Tasteless and Offensive?

[Robert Toy]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l253/RT_2006/nyer.jpg

Barack Obama had no response to the over of the July 21st issue of The New Yorker Magazine, seen below, except to shrug incredulously and tell reporters, “I have no response to that.”

Over the top, or allowable satire?

[kuwisdelu]

At what point does satire become over-the-top? I think it's a good jab at public opinion.

[Robert Toy]

Ditto

[Jersey Chick]

I think it makes its point - about how over the top some of the smears can be.

[kuwisdelu]

From her statements on Colbert, if she were asked, I think Michelle's response probably would have been something along the lines of "Well, that's all wrong: they made his ears too small. They're at least theeeeess big:" :e2arms:

[Williebee]

tasteless and offensive? IMO probably not, but just because it is the New Yorker.

Sad thing is, I fully expect that same image to show up in my inbox more than once before November, sent from people who don't get the joke, and think it's a true warning.

[Rolling Thunder]

I see it as sly marketing from what is quoted in this blog post:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

[robeiae]

Is that supposed to be his wife? Looks more like Cynthia McKinney...

[AncientEagle]

Is that supposed to be his wife? Looks more like Cynthia McKinney...

No, I think Cynthia would be in corn rows and with her mouth wide open, steadily launching outrageous attacks against anybody who's not one of her supporters.

[blacbird]

Not only allowable, but applaudable (and remember, I'm an Obama fan). This shows more cojones than is customary for the New Yorker these days.

caw

[whistlelock]

For me, pointless.

The people that would find it satirical don't believe those things, and the people who believe those things wouldn't understand the satire.

[Bartholomew]

That is awesome.

[skelly]

Maybe somebody somewhere thinks that it might be a good idea to blow this particular public opinion landmine up sooner, rather than later.

[donroc]

He married Angela Davis? :D

[L M Ashton]

Just goes to show how not American I am. I didn't have a clue who either person is and am only guessing at Obama. And I still have no clue what it's supposed to mean. *shrugs*

[Plot Device]

The New Yorker has the tradition of NEVER including words/captions on their front covers. They keep it very streamlined and text-free. So without the aid of some sort of text to accompany the illustration and clarify its intent, it's VERY easy for even the most educated and comedically-in-tune and savvy people to miss the fact that this is meant as a satire of the hyperbolic portrayal of the Obamas by their opponents.

In short: the cover is NOT mocking the Obamas, only their opponents. But that intent is VERY easy to miss.

[Plot Device]

Just goes to show how not American I am. I didn't have a clue who either person is and am only guessing at Obama. And I still have no clue what it's supposed to mean. *shrugs*

1) Michelle Obama is dressed in combat gear and carrying an assault rifle --implying she is an active in-the-field terrorist, a phrase that has been used about them by their opponents.

2) Michelle is also wearing her hair in an afro, which is still seen as a hallmark of extremist black power -- implying she is an exytremist, again something that has been alluded to about them.

3) Michelle and Barack are dong the infamous "fist bump" which is a private ritual she and Barack have used for years as a sort of a "high five" or "thumbs up" between each other. The very existence of this fist-bump ritual between them was never known about by anyone in the general public until she and Barack did it on camera in a moment of spontaneous joy right when Barack won the last critical primary needed to defeat Hilary. No one had seen them do this before, no one knew what to make of it except that it seemed to be one of those private things that a husband and wife do. But then one commentator (from Fox News) called it a "terrorist fist bump". That ridiculous accusation of somehow associating the fist bump with terrorism was both laughed at and scorned by the amss media. That Fox News commentator was then fired. Since then, the fist bump has become a source of humor and even a symbol of victory for the Obamas as far as it being yet another element that opponents have foolishly (even desperately) used to TRY and vilify them, but their opponents yet again wound up having such attempts explode in their faces.

4) Barack is wearing a white tunic and head cap typical of many Muslims, which just harkens back to the persistent urban legend that he is a closet Muslim.

5) They are standing in the Oval Office -- implying that this scene takes place in the future and that Barack won the November election.

6) The painting on the wall above the fireplace is Osama Bin Laden -- implying they revere him.

7) The flames in the fireplace are consuming an American flag -- implying that the Obamas are flag-burners who don't really love this nation and have other (unAmerican) plans for it.



http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l253/RT_2006/nyer.jpg

[kuwisdelu]

The New Yorker has the tradition of NEVER including words/captions on their front covers. They keep it very streamlined and text-free. So without the aid of some sort of text to accompany the illustration and clarify its intent, it's VERY easy for even the most educated and comedically-in-tune and savvy people to miss the fact that this is meant as a satire of the hyperbolic portrayal of the Obamas by their opponents..

Maybe I'm just more used to this kind of satire. I thought it was pretty obvious.

(Says the boy who drew a ragingly anti-Semitic cartoon for his high school paper, to accompany a story about an Israeli anti-Semitic cartoon competition, which our Jewish editor--his good friend--thought was hilarious, was subsequently published, and everyone was outraged. :D)

[Jersey Chick]

The people who are outraged by this are the ones who need it - IMHO -

I think it's so out there it isn't funny, and that was before PD pointed out the background - I looked at them in the cammos and Muslim-wear (I'm sure there's an actual name for it, but I don't know what it is right now) and thought "Oh. My. God. Too much..."

But after really looking - it's even more out there... perfect.

[Robert Toy]

Have you ever seen GBW taking the piss out of himself...were are the WMDs?

Funny as hell

[Robert Toy]

That's the one...:)

[Don]

I think PD's done a great job of playing 'can you find the clues.' She's named seven. Can anyone find any she didn't mention?

[dgiharris]

... So without the aid of some sort of text to accompany the illustration and clarify its intent, it's VERY easy for even the most educated and comedically-in-tune and savvy people to miss the fact that this is meant as a satire of the hyperbolic portrayal of the Obamas by their opponents.

In short: the cover is NOT mocking the Obamas, only their opponents. But that intent is VERY easy to miss.

I completely agree.

In terms of the cover. I do think it is in poor taste. One man's 'funny' is another man's 'furious'.

There is nothing more subjective than humor and I think many people posting forget that. We think, "Oh, well i'm not offended so why should you be" but in terms of human behavior that is seldom the case.

There will be a statistical distribution of 'reactions' to this picture. Some will like it, some will hate it, and there will be host of responses in between.

Now the $20,000 question is how far to the left or right is the central distribution of that curve, that is, will more people like it or will more people hate it.

I haven't a clue. Without something 'this far out there' it is hard to speculate on how the public will take it.

But I do not think this is a 'harmless picture' by any stretch of the imagination. It has the 'potential' to do great harm. Only time will tell.

Mel...

[Cranky]

I agree with Mel.

That said, this picture left me scratching my head and saying, "Huh?" Maybe I'm just stupid, though. Also not a frequent reader of the New Yorker, so that's probably part of my problem. :)

[Robert Toy]

Mel,

Maybe I am giving the general population too much credit, but I feel that this lamppon will do no harm to Obama. People who have their minds made up will not change it because of the cover.

[clintl]

2) Michelle is also wearing her hair in an afro, which is still seen as a hallmark of extremist black power -- implying she is an exytremist, again something that has been alluded to about them.



Either that, or she's doing an Oscar Gamble impersonation.

[dgiharris]

Maybe I am giving the general population too much credit, but I feel that this lamppon will do no harm to Obama. People who have their minds made up will not change it because of the cover.

The thing that bothers me most about the picture, is the image. Images are extremely powerful things that embed themselves into our subconscious and impact the way we 'consciously' think about things without even knowing.

That is one of the reasons why pretty much every product has some half naked woman selling them. What the hell does clevage have to do with a computer? Nothing, but hey, it boosted sales by 15%.

Pictures are the first step in dinigrating anyone, as was done during WWII with the Jews, Japanese, Germans, etc.

You draw a funny picture of someone and it is amazing how the picture is instrumental in enabling you to go down the slippery slope.

Now is this cover a grand conspiracy to start Obama's slide down in the polls. Probably not.

But I don't think it is harmless. I think it has potential to impact Obama in way that is substantial, but at the same time unquantifiable. Which, I admit, is the shifting sand underneath the foundation of my argument.

Basically, the picture will be burned into a lot of minds and I really don't see how that picture is a 'good' thing, especially as far as subconsicious programming goes.

You know that gut feeling you have that you can't explain? Well, often times, those gut feelings have their roots in 'pictures' like this. Or you heard 'something' about someone a year ago, you can't remember what it was, but you remember that you didn't like it, thus, you associate a 'negative vibe' with a person and then don't vote for them based on nothing else but that 'feeling'.

I think that is the potential here. Granted, I know there are more complex issues involved, but never underestimate the simplicity of planting a negative image in someone's mind. Whether satirical or not, it has potential to do a lot of damage.

that is my concern. Again, I don't know how valid it is, but I think it is 'valid' enough to be statistically significant (in a dead heat race). Unfortunately, it is impossible to quantify (i will admit that much)

Mel...

[mscelina]

I agree Mel. Pictures have been the mainstay of dirty politics since the establishment of the US election system--look at the broadsides of British politics. Pictures were vital then--they could convey a political message without using words--a highly useful thing when dealing with a mostly illiterate society.

Unfortunately, pictures and sound bytes are still how people form their impressions of candidates. Remember Dukakis in the tank? Not a good pictorial move on his part. So while to the normal New Yorker reader this will play as massive satire, to the rest of the country it just might reinforce a stupid perception about the candidate...and that would be bad.

Potentially, it could be very bad.

[Joe270]

That said, this picture left me scratching my head and saying, "Huh?" Maybe I'm just stupid, though. Also not a frequent reader of the New Yorker, so that's probably part of my problem.

I'm with ya, Cranky. I have never found the New Yorker funny. I had a year long subscription for it back in college because of a course I took. I don't think I read any of them after the semester ended. It always smacked of snobbery to me.

Even then, people in the class would explain the humor, just like Plot did here, and my thoughts were the same, if ya gotta explain it, it ain't funny.

I got every bit of symbolism Plot mentioned, just didn't find it funny. I do wonder why Michelle has her boots on the wrong feet, though.

I also think the New Yorker is getting a pass it doesn't deserve. If this same drawing was on the cover of National Review, the tone of this conversation would be entirely different.

Sure, context is important, but the point is easy to make.

[Robert Toy]

I do wonder why Michelle has her boots on the wrong feet, though.

There not, her legs are crossed.

[Joe270]

I think that is the potential here. Granted, I know there are more complex issues involved, but never underestimate the simplicity of planting a negative image in someone's mind. Whether satirical or not, it has potential to do a lot of damage.

Agreed. I'm wondering if Obama supporters will still find it funny when GOP supporters put this image up on billboards (sans the title) all over the place.

I'm also wondering if the New Yorker supported Hillary in the campaign, which I thought it did. If so, that rather changes the context for me.

[Joe270]

There not, her legs are crossed.

Ah. I saw the camo pants as a camo designer skirt. I thought it was a play on her 'great fashion sense' people harp about.

Just goes to show how people see things differently in a drawing.

[Robert Toy]

Agreed. I'm wondering if Obama supporters will still find it funny when GOP supporters put this image up on billboards (sans the title) all over the place.

I'm also wondering if the New Yorker supported Hillary in the campaign, which I thought it did. If so, that rather changes the context for me.
ya think!

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Feminist Superstar (http://nymag.com/news/politics/47837/)on the cover of New York magazine. Clearly, to millions of women and girls the woman has indeed risen to the status of feminist superstar. Like most people, I'm way too cynical to ever look up to heroes or heroines, but Hillary Rodham Clinton has changed all that. I am still processing this astonishing fact.

Oops...wrong magazine.

[clintl]

Agreed. I'm wondering if Obama supporters will still find it funny when GOP supporters put this image up on billboards (sans the title) all over the place.



Wouldn't that be a copyright infringement?

[mscelina]

Question: Is the Obama camp's response to this cover making it into a bigger issue than it should be? After all, McCain didn't put that cover out there; he's already agreed with Obama that the cover is tasteless. So, if Obama had ignored the cover and just let it slide, wouldn't the cover have less impact than what it's apparently going to have now?

Maybe Obama is just a little too...sensitive...about this issue? Compare this to asking the Muslim women off the stage at a political event because it would compromise his image--do we have to ask ourselves why he's so sensitive?

This cover might open a whole new can of worms. Any thoughts?

[Robert Toy]

It would have been wiser to ignore it, and let it die.

[Celia Cyanide]

Question: Is the Obama camp's response to this cover making it into a bigger issue than it should be? After all, McCain didn't put that cover out there; he's already agreed with Obama that the cover is tasteless. So, if Obama had ignored the cover and just let it slide, wouldn't the cover have less impact than what it's apparently going to have now?

I thought he DID ignore it? The OP said he had no response. Am I missing something?

[Robert Toy]

I thought he DID ignore it? The OP said he had no response. Am I missing something?

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has sharply criticized The New Yorker magazine over the publication's latest cover illustration, which appears to portray the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and his wife as terrorist enemies of the United States.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/obama.cover/index.html

[mscelina]

Unfortunately, he didn't. And now, his advisors are broadcasting Obama's disgust with the cover from one end of the news channel spectrum to the other. So now, people are analyzing not only the cover, but his reaction to it.

[Jersey Chick]

Maybe he needs to come out and make a statement. I don't know - I'm one of those who (while I will agree it wasn't necessarily in the best taste) can see it as the artist meant it. And I don't know if any statement from Obama would help him or harm him. This is why I'm not in politics...

FWIW, I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim. I wouldn't care if he was Jewish. I wouldn't care if he was atheist. Just like I don't get the huge to-do over Kennedy's being Catholic.

Only now, this is on the way to spinning way out of control. Someone needs to reel it in.

[Robert Toy]

Unfortunately, he didn't. And now, his advisors are broadcasting Obama's disgust with the cover from one end of the news channel spectrum to the other. So now, people are analyzing not only the cover, but his reaction to it.
Yup, and you soon enter the world of "where there is smoke, there's fire."

[kuwisdelu]

FWIW, I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim. I wouldn't care if he was Jewish. I wouldn't care if he was atheist. Just like I don't get the huge to-do over Kennedy's being Catholic.

This is part of what makes me so angry about the "controversy." American's shouldn't care whether he's moslem or not. But they do. It disgusts me.

In that recent religion survey that was a thread here a while back, less than half of the Americans surveyed would vote for an atheist for president, while 95% would vote for a black man.

