17
Trashing people who have no real power = political courage
Yet, with just a few words, Mr. Clinton’s “Sister Souljah moment” showed that he was willing to take on the party’s sacred cows and speak candidly to even the most entrenched party constituencies. The effect was palpable; in the words of one Philadelphia working-class voter, “the day he told off” Jesse Jackson “is the day he got my vote.”
(Indeed, just yesterday, Barack Obama had his own mini- “Souljah moment” as he decried the epidemic of fatherlessness and illegitimacy among black Americans. While it is a message that Mr. Obama has voiced before to other black audiences, speaking unpleasant truths about issues afflicting the black community may provide political benefit for a candidate whom some working-class white voters are suspicious of — just as it did for Clinton 16 years ago.)
It’s amazing but true: if you’re a politician in this country, attacking obscure rappers and deadbeat fathers is seen as a symbol of political courage.
This isn’t an endorsement of deadbeat fathers, by the way; I’ll leave those sorts of shenanigans to Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser. I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
The Truth™²³®© said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:22
I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Look at how profitable BOMBING people like that is. (As long as they live in other countries, of course.)
Not that the NYT would approve of bombing poor brown people who don’t worship the right FSM.
Brain Hertz said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:24
..although I must say I’ve had a hard time squaring the reports about Obama “decrying black fathers” with listening to what he actually said. Maybe I’m just not hearing it the same…
EdsAppliance said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:34
I don’t know about you, but I always follow the Flavor Flav voting guide.
SpotWeld said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:36
I think it’s fair to say that the term “Sister Souljah moment” , as far as politics goes, has become a term like “proactive” and “self-actualized” which have become overused to the point of meaninglessness, but is implemented by people so ignorant they will say anything to sound like they have some sort of clue what they are talking about.
Douglas Watts said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:36
Bloggers should be put in jail until they stop bloggering.
a different brad said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:37
Me, I’m trying to figure out how Obama addressing a problem in his community is equal to a white politician attacking a more or less random black musician to show how Clinton wouldn’t have helped Willie Horton scare whitey.
Deadbeat Fathers said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:38
It’s the bitch’s fault.
White Deadbeat Fathers said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:39
We don’t exist, you know.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:39
Let’s take a gander at this article.
“The greatest thing Bill Clinton ever did for the Democrats was to betray their loyal special-interests to target Republicans scared of the darkies.”
I mean, I don’t know, maybe Michael Cohen is a clever and wise man, but he basically sounds like he thinks the best thing Obama could do is to look like a triangulating center-right Republican moderate like that woman the Republicans wanted to run for President, and for McCain to then decry his special interests, lure a bunch of idiots in the Democratic party so he can latter fuck them over for his special interests.
Frankly, I don’t like the sound of it.
Joe Max said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:40
I dunno, I haven’t seen the whole speech, but the bits I saw from the Chicago newspaper didn’t play up that angle much at all. Obama spoke about personal responsibility of fathers, but it was Father’s Day after all, and so it’s not a meme he’s deliberately pushing (yet, anyway.) He talked about a lot of other subjects too. I think Cohen is walking away with too big of an impression of one facet of the speech. What I read of Obama’s remarks didn’t seem to be nearly as controversial as Bill Cosby’s incessant punditry on the subject.
It was certainly no “Sistah Soldiah” moment. Barrack’s already had that – his denouncement of Wright’s speeches.
Douglas Watts said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:43
What I like is the bizarre implication that deadbeat dads are a “black” problem. Ever been to a trailer park in Sabbatus, Maine ?
Oliver's Neck said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:45
I’m waiting for a “Chuck D” moment in American politics.
breaking north, like…
Douglas Watts said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:48
Not to get all sociological on y’all, but most deadbeat dads are deadbeat dads because their dads were deadbeat dads and their dads were deadbeat dads. If you scratch a deadbeat dad you’ll often find a guy who is still pretty fucked up about his dad not being around. Not all the time, but quite often in my experience.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:51
Douglas Watts:
Pfft, everyone knows sociology and psychology is hokum! Deadbeat dads are deadbeat because they’re evil and morally destitute. And possibly communists.
Leonard Pierce said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:51
I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Hi! We’re Palestinians!
