standards, that makes their marriage a remarkable success, just for its longevity.
I despise what she did, and her for doing it, during her anti-war protesting. As a conservative, I’m grateful to her for continuing to provide a living cliché whom we from the right can mock, to our own considerable and continuing amusement. Notwithstanding all that, of all of the Hollywood celebrities, she’d actually be on my “top 10” list of ones I’d like to have dinner and a serious conversation with, because I do think she’s much deeper, and much more interesting, than her superficial image.
And I freely confess that every time I watch “Klute,” “Barefoot in the Park,” or even the deliciously trashy “Barbarella,” I’m smitten with her all over again. Two or three nights ago, I watched “Cat Ballou” from start to finish, and thoroughly enjoyed her performance and, well, just watching her.
Beldar (c7d2f9) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:07 pmDid anyone hear about the three others who endorsed Obama today?:
– Eliot Spitzer
– Amy Winehouse
– Fred Phelps
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:14 pmThat superficial image handed over to the VC a note a POW was trying to smuggle back to the states.
Maybe it’s because I’m only 29, and thus don’t recall her glory days as a sex-goddess. But my dad served in Vietnam, and while he was never a POW, its really easy to put him in the place of the poor soldier who was certainly beaten without end because of one mistake on his part.
His mistake? Thinking he could trust an American to help him.
Jane fonda can burst into flames and die a horrible, slow death. Then she can come back to life, only to fall down a well and die.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:18 pmDude, April Fool’s day was Tuesday…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:19 pmActually Fred Phelps probably is an Obama supporter. He used to be a major and legit democrat (Al Gore held fundraisers in Fred’s home) and Fred was involved with … even received awards from… the NAACP.
He’s too crazy to be associated with Obama; even Rev. Wright can’t hold a candle to this crazy, but Fred probably doesn’t mind Obama as much as the other candidates. Hell, Obama is even linked to gay-bashers.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:49 pmOh, one more thing: Jane Fonda is a selfish monster… I hate her assisting communists and criticizing our POWS… but the story that Jane Fonda passed POW notes to their captors is probably a fabrication. Google it and you will fin d a lot more evidence that it’s fake than you will find that it’s true.
I hate to defend Jane Fonda… believe me I don’t give a crap that she was an attractive person… she made a fortune in the capitalist system and helped murder those who defended her way of life by creating propaganda favoring a system that killed tens of millions of innocent people (communism of that variety in general). But that particular story about Fonda and the notes has been debunked.
I’d be pissed if someone said Mccain had a black lovechild again, and it’s only fair to expect accuracy on my side too.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:57 pmCan’t Jane go pose for some photos with al Qaeda?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/2/2008 @ 10:37 pmThat, tonight, shall be my dream…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/2/2008 @ 10:41 pmI’m reminded of a Bill Hicks routine:
Russell (5ecf4a) — 4/2/2008 @ 10:49 pmApparently, old habits die hard. She still has her sights trained on an American serviceman.
Also, much as I respect Beldar, I can’t agree that she is a better actress than her father. She has several good performances under her belt, but some very painful ones, too (Electric Horseman, anyone?). And, while Henry Fonda was always utterly natural, Jane is in many ways the female Jack Lemmon: mostly enjoyable, often believable, but many times letting the gears show.
fat tony (85b8bb) — 4/2/2008 @ 11:01 pmTony has a point… you usually knew you were watching a moviestar when you watched Jane Fonda… she wanted you to know who she was. That’s not really the kind of acting I like.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 4/3/2008 @ 12:47 amShe was Hanoi Jane when Sen. McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton.
The way our men in service were treated and portrayed in that war should shame anyone with a conscience. That leaves out the radical leftists.
Sen. Obama has intentionally sought out and embraced the most radical left fringe elements of our society. He has the furthest left voting record. (the attempted whitewash of this…that it only appears to be so far left based upon selective voting and final bills coming down “either or” so you vote party line…is a canard. every other Senator has the exact same issue…and they STILL…ALL fall to the right of him BASED ON THEIR VOTING RECORDS)
Sen. Obama sought out and PARKED for 20 years, a radical, militant, angry, socialist, radical left black church and preacher to be his mentor, advisor and spiritual guide. This church lionizes Louis Farrakhan, a radical, militant, anti-America provocateur with some bizarre fringe beliefs. Sen. Obama put Farrakhan followers in his highest staff positions at his local office.
Sen. Obama sought out angry fringe leftists and was comfortable in the company of Ayers and Dorhn, urban terrorists who show not only no remorse for their violence…but remain openly contemptuous of America, then and now.