And it pisses me off when people talk about "Christian states" or America as a "Christian" nation. None of that should matter today. We're supposed to have separation of church and state. We have freedom of religion. Most of the Founding Fathers weren't even "Christian" in modern terms, but deist.

And today, when we are ready for a woman to be president, or a black man to be president, we still wouldn't be able to elect a non-Christian president. We're disgusting.

[Robert Toy]

This is part of what makes me so angry about the "controversy." American's shouldn't care whether he's moslem or not. But they do. It disgusts me.

In that recent religion survey that was a thread here a while back, less than half of the Americans surveyed would vote for an atheist for president, while 95% would vote for a black man.

And it pisses me off when people talk about "Christian states" or America as a "Christian" nation. None of that should matter today. We're supposed to have separation of church and state. We have freedom of religion. Most of the Founding Fathers weren't even "Christian" in modern terms, but deist.

And today, when we are ready for a woman to be president, or a black man to be president, we still wouldn't be able to elect a non-Christian president. We're disgusting.
IMHO, I think people do care because he is so adamant that he is not a Muslim. What if he was…so what!

[kuwisdelu]

IMHO, I think people do care because he is so adamant that he is not a Muslim. What if he was…so what!

Considering things like...

Though it was scarcely covered by the media, a November 2006 Rasmussen poll found that 61% of likely voters said they would never vote for a Muslim presidential candidate. While no Muslim candidate has yet to announce their candidacy, this is hardly encouraging news for Barak Hussein Obama and the Muslim ancestry that hangs over his head: both his father and step-father come from a Muslim background.

(from here (http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/a_little_religion_might_be_a_little_too_much/) and here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1741561/posts))

I doubt he has much choice in the matter if he wants to be president.

[Robert Toy]

That was about the same margin that said they wouldn't vote a catholic as well (Kennedy) - the country would be ruled from the Vatican, etc. etc.

If Obama were indeed a Muslim and handled himself the way he does, I would venture to guess he would have the same following.

[Jean Marie]

He married Angela Davis? :D
That's what I thought.

Also, good points, Plot. You must have grown up w/ Hightlights Magazine :D

Cover's in poor taste. Good for McCain for saying as much.

[LimeyDawg]

I like the cover. I think that Barack should take a deep breath before he responds because this is clearly free speech. He should ignore it, or laugh at it, but call off the dogs in his camp that are speaking out against it. Otherwise, I'd be a little concerned that he doesn't support the notion of free speech in the manner I would like a future president to support. Humor always come at somebody's expense, and ESPECIALLY a president, or public figure.

[dgiharris]

I like the cover. I think that Barack should take a deep breath before he responds because this is clearly free speech. He should ignore it, or laugh at it, but call off the dogs in his camp that are speaking out against it. Otherwise, I'd be a little concerned that he doesn't support the notion of free speech in the manner I would like a future president to support. Humor always come at somebody's expense, and ESPECIALLY a president, or public figure.

I see the cover as a damned if you do, damnded if you don't issue.

I don't really see a 'good' response. Only varying degrees of bad.

You laugh it off (piss off your base who is pissed off at the pictures)
You attack it (piss off those who think the picture is 'no big deal')
Do nothing (perhaps encourages more pictures)
Get angry (perhaps encourages more pictures)
Debate why it is poor taste (Come off as a poor sport)
Shrug and say no big deal (Come off as possibly weak)

Personally, I think when these things happen, there really is no predicting how it will play out with the public. It is so 'extreme' that only time will tell.

Mel...

[Williebee]

And.. If he comes out with a statement that says it's tasteless or a "humor that is appealing only to a select group/market/whatever" then the Republican camp is going to jump up and down that he's talking down to Americans again.

It's a no win.

[blacbird]

I like the cover. I think that Barack should take a deep breath before he responds because this is clearly free speech. He should ignore it, or laugh at it, but call off the dogs in his camp that are speaking out against it. Otherwise, I'd be a little concerned that he doesn't support the notion of free speech in the manner I would like a future president to support.

Although I'm in favor of satire, I have to comment about your "free speech" argument. This has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech". Nobody is suggesting the government should somehow restrict or prevent the New Yorker or any other publication from printing and distributing such stuff. But freedom of speech does not carry with it freedom from criticism of what you say. And, whether you agree with it or not, that's all that's going on here. You're free to object to that, too.

caw

[Robert Toy]

The "big" problem, the people doing most of the bitching will never take the opportunity to read the accompanying articles.

[kuwisdelu]

then the Republican camp is going to jump up and down that he's talking down to Americans again.

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't get this. I've felt Obama has been the first nominee in a long time to talk up to Americans and expect more from them than regular candidates. I think his speech in response to the Reverend Wright incident is a good example of this. Of course, being rather cynical, myself, I've always thought this may backfire since I think the majority of people really aren't that smart. The optimist in me wants the election to prove me wrong, of course. Either way, AW certainly represents a more intellectual portion of the population, in my opinion.

[blacbird]

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't get this. I've felt Obama has been the first nominee in a long time to talk up to Americans and expect more from them than regular candidates.

Yer one a them elitists, ain't you?

caw

[kuwisdelu]

Yer one a them elitists, ain't you?

You could call it that. I have a subscription to The New Yorker, anyway...

Don't hang me!!

[LaceWing]

Mostly this counts for me as "a good thing" for getting the statements it lampoons out there, front and center. It's a big, fat, not-to-be-ignored comment on how politics is conducted. If communication is the media's bailiwick, this kind of comment is theirs to make, imo, in their role as "the fourth estate."

[LaceWing]

Adding here that I think it's directed very pointedly towards McCain's more thoughtful supporters, and challenging them to be the ones to come out and say that the accusatory, unsupported emails, reporting and blogging etc are out-of-line.

An outfit like Pew Research might have before and after studies someday to see just how much impact this cover has.

[LaceWing]

Adding here that I think it's directed very pointedly towards McCain's more thoughtful supporters, and challenging them to be the ones to come out and say that the accusatory, unsupported emails, reporting and blogging etc are out-of-line.

An outfit like Pew Research might have before and after studies someday to see just how much impact this cover has.


But soleary made an excellent point in another thread on this issue.
see http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2553470&posted=1#post2553470

So I'll kind of hold aside what I've said above, and look for the New Yorker to respond to soleary's point.

[Don]

You could call it that. I have a subscription to The New Yorker, anyway...

Don't hang me!!
It's okay, you're still young. You'll gain much wisdom as you age. :D

[robeiae]

But soleary made an excellent point in another thread on this issue.
see http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2553470&posted=1#post2553470

So I'll kind of hold aside what I've said above, and look for the New Yorker to respond to soleary's point.
While there may be some validity to that point, I have to say that it's somewhat ridiculous, imo, to:

1) Assume that we can know the extent of such effects for a given issue
2) Hold individuals/orgs accountable on such a non-specific, non-verifiable basis
3) And somehow limit expression on that basis

So in that light, I don;t think the New Yorker needs to respond, at all. It ran the cover. The satire is obvious--imo--to its readership. What else is there to say?

[Williebee]

Of course, being rather cynical, myself, I've always thought this may backfire since I think the majority of people really aren't that smart.

I don't know that this is about people "aren't that smart". It's that we are human. When you point out our frustrations, our failings, most folks get defensive,-- what Granny Kilgore used to call "gettin' your back up". It doesn't matter that what you said is the truth, it is human nature to get defensive, and then "fight or flight" kicks in. Then comes the name-calling, and more posturing.

[mscelina]

I hardly think that a satirical cover would kick in a defensive beahvorial pattern on the part of Barack Obama. That's the hub of the problem right there: he doesn't seem to be able to take the normal rigors of the American electoral process with is 'lay off my wife' comments and this abnormal response to something that should have been expected at some time during the campaign. If he comes across as defensive, he comes across as a man with something to hide so that now, instead of rising above a cover that was intended to do GOOD for his campaign, now he's allowing his campaign staff to whine about it instead.

[Williebee]

I hardly think that a satirical cover would kick in a defensive beahvorial pattern on the part of Barack Obama.

Sorry, my failure to communicate.

I was more referring to the backlash Obama got from his talk about guns and religion.

[donroc]

Mort Sahl during one of jhis early routines said The New Yorker was a magazine only college girls read.

I believe he said the same thing about Proust.

Now, if Charles Addams had done the cover?

[LaceWing]

While there may be some validity to that point, I have to say that it's somewhat ridiculous, imo, to:

1) Assume that we can know the extent of such effects for a given issue
2) Hold individuals/orgs accountable on such a non-specific, non-verifiable basis
3) And somehow limit expression on that basis

So in that light, I don;t think the New Yorker needs to respond, at all. It ran the cover. The satire is obvious--imo--to its readership. What else is there to say?

I don't think we disagree much -- the satire is obvious to me also -- except that the study set off a train of thought that led me to question my first speculations, to add a reservation to them, which I have since tempered in light of your points above.

Because they are media claiming a right to be members of The Fourth Estate, it would impress me personally were they to take all communication studies seriously, as communication is I hope what they're about. If however some investigator were to reveal emails showing this study had been deliberated upon, that would change my impression of what their intent might have been. Hmmm, but I left that out, didn't I?

And speaking of assumptions . . . I should have checked the date of the study's publication and investigated lead times for the magazine to prepare its cover.

I mentioned above somewhere, with comments on what audience I thought they were addressing, that Pew Research might make a study of before and after -- I agree that determining cause and effect is not straight forward. But I hadn't given much weight to how difficult it would be for the magazine to do so until you pointed it out.

I'd still like to hear the magazine's comments on the study, but I feel less demanding about it.


*point(s) to Rob* :flag:

[dgiharris]

...If he comes across as defensive, he comes across as a man with something to hide so that now, instead of rising above a cover that was intended to do GOOD for his campaign, now he's allowing his campaign staff to whine about it instead.

THis is exactly why politics is such a messy affair. We all have our opinions and no matter what course of action he takes, it will piss off a significant portion of the population because this cover is so extreme.

Another problem with Satire is that it only works when the truth is OBVIOUS. But the truth is not obvious. A recent Newsweek poll states that 11% of the American Population still think Barack is muslim and that 1/5 of white democratic voters said they had an unfavorable impression of him because of his name.


Asked to identify his religion, 58 percent of respondents correctly said Obama was a Christian. But a surprising 11 percent said he was a Muslim. And 22 percent said they did not know what his religion was.


Almost one-fifth of white Democratic voters polled also said they had an unfavorable opinion of Obama because of his name.


http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Poll_Believe_Obama_muslim/2008/05/26/98917.html?s=al&promo_code=6301-1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/27/politics/p135103D06.DTL

So, is 11% statistically significant when talking about a dead heat race?

I feel the mistake (IMO) that many posting on this site is one due to ego-centricism and I mean that in the literal sense, not the name calling sense.

Since you understand the issue and get the joke then OBVIOUSLY everyone else should. This is why the majority of us would fail miserably at politics. It is not about the individual person, but the fickle MASSES that get their news/info from 10 second sound bytes and quotes taken out of context.

Here are some more outragious results from that poll that I saw on Today on NBC this morning

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/125

The new poll suggests white voters continue to be a challenge for Obama, with McCain leading the Democrat in that category 48 to 36 percent. Some of Obama's lag in white support may be explained by continual confusion over his religious identity. Twelve percent of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur'an, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in Indonesia. None of these things is true. Finally cracking the code with less-educated whites could have a big payoff for Obama: 85 percent of undecided voters are non-Hispanic whites and only 22 percent of those undecideds have a four-year college degree.

But not so fast, isn't all this good for Obama. Aren't we now talking about this issue and straightening out all the facts?

To be honest, that remains to be seen. America has the memory span of a ferret on crystal meth. 4 months from now, it is unclear what the masses 'will remember'. I hope that it does more good than harm, but this is such an extreme case that any attempt at prognosticating wouldn't be worth more than a magic eightball. IMO, it can go either way.

Again, this is one of those situations that is a political nightmare. You are criticised for objecting. You would be criticised for not objecting. Seriously, this is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

MMMmmm I nice hot steaming bowl of shit! Yummy, ain't politics fun :)

Mel...

[mscelina]

I agree, Mel, that this is a political nightmare for Obama. Unfortunately, it's one that could have been avoided if Obama had the mechanics in place to deal reasonably with issues that revolve around him personally.

So 11% of people polled thought he was a Muslim? That's okay. I'm sure 11% of the people polled also think McCain is a traitor, or that Hillary Clinton dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. In the long run, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because Obama's major problem right now isn't public perception of his personal life. His major problem is that his message is mixed; his stand on the issues in unclear to the majority of Americans; his inexperience is starting to show. For a candidate who is banking on big event-style speeches, on evoking the memories of dead Presidents, on making broad, unsubstantiated promises of what he will do without a concrete proposal of how he will do it.

And instead of focusing on that, he lets a political cartoon derail his campaign and overshadow probably one of the most important speeches he will ever give in his campaign.

So the nightmare is one of his own making. If his campaign had ignored the cover, it wouldn't have as big of an impact as it has today. It was a strategic error. So instead of condemning all Americans to some drug-fogged haze, why don't we focus instead upon the decisions that the Obama camp is making and how they are affecting his campaigning. The truth is obvious to those who are paying attention.

But in every election, a portion of the voters are going to come from the uninformed, those who vote along party lines without concerning themselves with the issues, and people who vote by rote. And whatever happens with the cover of the New Yorker, nothing on earth is going to make them change their voting patterns now.

[Plot Device]

I think PD's done a great job of playing 'can you find the clues.' She's named seven. Can anyone find any she didn't mention?


I don't know for certain, but I believe Michelle's feet are in the secret configuration supposedly used by Masons to signal to each other that they are Masons.

I have been told (I heard it from someone who heard it from someone else --here, have some salt while you're at it) that if a Masonic man is standing in a courtroom before a judge that he does not know, the man can deliberately position his feet in a very specific configuration to signal covertly to anyone who might notice that he is a Mason. So if it turns out the judge is also a Mason, then the judge will recognize the foot positioning and will go lenient on the man as a favor from one fellow Mason to another.

But I don't know for certain if that is what she is doing because I don't actually know what that alleged secret Masonic foot positioning is even supposed to look like. But if I'm right, then I guess that particular image covers the "elitist" accusations launched against the Obamas.

