White men behaving (very) badly - Page 4

Presenting the 2012 Off-Guard awards for the worst of a dismal yaer

01.02.13 - 10:20 am | Tim Redmond |

(69)

Hell of a year: Santorum's nausea, Mitt's sketchy run, Clint's chair chat, Newt's plans to colonize the moon, and Trump tweets.

GUARDIAN ILLUSTRATION BY DANNY HELLMAN

TALK ABOUT A BLOWN COVER

David Petraus resigned as CIA director after an affair with a woman who was threatening another woman who might have had a thing for him.

TOO BAD — HE MIGHT HAVE HAD TO SEEK ASYLUM IN THE NEW REPUBLIC OF TEXAS

A petition to allow every American to punch Grover Norquist in the dick was removed from the White House website.

WE'RE WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE; THIS MAN IS "BONKERS"

One-time software mogul John McAfee fled Belize claiming the cops would persecute him after he was sought for questioning in the shooting death of his neighbor — using a body double, faking a heart attack, pretending he was crazy, and winding up in Miami.

IT SUCKS TO BE STINKING RICH AND OWN FOUR HOUSES AND HAVE TO LIVE WITH REJECTION

Ann Romney was deeply depressed that her husband didn't win the election, telling friends she though it was their fate to move into the White House.

AND WHEN ASKED IF SOMEONE THAT MORONIC COULD ACTUALLY RUN FOR PRESIDENT, HE SAID "I'M A REPUBLICAN, MAN"

Marco Rubio, when asked about the age of the Earth, said "I'm not a scientist, man."

EASY — THE ONES WHO ARE GETTING PAID ARE THE ONES PRETENDING TO BE INTERESTED IN NASTY OLD FRENCHMEN

After Dominique Strauss-Kahn was held overnight in Lille to be questioned about possible connections between a prostitution ring and orgies he attended in Paris and Washington, his lawyer said: "I challenge you to distinguish a naked prostitute from any other woman."

DUDE — THAT'S THE TERRITORY OF SERIOUS LOSERS

Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan lied about his time in the marathon.

GO AHEAD, CLINT — MAKE OUR DAY

Surprise guest speaker Clint Eastwood addressed GOP convention delegates for 12 minutes, during which he carried on an imagined dialogue with an empty chair he identified as President Obama.

AND YES, HE DID GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF THE STUPIDITY VOTE

Santorum told a gathering of conservatives in Washington, "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."

Comments

No bias or cherry-picking there, huh?

Although (unless I missed it) you omitted Romney's attribution of "welfare queen" status to 47% of the population.

Of course, given that the 1% pay half of all taxes, it goes to show just how useful the rich are, because they more than pay enough tax to support those 47%.

And in your crowing about the Democrat victories in November, it's probably as well to bear in mind that Obama only won the popular vote by 51-49; hardly the mandate that some like to claim for higher taxes which, as of yesterday, we now have.

And the GOP consolidated their hold on the House, which will limit Obama's policy options, as we also saw yesterday.

But I do find myself wondering what kind of 2013 would make you happy? you somehow always manage to come across as happier when you're miserable and complaining. Neat trick that.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:48 am

let's be honest here...

Romney only got 47% of the vote and lost by over 4.5M votes. I don't know how one defines mandate, but Obama certainly kicked Romney's ass.

The GOP consolidated their hold on the house... yet didn't win more votes than Dems did, and lost seats. Keep on consolidatin', boys!

And they lost seats in the Senate, where they had such an easy path to pick up a few.

I'm all far calling Tim (or anyone else) out on their bullshit (really, not a single mention of any "progressive" doing anything unseemly at all in 2013??), but at least lets have honest arguments

Posted by guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

Depends what you mean by a "mandate" but the

electoral college margin of victory was very flattering to Obama, and a relatively small swing to Romney in a few key States would have had a huge impact. Obama won but the nation remains deeply divided and that shows in the deal cobbled together on the fiscal cliff - the Dem's would NEVER have come up with that themselves.

And, as you note, the GOP consolidated their hold on the House, which is easily the most democratic part of our government, since the electoral college is a crapshoot dependent on just a few marginal States, and the Senate is 2 seats per State regardless of population. The House is pure proportional representative and best reflects the popular vote.

And yeah, It's hard to imagine how Tim could be more biased if he set out to which, nevertheless, he always does.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 2:05 pm

Do you even know the meaning of "proportional representation?"

If we had proportional representation, we wouldn't have a House where 100% of the members come from a "choice" of two capitalist, imperialist parties.