Sen. Obama has filled up his staffing posts with radicals who bring radical signs and posters to hang in their offices, glorifying murdering radical leftists.
From Gore to Kerry to Obama, the Democrats are going left, lefter, leftist. Not since McGovern has there been a candidate more open to promoting radical leftist and militant, fringe ideals.
To Sen. Obama and Michelle…America is lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful, something to not be proud of…filled with typical white people…you know, the whole echo chamber songbook from the radical leftist playbill.
The militant left also now takes an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish twist…and lo and behold, there is Sen. Obama courting the Dhimmy Jimmy wing of the Democratic Party…embracing the Samantha Power, Brzezinski, Malley, Anthony Lake, McPeak…Walt-Mearsheimer mentality on “Jewish influence” and the righteousness of Palestinian terrorist groups.
The signs that he is “play-acting a role” in order to get elected…are there for all to see. He is acting the part of a “uniter”, a “healer”, a centrist who brings ideas together from both sides….but…that’s not what his closest inner circle thinks.
His University of Chicago advisor, Austan Goolsbee and the Canadians seem to believe that Sen. Obama was just posturing and maneuvering.
Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama believed that the Rev. might have to be “hidden away”, because the Rev. put things on his Pastor’s Page advancing the support for Hamas, the notion that Israel created a secret bomb that was intended to kill blacks and Arabs, that Israel was in cahoots with White Supremacists in South Africa to build a dirty bomb, that the white man was the devil.
If Sen. Obama had PLANNED to create the illusion of “distance” from his “uncle Jeremiah”…then his mens rea at that time is an obviously premeditated act.
It is this illusion of distance, with the wink and the nod to his radical fringe base, that is most disturbing. Who is being played here? The people he is winking to…or the people he is playing to?
The answer is between the lines and between the sheets. Who is he in bed with? Literally and figuratively? What are their views? What do his past votes look like? His positions?
ALL signs point to a person on the furthest reaches of radical leftism. Well outside the gravitational pull leftward of the Democratic base in general. He will talk with any enemy head of state, because he is so practiced in embracing enemies of state at home.
Is there any wonder that Hanoi Jane finds him her ideal candidate?
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/3/2008 @ 12:47 amFonda and Turner divorced in 2001.
ROA (dfea95) — 4/3/2008 @ 5:42 am
Nothing says unitey hopey changey and reaching across the aisle better that Jane Fonda. Well, maybe Rosie.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/3/2008 @ 5:46 amNever watched her movies, never will.
Hazy (c36902) — 4/3/2008 @ 6:07 am“She became quite a good actress, at least as good and probably better than her brother or their famous and iconic father.”
HERESY!
Henry Fonda had more acting skill in a single follicle than Jane Fonda could ever hope to have in her whole body. What did Jane ever do that compares to Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men, Failsafe, or the Ox-Bow Incident?
Barbarella is one of the worst, most unwatchable movies ever made. Even if Jane had been full-frontal naked thru half the damn thing, it would still be wretched.
gp (72be5d) — 4/3/2008 @ 6:26 amIf you haven’t seen Barbarella, let me sum it up for you: a bunch of Euro-poofters prance thru 27 costume changes, with lots of fur and feathers. That’s it. Oh, and Jane flashes a half-second of nipple during the opening credits to lure unsuspecting hetero men into watching the whole thing, hoping to see more, which they won’t.
I’d rate The China Syndrome as Jane’s best movie, but it isn’t in the same league with Henry’s best.
And the world would be a far far better place if Peter had never gone near a camera.
gp (72be5d) — 4/3/2008 @ 7:16 amJane famously inspected anti-aircraft guns used to shoot down McCain!
Wesson (785f2a) — 4/3/2008 @ 7:28 amActualy, my favorite Jane Fonda film was “House of The Rising Sun”, in which she was type cast as a hooker in New Orleans.
barsinister (3b1790) — 4/3/2008 @ 7:37 amThis comment will make me smile all day… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/3/2008 @ 7:46 amBeldar:
All fixed, now. Still technically true, by Hollywood standards, but a bit less impressive nonetheless.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/3/2008 @ 8:15 amBeldar, they divorced in 2001. Granted, 10 years is a marathon by Hollywood marriage standards.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/3/2008 @ 8:30 amcertainly less impressive.
Especially since Turner is a very loud gasbag who happens to be a rich old man, and Jane is a typically “sexy” girl who married the money.
Not impressive by any stretch whatsoever, though I admit Jane Fonda is probably a lot more intelligent than the average anti-war sex-pot, that just made her efforts better thought out to inflict greater harm on our POWs, Vets, etc.