[robeiae]

I have been told (I heard it from someone who heard it from someone else --here, have some salt while you're at it) that if a Masonic man is standing in a courtroom before a judge that he does not know, the man can deliberately position his feet in a very specific configuration to signal covertly to anyone who might notice that he is a Mason. So if it turns out the judge is also a Mason, then the judge will recognize the foot positioning and will go lenient on the man as a favor from one fellow Mason to another.
Or you can just say the secret word that obligates the judge to rule in your favor: tubalcane.

Btw, all local, state, and federal judges are Masons.

[Williebee]

PD -- It's not a secret Masonic foot stance. It's secret Masonic feet.

Can't say too much, sorry. Sacred ceremony.... really sharp swords... left foot of bull... right foot of sheep....

You can read between the lines... right?

[Joe270]

I don't know that this is about people "aren't that smart". It's that we are human. When you point out our frustrations, our failings, most folks get defensive,-- what Granny Kilgore used to call "gettin' your back up". It doesn't matter that what you said is the truth, it is human nature to get defensive, and then "fight or flight" kicks in. Then comes the name-calling, and more posturing.

Seems to me that the New Yorker is saying that most Americans 'aren't that smart'.

I expect many voters will get their back up over the cover. It is the elitist New Yorker telling the rest of the country that they are rubes devoid of thought and stupid. This sentiment has lasted since prior to the American Civil war and, quite obviously, lingers today.

I consider it an accepted 'racism'. The south is stupid and needs the 'enlightenment' of the northern liberals to guide us. In extension, because the south tends to be conservative, all conservatives are stupid, too, even if they're from North Dakota or California or Florida.

We're all stupid because we don't accept the spoon-fed bullshit that the urban liberals consider to be the truth, despite evidence to the contrary. They have been shown dead wrong time and time again, but they have never once admitted to their failures. The current oil crisis can be linked directly to the 'no nukes' prohibitionists, the offshore oil ban to the environmentalist reactionaries, etc., etc. Their failures are enormous, but they don't see any failure in their agenda. I do see failure, lots and lots of it.

I, for one, don't like the ultra-liberal leftist New Yorker implying that I'm stupid. I don't like it one bit, and it might be enough to tilt the scale for McCain for me. It won't be a vote for McCain, at this point, but a vote against the pretentious, 'we're more politically savvy, we're more refined than you backwoods hicks who shouldn't have the vote anyway' attitude which the New Yorker exhibits on a regular basis.

New York city and LA have way too much voter power in this country. If we didn't allow them to vote, we'd have a much better country, IMHO. Everything is tilted for their view, and folks come out of the woodwork to apologize for their horrible, intolerable gaffes just like this magazine cover every time.

I, for one, ain't getting sucked into apologizing for a magazine which has too much power politically in my country anyway, from a city which has far too much say in the government of my country anyway. This was vile crap on any and every level.

If it came from Birmingham, the people supporting this crap would be condemning it.

This is Hardcore, so I'm giving you hardcore. Time to back up the defense of this shit.

[Don]

We're all stupid because we don't accept the spoon-fed bullshit that the urban liberals consider to be the truth, despite evidence to the contrary. They have been shown dead wrong time and time again, but they have never once admitted to their failures. The current oil crisis can be linked directly to the 'no nukes' prohibitionists, the offshore oil ban to the environmentalist reactionaries, etc., etc. Their failures are enormous, but they don't see any failure in their agenda. I do see failure, lots and lots of it.

This is Hardcore, so I'm giving you hardcore. Time to back up the defense of this shit.

It's not just the urban liberals, however. The citizens have a long history of ignoring 'blowback' caused by their pet government projects. They then jump on the next fad that comes along and promises to solve the problems caused by the last pet project.

They also tend to wear ideological blinders. The liberals don't see the problems created by the welfare state, feminist, and environmental movements. The conservatives deny that the decades of intervention in other countries have anything to do with terrorists wanting to blow us up, and refuse to recognize that big business colludes with big government to run roughshod over a country supposedly for 'we, the people'.

Meanwhile, they both blame the current state of the economy on everything but the Federal Reserve's degradation of the value of the dollar, and suffer home invasions and airport strip searches as the inevitable costs of the Wars on Drugs & Terror.

Most entertaining, they then petition the very government that has created the problems to solve them with yet another grand scheme.

Pot, meet kettle. Barnum was right.

[InfinityGoddess]

We're all stupid because we don't accept the spoon-fed bullshit that the urban liberals consider to be the truth, despite evidence to the contrary. They have been shown dead wrong time and time again, but they have never once admitted to their failures. The current oil crisis can be linked directly to the 'no nukes' prohibitionists, the offshore oil ban to the environmentalist reactionaries, etc., etc. Their failures are enormous, but they don't see any failure in their agenda. I do see failure, lots and lots of it.



I would like to know what evidence you have regarding environmentalists being responsible for high oil prices. Because the BBC says it ain't so (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3708951.stm). The article is a bit old, but still with relevant reasoning as to why we're in the mess that we're in regarding oil.

I personally think that off-shore bans and no more nuclear power is a good thing. Both are known environmental hazards. It makes no sense, for example, to build new nuke stations when we don't even know how to properly dispose of the nuclear waste we have from the plants that we have already. And offshore drilling? There is an abundance of sea life that could end up dying because of it and it doesn't look good for tourism when people go to the beach.

.

They also tend to wear ideological blinders. The liberals don't see the problems created by the welfare state, feminist, and environmental movements. The conservatives deny that the decades of intervention in other countries have anything to do with terrorists wanting to blow us up, and refuse to recognize that big business colludes with big government to run roughshod over a country supposedly for 'we, the people'.



It's not "ideological blinders" that drives us. It's cold, hard science for environmental issues, and common sense in social safety netting and women's rights.

I do not see the reason why it's so difficult or "wrong" to do right by the planet and its inhabitants. We only get one Earth.

I do not see why it's so wrong for women to be able to choose their own destiny, as opposed to being barefoot and pregnant and causing more strain on the planet.

I do not see why it's so wrong to allow for people to have the leg-up when they fall on hard times and have access to healthcare they wouldn't get in a for-profit system.

That's not to say that the social safety nets don't have problems. Everything has its problems, including private sector enterprise. But to deny social safety nets to people who genuinely need them just because of the few frauds that are out there is inhumane.

[mscelina]

Seems to me that the New Yorker is saying that most Americans 'aren't that smart'.

I expect many voters will get their back up over the cover. It is the elitist New Yorker telling the rest of the country that they are rubes devoid of thought and stupid. This sentiment has lasted since prior to the American Civil war and, quite obviously, lingers today.

Agreed to a point. Seems to me that you say the same thing a bit later.

I consider it an accepted 'racism'. The south is stupid and needs the 'enlightenment' of the northern liberals to guide us. In extension, because the south tends to be conservative, all conservatives are stupid, too, even if they're from North Dakota or California or Florida.

"accepted racism" I might be able to wrap my head around. The rest of your premise seems a bit stretched to me.

We're all stupid because we don't accept the spoon-fed bullshit that the urban liberals consider to be the truth, despite evidence to the contrary. They have been shown dead wrong time and time again, but they have never once admitted to their failures. The current oil crisis can be linked directly to the 'no nukes' prohibitionists, the offshore oil ban to the environmentalist reactionaries, etc., etc. Their failures are enormous, but they don't see any failure in their agenda. I do see failure, lots and lots of it.

A lot of truth here, Joe. A lot of truth.

I, for one, don't like the ultra-liberal leftist New Yorker implying that I'm stupid. I don't like it one bit, and it might be enough to tilt the scale for McCain for me. It won't be a vote for McCain, at this point, but a vote against the pretentious, 'we're more politically savvy, we're more refined than you backwoods hicks who shouldn't have the vote anyway' attitude which the New Yorker exhibits on a regular basis.


Excuse me, but aren't you kind of buying into the charge of elitism laid at Obama's door here, Joe? Can you honestly make a logical connection between a cover on the New Yorker and the Obama campaign? Shouldn't your outrage against the 'accepted racism' you cite earlier be directed at the magazine and not the candidate?

New York city and LA have way too much voter power in this country. If we didn't allow them to vote, we'd have a much better country, IMHO. Everything is tilted for their view, and folks come out of the woodwork to apologize for their horrible, intolerable gaffes just like this magazine cover every time.

I, for one, ain't getting sucked into apologizing for a magazine which has too much power politically in my country anyway, from a city which has far too much say in the government of my country anyway. This was vile crap on any and every level.


Interestingly enough, I don't have a hell of a lot to say about this. I agree that the coastal influence upon the campaign system is out of control. So I guess...man...I might agree with this in principle minus the 'allow them to vote part.' *grin* Can't go for hyperbole at this point.

If it came from Birmingham, the people supporting this crap would be condemning it.

This is Hardcore, so I'm giving you hardcore. Time to back up the defense of this shit.

I don't recollect defending it, but I'll argue with you.

It's not just the urban liberals, however. The citizens have a long history of ignoring 'blowback' caused by their pet government projects. They then jump on the next fad that comes along and promises to solve the problems caused by the last pet project.


A broad statement Don. As far as I can tell, for every 'pet government project' there's a ton of citizens who take the opposite road.

They also tend to wear ideological blinders. The liberals don't see the problems created by the welfare state, feminist, and environmental movements. The conservatives deny that the decades of intervention in other countries have anything to do with terrorists wanting to blow us up, and refuse to recognize that big business colludes with big government to run roughshod over a country supposedly for 'we, the people'.

*bolding mine* Are you absolutely out of your tree? Please explain to me, with citations if you please, how the feminist movement has turned into an ideological blinder when discussing the COVER OF THE NEW YORKER? Let me guess: is it because women mobilized behind Hillary Clinton? Well, fortunately the voting power of women in this country is intact and growing IN PART due to the feminist movement that, along with enviromentalists and the welfare state, are responsible for our problems. The welfare state? Are you KIDDING me? I'm sure the magazine took that into consideration when they printed the cover.

Meanwhile, they both blame the current state of the economy on everything but the Federal Reserve's degradation of the value of the dollar, and suffer home invasions and airport strip searches as the inevitable costs of the Wars on Drugs & Terror.

Again--give me a citation that links this to the New Yorker cover. And who's "they?"

Most entertaining, they then petition the very government that has created the problems to solve them with yet another grand scheme.

Pot, meet kettle. Barnum was right.

And again--this has to do with what? Come on now, Don--what in the heck does any of this post have to do with the cover of the New Yorker and whether it's tasteless and offensive? Sounds to me like you saw an opportunity to ride your hobbyhorse into a relevant discussion--and I'll think that way until you back up your claims with evidence as to how all of this plays into the cover of the New Yorker.

[Don]

And again--this has to do with what? Come on now, Don--what in the heck does any of this post have to do with the cover of the New Yorker and whether it's tasteless and offensive? Sounds to me like you saw an opportunity to ride your hobbyhorse into a relevant discussion--and I'll think that way until you back up your claims with evidence as to how all of this plays into the cover of the New Yorker.

I took off from this, primarily.


We're all stupid because we don't accept the spoon-fed bullshit that the urban liberals consider to be the truth, despite evidence to the contrary. They have been shown dead wrong time and time again, but they have never once admitted to their failures. The current oil crisis can be linked directly to the 'no nukes' prohibitionists, the offshore oil ban to the environmentalist reactionaries, etc., etc. Their failures are enormous, but they don't see any failure in their agenda. I do see failure, lots and lots of it.


However, I see your point about thread drift, and consider myself well-spanked. I'll try to behave myself better in the future. :)

[mscelina]

You just like being spanked. Admit it.

:D

[Don]

You just like being spanked. Admit it.
:D
Now who's drifting the thread? :tongue

[rugcat]

Seems to me that the New Yorker is saying that most Americans 'aren't that smart'. I went into a ShopKo the day after I arrived back in Utah. The New Yorker is right.

[mscelina]

See, that line of thought bothers me, rugcat. The assumption that Americans 'aren't that smart' is exactly the same sort of thinking that stemmed this entire controversy. If we, a cross-section of average Joes from across the world, subscribe to the ideology that Americans are inherently stupid then doesn't that make us elitist as well?

It's hard to condemn an ideology you subscribe to, IMO.

[dgiharris]

I went into a ShopKo the day after I arrived back in Utah. The New Yorker is right.

After tutoring college kids for the past ten years, I can attest to the downward spiral of America's intellect.

It's a wonder why entire sections of the country aren't swinging from trees. We are not very smart and are living testament to the movie Idiocracy.

Idiocracy is probably one of the worst movies i've ever seen but it had a good premise, that is, that collectively, we are getting 'dumber' as a nation over time because 'stupid people' have more kids than smart people and thus it is simple mathematics that produces a lowering of the net IQ of the nation over time.

*sigh*

Maybe i'm just jaded and cynical to the point beyond saving. :Shrug:

Mel...

[donroc]

There seems to be a significant number of people on these threads who believe the rest of the country is stupid. How fortunate we are to be here among the gifted elite contorting so they can pat themselves on their backs. :e2stooges

[Shadow_Ferret]

So... ?

The New Yorker isn't being racist by portraying Obama and his wife as terrorists?

[Robert Toy]

So... ?

The New Yorker isn't being racist by portraying Obama and his wife as terrorists?
IMHO...no

[robeiae]

There seems to be a significant number of people on these threads who believe the rest of the country is stupid. How fortunate we are to be here among the gifted elite contorting so they can pat themselves on their backs. :e2stooges
I don't think the rest of the country is stupid. I think the rest of the world is stupid, as well.

[Don]

See, that line of thought bothers me, rugcat. The assumption that Americans 'aren't that smart' is exactly the same sort of thinking that stemmed this entire controversy. If we, a cross-section of average Joes from across the world, subscribe to the ideology that Americans are inherently stupid then doesn't that make us elitist as well?

It's hard to condemn an ideology you subscribe to, IMO.
I think considering the people in this room a cross-section of average Joes is being exceptionally kind to the concept of average Joe. I don't see acknowledging the bell curve of intelligence as being elitist.

[donroc]

Depends where we think we are on the bell, doesn't it?

[robeiae]

I think considering the people in this room a cross-section of average Joes is being exceptionally kind to the concept of average Joe. I don't see acknowledging the bell curve of intelligence as being elitist.
The bell curve is an interesting term to use. In a bell, what area is most likely to get smacked by the clapper? The safest place to be is with the average joes (no offense, Joe).