Even within the narrow framework of debate that the American political system allows, the party that got the most votes got fewer seats. How the hell is that representative of anything... except the fact that we don't live in a democracy?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

Greg, I agree that the house isn't pure PR in the European

sense. If it were more liike, say, the EU parliament in Brussels then we would have small numbers of various fringe parties, such as the Green's and the Nazi's.

I am less clear on why that would be better, and the EU is still dominated by two major groups of parties - one more conservative and one more liberal. It's not that different from here.

But my comment was more that the House is more democratic and proportional than either the Senate or the Presidency. So you can't reasonably ignore it just because, right now, it is controlled by the one of the two parties that you favor less.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 6:33 pm

There's nothing proportional

There's nothing proportional in any way shape or form about the party getting fewer votes winning the most seats.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:43 pm

I never said it was "proportional"

But it is more related to voting populations than the Senate and so, by implication, the electoral college.

And if the Dem's controlled the House with less total votes, you'd be sanguine about that, I feel sure.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 6:41 am

So your concern is that (some) white males utter mere

words that some others might find distasteful?

And yet the fact that blacks (12% of the US population) are responsible for committing more than 50% of the violent crimes in the nation isn't even worthy of a mention?

Ideological skew, perhaps? Or just an over-developed sense of political correctness?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

You left out crimes of economic violence, like foreclosures,

evictions, wage theft, outsourcing, offshoring and deportations, in your crime statistics. Where do you get your numbers from? Unfortunately, violent crime perpetrated by the US outside its borders (ie, war) continues unabated.

Consider your comment noted as it doesn't change the rankings in your racial hierarchy.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

The figures I read just yesterday stated that 54% of

violent crimes are committed by the 12% of the US population who are black.

I made no comment about non-violent crimes, let alone things whose only criminlaity is that Eddie doesn't personally like them, like evictions and foreclosures which, to many people, are necessary events.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

Please share your source.

Here's mine from the FBI: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html, which breaks out arrests by race. Your percentage appears to be too high.

Why comment on an attempted humorous article that has almost nothing to do with crime with inflammatory exaggerated racial statistics about crime?

Maybe you could share some stupid remarks by public figures you don't like.
Instead, you try to drag the conversation down to the lowest depths.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

A good thing about knowing your forum is infested with troll(s)

is that if you read something that is disturbing it can be dismissed pretty much out of hand. Don't ever underestimate the troll's facility with utter falsehoods; they are a specialty.

Noted also that Eddie provided statistics for arrests, not convictions.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 9:50 pm

Right-wing plants like lillipublicans

make a habit out of stirring up discord amongst the brothers and sisters of the progressive movement with their outlandish statements and wild claims. It's straight from COINTELPRO 101. Ignore this troll - he raises the red flag to oppose the red flag.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:06 pm

Yes, I'm about 90% sure that Lilli is a right-wing mole.

His posts are even more extreme and ridiculous than Marcos, who usually sets the bar here for nonsense and bias.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 6:44 am

Right-wing plants like lillipublicans

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

Your persona does not engage

Your persona does not engage in the automatic ideological gainsaying that characterizes the troll contingent.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

I don't give Lucretia so much credit.

She's just another breed of the same Anrandian species with different coloration.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:30 am

The Lucretia persona is not

The Lucretia persona is not as knee jerk as the troll personae. The issue is not one of ideological conformity rather of persistent disruption via automatic gainsaying.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:56 am

It's "Ayn Rand" and where does it say on SFBG that

diverse viewpoints are not welcome here?

Posted by anon on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 11:59 am

Troll.

Troll.

Libertarian viewpoints are not diverse, they are very narrow and we've heard it all over and again through every corporate news outlet. We need a safe space to discuss politics and economics that are not overrun by libertarian capitalists.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

Fuck Ayn Rand I just coined a word based on a bastardization of

her name and that's just as much respect as the fucked old crone has any right to.

Anrandian n. -- Characterized by the dimwitted and anti-social, self-comforting jack-assery of Ayn Rand and her creepy disciples.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:13 pm

That would be an adjective and not a noun.

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't want a diverse and balanced debate here? And that only toady, card-carrying socialists should post here?

I'd like to think that Tim etc. welcomes critical commentary here, as SFBG's moderation policy certainly appears to welcome all and not just those brainwashed a certain way.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

Exactly, Eddie cited arrest which isn't so relevant

since only convictions matter.