Sincerely, she should have endorsed Hillary if she wanted to help Obama… The idea of Mccain being shot down and tortured, while Obama is supported by the infamous Benedict Arnold of the 20th century… not a nice comparison for Obama.
The press is trying like mad to cast all of Mccain’s life story as an old crazy man blathering, but it’s an amazing story, an exciting story, and something people want to hear. I think that brush aside is just going to fall right on its face.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 4/3/2008 @ 8:32 am“To Sen. Obama and Michelle…America is lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”
-cfcbleachers
Assuming that they believe any of those things (which you’d be hard pressed to prove, although I’m sure you couldn’t care less), maybe they’re right. I certainly have days where I believe those things (although I have days where I believe just the opposite).
That said, America is my country, my home. I haven’t given up on it, and I want to do whatever I can to correct what I believe to be shameful behavior in the future.
Don’t know why I’m putting this out in the open. I must be in a pensive mood.
Let the spit-flecked character assassination begin.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 4/3/2008 @ 8:41 amAssuming that they believe any of those things (which you’d be hard pressed to prove, although I’m sure you couldn’t care less),
Do you need the quotes? I can only assume they believe them…because that’s what they said. Now maybe you know them better than I, but this seems to be the “conversation” taking place in their world and it seems to reflect their worldview.
maybe they’re right. I certainly have days where I believe those things (although I have days where I believe just the opposite).
Which day is today?
I don’t see my country in that way, on any day. I don’t even see my countrymen as a whole in that way. To the extent it exists, at all…it is not reflective of who we are, as a nation, as a people or as any particular subset of such.
It is a mean spirited caricature, designed to impose guilt, shame, humiliation, and timid behavior aimed at a certain class of Americans.
This caricature is a leftist creation and a propaganda tool used as a hammer and anvil to pound a particular mindset into shape.
That said, America is my country, my home. I haven’t given up on it, and I want to do whatever I can to correct what I believe to be shameful behavior in the future.
That’s very noble of you. I see shameful behavior too. I don’t want to correct it as much as shine a light on it. The shameful behavior I see is highlighted by the propaganda, lies and deceit from the left. Right up to sedition and treason. The shameful behavior I see is the slander told about my country and my countrymen by people who reside here, but have no allegiance to us as a country or to our nation.
You don’t want the bulge and spittle crowd, but you begin with a premise that I won’t care about the facts. Like most leftists, there are no mirrors in your glass house, apparently.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/3/2008 @ 8:59 am“I certainly have days where I believe feel those things (although I have days where I believe feel just the opposite).”
Fixed that for you.
Do you believe _anything_?
gp (72be5d) — 4/3/2008 @ 9:18 amSen. Obama has intentionally sought out and embraced the most radical left fringe elements of our society. He has the furthest left voting record. (the attempted whitewash of this…that it only appears to be so far left based upon selective voting and final bills coming down “either or” so you vote party line…is a canard. every other Senator has the exact same issue…and they STILL…ALL fall to the right of him BASED ON THEIR VOTING RECORDS)
Aw, come on, man. Y’all are still trying to make him into some kind of frothing lunatic. First of all, I still think you can’t get a good judge of Obama based on voting records for three years in the senate, one of which was during heavy campaigning; second, where are these voting records? Who’s doing the ratings? Lets dig into them.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 4/3/2008 @ 9:20 amRussell:
Votes don’t count when a candidate is campaigning? Is that some kind of Kings-X rule?
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/3/2008 @ 9:23 amYou are correct on being unable to judge, but for the wrong reason…
Yuo can’t get a sense of the man, because most of his votes are “present” non-votes, or no vote at ALL. Mainly so you CAN’T tell where he sits on issues. He did the same thing on a BUNCH of stuff in the State Senate too…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/3/2008 @ 9:27 am“First of all, I still think you can’t get a good judge of Obama based on voting records for three years in the senate, one of which was during heavy campaigning;”
If this were true, then why is he running for POTUS? With this reasoning, he should be in the Senate for what, 3, 4, 5 more years in order for his voting record to actually reflect what he thinks and feels about the issues he is voting on!
Oy.
Dana (c357bf) — 4/3/2008 @ 9:32 amDana, you missed the point. We’re supposed to worship the Obamessiah, not judge his political record. Why delay the second coming just to build up a longer political record we aren’t supposed to rely on anyway? He’s transcended that stuff, remember?
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/3/2008 @ 10:25 amAw, come on, man. Y’all are still trying to make him into some kind of frothing lunatic.
Russell, what is your definition of a frothing lunatic? Does David Duke qualify? How about Rev. Wright? Noam Chomsky? Louis Farrakhan?