Douglas Watts said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:55
Pfft, everyone knows sociology and psychology is hokum! Deadbeat dads are deadbeat because they’re evil and morally destitute. And possibly communists.
And definitely black.
Smut Clyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:58
Completely OT… but the next time that our hosts create a ‘Shorter’, and the readers call them a pack of pedantic pillocks for including the scholarly attribution to D. Davies (because everyone understands the Shorter convention and its origins by now), then they can claim vindication in this thread where someone abjectly fails to grasp the concept. Hilarity ensues.
johnbinpt said,
June 17, 2008 at 7:21
Personally, I object to the abuse of cows, sacred or otherwise. Be nice to the cows!
disinterested observer said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:02
Smut Clyde’s link is très intéressant as they say over in my part of the world, but the source is even more interesting – http://neoneocon.com/2008/06/16/hey-whitey-dont-be-insulted/
This looks like a group of people who should be subjected to regular scrutiny from Sadly No’s highly paid expert staff.
My favourite comment over there: “The fact that our universities are teaching nonsense like that (gender studies, I think) to people like Michelle Obama is the reason jobs are being shipped overseas.”
dcs said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:25
I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Hi! We’re Palestinians!
Seriously. Or Jews, Gypsies, gays, Native Americans, women, the poor, Communists (in the West), blacks…
It’s not my favorite phenomenon, but when has it not been profitable?
justme said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:48
Snort
Smut, I’m so very happy that my mouth was empty while reading that.
Mister DNA said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:52
When Bill Clinton denounced Sistah Souljah, the first thing I did was seek out some of her music. I wasn’t impressed.
I wish he would have instead denounced Paris, so I could have been introduced to his stuff a lot sooner.
Personally, I’d like to see Obama offer up a firm denouncement of the current batch of gangsta rappers – qualifying his harsh words with, “these suckers will never be as good as Wu Tang or the Geto Boys”.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 8:57
If Obama has to denounce the current crop of ‘gangsta rappers’ for something, can he do it because the motherfuckers aren’t gangsta anymore?
I swear to God, if I see one more rapper with a necklace or bracelet worth more than the GNP of their original cities, singing about a street life most of them haven’t seen a speck of since they got signed, I’m gonna scream.
noen said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:21
Take a look at Steve O’Hearn’s blog at the National Press Club. Man O man it’s getting ugly. Steve just can’t understand why anyone would object to Larry Sinclair speaking at the NPC. Even Jeff Gannon makes an appearance in the comments:
Let’s see, the speech police of the Left are deciding who can avail themselves of First Amendment freedoms and who should “shut up.”
scythia said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:35
disinterested o, I can top you:
Beware the Rhor Shark!
One who is aware of all Internet Traditions said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:39
I seriously doubt that Chuck Norris is capable of sneezing with his eyes open.
Before making claims to anyone’s “base” (whatever that may be), please make sure your claim to said base is grammatically correct. “All your base are belong to us” sounds like it belongs in a poorly-translated Japanese video game, not in a serious discussion about Internet Traditions.
And why on earth would a cat want a “cheezburger”[sic]?
23 Skidoo, suckers.
noen said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:48
Laugh out Loud.
Mister DNA said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:56
There’s some rich stuff in the comments over there. My favorite thus far comes from Patty:
Actually, I think it speaks only four words in Patty’s mind: Bongoman is probably black.
Master of all internet traditions said,
June 17, 2008 at 9:59
noen, please refrain from using incomplete sentences, the correct usage is “I’m laughing out loud”.
The phrase “laugh out loud” is just a sentence fragment, and thus could never be an internet tradition.
Also, please refrain from using acronyms.
Doctorb said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:03
There is only one internet. Why do you people keep referring to “teh (sic) internets”?
Also, I’m pretty sure that Leon Trotsky is dead.
Michael Harrington said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:06
So, does Obama have to have a Rickey Ray Rector moment like Clinton did, too? Can he just pop any random guy on the street, or would taking pom pons to the next execution suffice?
These unwritten rules are so damned tricky…
Michael Harrington said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:08
In re the late Mr. Davidovich: If he wasn’t, having Kristol and Perle claim descent from him would surely kill him with shame.