[Don]

Depends where we think we are on the bell, doesn't it?
No, regardless of where you place yourself on the curve, you're not necessarily an elitist, according to this definition at least.

the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite -- a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes -- are those whose views on a matter are to be taken ...

[rugcat]

See, that line of thought bothers me, rugcat. The assumption that Americans 'aren't that smart' is exactly the same sort of thinking that stemmed this entire controversy. If we, a cross-section of average Joes from across the world, subscribe to the ideology that Americans are inherently stupid then doesn't that make us elitist as wellI fully realize this sounds elitist. These days, being elitist is considered almost as bad as being sexist or racist. It’s become a given that all people are entitled to have their voices heard, that their and that their opinions are entitled to respect. To suggest otherwise is to invite wrath down upon your head.

To which I say bullshit. I don’t know about the “average” American, but there are millions upon millions of total idiots in this country. A lot of them vote; in fact, it’s those votes that mostly determine elections.

These people are incapable of understanding anything beyond the most simple of explanations. Their knowledge of the world is non-existent. Find Iraq on a map? Some of them can’t even find Mexico.

They haven’t read a single book since they were forced to in high school – and the only reason they graduated at all is that high school has been forced to dumb down to avoid a 90% failure rate.

Slogans, catchphrases, and lapel pins is what decides their votes. The only saving grace is that many of them don’t bother to vote at all.

[LimeyDawg]

So... ?

The New Yorker isn't being racist by portraying Obama and his wife as terrorists?
How is that racist?

[Shadow_Ferret]

How is that racist?
Good question. To which I don't have an answer.

Maybe it's religionist. Or namist.

But it's portraying Barack as a Islamic terrorist because his first name is Obama.

At least I think that's what's going on.

To be honest, I don't understand what the point of the cover is.

But it does appear to be making fun of Barack.

[Robert Toy]

Good question. To which I don't have an answer.

Maybe it's religionist. Or namist.

But it's portraying Barack as a Islamic terrorist because his first name is Obama.

At least I think that's what's going on.

To be honest, I don't understand what the point of the cover is.

But it does appear to be making fun of Barack.

It’s a compilation of all the false rumors about the Obamas

[LimeyDawg]

To which I say bullshit. I don’t know about the “average” American, but there are millions upon millions of total idiots in this country. A lot of them vote; in fact, it’s those votes that mostly determine elections.

Okay, I have a problem here. What determines stupidity. To cast a blanket "they're stupid" across broad swaths of our populations is to lable yourself "pedant." Let's look at "rednecks." Christ, I'll bet none of them are reading the New Yorker, or if they are, they're doing it in the closet. Typically, your average redneck Joe doesn't garner the intelligence label. The word redneck is often preceded by such adjectives as "dumb", "stupid", "ignorant"...and I'm just talking about the mainstream media (um, that was somewhat tongue in cheek...). Are we agreed, if we're being honest? So, then, let me ask you this: who do you want fixing your car? Who do you want building houses? Roads? Farming?

And...before you point out my stereotyping, lets understand that those generalizations are for example only. My point is this: intelligence is relative to the subject at hand. Some might be published authors, with multi-book contracts, whose smithing of the English language is genius. We then compare that to an essay written by one of those "stupid rednecks" and stupid seems to fit. It's relative. That same author might one day try to fix the transmission on his [insert auto name here proper for a writer] and be as lost as a blind man in a snow storm. Who's stupid now. (and, John, I used that solely, solely for the purpose of illustration, not to offend.)

Intelligent people, and by this I mean the educated, the thoughtful, the wise, use the word "stupid" too often. It smacks of laziness, especially when applied to anything other than a single event. They should know better.


These people are incapable of understanding anything beyond the most simple of explanations. Their knowledge of the world is non-existent. Find Iraq on a map? Some of them can’t even find Mexico.

They haven’t read a single book since they were forced to in high school – and the only reason they graduated at all is that high school has been forced to dumb down to avoid a 90% failure rate.

Slogans, catchphrases, and lapel pins is what decides their votes. The only saving grace is that many of them don’t bother to vote at all.
But why should they? What does a knowledge of geography have to do with intelligence. That's crap. Do they have to read and understand the New Yorker to be labeled smart? Should they be able to score 80% or better on a geography test? These are all things outside their experience, beyond their spheres of concern. They don't put food on their tables. Should I chastise the next person because of his lack of understanding when it comes to quantum physics? "What? You don't understand the concept of electron shells? Damn, you're stupid."

The history of advanced civilizations is one of specialization. We can pore over history books and point to the past where a person needed a pretty broad skill set to survive. Those people might well have all read newspapers if they were literate (I think history bears this out, for the literate at least). As mankind advanced, it became necessary to specialize because the industrial machine required specialists. Folks that read the New Yorker have either the time or a need to read it. It fits into their specialized lives. Why do we suppose that the reader of the New Yorker is any more intelligent than a reader of Field and Stream? Who do you want on your hunting trips?

I've also noticed that we conveniently turn a blind eye to certain facts about voters. Someone, actually a few, labeled them quite broadly as stupid. Now, I'm quite sure that is directed at those people who voted for candidates that the OP did not like. Wow, I don't even need to explain the error in the thought process there. But here's something: what are the choices of any voter? I see them pretty much as three: candidate a, candidate b, or no vote whatsoever. Does that mean that, if New Yorker readers generally support candidate a, that this is the only "intelligent" use of their right to vote?

[LimeyDawg]

Good question. To which I don't have an answer.

Maybe it's religionist. Or namist.

But it's portraying Barack as a Islamic terrorist because his first name is Obama.

At least I think that's what's going on.

To be honest, I don't understand what the point of the cover is.

But it does appear to be making fun of Barack.
Okay, I can see where this is valid, but we can label anything at all. Is the aunt jemima syrup bottle racist? We're too sensitized to that term, to quick to toss it around when the thought processes that get us closer to the truth of the matter are too hard to work. And, unlike yourself, many are too afraid to admit they just don't understand it, and leave it there.

Personally, I don't think its racist. The Obamas are public figures. It's difficult to portray them without pointing out their race, but it's no indictment of African Americans to do so. They're black. I'm over that, so I don't focus on it. Obama sounds an aweful lot like Osama. It's a fact. Also, Obama was raised, for a while was he not, in a Muslim nation. We are at war, illegally, with the Muslim world, are we not (okay, I know...I know...). Therefore, it isn't a huge step in the thought process of creating humor by tying these two together for the purpose of satirizing a nation's fears. Tasteless? Sure, to some. Funny? Ditto. Racist? I don't think so, but if some do, that's their right.

[Shadow_Ferret]

It’s a compilation of all the false rumors about the Obamas

Therefore, it isn't a huge step in the thought process of creating humor by tying these two together for the purpose of satirizing a nation's fears.

And we're all supposed to just somehow divine that this was a supposed to be a reverse satire, not meant to satirize the Baracks, but to satirize those who misunderstand Barack... how?

Because until I read this thread, I didn't see it as the New Yorker elite satirizing stupid people like me, I saw it as satirizing Obama and his wife.

[LimeyDawg]

But that's exactly the point. If you don't understand it, you have two choices: either take it at face value, or dig deeper, which you did. Neither stance makes you stupid.

[mscelina]

I fully realize this sounds elitist. These days, being elitist is considered almost as bad as being sexist or racist. It’s become a given that all people are entitled to have their voices heard, that their and that their opinions are entitled to respect. To suggest otherwise is to invite wrath down upon your head.

To which I say bullshit. I don’t know about the “average” American, but there are millions upon millions of total idiots in this country. A lot of them vote; in fact, it’s those votes that mostly determine elections.

These people are incapable of understanding anything beyond the most simple of explanations. Their knowledge of the world is non-existent. Find Iraq on a map? Some of them can’t even find Mexico.

They haven’t read a single book since they were forced to in high school – and the only reason they graduated at all is that high school has been forced to dumb down to avoid a 90% failure rate.

Slogans, catchphrases, and lapel pins is what decides their votes. The only saving grace is that many of them don’t bother to vote at all.

So what now? We're supposed to attach, from a distance and diffused by the internet, a blanket definition of stupid upon Americans who don't fit the criteria that you subjectively list above? Come on now--it's precisely that sort of condescension that PREVENTS the American public at large from involving themselves with the campaign!

Why? Because some ideological pundit comes on TV and does it all for them. Why should they bother when the perception of them as 'stupid' seeps out all over the communication networks we have in place and convinces them of it.

If the elite educated intelligentsia of this country want to maintain control, as they have always done, they filter this message through every single bit of information that the public is permitted to receive. Do you really condone that? How comfortable is it on that crystal tower, determining who is valuable in this country and who isn't?

Thank the gods that the 'average, stupid Joe' can vote. At least the sheer numbers of their accumulated voice can overpower this increasing stench of "here, let me do it all for you" politics that's creeping like a miasma over this country. And here we are, people who should know better, debating the comparative merit of the intellect of the American voter as if they were specimens under a very Robespierre type of microscope!

I'll tell you what, rugcat. Give me ten college graduates and I'll find five that can't locate Iraq on a map. Or who don't read books. Or pay more than a fleeting bit of attention to the election when a story pops up on CNN.

I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. But I do have a problem with anyone--public figure or not--who feels they have the right to deal subjectivity through what is legally bound to be a democratic process.

To which I say bullshit.

[rugcat]

Intelligent people, and by this I mean the educated, the thoughtful, the wise, use the word "stupid" too often. It smacks of laziness, especially when applied to anything other than a single event. They should know better.Except I never used the word stupid in my post. I called these people idiots and they are. There are some very educated people I also think are idiots, btw.

I'm certainly not talking about any specific type of intellegence. My auto mechanic in Salt Lake is as aware of political issues as anyone on this board. Plus, he can figure out what's wrong with my car and how to fix it -- something I can't. Even if he knew nothing about politics, he'd still be a smart guy. And probably more of a contributer to society than I am.

There were cops that I worked with who weren't as "smart" as I am, in a specific way. But they were better cops than I was -- not only could they assess people and handle tricky situations, they could make sense of cases with multiple related suspects all telling different stories and all lying. If you think I looked down on them because they didn't know who F. Scott Fitzgerald was, you have the wrong idea. I looked up to them.

I have tremendous respect for people who have the ability to do all kinds of things, more than I do for intellectuals, for that matter. In no way do I consider these people stupid, or think I am in any way superior to them.

I'm talking about people who have neither the interest nor the capacity to understand complexity. The people who still think Obama's a Muslim. The people who still think Saddam was behind the 911 attacks and support the Iraq war because we needed to teach those Iraqis the lesson that they can't mess with us. How do you have a rational discussion with such people?

And as to geography, how can you have a serious discussion about foreign policy with someone who has no idea where Iraq is and doesn't care?

[mscelina]

To be fair to rugcat, the 'stupid' generated over the course of the last page and a half. It went from "Americans aren't that smart" and progressed from there.

[LimeyDawg]

Come on now--it's precisely that sort of condescension that PREVENTS the American public at large from involving themselves with the campaign!

Yes, but more importantly, why the hell should they care? I challenge anyone, ANYONE, to show me how the life of the average Joe is going to change one bit for the better after this election. The only change Obama is going to bring is that someone other than a white male is going to be in the White House. That's it, which pisses me off because I'm still going to vote for him.[/quote]

I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. But I do have a problem with anyone--public figure or not--who feels they have the right to deal subjectivity through what is legally bound to be a democratic process.

To which I say bullshit.
What Democratic process? Oh, you mean the one where the people vote, and the person with the most votes wins??? Where do they do that?

[LimeyDawg]

To be fair to rugcat, the 'stupid' generated over the course of the last page and a half. It went from "Americans aren't that smart" and progressed from there.
Yes, and I'd like to point out that my use of stupid in my reply was not directed at John's post, but at the thread, as you point out. My apologies for any misunderstanding.

[mscelina]

Yes, but more importantly, why the hell should they care? I challenge anyone, ANYONE, to show me how the life of the average Joe is going to change one bit for the better after this election. The only change Obama is going to bring is that someone other than a white male is going to be in the White House. That's it, which pisses me off because I'm still going to vote for him.

Touche'.

What Democratic process? Oh, you mean the one where the people vote, and the person with the most votes wins??? Where do they do that?

*frowns*

You know that's not how the electoral college works, Limey. Come on now. If you want to argue semantics, we can but I'm sure you're aware of what I meant.

[LimeyDawg]

Okay, you got me on that last point, but still, the electoral college is a farce.

[kuwisdelu]

What one earth are you guys smoking? I want some.

Seriously, you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into a political cartoon. The New Yorker isn't saying all conservatives are dumb backwoods rednecks. It's not saying that it's impossible for a Republican to have any political savvy. They're not saying anything like that at all! They're pointing out the utter idiocy that people--after the whole Reverend Wright thing (Reverend still implies Christian, doesn't it??) and everything else Obama has said--can still think he's moslem, and the ridiculous extremes ("he's a terrorist!") their beliefs can reach. You can not like Obama because of his ideas. You can not like Obama because of his political stance. You can even not like because--as wrong as I see it--you think he's socialist or you think he's power-hungry or anything like that. Those are all legitimate reasons to not vote for someone coming from an informed opinion (even if liberals like myself strongly disagree). But to not like him because one thinks he's a moslem terrorist who worships Bin Laden? Come on. If I were conservative, I would not wanted to be associated with those people politically. Whether they're good people otherwise or not, that's not the kind of thinking that's going to lead to electing a good president--conservative or liberal.

If anything, I think it's the people who are offended that need to be accused to being pretentious and condescending to Americans (McCain and Obama campaigns included). They are saying that most Americans are too stupid to understand the satire. The New Yorker isn't guilty here.

*bolding mine* Are you absolutely out of your tree? Please explain to me, with citations if you please, how the feminist movement has turned into an ideological blinder when discussing the COVER OF THE NEW YORKER? Let me guess: is it because women mobilized behind Hillary Clinton? Well, fortunately the voting power of women in this country is intact and growing IN PART due to the feminist movement that, along with enviromentalists and the welfare state, are responsible for our problems. The welfare state? Are you KIDDING me? I'm sure the magazine took that into consideration when they printed the cover.

Thank you.

[Joe270]

I disagree, Kuwi. The New Yorker wanted controversy, and they got it by the boatload.