I think fringe element, race baiting, class warfare inciting, paranoid, delusional lunatics are a bad influence. Since we “can’t know” what his leadership stances are because of his thin resume’, then we have to extrapolate from what we do know.
First of all, I still think you can’t get a good judge of Obama based on voting records for three years in the senate, one of which was during heavy campaigning;
Perhaps not. But again…I can see and hear what those closest to him do and say. Their worldview MUST, of necessity, be within his comfort zone, or they would not be his closest advisors and mentors.
You simply cannot ask people to completely ignore his inner circle and his voting record…and ask them to narrowly focus on campaign rhetoric. That’s an inane way to vote.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/3/2008 @ 10:56 amAnd yet you think he is qualified to be President? Good allah, this is painful.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/3/2008 @ 11:19 am“Right up to sedition and treason”
– cfbleachers
Ack. Gimme a break. People these days throw those words around like candy at a Fourth of July parade.
“You don’t want the bulge and spittle crowd, but you begin with a premise that I won’t care about the facts. Like most leftists, there are no mirrors in your glass house, apparently.”
– cfbleachers
What “facts”? My whole point is that there are no “facts” here; there are perceptions based off sound bytes, or nothing. You’re drawing conclusions about things that can’t be proved one way or another, barring some sort of confession.
With that in mind: what do you think the Obamas would say if you asked them if they thought that “America is lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”? I bet they’d say they didn’t think any of those things about America. Would you believe them?
““I certainly have days where I
believefeel those things (although I have days where Ibelievefeel just the opposite).”Fixed that for you.
Do you believe _anything_?”
– gp
Do I “believe” anything? Ummm… yes. Look at my original post, before your ill-advised editorial stunt. You don’t get to tell me that my beliefs are “feelings” just because you don’t like them, especially since cogent arguments can be made either way.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 4/3/2008 @ 11:34 amIf your “beliefs” are something that changes from day to day, as you admit in your sentence, before I edited it, then your definition of “belief” is different from that we use here on Earth. What you have are vacillating ambivalences, not beliefs.
Michelle Obama declared in a campaign speech that America was “mean.” BHO wrote in one of his (two!) autobiographies about “white men’s greed.”
gp (72be5d) — 4/3/2008 @ 11:55 amWhat I meant by this is that calling him the “most liberal member of the Senate EVAR!!!1!” doesn’t amount to much. He does have a much more extensive record in the Illinois house, and we can get into that.
Perhaps not. But again…I can see and hear what those closest to him do and say. Their worldview MUST, of necessity, be within his comfort zone, or they would not be his closest advisors and mentors.
So, let’s discuss those advisers. We’ve got Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman, Daniel Tarullo, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Preeta Bansal, Samantha Power, Tony Lake, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Jason Grumet, Howard Learner, Frank Loy, David Cutler, David Blumenthal, Stuart Altman, Laurence Tribe, Charles Ogletree, and Cass Sunstein. Personally, I haven’t heard of most of them. Let’s check them out and see how crazy leftist they are.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 4/3/2008 @ 12:07 pmNobody is saying that he is the most liberal EVAH! Nice strawman. It is fair to point out that when he bothered to vote, or found an issue that was important enough to actually vote on, his record was the most liberal in the Senate.
Had he not chosen to run for President as soon as he was elected to the Senate, maybe he would have more of a record that might serve to moderate his Leftist tendencies. His choice, not ours. His lack of experience does not give him a pass on his Leftist leanings.
Samantha Powers – monster.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/3/2008 @ 12:16 pmHe was equally marginalized there, whether it’s the 1996 voter survey he’s now dissembling about, his opposition to the wildly popular state law that preempts criminal prosecution under local gun bans for otherwise lawful self-defense, his total opposition to even the mildest restrictions on abortion (including killing off the lucky few who survive them), and just about everything he’s done in between. His rating last year as the single most liberal Senator is not an aberration, just the last example of a long pattern of being consistently far left.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/3/2008 @ 12:46 pmThe American Thinker can do this much better than I can.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/3/2008 @ 1:21 pm“If your “beliefs” are something that changes from day to day, as you admit in your sentence, before I edited it, then your definition of “belief” is different from that we use here on Earth. What you have are vacillating ambivalences, not beliefs.”
– gp
be.lief (noun)
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
3. confidence; faith; trust
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith
Does anything in any of those definitions indicate that “beliefs” are static, as you seem so eager to … well, to believe (in the “not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof” sense of the word)? Pray tell, gp: what definition of the word do “we” use here on Earth, because it’s not particularly obvious to me from a brief perusal of the Earthling Dictionary.