This is a Fox News™ Breaking Report on Internet Traditions said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:16
What is the media saying about these random characters being inserted into internet messages? Are they “smileys”? Emoticons? Or secret messages to terrorists?
Granted, if you tilt your head to the left, a colon and a parenthesis does slightly resemble a smiley face, but from any angle, it also resembles an overhead view of the Twin Towers flanked by an Islamofascist crescent moon.
Some people are saying it’s time to crack down on these coded messages.
Red said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:48
Michael Harrington:
I’d rather he had a Rudy Ray Moore moment, myself.
bago said,
June 17, 2008 at 10:56
Moo motherfucker.
El Cid said,
June 17, 2008 at 11:55
If you read the cited NYT blog post carefully, the writer seems to be under the impression that such anti-base courage by Bill Clinton strengthened the party.
In reality, just 2 years after the awesome, doubleplus great good 1992 “Sister Souljah” moment, the Democrats went on to lose Congress from 1994 – 2006 along with the entire national agenda, accompanied by huge losses of state & local governments, which led directly to the Clinton impeachment and the Bush Jr. triumvirate.
So, um, maybe the “Sister Souljah” moment was what that writer wanted to see, but it’s hardly some high water mark for Democratic Party ascendancy
What you’re reading is the pure, factually unpolluted stream of non-consciousness from the collective establishment news media mind — the ones whose advice, when followed, tends to lead to such disasters for liberalism & the nation.
I don’t think that Obama’s speech on fatherhood — given also that it was given in an African American church on Father’s Day — was anything at all like a “Sister Souljah” moment except for freakishly anti-developed minds like the quoted writer.
klyde said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:31
Me, I’m trying to figure out how Obama addressing a problem in his community is equal to a white politician attacking a more or less random black musician to show how Clinton wouldn’t have helped Willie Horton scare whitey.
Exactly a different brad
Major Woody said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:47
I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
I find it quite hard to understand how our pundits, who wield significant political and economic clout, are ready to cheer on any politician with the audacity to come down on those who do not. Of course, if you say that maybe the rich maybe should possibly pay something approaching their fair share of taxes, you’re guilty of class warfare, nay, class terrorism!
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:55
Whoa.
1. Read the entire speech, he didn’t just go after African-Americans or poor African-Americans.
2. Read up on the effects of “deadbeat parents.” They have an enormous economic/sociological/political impact.
3. Given the high numbers of WATBs in this country, telling people “Hey, take responsibility for your actions,” is an act of political courage.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 17, 2008 at 13:21
Also love the implication that deadbeat dad who takes a dump on their family is somehow an entrenched Democratic constituency. Because as we all know Republicans treat their families really well.
Ted Stevens said,
June 17, 2008 at 13:46
Stop defiling the traditions of the series of tubes!
Magda Carter said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:20
i watched the whole thing and he didn’t call anyone a trollop. And he praised up single mothers. he said deadbeat dads were a problem everywhere and too much of a problem in the black community.
Racist. Racist AND Sexist. Unfit to be POTUS.
baldheadeddork said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:27
It’s amazing but true: if you’re a politician in this country, attacking obscure rappers and deadbeat fathers is seen as a symbol of political courage.
This isn’t an endorsement of deadbeat fathers, by the way; I’ll leave those sorts of shenanigans to Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser. I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Deadbeat fathers have a hell of a lot more economic clout than the families they abandoned.
Is that too difficult to grasp? Jesus….
Anne Laurie said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:29
If you scratch a deadbeat dad you’ll often find a guy who is still pretty fucked up about his dad not being around.
Well, yeah, but some mope in a trailer park who can’t figure out how to provide the parental nuturing he never knew & can’t afford to buy substitutes for such nurturing is a threat to Western Civilization. On the other hand, a rich man’s son who’s too busy polishing his political resume (ambassador to China, CIA head, VPOTUS) to notice that his *own* eldest kid is “progressing” from torturing frogs to torturing fellow frat members to torturing whole nations… *that* man is a Very Serious Person, and one can’t expect Serious People to waste their beautiful minds on babysitting detail, eh?
J— said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:35
Off topic but of pressing concern.
I blame the Muslims who are the power behind the Dearborn city council, for if you control one city council, you control them all.