They implied many things with their cartoon. Then they implied a whole lot more when they explained to the masses that it is satire. Ultimately, it isn't a prod at Obama, but at those who oppose Obama. It paints them as stupid and believing of all the moronic garbage heaped upon Obama. I seriously doubt most GOP supporters believe any of that crap. (Funny, wasn't it Hillary's campaign which 'leaked' the photo of Obama in the garb he's depicted in? How does that wind up heaped onto the opposition?)

See, the New Yorker humor is too sophisticated for unrefined hicks like me.

I get it, but I consider their humor sophomoric and insulting.

It doesn't really matter that some people weren't insulted and don't understand why others feel that way, what matters is lots of people were insulted.



(This thread really got moving, though.)

[dgiharris]

Intelligent people, and by this I mean the educated, the thoughtful, the wise, use the word "stupid" too often. It smacks of laziness, especially when applied to anything other than a single event. They should know better....

Wow, you put the smack down on stupidity.

The subject of intellect, stupidity, etc is an extremely complicated one since we still have not come to a consensus of what exactly intelligence is or how to rate it.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are different forms of intelligence. How many English professors can change a transmission?

However, it is frustrating watching the country go to hell in a hand basket.

I was in line the other day and some guy was going on about how Bush is trying to take over the world and set himself up as a dictator.

Now, I love Bush as much as I love a kick in the groin, but how stupid was that argument. The only thing worse was that there were a few nodding heads and people that occasionally would say, "You got a good point there"

Now, just because that guy can change a transmission doesn't make him any less of a complete idiot.

Another rant that is my personal favorite (which has some applicability to the Middle East) was a person who was trying to explain to me how the Jews control everything, how Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world, and how they must be stopped.

Of course, those are extreme examples, but there are a plethora of other more mundane minor examples that the masses believe and or do that I would term stupid.

Exhibit A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQkQrSEesTc

I know it comes off as elitist, but it is what it is. When I look at all that is happening in this country, I can't help but get frustrated and lash out during my emotional distress.

I can't take it anymore. I'm moving to Antartica.

Mel...

[Robert Toy]

There is a big difference between ignorance (not knowing) and stupidity. You can overcome Ignorance, but stupidity is common to all levels of education.

[LimeyDawg]

I think its a function of laziness. That guy dgi was talking about probably heard that somewhere else, didn't want to find out for himself, and so is parroting. I wonder if I was misunderstood. What I meant to get across is the idea that calling people wholesale stupid is, well, stupid. Yes, we are all stupid to some degree when it comes to certain things, but we're all products of our environments and choices. I, for example, have an MBA (don't read the New Yorker, btw), but manage a grocery store. People bitch to me all the time about the price of groceries, but when I tell them the reason why corn and oil impact the price of eggs, many of them tell me "that's crap. You guys are just trying to justify raising your prices." I swear to God, in that instant, the voice in the back of my head is screaming "you stupid #$%^&*, don't you read????" However, that person is often a retired doctor, or business person, so they're not stupid, by any stretch.

I just wish we'd apply the term stupid to actions, not people. It's stupid to drink and drive, for example. It is wrong to say people who drink and drive are stupid. It is correct to say that the act of drinking and driving is stupid. Everything is relative in context.

[kuwisdelu]

I just don't see all this implication. It seems like it's being read into the cartoon and the responses when it isn't necessarily there. Can't a magazine just run a satirical cartoon that should appeal to its readers without worrying about what all of its non-readers think?

Not to mention, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's directed at those opposing Obama. To me, it's pretty clear that it's directed at those who believe these illusions about him. Since that's not everyone opposed to him, I'm not sure why people are making that connection.

And almost everyone offended by it so far doesn't actually seem to be legitimately offended by the content--they seem to be offended on behalf of those that they feel might be offended.

[Robert Toy]

UPDATE:

It's only a cartoon! But Obama adds that New Yorker cover insults Muslims

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_untitled__cover16m-1.html

Way to go O.

[kuwisdelu]

UPDATE:

It's only a cartoon! But Obama adds that New Yorker cover insults Muslims

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_untitled__cover16m-1.html

Way to go O.

I agree with most of what he said, and he makes a good point about how offensive these kinds of things are to Muslim Americans, but I disagree with him on one point. I don't think the blame for that should lie with The New Yorker but rather with the people who actually care about whether or not he may be muslim. I've been saying for a while I think it's very sad how so many people care about candidates' religion, and the blame for that should be set squarely on the people who wouldn't vote for a muslim. I certainly understand taking a president's morals into account when voting, but why does the name of where some of those morals may have come from matter?

[InfinityGoddess]

I certainly understand taking a president's morals into account when voting, but why does the name of where some of those morals may have come from matter?

Indeed. As history shows us, being a Christian doesn't always translate to being "moral". You don't have to look any further than the Pat Robertson ilk for proof even today. And that's true with any belief system.

Morality, in my view, is dependent upon the actions of the individual, and not what they believe in; because often people say they believe in something, but then do the total opposite in the end.

[MattW]

UPDATE:

It's only a cartoon! But Obama adds that New Yorker cover insults Muslims

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_untitled__cover16m-1.html

Way to go O.
It's not offensive to Muslims until there are death (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399177,00.html) threats (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/world/main1272489.shtml) to the artist (http://jp.dk/uknews/article1263133.ece) and violence (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/syria.cartoon/)around the world (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article731005.ece)

[Joe270]

I just wish we'd apply the term stupid to actions, not people. It's stupid to drink and drive, for example. It is wrong to say people who drink and drive are stupid. It is correct to say that the act of drinking and driving is stupid. Everything is relative in context.

Point well made. It sure would be a better world if everyone made that distinction.

I'd also like to point out that this use of the word 'stupid', or the implications that 'the other side is stupid' isn't isolated to any particular party affiliation. Both sides sometimes fall into the same 'stupid' trap.


In an aside:
The cartoon cover which inspired this thread did touch a lot of raw nerves. The cover itself carried those 'generalities' which Mac wants us to avoid. In this instance, those generalities themselves became the topic, like the term 'stupid', which I admit to bringing up. Although I don't agree with everything posted in this thread, I thought the members who posted here dealt with those tough subjects quite well.

However, I have received a comment, not a complaint, from a member a bit worried about some of the content. If anyone has a problem with this thread, please contact me by pm or rep message. I threw out the 'this is hardcore challenge', so I feel responsible.

[shawkins]

In re: intellectual elitism. I've got some.

Running a country is a complex business, and it should be obvious that to have a prayer of doing it well a President must be, if not smart, at least not dumb. Clinton had intelligence. Nixon had it. Bush's father met minimum requirements. Bush just doesn't. All the people who voted for Bush because he "shared their core values" or whatever the rationale was are guilty of a basic failure in judgment: dumb people, regardless of how folksy they are or what God they pray to, make dumb decisions. The White House is the wrong place for people who make dumb decisions. Failing to recognize that basic and obvious truth is prima facie evidence of dumbhood on the part of the voter, and I don't think pretending otherwise does the country any good. If that means I'm an elitist, fine.

That the last eight years have been nearly apocalyptic for the nation and the world came as absolutely no surprise to many people. Nonetheless, the fact that our predictions of Bush's presidency being be a disaster because Bush is dumb seems to have earned us no credit with the group that didn't see it coming. Actually, when you think about it, it's sort of funny that at least a few of those who voted for Bush aren't at least slightly chastened by the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of their truly epic failure of judgment--failing to learn from your mistakes is, after all, another facet of dumb, ha-ha. But, as expected, instead of an admission of error and perhaps an apology, the 'intellectual elitism' of those of us who saw this coming a mile away is once again being talked about as if it were some sort of character flaw.

Dumb people don't like the feeling that they're being talked down to? Dumb people don't like feeling that their opinions aren't taken seriously? Tough shit. I can't play basketball worth a damn, but you never hear me bitch about 'physical elitism,' nor do I require that my physical betters pretend that I am any good on the court. I'd actually go so far as to suggest that if you were a Bush supporter the most patriotic thing you could do in 2008 is not vote. Seriously. Your proven history of colossal misjudgment has left the country in a terrible mess, and it's not entirely clear how to fix it at the moment. Go resent elitism in the corner and try to stay out of the way.

[InfinityGoddess]

In re: intellectual elitism. I've got some.

Running a country is a complex business, and it should be obvious that to have a prayer of doing it well a President must be, if not smart, at least not dumb. Clinton had intelligence. Nixon had it. Bush's father met minimum requirements. Bush just doesn't. All the people who voted for Bush because he "shared their core values" or whatever the rationale was are guilty of a basic failure in judgment: dumb people, regardless of how folksy they are or what God they pray to, make dumb decisions. The White House is the wrong place for people who make dumb decisions. Failing to recognize that basic and obvious truth is prima facie evidence of dumbhood on the part of the voter, and I don't think pretending otherwise does the country any good. If that means I'm an elitist, fine.

That the last eight years have been nearly apocalyptic for the nation and the world came as absolutely no surprise to many people. Nonetheless, the fact that our predictions of Bush's presidency being be a disaster because Bush is dumb seems to have earned us no credit with the group that didn't see it coming. Actually, when you think about it, it's sort of funny that at least a few of those who voted for Bush aren't at least slightly chastened by the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of their truly epic failure of judgment--failing to learn from your mistakes is, after all, another facet of dumb, ha-ha. But, as expected, instead of an admission of error and perhaps an apology, the 'intellectual elitism' of those of us who saw this coming a mile away is once again being talked about as if it were some sort of character flaw.

Dumb people don't like the feeling that they're being talked down to? Dumb people don't like feeling that their opinions aren't taken seriously? Tough shit. I can't play basketball worth a damn, but you never hear me bitch about 'physical elitism,' nor do I require that my physical betters pretend that I am any good on the court. I'd actually go so far as to suggest that if you were a Bush supporter the most patriotic thing you could do in 2008 is not vote. Seriously. Your proven history of colossal misjudgment has left the country in a terrible mess, and it's not entirely clear how to fix it at the moment. Go resent elitism in the corner and try to stay out of the way.

OMG. :O I agree with this. I must be "elitist" too.

Except that I probably would be telling people to vote Obama, as opposed to "not at all".

[kuwisdelu]

Dumb people don't like the feeling that they're being talked down to? Dumb people don't like feeling that their opinions aren't taken seriously? Tough shit. I can't play basketball worth a damn, but you never hear me bitch about 'physical elitism,' nor do I require that my physical betters pretend that I am any good on the court.

Good point. Why exactly is it that intellectual elitism frowned upon so much? I sure wasn't the most athletic kid, and I certainly don't care if the more athletic remind me of that. I've always thought the growing practice of giving all the kids trophies, even when they didn't win anything, was dumb. I got a few of them, and I don't value them at all. Even if that means I don't get anything. I'm not about to pretend I know how to run a sports team. Why should those who are not up to intellectual snuff pretend to know how to run a country?

[robeiae]

That the last eight years have been nearly apocalyptic for the nation and the world came as absolutely no surprise to many people.
Apocalyptic? How can I take your recommendations seriously when you go this far over the top with hyperbole?


Apocalyptic? Please...

[shawkins]

Apocalyptic? How can I take your recommendations seriously when you go this far over the top with hyperbole?


Apocalyptic? Please...

I said "nearly apocalyptic". I don't think that's hyperbole. But since you object, I'll reduce it to "disastrous." Go to foxnews.com and click business. I think you'll agree that the news is not good.

[shawkins]

Actually, I retract that last. I'm sticking with "nearly apocalyptic."

[Joe270]

Actually, when you think about it, it's sort of funny that at least a few of those who voted for Bush aren't at least slightly chastened by the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of their truly epic failure of judgment--failing to learn from your mistakes is, after all, another facet of dumb, ha-ha.

As one of those voters who voted for Bush, I thank our lucky stars that neither Kerry or Gore were in the White House for those years. The world changed while Bush was in the office. Muslim Fundamentalist terrorism struck home and changed everything. Kerry still has his head stuck firmly in the sand, and Gore has his stuck up his own backside. Bush made mistakes, but taking on our country's enemies wasn't one of them.

Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to say that Bush was a bigger mistake than Kerry or Gore. It's also an invalid argument, because you cannot have Kerry or Gore's performance as President during those last years to offer as a comparison.

So you offer up some 'pie in the sky' that your pick was correct and mine wasn't. I beg to differ. Someone might have done better than Bush. That same nefarious 'someone' might have done a whole lot worse.

I'd actually go so far as to suggest that if you were a Bush supporter the most patriotic thing you could do in 2008 is not vote. Seriously. Your proven history of colossal misjudgment has left the country in a terrible mess, and it's not entirely clear how to fix it at the moment. Go resent elitism in the corner and try to stay out of the way.

I'd go so far as suggesting you stay home because, no matter how elite you feel, I still have the right to vote. So that you think you are so much superior to me intellectually, fine, I'll exercise my rights to keep those like you who want to make my choices for me in check. You have no right to dictate to me.

You can call me dumb if you like, but I don't appreciate it. I don't appreciate your insinuation that I shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And I really don't like the USA you portray, where you and your chosen elite run the place and we just keep our mouths shut because you are superior to us. The US ran the last King out, we're not likely to cotton to another one.

[rugcat]

Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to say that Bush was a bigger mistake than Kerry or Gore. It's also an invalid argument, because you have, and cannot have, Kerry or Gore's performance as President during those last years to offer as a comparison.This is the same argument I pointed out in a different post. Those who defend a disastrous policy can always say it could have been worse if a different policy was followed. It's the war on drugs syndrome -- no matter how badly it's going, the claim is simply made that it would be worse still without the policies. And there's no answer to that -- except to make a change and see what the results are.

Stripped of all hyperbole, it seems to me inescapable that our nation is far worse off in every conceivable way then it was before Bush took office. If you think it isn't, then we have an almost unbridgeable gulf in perception. If you want to believe it would have been even worse if Al Gore had been elected, well, there's no way to argue that.

[Joe270]

Stripped of all hyperbole, it seems to me inescapable that our nation is far worse off in every conceivable way then it was before Bush took office. If you think it isn't, then we have an almost unbridgeable gulf in perception. If you want to believe it would have been even worse if Al Gore had been elected, well, there's no way to argue that

Exactly my point. There is no way to argue the point.

No one can say that Kerry or Gore would have done better or worse.

I'm of the opinion that Bush was the better choice, others think their choice would have done better. There is no way to establish this, it's just opinion, nothing else.