The way I see it, you can either show me something to prove my misuse of the word, OR you can admit your silly semantic objection was bullshit (and, consequently, that Leftists can indeed have “beliefs” – as much as it may offend your sensibilities), OR you can change your original objection to something legitimate, like “Make up your mind, indecisive fence-straddler”.
If you choose option three, I’ll give you a straight answer; I don’t like the idea that I’m indecisive anymore than the next kid.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 4/3/2008 @ 1:37 pmOK, Leviticus, you made a believer out of me!
I’m all out of spittle now.
gp (b7b196) — 4/3/2008 @ 2:39 pmHey, Jesse Ventura has “beliefs” too. He believes that 9-11 was a setup. He’s a troofer!
Jane Fonda, Jesse Ventura…it’s great formulating your opinions from Barbarella and Barbellilla.
Being a fringe loony allows life to be so much more interesting than reality.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/3/2008 @ 4:27 pmgp:
Your main objection seems to be to my indecision on the matter of America’s merits, and I can understand that objection (even if you went about making it in a stupid way).
Here’s some Decision, on my part: America is “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful” because many (if not most) Americans are “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”, or some lesser combination thereof (and in varying degrees).
There. Decision.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/4/2008 @ 7:50 amThat’s what I believe, most (if not all) the time.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/4/2008 @ 7:51 ammost *of*
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/4/2008 @ 7:51 amHere’s some Decision, on my part: America is “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful” because many (if not most) Americans are “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”, or some lesser combination thereof (and in varying degrees).
Who is not?
nk (34c5da) — 4/4/2008 @ 8:07 amAnd there lies the difference between a liberal and well, everyone else.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/4/2008 @ 8:21 am“Who is not?”
– nk
I agree. For my part, I’m mean, wasteful, “racist” (in the sense that I’m not colorblind, though I believe in judging people as individuals), and occasionally lazy.
Pablo may pretend that I’m the one being self-righteous in this conversation, but cfbleachers and gp are the ones who believe that America (and Americans, presumably) aren’t “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”; the fact is, Americans are human, and humans are (in large part, with inspirational exceptions) all of those things and more.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/4/2008 @ 8:39 amHere’s some Decision, on my part: America is “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful” because many (if not most) Americans are “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”, or some lesser combination thereof (and in varying degrees).
There. Decision.
Well…then it appears you at long last have found the right candidate for you.
You simply, at long last…have not found the right country for you.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/4/2008 @ 8:41 amGreedy and somewhat wasteful, maybe. As for the rest, I highly disagree and I’d simply offer America itself as evidence. It is, after all, the populace that makes it what it is.
That isn’t being self righteous, it’s just being observant.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/4/2008 @ 9:07 am“Greedy and somewhat wasteful, maybe. As for the rest, I highly disagree and I’d simply offer America itself as evidence. It is, after all, the populace that makes it what it is.”
– Pablo
I agree that the populace makes the country what it is; I think maybe we interact with different segments of the populace.
Insofar as “Lazy” goes, you may argue that Americans are an industrious, productive people… which is more or less true, but I’d argue that they are other, more sinister kinds of laziness than the physical variety (intellectual laziness, for instance, of which I see a disconcerting amount day-to-day).
I’d actually agree that most Americans aren’t “slothful” in any generally accepted sense of the word. I just left it in to preserve the original context of the point which we were debating.
From my perspective, “Mean” is about a 50/50 split when it comes to the propriety of the adjective. To be fair, that may be skewed by the fact that much of my interaction is with high school/college kids, whom I’d imagine are one of the meaner segments of the populace.
“Racist”, in any strong sense, might be unfair as well, although I do believe that most of America is “racist” in the same way I applied the term to myself (i.e. not colorblind, but nevertheless judging individuals based on individual merit).
I think “warmongering” is readily applicable; I’m sure you disagree, but methinks neither of us is going to sway the other on this one.
“Greedy”… I think most Americans are actually less greedy than the rest of the world makes them out to be – insofar as greed is the pursuit of wealth for its own sake, and Americans tend to pursue wealth for the sake of autonomy – but I think the label still applies.
“Wasteful” is probably the most applicable adjective on the list. Two words: bottled water.
///
I meant what I said in my original post, about having genuine affection for this country (and for my state, in particular). However, I knew it would be dishonest of me to say that I disagreed with the whole list of adjectives that cfbleachers put forth. Perhaps I should’ve only partially agreed (as you can see from this post), but I hate feeling like I’ve done anything half-way, and I wanted there to be no doubt as to whether or not I was willing to pass judgement on my own countrymen.
Leviticus (43095b) — 4/4/2008 @ 9:40 amWow, a person who treats people equally regardless of their skin color but isn’t completely color blind is racist? That’s an incredibly high standard to hold people to.