It is a sad day for the Republic when an Islamofascist terrorist can file a writ of habeas corpus but a man can’t moon his wife in a parking lot.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:44
Would that be the same as a pressed ham?
LittlePig said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:45
full natal cleavage
Ah yes, the rarely seen sequel to Full Metal Jacket. I can see where showing that without copyright compensation might get one into hot water.
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 14:51
If you scratch a deadbeat dad you’ll often find a guy who is still pretty fucked up about his dad not being around.
I firmly believe that one of the best things that a person can do in this world is to not have children. I’m not saying it’s always bad to have children, just that far, far too many do and should not. There should be some sort of tax benefit for not procreating.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 15:03
There are so many variations on the theme of deadbeat/absent parent (not the same thing). Is it better to have a dad who lays on the couch in a drunken stupor while mom goes to work? How about a dad who is fun and groovy and takes you cool places but never coughs up a penny for child support? How about a dad who works all the time, pays for your upkeep but never ever talks to you? Let’s not even get into the 31 flavors of abuse.
There are so many ways a parent can fuck up that I think the vast majority of people who have kids could claim their fuck ups were learned by example. To which I say: Tough shit. Get over it.
Maybe if society stopped sending out fucked up messages (”Egads! Single mom, stone her!” “Oh, you don’t want to waste money on your kid? No worries.”) and setting low bars for kids from single parents families? Let people know that if they have a kid and skip off (and yes, women do it too) they’ll be hunted down and shaken over a bucket until money to care for the child falls out. Oh, and I guess it helps if people know where babies come from before they’re old enough make them.
Yes I’m rambling. I just can’t believe we’re still having a national debate over whether personal responsibility is a good thing or not.
LittlePig said,
June 17, 2008 at 15:12
I just can’t believe we’re still having a national debate over whether personal responsibility is a good thing or not.
After eight years of Republican rule? With the its-not-my-fault Kristols, Brooks, Goldbergs and Norquists given lavish sums of money to promote their (lack of) values?
I don’t find it surprising in the least.
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 15:24
ZOMG!!!
A reasonably literate, somewhat principled conservative!
If you had told me in 1992 that I would come to treasure George Will I would have laughed in your face.
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 15:27
Wrong thread and I’ve been beaten to the punch.
Bugger ‘tawl
(Yes, I do listen to the Smiths)
WereBear said,
June 17, 2008 at 15:37
one of the best things that a person can do in this world is to not have children
I agree that it’s one of those things we should do well… or not at all.
Doofus said,
June 17, 2008 at 15:59
What the fuck is “Bill Clinton’s Sistah Soulja” moment, anyways? Can anyone even explain what the hell that was?
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:00
I agree that it’s one of those things we should do well… or not at all.
Yeah, but the trouble goes beyond deadbeat parents who don’t put enough effort into it. My parents tried to be the best parents ever by sealing us off in a fundie cult like the Texas polygamists. That’s no good. I’ve talked to other kids who grew up in really bizarre hippie commune environments and that can also screw with you. Then you see the “my child will only ever eat organic foods from Whole Foods and never be exposed to the filthy breath of the poor” types.
If you have serious doubts about your ability to raise children, you probably shouldn’t; if you think you can do better than anyone else, you also probably shouldn’t. Damned if I know where the middle is.
El Cid said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:02
pedestrian: 1 man-made pearl found in a fountain of manure from George F. Will does not a “treasure” make.
Christopher said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:03
I dunno Brad, I think it’s high time somebody had the courage to stand up and say, “I’m against those things that everybody hates!”
Oooh, Neoneocon is an angry ex-liberal. Let’s enjoy the no-doubt uplifting tale of her conversion to neoconnery:
Boy that sounds familiar. Yet another person driven to madness by the liberal tradition of political dinner parties. Apparently you guys have them all the time, but I’ve never been invited. It hurts, you know.
You guys better start sending me some invitations, before I send a manuscript off to Regnery. I’m just crazy enough to do it.
National Dairy Council said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:03
Every cow is sacred. Every udder is great.
Mister DNA said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:04
Here ya go, Doofus.