Calling someone dumb, and saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they voted for Bush, and Bush screwed everything up but their choice wouldn't have is bullshit of the first order.

The case is impossible to make.

Blaming Bush for everything may be popular, but it ain't valid. Lots of things caved in on the US during his presidency, from cyclical business cycles to record oil prices to terrorism and war, it can't all be dumped into Bush's lap, no matter how much the democrats want to.

[rugcat]

Blaming Bush for everything may be popular, but it ain't valid. Lots of things caved in on the US during his presidency, from cyclical business cycles to record oil prices to terrorism and war, it can't all be dumped into Bush's lap, no matter how much the democrats want to.Well, I can certainly dump a disastrous war started for ideological reasons, with no understanding of the consequences squarely in his lap. Al Gore president, no war in Iraq.

I can blame Bush for deficit financing an unnecessary war which will ultimately cost a trillion dollars, not to mention long term collateral costs.

I can certainly blame Republican policies, if not Bush specifically, for financial deregulation ideology that has been a huge contributor to out financial crisis.

I can blame him for putting incompetent lackies in positions of power, like Alberto Gonzalez, and turning what was once an at least fairly even handed justice department into a legal arm of the White House, dedicated only to finding justifications for his policies, and to obstructing any attempts to curb the expansion of presidential power.

Plus various peccadillos too numerous to enumerate, like appointing oil and mining lobbyists to head environmental agencies -- the very agencies that are supposed to keep an eye on them.

Or our energy policy, whatever it was, crafted in secret apparently by the CEOs of oil and power industry. Let’s not forget, that in this time of energy crisis, those same companies are making profits unequaled in history.

Or the fact that our standing in the world, even among our former allies is at its lowest point ever.

"A uniter, not a divider"? He has divided our nation so profoundly that I don't know if the rifts will ever heal.

And yes, I believe he is a profoundly stupid man, free from doubts, secure in the rightness of his vision as only the truly stupid can be.

There’s no point in going on. It's all been said before, and few minds have been changed.

When he was elected, I wasn’t thrilled, but I was willing to give him a chance. I thought he’d probably be okay, and I wasn’t thrilled with Al Gore anyway. But after watching what has happened the last seven and a half years, I think he has done more to injure our nation than any man in my lifetime.

[Joe270]

And I can counter every single statement, but it gets us no where.

[blacbird]

When he was elected, I wasn’t thrilled, but I was willing to give him a chance. I thought he’d probably be okay, and I wasn’t thrilled with Al Gore anyway. But after watching what has happened the last seven and a half years, I think he has done more to injure our nation than any man in my lifetime.

I have to concur with the entirety of this statement, every point in it, and just second it for emphasis and congratulate rugcat for expressing it so succinctly.

caw

[rugcat]

And I can counter every single statement, but it gets us no where.Well, on that I agree. It's going nowhere, though I do feel passionately about it as you may have gathered.

[Robert Toy]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l253/RT_2006/capt_344f501386144179a86ff6d249d37f.jpg

Way to go Mrs. O!

[Bartholomew]

Well, on that I agree. It's going nowhere, though I do feel passionately about it as you may have gathered.

And I can counter every single statement, but it gets us no where.

But can't we all agree that Bush is profoundly stupid, if not directly responsible for every single catastrophe ever visited upon mankind?

[donroc]

Snake in the Garden of Eden too.

[Bartholomew]

Snake in the Garden of Eden too.

The only thing we're still trying to decide regarding the snake is whether it embodied Bush, was Bush himself, or merely represented the will of Bush.

[Shadow_Ferret]

But can't we all agree that Bush is profoundly stupid, if not directly responsible for every single catastrophe ever visited upon mankind?No.

[robeiae]

I said "nearly apocalyptic". I don't think that's hyperbole. But since you object, I'll reduce it to "disastrous." Go to foxnews.com and click business. I think you'll agree that the news is not good.

Actually, I retract that last. I'm sticking with "nearly apocalyptic."
News not being good hardly translates to "nearly apocalyptic," in my mind.

Sticking soley to economics--since others are opining on the other things (though I will note that we have suffered no other 9-11 type attacks, and that attack was clearly planned before Bush took office, so it's kinda hard to allow any thing approaching apocalyptic there)--the economy is on a downswing. But you want to blame Bush? Look at Enron--held up as the poster child of nasty Republican robber-baron fiascoes--and try to put it in context. Enron was establishing its dirty trick playbook under the Clinton admin, as it cozied up to Clinton and company. It got taken down under Bush. Personally, I think that's just the way things worked out. I don't blame Clinton for Enron, but I sure as hell don't blame Bush. It was his Justice Department that took care of the problem.

How 'bout the housing crisis? There's this idea that deregulation was the culprit and that that is a Republican thing. But what about credit extension to people who have no business getting any credit? That animal is a product of liberal-minded folks that sought "social justice." There's plenty of blame, here. Then there are the very people that bought what they could not afford. Of course, they get a pass...

Then there's unemployment...well, you're s*** out of luck, there.

Then there are high gas prices. Now this is--ultimately--a simple thing: DEMAND. It's through the roof. This is an issue that anyone paying attention should have seen decades ago. China didn't just start gobbling up oil under Bush. Why was nothing done before? But then, what can be done--aside from drilling our own land for our own oil--when the commodity in question is something we must buy from other nations? How the hell can the U.S. government set the INTERNATIONAL price for oil? Nonsense.

No, I'm afraid I see the "nearly apocalyptic" verbiage as just so much hot air, designed to appeal to the under-informed. That plays better on the streets than in here. I may have to confiscate your Intellectual Elitist Snob membership card...

[AncientEagle]

Well, I can certainly dump a disastrous war started for ideological reasons, with no understanding of the consequences squarely in his lap. Al Gore president, no war in Iraq.

I can blame Bush for deficit financing an unnecessary war which will ultimately cost a trillion dollars, not to mention long term collateral costs.

I can certainly blame Republican policies, if not Bush specifically, for financial deregulation ideology that has been a huge contributor to out financial crisis.

I can blame him for putting incompetent lackies in positions of power, like Alberto Gonzalez, and turning what was once an at least fairly even handed justice department into a legal arm of the White House, dedicated only to finding justifications for his policies, and to obstructing any attempts to curb the expansion of presidential power.

Plus various peccadillos too numerous to enumerate, like appointing oil and mining lobbyists to head environmental agencies -- the very agencies that are supposed to keep an eye on them.

Or our energy policy, whatever it was, crafted in secret apparently by the CEOs of oil and power industry. Let’s not forget, that in this time of energy crisis, those same companies are making profits unequaled in history.

Or the fact that our standing in the world, even among our former allies is at its lowest point ever.

"A uniter, not a divider"? He has divided our nation so profoundly that I don't know if the rifts will ever heal.

And yes, I believe he is a profoundly stupid man, free from doubts, secure in the rightness of his vision as only the truly stupid can be.

There’s no point in going on. It's all been said before, and few minds have been changed.

When he was elected, I wasn’t thrilled, but I was willing to give him a chance. I thought he’d probably be okay, and I wasn’t thrilled with Al Gore anyway. But after watching what has happened the last seven and a half years, I think he has done more to injure our nation than any man in my lifetime.

You expressed my feelings and opinions precisely, far better than I could have myself.

I note that we're now trying to unstick ourselves from the tarbaby that is Iraq and put more emphasis on Afghanistan, the place where, in my opinion, we should have fought a war and fought it decisively and probably settled it long ago. Instead, we got sidetracked to satisfy some strange compulsion to fight people who were no immediate threat and ignore the people who had conspired and attacked us. Just one of many decisions I find hard to comprehend.

Sorry to digress. Mainly, I agree completely with your comment.

[rugcat]

Enron was establishing its dirty trick playbook under the Clinton admin, as it cozied up to Clinton and company. It got taken down under Bush. Personally, I think that's just the way things worked out. I don't blame Clinton for Enron, but I sure as hell don't blame Bush. It was his Justice Department that took care of the problem.Enron certainly cosied up to the Clinton administration, so no, it's not entirely Bush. But Kenny boy was one of Bushes largest financial backers, and a good friend as well. When Lay finally took the fall, Bush was saying, "Lay? Ken Lay? Why I barely know the man!"How 'bout the housing crisis? There's this idea that deregulation was the culprit and that that is a Republican thing. But what about credit extension to people who have no business getting any credit? That animal is a product of liberal-minded folks that sought "social justice."Sorry, but no. The regulations preventing those type of loans, made purely on speculation in the housing market to unqualified buyers, were put in place by "liberal minded folks." And then removed by free market proponents, with predictable results when the bubble finally burst.Then there are high gas prices. Now this is--ultimately--a simple thing: DEMAND. It's through the roof. In January 2007 oil was at $50 bbl. It's now three times that. So you think demand for oil has increased threefold in a year and a half? Suddenly, the population of China has tripled?

US consumers, driven by high prices, have actually reduced their consumption of gas in the last year. Less demand means lower prices at the pump. This is a simple fact of economics. Except it isn't; gas prices continue to rise.

[Robert Toy]

Enron certainly cosied up to the Clinton administration, so no, it's not entirely Bush. But Kenny boy was one of Bushes largest financial backers, and a good friend as well. When Lay finally took the fall, Bush was saying, "Lay? Ken Lay? Why I barely know the man!"

Not quite in those words

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/bush-lay/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/bush-lay/)

[robeiae]

Enron certainly cosied up to the Clinton administration, so no, it's not entirely Bush. But Kenny boy was one of Bushes largest financial backers, and a good friend as well. When Lay finally took the fall, Bush was saying, "Lay? Ken Lay? Why I barely know the man!"But Lay did take the fall. He did get taken down. Bush's attempts to distance him aside, how can Bush be blamed for what Enron was doing?Sorry, but no. The regulations preventing those type of loans, made purely on speculation in the housing market to unqualified buyers, were put in place by "liberal minded folks." And then removed by free market proponents, with predictable results when the bubble finally burst.No, that's not a complete picture. There is state and local legislation--linked to outlawing redlining--that forced banks to extend credit. The banks, of course, covered their asses by using punitive interest rates, whenever possible. And the mortgage fiasco didn't happen in a vacuum. Non-mortgage credit has been growing, and the single biggest reason why it happens is--imo--the lack of caps on interest rates. What did Clinton and the dem Congress he initially had do about that? Nothing. Why?

So, I think it incorrect to find an ideological culprit for the housing crisis. And again, the biggest culprits are--imo--the people that bought what they could not afford. The growth in home ownership rates is a talking point that both liberals and conservatives sought credit for in the past. Now, we see the price that has to be paid. Are both sides willing to concede that the growth of these rates was actually a "bad thing"? I bet they don't...
In January 2007 oil was at $50 bbl. It's now three times that. So you think demand for oil has increased threefold in a year and a half? Suddenly, the population of China has tripled? Well, no. But in a market, you don't need to have a tripling of usage to get a tripling of price. The relationship is neither static nor directly proportional. But China's usage is growing exponentially. It has been for some time. And it was--to me anyway--pretty clear back in the days of the Asian Tigers that this was gonna happen.

US consumers, driven by high prices, have actually reduced their consumption of gas in the last year. Less demand means lower prices at the pump. This is a simple fact of economics. Except it isn't; gas prices continue to rise.
It is not a "simple fact," at all. It depends on the market. Oil is an internationally traded commodity. Is worldwide usage lower? But even if it were, other costs associated with production and supply can impact prices, like taxes, tariffs, production problems, etc. And even if ever thing is perfect, less demand doesn't mean lower prices in real time. there's always a lag. Coupled with inflation and a falling dollar, lower prices might translate into "not drastically higher prices." You never know.

[shawkins]

--the economy is on a downswing. But you want to blame Bush?

Yes.

The housing crisis is a prime example of a dumb man making a dumb decision with nearly apocalyptic consequences for the country, but not for the reasons you mentioned. See the thread below, post #8 for the details, but I'll summarize.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109477

In order to keep the economy humming along at an artificially inflated rate, the Bush administration kept the prime lending rate lower than it's been for a very very long time. This led directly to the housing bubble, which led directly to the near-insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I actually do think that a failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--a 5.3 trillion dollar industry--constitutes a reasonable use of the word 'apocalypse.' On the one hand, if they're simply allowed to fail, it would for all practical purposes bring housing sales in the country to a halt. On the other hand, if the FMs had to be nationalized it would literally double the national debt overnight.

Bush misused his stewardship of the prime lending rate to mask the symptoms of a faltering economy in order to retain power for a second term. In so doing he wounded the economy so severely that he nearly doubled our national debt overnight. It was dumb.

--No, I'm afraid I see the "nearly apocalyptic" verbiage as just so much hot air, designed to appeal to the under-informed. That plays better on the streets than in here. I may have to confiscate your Intellectual Elitist Snob membership card...

Actually, I think it's playing pretty well.

[rugcat]

So, I think it incorrect to find an ideological culprit for the housing crisis. And again, the biggest culprits are--imo--the people that bought what they could not afford. And those people were encouraged to do so by lenders who stood to make money on the deal. And it's fine to believe that the borrowers are ultimately resonsible for their own unrealistic expectations, or sometimes even sheer greed, but the results of the meltdown affect our entire economy, not just those who lost their homes. That's why the regulations were originally in place.

Economics is not an exact science -- it's hardly a science at all, and every economic outcome can be attributed to several causes. Which causes are most important depends mostly on which economic theories one subscribes to. It could be argued forever, and sometimes is.

But there is one fact: the Republicans have had eight years in which to run the country in accordance to their economic ideas, and the results have not been good.

[Robert Toy]

Yes.

The housing crisis is a prime example of a dumb man making a dumb decision with nearly apocalyptic consequences for the country, but not for the reasons you mentioned. See the thread below, post #8 for the details, but I'll summarize.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109477

In order to keep the economy humming along at an artificially inflated rate, the Bush administration kept the prime lending rate lower than it's been for a very very long time. This led directly to the housing bubble, which led directly to the near-insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I actually do think that a failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--a 5.3 trillion dollar industry--constitutes a reasonable use of the word 'apocalypse.' On the one hand, if they're simply allowed to fail, it would for all practical purposes bring housing sales in the country to a halt. On the other hand, if the FMs had to be nationalized it would literally double the national debt overnight.

Bush misused his stewardship of the prime lending rate to mask the symptoms of a faltering economy in order to retain power for a second term. In so doing he wounded the economy so severely that he nearly doubled our national debt overnight. It was dumb.