By their actions you will know them. If someone doesn’t discriminate in his actions, then he’s not a racist.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/4/2008 @ 10:02 amThat is quite an incredibly expansive view of racism. Falls in line with the Left’s view that disagreement on policy positions is racist.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/4/2008 @ 10:21 amIsn’t bottled water an affectation of the urbane, generally, liberal, sophisticate?
Out in fly-over country, people just drink from the tap.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/4/2008 @ 11:06 amHere’s some Decision, on my part: America is “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful” because many (if not most) Americans are “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”, or some lesser combination thereof (and in varying degrees).
Many, if not most, Americans are lazy:
Americans work longest hours among industrialized countries, Japanese second longest. Europeans work less Time
Americans are intellectually lazy:
Most Educated Countries In The World
Rank – Country – Percentage of Population
1 – Canada – 44.0
2 – United States – 38.4
3 – Japan – 37.4
4 – Sweden – 33.4
5 – Finland – 33.3
6 – Denmark – 31.9
7 – Australia – 31.3
8 – Norway – 31.0
9 – New Zealand – 30.9
10 – Korea, South – 29.5
Congratulations on being the top ten smartest nations!
Numbers indicate the Percentage of Population aged 25-64 that have attained a tertiary level of education (OECD Countries).
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007.
Many, if not most, Americans are greedy.
All the figures are from the November/December issue of Foreign Policy, not yet on-line.
The U.S. is a very clear first with $28.4 billion a year sent to other countries. The bottom line: when it comes to other nations, the United States is the most generous country in the world.
Not included….Mexicans working in the United States send back home $20 billion every year. This sum is twice the value of Mexico’s agricultural exports, and over a third more than tourist revenue.
Many, if not most, Americans are wasteful.
Today, the US recycles about 28% of its waste, the EPA says, a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years.
Recycling of specific materials has grown even more drastically: 42% of all paper, 40% of all plastic soft drink bottles, 55% of all aluminium beer and soft drink cans, 57% of all steel packaging, and 52% of all major appliances are now recycled.
I simply see a different country from the leftists.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/4/2008 @ 11:23 amGood stats. cfbleachers.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/4/2008 @ 12:00 pmSomeone, I think, is suffering from a major case of projection.
“Wow, a person who treats people equally regardless of their skin color but isn’t completely color blind is racist? That’s an incredibly high standard to hold people to.”
– Steverino
They’re “racist”, not Racist. You may think I’m splitting hairs, but I put the word in quotes for a reason: too many people (on the Left, in particular) are too loose with the term, to the point that you’d have to be completely colorblind not to be a “racist”, in their eyes… and, as you said, that’s an essentially impossible standard.
If you’d been following the course of this discussion, you’d know that I applied the term (in quotes) to myself… but I don’t think of myself (or anyone else that I know) as a Racist just because I notice the color of another individual’s skin.
I was making the same point that you’re making now, I think; I guess I wasn’t explicit enough.
Leviticus (430769) — 4/4/2008 @ 12:37 pmI reject your premise that you must be completely colorblind in order to not be racist.
Noticing a physical difference between people isn’t racist. Treating people unfairly because of their skin color is racist.
You aren’t splitting hairs, you are labelling as racist people who have never done anything wrong.
I have been following the course of the discussion, and it’s a little insulting of you to presume that I hadn’t. Here’s what you said:
So, clearly, you are holding the rest of the country up to that standard.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:08 pm“Americans work longest hours among industrialized countries, Japanese second longest. Europeans work less Time”
– cfbleachers
…Okay. What’s your point? I explicitly said the same thing in my own post, with the provision that I had more sinister forms of laziness in mind.
“Most Educated Countries In The World
Rank – Country – Percentage of Population
1 – Canada – 44.0
2 – United States – 38.4
3 – Japan – 37.4
4 – Sweden – 33.4
5 – Finland – 33.3
6 – Denmark – 31.9
7 – Australia – 31.3
8 – Norway – 31.0
9 – New Zealand – 30.9
10 – Korea, South – 29.5
Congratulations on being the top ten smartest nations!”
– cfbleachers
Oooh, good point! Because no one with a college degree could possibly be intellectually lazy! Right!
“The U.S. is a very clear first with $28.4 billion a year sent to other countries. The bottom line: when it comes to other nations, the United States is the most generous country in the world.”
– cfbleachers
In terms of GNI (gross national income), US aid has almost always been lower than every other industrialized nation in the world (about 0.17% of GNI), even though the dollar amount is highest… although we’ve moved up to second-to-last place since 2004, surpassing Greece in terms of national generosity.