Linnaeus said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:05
I’ve long thought that Sister Souljah was nothing more than a Public Enemy hanger-on. That said, the whole “moment” back in 1992 was based on a misinterpretation of what she said. She could have phrased it better, but she was not advocating what she was accused of advocating. The “Sister Souljah moment” concept has gotten so ingrained in the American political psyche that it’s been divorced from its original context and few seem to remember what that was.
pedestrian said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:14
Boy that sounds familiar. Yet another person driven to madness by the liberal tradition of political dinner parties. Apparently you guys have them all the time, but I’ve never been invited. It hurts, you know.
They are staged events, akin to a murder mystery dinner theater. If you have a closeted Republican friend, I could recommend a great acting troupe.
Linnaeus said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:16
Well, to be fair, she’s done quite a bit of activism, so I shouldn’t say “nothing more”.
g said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:22
It’s a fine example of the subtle racism still evident in ths country that the whole “Sister Souljah” thing is being evoked. Obama’s speech has nothing in common with the Sister Souljah thing – it’s only that he’s black.
themann1086 said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:37
Psh, what would Barack Obama know about absentee fathers? He’s too elitist to know what normal people go through!
javafascist said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:38
Obama’s BLACK?!?!?
javafascist said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:40
Christopher, I had to stop having my liberal dinner parties because Ann Althouse kept showing up and drinking all the wine while talking about herself. Now we just have keggers in the woods.
tigrismus said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:48
Psh, what would Barack Obama know about absentee fathers? He’s too elitist to know what normal people go through!
SNERK!
SamFromUtah said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:52
There should be some sort of tax benefit for not procreating.
As a recipient of the Golden Snip, I’m right there with you. In the short term I’d be happy enough just if there were no stigma associated with opting not to have kids.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 17, 2008 at 16:56
The racist sexist parenthetical graf isn’t the only thing wrong with this piece:
Yeah, to about 1982. Perfect opportunity to excise the stupid and unnecessary bracketed shit, but it’s still there. Paid by the word?
The link? To another Times article dated four days ago. One that spent most of it’s time talking about Nixon and Bush. Clinton get one graf and here’s how the most influential campaign speech of the last two decades is described
How influential was the Sister Souljah moment? Well even though it was a long long time ago, perhaps it had something to do with how well Hillary did with the black vote in this The Great Primary War. Some people are still steamed about it. But nutjobs that dress like robots are clearly crazy, it’s not like there are any serious folks who might think the same thing. Anyways, back in 1992, there certainly was no resentment caused by the Sister Souljah moment.
The biggest effect from the Sister Souljah moment is the effect on political writing, where no campaign is complete without a Sister Souljah moment. Sister Souljah this, Sister Souljah that. In even numbered years Sister Souljah gets more attention than any other musician alive. So maybe Michael A. Cohen thinks that the Sister Souljah moment is the defining moment in the past two decades of American politics, but someone should let him know that it still only affects a few hundred Americans – political writers and campaign strategists and that’s about it.
It’s a real shame about the entire first half of this sorry excuse for writing because the second half, although only pointing out the painfully obvious, presents a view that’s pretty rare in the dreaded emmessemm.
It’s not a great article, even if you edit out the crap at the beginning. It’s still got JiSM3’s mavericky goodness and it still portrays anything the Democrats do as inherently wrong unless they are distancing themselves from their base. But it’s far and away better than what we’re used to seeing. I mean c.f. anything from Michael McCain Fluffer Scherer.
DAS said,
June 17, 2008 at 17:00
You know what you call it when someone has the courage to attack the powerless? Bullying.
This is a country which, in its heart of hearts, loves a bully. It was a strong factor in 2000 when Preppy-Bully GW Bush “won” the election over Poindexter Gore and even more explicit in GW Bush’s campaign against Kerry.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 17, 2008 at 17:00
Also Leonard Pierce @ June 17, 2008 at 6:51 shows us why he is the Master.
zeppo said,
June 17, 2008 at 17:43
“Personal Responsibility” is the new “Geneva Conventions” Quaint, antiquated, a target of derisive humor…
I don’t know about anyone else, but I find that I have a newfound sense of freedom and enpowerment since George W. Bush stole the… er, was elected. I can now do or say anything, and it is now someone else’s fault. It’s just a very sad thing indeed that Irony is dead.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 17:47
I say we attack latte-sipping elitists.