Actually, I think it's playing pretty well.

Any thoughts on Allen Greenspan and his role in the housing / subprime mess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan)

[robeiae]

I actually do think that a failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--a 5.3 trillion dollar industry--constitutes a reasonable use of the word 'apocalypse.'
As I noted in another thread--to you, actually--these problems are a consequence of tools like Jaime Gorelick getting put into positions of power in companies like Fannie Mae. Explain to me why Clinton shouldn't share the blame, based on that, alone.

[blacbird]

Any thoughts on Allen Greenspan and his role in the housing / subprime mess?

Greenspan did nothing wrong. Just ask him.

Seriously. I heard him interviewed a few weeks ago, and to every question pertinent to the current credit/mortgage mess, its overall effect on the economy, and his role in all of that, it was always somebody else's fault.

caw

[rugcat]

Greenspan did nothing wrong. Just ask him.

Seriously. I heard him interviewed a few weeks ago, and to every question pertinent to the current credit/mortgage mess, its overall effect on the economy, and his role in all of that, it was always somebody else's fault.Do you suppose that's a sign he'll be running for political office soon?

[shawkins]

Any thoughts on Allen Greenspan and his role in the housing / subprime mess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan)

Yes.

1. Greenspan's tenure as fed chairman ran from 1987 to 2006. At no time before Bush took office did Greenspan / the Fed take the prime rate below 3%.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/srh/primeRate.png

2. Although the 2% rate was not entirely without historical precedent (it was that low in 1953 and again in 1958), in both the previous cases it was held at historically low levels for only a month or two. During Bush's tenure, however, it stayed at historically low levels for over a year.

3. Immediately following the 2004 elections the prime rate zipped back up to a more historically normal 5% range.

Do you think that Greenspan abandoned his lifelong habit of extraordinarily deliberate and careful action on a whim? Do you think it even remotely likely that he believed it was possible to keep the prime lending rate at historically low levels for an unprecented length of time without guaranteeing serious long-term repercussions? Do you think he was getting flighty in his old age?

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from these verifiable and irrefutable facts is that Greenspan was being pressured by Bush to keep the economic numbers artificially rosy until after the 2004 elections.

As I noted in another thread--to you, actually--these problems are a consequence of tools like Jaime Gorelick getting put into positions of power in companies like Fannie Mae. Explain to me why Clinton shouldn't share the blame, based on that, alone.

I'd point out that Fox News has repeatedly stated that the immediate cause of the current problems at Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac is the housing bubble. Inasmuch as the housing bubble was directly and inarguably a result of Bush's policies, I suggest that we consider Ms. Goerlick--loathesome hack though she undoubtedly is--another innocent bystander caught up in the train wreck of dumb that is the Bush administration.

[blacbird]

And those people were encouraged to do so by lenders who stood to make money on the deal.

Not just encouraged to do so, but by evidence of the dozens of indictments already handed down, many were actively lied to and/or deliberately misled into taking out such dangerous loans. It's hard to see these things as much different from, say, a paint retailer telling customers there's no lead in the paint when, actually, there is.

There's plenty of blame deserved by the lending industry, as well as by injudicious or ignorant borrowers. But, of course, it's always easier to blame the poorer rather than the wealthier.

caw

[robeiae]

I'd point out that Fox News has repeatedly stated that the immediate cause of the current problems at Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac is the housing bubble. Inasmuch as the housing bubble was directly and inarguably a result of Bush's policies, I suggest that we consider Ms. Goerlick--loathesome hack though she undoubtedly is--another innocent bystander caught up in the train wreck of dumb that is the Bush administration.
Good idea, let's stick to our ideological guns and the hapless attitude of blaming the President--while letting Congress and the bureaucrats skate away clean--no matter what and avoid confronting reality, whenever possible.

Mein Gott, Fannie Mae was hiding billions in losses, while hacks like Gorelick took millions upon millions from the company, as they essentially wrote their own salary. And you don't think that has anything to do with the current problems?

And why did you put "Fox News" in bold letters? Is that an attempt to be clever, to make some kind of dig along the lines of "even the ultra-biased Fox News is saying this and you--being a conservative--must take everything they say as Gospel."

I'd point out that news sources are more interested in sexy, low-brow stories than anything else.

And this is BS: "Inasmuch as the housing bubble was directly and inarguably a result of Bush's policies..."

You can't prove it, you can only construct a circumstantial case in this regard, so IT IS NOT INARGUABLE. Far from it.

And the housing bubble started before Bush took office, so your claim is already DOA.

[Robert Toy]

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from these verifiable and irrefutable facts is that Greenspan was being pressured by Bush to keep the economic numbers artificially rosy until after the 2004 elections.
my bold

You are taking factual Federal Fund Rates and imposing your opinion as to how or why the rates where set and kept. Unless you were present when Bush allegedly pressured Greenspan, it falls right in line with myriad other conspiracy theories. I.e. BS

[shawkins]

Good idea, let's stick to our ideological guns and the hapless attitude of blaming the President--while letting Congress and the bureaucrats skate away clean--no matter what and avoid confronting reality, whenever possible.

I'm not against blaming congress for stuff--they suck too. It's just that this one wasn't their fault.

Mein Gott, Fannie Mae was hiding billions in losses, while hacks like Gorelick took millions upon millions from the company, as they essentially wrote their own salary. And you don't think that has anything to do with the current problems?

Nope. Again, the housing bubble was a direct result of Bush keeping the prime rate unusually low for an unprecedented length of time. The FMs are failing because the bubble burst.

Let's give Gorelick lots of credit and say she walked away with 10 million. The magnitute of the failure is on the order of 1 trillion. If so, it means her contribution was about one part in one million. She was naughty, but it's irrelevant.

And why did you put "Fox News" in bold letters? Is that an attempt to be clever, to make some kind of dig along the lines of "even the ultra-biased Fox News is saying this and you--being a conservative--must take everything they say as Gospel."

It was a time saving measure. I cited Fox News in hopes of precluding the usual accusations of liberal bias in the media.

I'd point out that news sources are more interested in sexy, low-brow stories than anything else.

Agreed. It's all the dumb electorate is interested in. In most cases it's all they can understand.

And this is BS: "Inasmuch as the housing bubble was directly and inarguably a result of Bush's policies..."

You can't prove it,

Holding interest rates at historically low levels for an unprecedented length of time led to the housing bubble which led to the near-insolvency of the FMs.

Do you know formal logic? Modus ponens? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens) If you know A, and A implies B, then you know B. The political bias of the person pointing it out doesn't matter. I've proved it.

you can only construct a circumstantial case in this regard, so IT IS NOT INARGUABLE. Far from it.

It is indeed inarguable, as you're proving by not arguing any of the facts but only calling attention to my ideological bias. I'll save you some time: I'm a liberal. I admit it. Bush is still dumb.

If it makes any difference, I would have at least considered voting for McCain in 2000.

And the housing bubble started before Bush took office, so your claim is already DOA.

Nice try, but no. That's actually why I picked this particular topic to start being an asshole. While it is true that most economic trends are expressed as continuous functions--that is, they rise and fall fluidly over time, making it difficult to define precise beginning and end points--the interest rate is a discrete function, which means it changes at clearly defined moments.

In this case, the precise day the rate began to drop off was Oct 1, 2001--shortly after 9/111. It hovered around 2.75 for most of 2002, bottomed out on 2003, stayed there for over a year, then shot up immediately following the 2004 election.

Keeping interest rates at unprecedented low levels for 2+ years caused the housing bubble. The housing bubble led to the near-collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The collapse of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac would almost certainly bring on a worldwide economic depression. Not a recession, a depression. It would certainly bring on a national depression. Like the one that led to WWII.

The Bush White House compelled the Fed to do something the Fed knew was guaranteed to cause problems in order to increase their chances of retaining power in the 2004 election. As a result of this very very dumb course of action, they very nearly plunged the nation and the world into a depression. And we're not out of the woods yet.

It was dumb.

It's inarguable.



1 Let me emphasize that I'm not disputing the wisdom of giving the economy a boost in the wake of 9/11 by lowering the prime rate, I'm saying it was a terrible idea to keep the prime rate that low for 2+ years.

[robeiae]

Let's give Gorelick lots of credit and say she walked away with 10 million. The magnitute of the failure is on the order of 1 trillion. If so, it means her contribution was about one part in one million. She was naughty, but it's irrelevant.Twenty six million, actually. And she was just one of a crowd. But you're coming at this from the wrong angle. The point is, what did all this faulty record-keeping do to Fannie Mae. what was really going on, there? You want to make that determination from limited evidence--what's in the news--and that's wrong-headed.





Holding interest rates at historically low levels for an unprecedented length of time led to the housing bubble which led to the near-insolvency of the FMs.

Do you know formal logic? Modus ponens? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens)If you know A, and A implies B, then you know B. The political bias of the person pointing it out doesn't matter. I've proved it.

*sigh*

No you haven't. Because you are assuming a static situation and a singular cause. You haven't even established the causal link to the degree that would be required. And of course, you can't, as we will soon see.

Nice try, but no. That's actually why I picked this particular topic to start being an asshole. While it is true that most economic trends are expressed as continuous functions--that is, they rise and fall fluidly over time, making it difficult to define precise beginning and end points--the interest rate is a discrete function, which means it changes at clearly defined moments.

In this case, the precise day the rate began to drop off was Oct 1, 2001--shortly after 9/111. It hovered around 2.75 for most of 2002, bottomed out on 2003, stayed there for over a year, then shot up immediately following the 2004 election.

Keeping interest rates at unprecedented low levels for 2+ years caused the housing bubble. The housing bubble led to the near-collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The collapse of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac would almost certainly bring on a worldwide economic depression. Not a recession, a depression. It would certainly bring on a national depression. Like the one that led to WWII.

The Bush White House compelled the Fed to do something the Fed knew was guaranteed to cause problems in order to increase their chances of retaining power in the 2004 election. As a result of this very very dumb course of action, they very nearly plunged the nation and the world into a depression. And we're not out of the woods yet.

It was dumb.

It's inarguable.
Sorry, you lose. You are picking a start time for what you call the "housing bubble." But on what basis? Obviously, on the basis of making it fit what you want to prove.

The housing bubble began in the 1990's--1995 to 1997 or so--not in 2001.

You picked the wrong topic. And that's a shame, since all your analysis has now gone to waste, since it was based on a faulty premise.

[LimeyDawg]

Agreed. It's all the dumb electorate is interested in. In most cases it's all they can understand.

Wow. Up until this point you were making an intelligent point. So, exactly who is this electorate you speak of? And from what platform do you speak down at them?

[shawkins]

my bold

You are taking factual Federal Fund Rates and imposing your opinion

It's not an opinion, it's a theory--a hypothesis with lots of evidence to back it up.

1. Greenspan's tenure as fed chairman ran from 1987 to 2006. At no time before Bush took office did Greenspan / the Fed take the prime rate below 3%.

2. Although the 2% rate was not entirely without historical precedent (it was that low in 1953 and again in 1958), in both the previous cases it was held at historically low levels for only a month or two. During Bush's tenure, however, it stayed at historically low levels for over a year.

3. Immediately following the 2004 elections the prime rate zipped back up to a more historically normal 5% range.

Unless you where present when Bush allegedly pressured Greenspan, it falls right in line with myriad other conspiracy theories.

That doesn't fly either. What do you think happened? Greenspan, a Reagan appointee, whom everyone agrees was and is the very soul of caution, suddenly came to the independent conclusion that he could keep the prime rate at historic lows for an unprecedented length of time without serious consequences? Perhaps he was abducted by aliens and replaced with an exact double whose dumb ideas just happened to benefit the Bush White House? Maybe he took up crack?

Unless you present a counter theory that also accounts for the evidence you should either concede the point or get the kitty a cute little tinfoil hat.

[Robert Toy]

It's not an opinion, it's a theory--a hypothesis with lots of evidence to back it up.





That doesn't fly either. What do you think happened? Greenspan, a Reagan appointee, whom everyone agrees was and is the very soul of caution, suddenly came to the independent conclusion that he could keep the prime rate at historic lows for an unprecedented length of time without serious consequences? Perhaps he was abducted by aliens and replaced with an exact double whose dumb ideas just happened to benefit the Bush White House? Maybe he took up crack?

Unless you present a counter theory that also accounts for the evidence you should either concede the point or get the kitty a cute little tinfoil hat.
There are at least three enabling factors for the housing crisis, 1996 - President Clinton sponsored legislation giving huge tax exemptions to the sale of personal residences; the second was greed - flipping houses, prior to and during the Bush administration, and last the lower fed rates, which further fueled the second.

It is naive to attempt to blame it all on the fed rate.

The kitty says it appears you have cornered the tin foil market.

[shawkins]

You haven't even established the causal link to the degree that would be required.

1. Fed lowers rate to stimulate economy in wake of tech stock implosion. Fed lowers rates to historically low levels in the wake of 9/11.

2. Money is on sale. People take out mortgages and buy houses according to plan. Well-qualified borrowers are soon exhausted. (here's where the dumb starts--> ) Nonethless, the fed keeps money on sale.

3. Banks, giddy with greed, start issuing crappy Adjustable Rate Mortgages to poorly qualified borrowers. With interest rates so low, it's possible for the new homeowners to make payments--for the time being. They either don't understand that their payments will go up when the fed inevitably raises rates or are counting on refinancing the house before the upward adjustment of their payment. Why not? Housing prices always go up, don't they?

4. With many more people bidding for the same number of houses, prices rise. Because there are more home buyers available, building starts increase.

5. Bush wins the 2004 election. Interest rates go back up.

6. Because there are no new buyers for all the new houses, housing starts drop off.

7. Because interest rates are now high, there are fewer new buyers able to afford even the good mortgages, much less crappy ARMs. Housing prices stall and begin to slip.

8. Around 2007, the crappy 5-yr ARMs start adjusting to match the new current prime rate. Mortgage payments increase by hundreds or thousands of dollars. Foreclosures begin.

9. All the foreclosures and the lack of new buyers create downward pressure on housing prices--more houses, fewer buyers.

10. The bubble bursts.

[blacbird]

There are at least three enabling factors for the housing crisis, 1996 - President Clinton sponsored legislation giving huge tax exemptions to the sale of personal residences.