“Today, the US recycles about 28% of its waste, the EPA says, a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years.”
– cfbleachers
The US produces 232 million tons of municipal solid waste per year, with a population of 300 million people. That’s approximately 4/5 of a ton of waste per person per year.
The UK produces 29 million tons of municipal solid waste per year, with a population of 60 million people. That’s approximately 1/2 of a ton of waste per person per year.
That means an individual in the US produces almost twice as much waste per year as an individual in the UK.
And the UK recycles 41.8% of its waste.
Believe whatever you want.
Leviticus (430769) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:13 pmI believe in my countrymen..you slam them. I find ways to show we are trying, you denigrate them. I find things to be proud of in my country, you bash it.
Believe whatever YOU want. I just don’t understand why you live here, if so many other places are so much better. Travel is easy and employment opportunities abound elsewhere.
If you hate us all so much, why suffer? This is not a “love it or leave it” question…as much as a “why?” question.
Do you have a better methodology of measuring “laziness”, slothfulness, greed, …they’re all undeserved and unproven allegations. I put forth some statistics and facts to show why. You stick to your name calling and puerile responses.
Again, you are surrounded by racist, greedy, lazy, slothful, intellectually lazy, mean, people …and it is so much better elsewhere…why haven’t you packed your bags and joined your intellectual and behavioral equals?
Where would you go? Because you sure aren’t invested in your countrymen or their reputation. You seem to enjoy it being sullied.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:22 pmSteverino:
Sorry that I insulted you. I made an unfair assumption.
“Noticing a physical difference between people isn’t racist. Treating people unfairly because of their skin color is racist.”
– Steverino
Yes. I agree.
I said that most of America was “racist” in the same way I was “racist” (“racist” being the popular Democratic term for “not colorblind”). I also said that I didn’t consider myself Racist at all. The logical extension of that is that I don’t consider most of America Racist at all.
I’m not holding the rest of my country up to the Standard of Colorblindness because I don’t hold myself up to the Standard of Colorblindness. Like you, I believe that racism comes from treating people unfairly based on the color of their skin, rather than simply noting that the color of their skin is different from yours.
Sorry, once again. I haven’t been particularly clear on this point.
Leviticus (430769) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:23 pmStop calling it “racist” vs. “Racist”. Words mean things, and “racist” does NOT mean noticing the physical differences between people.
You’ve painted yourself into a corner with this argument, and you’re unwilling to concede that you painted with too broad a brush.
Look, if you saw a woman and said, “Hey, she’s got blonde hair,” there would be nothing at all wrong with that. But if you said, “Blonde women are stupid,” that would be a bigoted remark. In the same line, noticing that a man is black is NOT racist. Refusing to speak to him simply because he is black IS racist.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:26 pm“I believe in my countrymen..you slam them. I find ways to show we are trying, you denigrate them. I find things to be proud of in my country, you bash it.”
– cfbleachers
You stick your head in the sand in the name of patriotism, I don’t.
“I just don’t understand why you live here, if so many other places are so much better”
-cfbleachers
I suppose I should give you props for restraining yourself as long as you did… but I suppose this question was inevitable, as a consequence of your self-righeousness.
You wanna know why I live here? Here’s my answer: I love it here. It’s my home.
“I put forth some statistics and facts to show why. You stick to your name calling and puerile responses.”
– cfbleachers
What? What “name calling” are you referring to? What “puerile responses”? I put forth “some statistics and facts”, same as you.
Yeesh.
Leviticus (430769) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:31 pm“You’ve painted yourself into a corner with this argument, and you’re unwilling to concede that you painted with too broad a brush.”
– Steverino
No, you’re right. I painted with too broad a brush. I think there’s a case to be made for differentiating between the true meaning of a word and the generally percieved meaning/use of that word, but in this context that differentiation was little more than tap-dancing on my part. I was wrong to say that America was racist, and I should’ve just admitted it right off the bat. I wouldn’t want anyone to apply the term to me, regardless of quotation marks or capitalization, simply because I noticed individual skin color. In the same vein, I shouldn’t apply the term to America, regardless of quotation marks or capitalization.
Racist is a strong enough term that someone’s conduct should be abusive/discriminatory enough to warrant its application. I shouldn’t have bandied it about.
Leviticus (430769) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:38 pmWhat? What “name calling” are you referring to?
Here’s some Decision, on my part: America is “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful” because many (if not most) Americans are “lazy, slothful, mean, racist, warmongering, greedy, wasteful”, or some lesser combination thereof (and in varying degrees).
What “puerile responses”
Oooh, good point! Because no one with a college degree could possibly be intellectually lazy! Right!