Jay said,
June 17, 2008 at 17:55
I believe he’s made the same comments before when he wasn’t running for President so political opportunism it may not be. In fact, like his comments when he was at Ebenezer about homophobia and anti-semitism in my community (something that wasn’t going to win him any votes), he may have actually been using his position to say something that needs to be said.
Calling this a “sister souljah” moment is a bit off base. White men attacking black women isn’t the same thing as a black man talking to his own community. What’s unfortunate is that white politicians are so rarely brave enough to take their own community to task.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 17:57
I believe he’s made the same comments before when he wasn’t running for President so political opportunism it may not be.
It functions that way for everyone else, plus it’s easy: be good you reprobates! It’s not a policy and it’s not something he can actually do anything about, but it can make people who vote feel he agrees with them.
Associated Press said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:00
Hey, you used more than five words.
You owe us $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Lawnguylander said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:06
As a recipient of the Golden Snip, I’m right there with you. In the short term I’d be happy enough just if there were no stigma associated with opting not to have kids.
Wow, Sam, a Nina Paley reference? Have you ever seen her Stork movie? And did you know she is a Cardinal in the the Church of Euthanasia? The church has one commandment, do not procreate. Its four pillars are suicide, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy, represented nicely in this photo montage. I met her not long ago when I went on a date to a liberal elitist party in Manhattan and had to admit to being a breeder which was rather uncomfortable but she was cool about it when I told her I would sin no more. In between latte sipping and sneering at rural folk contests she showed us all a tape of her appearance on the Jerry Springer show where she and the church’s founder, Chris Korda, advocated mass suicide to a less than enthusiastic audience.
Arky H8r of VurdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:08
So … if a legislator introduces legislation that makes child support laws less of a joke and through hard work and pestering the hell out of other legislators the bill gets passed and more people start paying child support (or slapping on a condom so there are no kids to support) and there’s less strain on single parents and they’re less likely to use government assistance which would mean more money for …
You’re right. That couldn’t possibly work.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:10
So … if a legislator introduces legislation
He’s currently a legislator, so you’re right: he can do something. Has he?
He is, however, running for non-legislative office.
Arky H8r of VurdPress said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:26
Yep.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:27
I am happy to be corrected.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 17, 2008 at 18:35
I say we attack latte-sipping elitists.
Wait, what about Iran’s nuclear facilities?
OneMadClown said,
June 17, 2008 at 19:02
Kinda dickin’ it up a bit, eh Arky?
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 19:06
Y’know, it seems to me that Arky correcting me can serve as a correction to the post.
Kevin Hayden said,
June 17, 2008 at 19:54
Deadbeat fathers have a hell of a lot more economic clout than the families they abandoned.
Just as the teenaged immigrant mother on dope is the useful stereotype to advance the eradication of the safety net, the well-off Daddy who abandons his kids because he’s pissed at his ex or doesn’t love his kids is also the exception.
Most deadbeats are simply poor and their poverty only became illegal after their marriages and relationships failed.
I suppose one could make an argument against procreation from that, except that most people don’t choose to be poor, don’t expect to remain poor and would not change their desire to be parents because of that.
A better argument would be to promote contraception so that less people would unintentionally become parents, to advance living wages and unionism, to require pending divorcees (and both parents in any case where child support is an issue in the absence of marriage) to attend classes so they will fully understand their responsibilities and how to address them without running afoul of the system or without damaging the kids or each other.
Unfortunately, too many family courts remain punishment-based instead of remedy-based, which is an outgrowth of what the larger society prefers: demonization, villains and victims, instead of actual solutions.
As for Obama, his expression was both personal and political, and was not directed at Blacks alone. Further, his major concern was directed at physical and emotional abandonment.
Sister Souljah (and Ricky Ray Rector) moments were based on political considerations alone.
a very public sociologist said,
June 17, 2008 at 19:56
Truly courageous. Give that man a medal.
mikey said,
June 17, 2008 at 20:03
In the short term I’d be happy enough just if there were no stigma associated with opting not to have kids.
There’s a stigma?
I never even noticed.