I assume here you are referring to the capital gains exemption on the sale of a personal residence. Which applies only when such sale results in a profit. I've sold two personal residences, one at a profit, in 1985, with capital gains tax in effect, and one in 1988, at a loss, so capital gains tax did not apply.

You realize, of course, that eliminating capital gains taxes altogether, on everything, has long been a major tenet of Republican tax policy.

caw

[shawkins]

Wow. Up until this point you were making an intelligent point. So, exactly who is this electorate you speak of? And from what platform do you speak down at them?

Yeah, I know. I tried making this same point (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109477) (post #8) in non-confrontational language the other day, but no one would argue with me.

Last night (this thread, pg. 5, post 116) I decided to try being an asshole. Frankly, it's working out better than I'd hoped.

Sorry if I gave offense.

[Robert Toy]

I assume here you are referring to the capital gains exemption on the sale of a personal residence. Which applies only when such sale results in a profit. I've sold two personal residences, one at a profit, in 1985, with capital gains tax in effect, and one in 1988, at a loss, so capital gains tax did not apply.

You realize, of course, that eliminating capital gains taxes altogether, on everything, has long been a major tenet of Republican tax policy.

caw
I was referencing the 1997 Tax Act - B. Clinton

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/REguide/tax-breaks1.asp

[shawkins]

There are at least three enabling factors for the housing crisis, 1996 - President Clinton sponsored legislation giving huge tax exemptions to the sale of personal residences; the second was greed - flipping houses, prior to and during the Bush administration, and last the lower fed rates, which further fueled the second.

It is naive to attempt to blame it all on the fed rate.

The kitty says it appears you have cornered the tin foil market.

Clinton's legislation was 10 years old and working fine. Greed has been around even longer than that1. The only new development was the artificially low prime rate.

1. Proximate cause: the Clinton-era stuff was in place for 10 years and working as designed until Bush put the prime rate at 2%. The bubble burst less than a year after the Fed raised rates back to their normal level.

2. New development: Personal greed and ignorant consumers have always been a mainstay of economics. 2% prime rates have not.

I also note that you're haven't addressed my argument that the Fed kept rates low in response to pressure from the White House. May I assume that you've conceded the point? :)



1 Come to think of it, if there weren't any houses there wouldn't be any housing bubble. We should blame the first caveman who built a lean-to! (I bet he was a liberal.)

[blacbird]

I was referencing the 1997 Tax Act - B. Clinton

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/REguide/tax-breaks1.asp

Yes. Me too, though I didn't know the exact legislative details, only the personally applicable ones. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page for discussion.

So, if you have one, your objection to this particular taxation rule is what?

caw

[Robert Toy]

Yes. Me too, though I didn't know the exact legislative details, only the personally applicable ones. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page for discussion.

So, if you have one, your objection to this particular taxation rule is what?

caw
No objection at all. I just made the statement that this law was one of three factors in creating the housing bubble. If you read the article it is a how-to on beating the system.

[blacbird]

But the paradox is that the old rule, where you could avoid paying capital gains on sale of a residence, required that, if you made a profit, it had to be rolled over into the purchase of a more expensive residence within two years. This had the effect, for a lot of people, of pressuring them into buying ever more expensive homes every time they moved. In my case, I moved from a more expensive real estate market (Bay Area, California) into a less expensive one (Dallas, Texas). I made money on the California house, but to buy a house at a similar or higher price in the Dallas area would have put me in way more house than I wanted. As it was, I bought a larger house on a larger lot for about 20% less than I paid originally for the California house. And bit the bullet, and paid the capital gains tax; as I recall, it amounted to around $8,000. Which sounds like a lot of money, but I made over $25,000 on the appreciated value of the California house, all for doing essentially nothing but sleeping and eating in it. Oh, and I watched some TV. So I figured I netted $17,000, and decided to be satisfied with that.

But, all in all, I think the 1997 change was a good one. It represented one of the very few places where middle income people could get a capital gains tax break, and for many, permitted the accumulation of money that could be applicable for a future down payment on another home, actually reducing the amount of mortgage loan they might need. For others, who had stayed in their homes a long time, it was a big leg up on retirement savings. In Britain, for example, there is no such thing as a capital gains-style tax on real property, and people generally look on residential property appreciation as a huge part of their life savings.

So, even having read the article, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you characterize this situation as "beating the system", and contributing to the current home-mortgage mess.

caw

[Robert Toy]

Clinton's legislation was 10 years old and working fine. Greed has been around even longer than that1. The only new development was the artificially low prime rate.

1. Proximate cause: the Clinton-era stuff was in place for 10 years and working as designed until Bush put the prime rate at 2%. The bubble burst less than a year after the Fed raised rates back to their normal level.
"Working as designed", your interpretation pls?

Are you saying that the bubble only appeared during the Bush administration?

2. New development: Personal greed and ignorant consumers have always been a mainstay of economics. 2% prime rates have not.
Were houses being flipped prior to Bush?

I also note that you're haven't addressed my argument that the Fed kept rates low in response to pressure from the White House. May I assume that you've conceded the point? :)
What argument? You have a baseless opinion that Bush pressured Greenspan, were you there?

[Robert Toy]

So, even having read the article, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you characterize this situation as "beating the system", and contributing to the current home-mortgage mess.

caw
"Another bonus of the new rules: You don't have to buy another home with your sale proceeds. You can use the money to travel to Europe in style, buy an RV and drive across the country or get all those designer shoes you never could afford before.

Even better, there's no limit on the number of times you can use the home-sale exemption. In most cases, you can make tax-free profits of $250,000 (or $500,000 depending on your filing status) every time you sell a home.

Ah, but we are talking taxes here. You did notice that phrase "in most cases," didn't you? Before you put a "For Sale" sign in the yard, you need to make sure your house-sale situation is one of those "most cases."
First, the property you're selling must be your principal residence. That means you live in it. This tax break doesn't apply to a house or other property that you have solely for investment purposes. In those cases, the usual capital gains rules apply.

You can, however, turn a rental house into your primary residence, making the sale of it eligible for the exclusion. This is accomplished when you meet the IRS use and ownership tests: You own and live in the home for two out of the five years before the sale.

And your actual habitation of the home doesn't have to be sequential, notes Mark Luscombe, lawyer, accountant and principal tax analyst at CCH Inc., a Riverwoods, Ill.-based provider of tax law information and software. The IRS lets you aggregate your time living in the house to meet the two-year residency requirement.

"Generally, if you owned and used the home as your main home for periods totaling at least two years within five years ending on the date of these sale, you're eligible for the exclusion," says RIA's Trinz. "You look back at the last five years. Ownership and use may be at two different times. This would apply if you owned a home for five years, but didn't use it as your primary residence for that full period. For the first three years, you rented it and then moved into it as your main home for the final two before you sold it."

But you don't even have to live in the house at the date of sale. The flexibility of the use test means you could live in your house for a year, rent it for two, move back in for another year and rent it again the year before you sell. Since during those five years you owned and lived in the property for two years, you meet the use and ownership tests.
Finally, while technically there's no limit on the number of homes you can sell and reap tax-free gain, each sale must be at least two years apart. That still leaves you room to make some money on several properties. You can sell your residence this year, pocket any gain within the tax limits and buy a new residence. Two years later, you can do the same thing, again and again every two years.

[blacbird]

I have to say I disagree with Shawkins, at least in part. Alan Greenspan needed no pressuring to do what he did with interest rates. He is a lifetime ideological laissez-faire economist, and both self-motivated and way too arrogant to allow a bumpkin like George W. Bush tell him what to do.

That being said, Greenspan's actions at the Fed fit perfectly in with the views of Bush's neocon advisors, and nary a word was ever spoken in opposition to his rate-maneuvering, as far as I can recall.

caw

[Robert Toy]

I have to say I disagree with Shawkins, at least in part. Alan Greenspan needed no pressuring to do what he did with interest rates. He is a lifetime ideological laissez-faire economist, and both self-motivated and way too arrogant to allow a bumpkin like George W. Bush tell him what to do.

That being said, Greenspan's actions at the Fed fit perfectly in with the views of Bush's neocon advisors, and nary a word was ever spoken in opposition to his rate-maneuvering, as far as I can recall.

caw
I agree, It is also MHO that the rate cut was a contributing factor to the housing crisis and not the root cause.

[shawkins]

"Working as designed", your interpretation pls?

Stimulating the economy without causing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to become insolvent.

Are you saying that the bubble only appeared during the Bush administration?

No, I'm saying that the dumb policies of the Bush administration caused it to swell beyond a sustainable level and burst.


Were houses being flipped prior to Bush?

Yes. However, the dramatic upward pressure on housing prices caused by the artificially low interest rates transformed house flipping from a relatively rare business strategy into a widespread, unsustainable economic pathology.


What argument? You have a baseless opinion that Bush pressured Greenspan, were you there?

I cited three independently verifiable facts. All three facts were anomalous events. I stated a plausible theory that accounts for these anomalous events. You have neither refuted the evidence nor offered a competing theory to account for the evidence. Please refute the evidence, offer a competing theory, or concede the point.

[Robert Toy]

I cited three independently verifiable facts. All three facts were anomalous events. I stated a plausible theory that accounts for these anomalous events. You have neither refuted the evidence nor offered a competing theory to account for the evidence. Please refute the evidence, offer a competing theory, or concede the point.
The words of a pressured man:

Greenspan condemns the president for not focusing on the country’s financial ills, “In the revised world of growing deficits, the goals were no longer entirely appropriate. [President Bush] continued to pursue his presidential campaigns nonetheless. Most troubling to me was the readiness of both Congress and the administration to abandon fiscal discipline.”

[shawkins]

I have to say I disagree with Shawkins, at least in part. Alan Greenspan needed no pressuring to do what he did with interest rates. He is a lifetime ideological laissez-faire economist, and both self-motivated and way too arrogant to allow a bumpkin like George W. Bush tell him what to do.

So you're saying that it was Greenspan's ambition all along to plunge the prime rate to historic lows, hold it there for an unprecedented length of time, then shoot it back up to normal levels immediately after the election was over?

But somehow those wild-eyed liberals Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush held him in check?

[Robert Toy]

So you're saying that it was Greenspan's ambition all along to plunge the prime rate to historic lows, hold it there for an unprecedented length of time, then shoot it back up to normal levels immediately after the election was over?

But somehow those wild-eyed liberals Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush held him in check?
Read Age of Turbulence

ETA: My last post on this thread...I'm bored..;)

[blacbird]

So you're saying that it was Greenspan's ambition all along to plunge the prime rate to historic lows, hold it there for an unprecedented length of time, then shoot it back up to normal levels immediately after the election was over?

But somehow those wild-eyed liberals Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush held him in check?

You're getting pretty heavy into the "reading into" mode.

caw

[shawkins]

Read Age of Turbulence
Will do.

Entirely unrelated, but I suspect you might like one called Dark Sun. It's about the development of the hydrogen bomb and the policies that grew up around it. No particular political agenda that I noticed other than "nuclear death bad," but well-researched and interesting.

ETA: My last post on this thread...I'm bored..;)

Me too. I need to go beat the dogs and make dinner.

You're getting pretty heavy into the "reading into" mode.

Meh. What can I tell you? The kitty was wearing me down.

G'nite all.

[robeiae]

1. Fed lowers rate to stimulate economy in wake of tech stock implosion. Fed lowers rates to historically low levels in the wake of 9/11.

2. Money is on sale. People take out mortgages and buy houses according to plan. Well-qualified borrowers are soon exhausted. (here's where the dumb starts--> ) Nonethless, the fed keeps money on sale.

3. Banks, giddy with greed, start issuing crappy Adjustable Rate Mortgages to poorly qualified borrowers. With interest rates so low, it's possible for the new homeowners to make payments--for the time being. They either don't understand that their payments will go up when the fed inevitably raises rates or are counting on refinancing the house before the upward adjustment of their payment. Why not? Housing prices always go up, don't they?

4. With many more people bidding for the same number of houses, prices rise. Because there are more home buyers available, building starts increase.

5. Bush wins the 2004 election. Interest rates go back up.

6. Because there are no new buyers for all the new houses, housing starts drop off.

7. Because interest rates are now high, there are fewer new buyers able to afford even the good mortgages, much less crappy ARMs. Housing prices stall and begin to slip.

8. Around 2007, the crappy 5-yr ARMs start adjusting to match the new current prime rate. Mortgage payments increase by hundreds or thousands of dollars. Foreclosures begin.

9. All the foreclosures and the lack of new buyers create downward pressure on housing prices--more houses, fewer buyers.

10. The bubble bursts.Nope. Not even close. Much of what you are saying--as Robert Toy has noted--is perception and opinion, and again, the housing boom started prior to Bush taking office. there's no way around that, unless you redefine the boom to serve your agenda, here.

You may have logical consistency, but when your initial assumptions are either flawed or merely opinion, you aren't "proving" anything. You certainly aren't making a claim that is "inarguable." You have an opinion and that's fine, but it's only an opinion and not absolute truth--only my opinions are such.

[rugcat]

You have an opinion and that's fine, but it's only an opinion and not absolute truth--only my opinions are such.Oh, I'm sure Robsie is joking. Pretty sure, anyway. On second thought, I don't believe he is.

Of course, that's just my opinion -- although my opinions are worth more than anyone else's.

[robeiae]

Often times, the best humor is found in outlandish statements that could never be true, but actually are...



(of course I'm joking--though Mac won't believe me)

[Joe270]

Last night (this thread, pg. 5, post 116) I decided to try being an asshole. Frankly, it's working out better than I'd hoped.

Sorry if I gave offense.

I'll accept that apology.

However, in the future, if you resort to name-calling and 'being an asshole', you'll face problems here. Hardcore doesn't mean demeaning others because they differ from your opinion, it means respecting that opinion while offering the best counter argument you can provide. You have, in my most humble opinion, done neither.

We'll joust more tomorrow about the points you made, but we will keep it nice and civil, okay?

[blacbird]

Often times, the best humor is found in outlandish statements that could never be true, but actually are...

This has made my head hurt. God will punish you.

caw

[Joe270]

God already has, and cursed him with far too many vowels.

[Don]

It was only a matter of time. Here's the McCain version, NOT done by the New Yorker staff, but entertaining nonetheless.

http://blorts.cutaia.net/2008/the-new-yorker-does-john-mccain/


http://temp.cutaia.net/blorts/fauxyorkersmall.jpg