You stick your head in the sand in the name of patriotism, I don’t.
What do you do, in the name of patriotism? Anything?
From all I can see…you slam your country, slam your countrymen…then SAY you love it here. Funny way of showing it, that.
As for sticking my head in the sand, I prefer to think that I rather enjoy who my countrymen are and find nothing comforting in the constant lambasting they take from the left. If that’s patriotism, then I’m guilty.
If your brand was all that was left of my countrymen, I’d be ashamed to call myself one. I think we take enough slander from our enemies propaganda machines, it sickens me that we take it even moreso from our own.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:53 pmWell said, Leviticus #66.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/4/2008 @ 1:54 pm“What do you do, in the name of patriotism? Anything?”
– cfbleachers
I think.
“From all I can see…you slam your country, slam your countrymen…then SAY you love it here. Funny way of showing it, that.”
– cfbleachers
I don’t have to love my countrymen to love my country. Where I come from, love and respect are earned, not handed out willy-nilly in the spirit of nationalist camaraderie.
“As for sticking my head in the sand, I prefer to think that I rather enjoy who my countrymen are and find nothing comforting in the constant lambasting they take from the left.”
– cfbleachers
You don’t have to find it “comforting”; you think I was “comfortable” writing those things about America. I wasn’t. It was extremely unsettling, but it was honest (except perhaps in the case I’ve been arguing with Steverino). Sometimes you have do go outside your comfort zone in the name of catharsis.
“If your brand was all that was left of my countrymen, I’d be ashamed to call myself one. I think we take enough slander from our enemies propaganda machines, it sickens me that we take it even moreso from our own.”
– cfbleachers
Whatever. I won’t pretend to know what your “brand” is (insofar as I know nothing about you), so I’ve got no biting response to that.
I will say that getting a CFbleachers Ostrich Award isn’t exactly my top priority at this point in time. If you can’t distinguish between constructive criticism and terrorist propaganda, and are nonetheless willing to (mis)apply those labels… well, that’s your problem.
Leviticus (a4045e) — 4/4/2008 @ 2:57 pmDRJ:
Thanks. That’s the second or third time I’ve explicitly admitted I was wrong on this site (which isn’t to say that it’s only the second or third time I’ve actually been wrong, only that it’s the second or third time that I’ve known I was wrong so clearly, in hindsight, as to admit such and make amends).
It always sucks to admit you’re wrong (particularly when you’re heavily vested in a position), but sometimes you’ve gotta do it to keep yourself grounded in the realm of argumentative honesty. It was easier in this case precisely because I wasn’t heavily vested in my position. I only included the whole “racism” angle so as to touch on all the points cfbleachers attributed to the Obamas. I knew there was something wrong with my position as soon as I saw it posted, but it took a little back-and-forth for me to figure out what was specifically wrong with it, and to admit said wrongdoing.
Leviticus (a4045e) — 4/4/2008 @ 3:07 pm#70, life gets a lot easier when one masters the fine art of admitting a wrongdoing. Why, I’ve had so much experience I can do it in my sleep now.
Good on you.
Dana (fba430) — 4/4/2008 @ 3:16 pmIf you can’t distinguish between constructive criticism and terrorist propaganda, and are nonetheless willing to (mis)apply those labels…
Whatever is constructive about labeling an entire country as mean, slothful, racist, lazy, wasteful, …it seems not at all constructive to me, but destructive. And untrue to boot.
And, if you can’t see the similarities between leftist talking points and how they are adopted and interchangeable with those of sworn enemies, then the problem, I suspect is not with me.
I don’t have to love my countrymen to love my country. Where I come from, love and respect are earned, not handed out willy-nilly in the spirit of nationalist camaraderie.
Really? Hmmm. Where I come from, friends and family are accorded a special place in each other’s hearts, thoughts and prayers. We stand up for one another and we don’t go out of our way to slam one another. We don’t always agree and there are consequences for bad behavior, but our starting point is always one of love and honor.
We also start with the presumption each is a good person… and love and respect are a given, until proven otherwise.
I feel badly that you have been encased in an environment where you all are presumed not worthy of love and respect until somehow you pass a litmus test. (I have seen how that played out with Joe Lieberman and the Kos Kidz though).
You see the country as filled with rotten apples and they need your “constructive” slander to become worthy of your litmus tests.
I see it filled with good and decent people, who take a ton of undeserved garbage simply because they don’t chant in unison from a leftist echo chamber songbook.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/4/2008 @ 3:36 pmWho cares who Hanoi Jane endorses? Was she not jailed for treason or something? I thought an ex con lost their right to vote.
Mark David (305459) — 4/23/2008 @ 7:04 pm