What if they had a stigma and nobody was stigmatized?
mikey
res ipsa loquitur said,
June 17, 2008 at 20:10
I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Why? When I think of words to describe the American character I usually come up with “pragmatic,” “resourceful,” “judgmental,” and “punitive as hell.”
Arky - Dicker of the Intertubes said,
June 17, 2008 at 20:18
Stats? Links? Anything?
From what I’ve seen you’re um … wrong. The courts are more than willing to look at the absent parent’s finances when determining the amount of support. Where things become illegal (possibly) is when the court sets an amount, the parent agrees and and the parent doesn’t pay and doesn’t pay and doesn’t pay and when (if) he is dragged back into court they have a lame ass excuse that amounts to “I don’t wanna!” Then the judge gets pissed. Sometimes. Sometimes the judge is of the “If she’d been a decent woman he wouldn’t have left,” school of thought and things get ugly.
If it makes you feel any better women do the same thing but please leave the “Society is down on the Str8 dudes,” to Johan Pantload and his pals.
sagra said,
June 17, 2008 at 20:22
Translation:
Michael said,
June 17, 2008 at 20:53
I am aware of all internet traditions
Righteous Bubba said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:01
I am stealing that right now.
zeppo said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:17
Me too. Someone works very quickly… (See my dots?)
Kevin Hayden said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:35
Arky: Stats? Links? Anything?
From what I’ve seen you’re um … wrong. The courts are more than willing to look at the absent parent’s finances when determining the amount of support.
Observation. I used to be a welfare assistance worker and simply saw a ton of this stuff. And I started out privately judgmental against the dads. While it’s true that many courts (particularly in the more civilized regions of the country) set fair amounts, a goodly number of the dads never get to the courtroom at all. (Why? Many reasons, but being poor and lacking legal representation, many are simply averse to courtrooms out of fear. Some, I’m sure, just don’t care about their kids nor their responsibilities.)
As a result, support gets ordered by default, sometimes based on what the custodial parent requests and sometimes by what a state child support agency requests and that often reflects nothing similar to what the non-custodial parent’s income is.
I’m well aware of how men’s ‘rights’ group play the game and am not acting as an apologist for their BS. I advocate for classes that help both parents overcome the hurdles of ignorance about the courts, the best interests of the kids, etc. That tends to maintain or create a partnership instead of power struggles rooted in anger, ignorance and/or fear.
steve said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:36
Douglas Watts said,
June 17, 2008 at 6:43
What I like is the bizarre implication that deadbeat dads are a “black” problem. Ever been to a trailer park in Sabbatus, Maine ?
It’s really not that bizarre. For blacks about 70% of births are out of wedlock, while for whites it is like 25%.
steve said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:40
As for Obama, his expression was both personal and political, and was not directed at Blacks alone. Further, his major concern was directed at physical and emotional abandonment.
Sister Souljah (and Ricky Ray Rector) moments were based on political considerations alone.
I luv Obama supporters. Good to know that Obama’s intentions are always pure, unlike those vile Clinton’s.
War-Mitzfah War is Tikkun Olam said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:41
Rap is our national music.
Our Army loves the stuff and rapes Iraqi girls and female reserves while the jungle beasts are blasting. Rap is aural American terrorism: “freedom”. zero political or economic clout
50 cent (or is it siz’ent?) has called our president a “gangsta” in Fortune magazine, zero political or economic clout . This thug gave his props for the subsarahran IQed warlord, all Bush is missing is a spear to chuck. A president who has enveloped the ghetto culture notion of “I gotz mine, fuck ya’lls”. A president who has attacked the middle class YT with impunity. zero political or economic clout
SamFromUtah said,
June 17, 2008 at 21:47
There’s a stigma?
Here in Utah, there sure is. For women, there’s more of one than there is for men, and it’s more widespread.
War-Mitzfah War is Tikkun Olam said,
June 17, 2008 at 22:00
BushGOP represents. Bush brings the “ghetto” back to where it started, otherwise filthy jews hoarding their precious gold in the run-down slums.
Bush focuses his appreciation on the original gangsta: before the Black, before the Italian, the jew; and with help of his neocon fanclub is helping the jew break out to a whole new level of “legit” through national war.
Arky - Dicker of the Intertubes said,
June 17, 2008 at 22:34
OK. If that’s the case then your claim: that the dad who can afford to pay CS but doesn’t because he doesn’t wanna is the same as the mythical welfare queen is based on … what exactly? I’m assuming you didn’t have a lot of contact with families that didn’t qualify for welfare.
(Full disclosure, many moons ago I was roped in to do volunteer work for a national child support group and still do a little writing when mom applies the guilt.) Unfortunately once you get beyond the basic demographic: Male, there doesn’t seem to be a predictor of who is more likely to skip out on helping with the bills. Plus, the guys with steady jobs can afford lawyers which just adds an extra layer of nasty to the whole proceeding.
But education, counseling to reduce the need to drag a guy, any guy, into court? I’m all for it.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
June 17, 2008 at 22:35
Hooray! The neo-nazis have returned, and they speak about as well as can be expected.
Also, I didn’t die, I was just given a hell of a headache.
Michael said,
June 17, 2008 at 23:11
Bon apetite!
Djur said,
June 17, 2008 at 23:25
So did someone write a RaHoWa plugin for JanusNode or what? Because I honestly can’t suss out any coherence in Cory Hunter Ruger, KBE, HotJ’s posts.
Does anyone have any god damned idea what a YT is, either?
The Groom said,
June 18, 2008 at 0:17
It’s really not that bizarre. For blacks about 70% of births are out of wedlock, while for whites it is like 25%.
Because everyone knows that marriage prevents people from abandoning their children.
The Groom said,
June 18, 2008 at 0:21
Nazi in Aisle 5!
disinterested observer said,
June 18, 2008 at 0:21
“I say we attack latte-sipping elitists. Wait, what about Iran’s nuclear facilities?”
I think its easier to beat Brad Delong than Iran.
mcc said,
June 18, 2008 at 0:33
I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Well I mean if you think about it, what were you expecting? That attacking groups that hold political power would be politically profitable?
” ^_^ “
DAS said,
June 18, 2008 at 0:51
That attacking groups that hold political power would be politically profitable? – mcc
Actually, that’s the way our system is supposed to work, c.f. Federalist #10.
Truman managed to get bumped up to VP that way. Of course, today the same people who “long for the Democratic party of Truman” would call a modern day Truman “hyperpartisan and shrill and playing politics while we should be supporting the troops” … and would make sure he’d never get another job in DC again. So much for “ambition being made to challenge ambition”.
Nu? Instead politicians target the powerless ’cause real ‘Murkens lurve a bully!
Steve said,
June 18, 2008 at 2:11
The Groom said,
June 18, 2008 at 0:17
It’s really not that bizarre. For blacks about 70% of births are out of wedlock, while for whites it is like 25%.
Because everyone knows that marriage prevents people from abandoning their children.
Umm…. ok you’re right nothing to see here….
Doctorb said,
June 18, 2008 at 4:53
“YT” is probably either “yours truly” (that is, the writer) or “whitey”. But since Werewolf bar-Mitzvah writes like that “12 Galaxies guiltied to a zegnatronic rocket society” guy it’s hard to tell.
Athabasca Mel said,
June 18, 2008 at 6:57
In my honest opinion, if I properly remember, this is the greatest succession of replies to an electronically published article in history. My vocalized laughter caused the removal of my buttocks and I flipped my torso repeatedly while in a prone position.
It would please me if the preceding was of some assistance.
jgmurphy said,
June 18, 2008 at 16:31
Bill C started this trend to un-McGovernize himself I guess, and it has since become the Beast that Wouldn’t Die: henceforth, every Democrat who wants to remain “viable” wid da white folk must extravangantly stage a “Sistah Souljah moment”. This is somehow code for “I am not Al Sharpton.”
Jelperman said,
June 22, 2008 at 20:04
Here’s an idea:
Morgan Tsvangirai just threw in the towel in the elections in Zimbabwe after his supporters were murdered, tortured etc by Mugabe’s thugs. Since he’s available, and political opposition is now one of those jobs homegrown Americans think is beneath them, why don’t we just import him? We need political opposition that doesn’t scare easily, and Tsvangirai needs a job and a new home.
Sounds more plausible than waiting for the Democowards to grow a pair.