We can quibble over the exact percentages since they can be compiled in different ways. But whichever way you look at it, blacks commit far more crimes, and yet Tim wants to focus instead on verbal misdemeanors rather than vicious felonies.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 6:43 am

We can't quibble if you

don't provide evidence to back up your claims. The best information that I could find were the arrest statistics from the FBI, which clearly show that whites commit more crimes than blacks. I'm done digressing on this topic, but let me reiterate that you provide no evidence for your statement, which is par for the course.

Still waiting for evidence that all airline pilots carry firearms.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 7:56 am

Of course whites may commit more crimes than blacks

if only because there are five times as many of them. To get a meaningful comparison, you need to pro-rate the numbers per capita. When ou do that, most figures I've seen show the conviction stats for blacks are much worse, and for inter-racial crimes staggeringly worse.

I don't think pilots usually carry arms but there is an emergency pack on larger civil airliners which routinely have a firearm in them, along with various other things.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 8:32 am

The FBI statistics show that more whites than blacks are

arrested for crimes. I didn't find numbers on convictions and didn't spend much time researching.

Modern capitalism is organized crime.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 8:14 am

It's convictions that matter, not arrests.

Of course, if you think that running a business is a crime against humanity, then you're so far out there that a meaningful debate may prove to be impossible. I'm talking convicted felonies not speculative and extreme political interpretations.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 8:33 am

No meaningful debate is possible

if you don't provide evidence to back up your claims. However you may characterize my viewpoints, I try to provide proof for my arguments. You apparently do not because this is your third or fourth comment about crime rates (in this thread,) and your only evidence is your uncorroborated statement.

And you consistently criticize people for "playing the race card" while doing it yourself, especially if that card is aimed at black and hispanic (latino) people for whom you exhibit a pathological hatred.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:03 am

So where, Eddie, is your "proof" that all bankers are

criminals? And that that is much worse than being a mugger, rapist or murderer?

You don't even follow your own rules, so why should I? If you want to rpetend that blacks don't have a higher crime rate then fine - you won't believe anything anyone says to the contrary anyway. But try visiting a prison and let me know if only 12% of the inmates are black.

This is a forum for expressing opinions. I expressed mine and no proof is required for me any more than it is for you.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:38 am

Since you will not be providing evidence to back up

your opinions, I will try to disregard them, especially when you cite imaginary statistics.

Issues of crime and punishment are so much more complex than race. There are issues of poverty; discrimination in defining crime, enforcement, sentencing, etc.; access to the positive parts of society, like education, healthcare, food, etc. Almost everybody recognizes these complexities; apparently, you don't because you focus exclusively on race.

I'm sorry I made a general statement about capitalism as it has allowed you to shift focus from your racist views on crime that you brought into the discussion. But capitalism's fundamental existence dpends on exploiting labor and the earth in order to accumulate surplus value. Therefore, capitalists are stealing from workers.

I don't want to fall into name calling, but you consistently drag down the discussion on this site to its lowest depths and make unsubstantiated claims.

It's an open site, but I think many others would prefer if you would bring you race-baiting hatred elsewhere. Maybe try sociopaths.com.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:04 am

Eddie, if you are seriously arguing that blacks do NOT

commit far more crimes than, say, whites, then you are disagreeing with many black leaders who themselves lament the high crime rate that incarcerates or kills os many young black men.

Why would you do that? Denying a problem prevents you from seeking solutions.

On capitalism, I don't see it as exploiting people so much as providing opportunities for them. Maybe back in the industrial revolution or the time of the robber barons, you might have had a point. But most americans now have IRA's or mutual funds and are directly invested in the very system that you claims impoverishes them.

Another disconnect, surely?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:23 am

Concern troll.

Concern troll.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:31 am

I'm not arguing crime rates. In fact, unlike you,

I provided statistics that show that black people are arrested in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of population.

As you always say, correlation is not causation. Criminality is not caused by one's race.

Besides proving your hatred towards blacks and hispanics/latinos, your commentary here doesn't show you to be much of a thinker, deep or otherwise.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:42 am

Desperate poverty causes

Desperate poverty causes crime, race correlates with poverty and the cops are racist.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:51 am

Lots of poor people don't commit crimes and

some rich people do. Clearly the answer goes deeper than that

Posted by anon on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 11:57 am

The troll's racist claims have failed due to lack of proof.

The only valid statistics are those which Eddie cited from the FBI. Arrests might -- or might not -- be in sych with convictions.

Honestly, I didn't mean to give the trolls fodder for their jawing. And the reason they've latched on to the unfortunate mention of race is the headline, but the text is the real protein here:

WHEN MEN ARE JUST TOTAL DICKS: THE GOP REDEFINES RAPE

1. Divine providence rape (Rick Santorum): "The right approach is to accept this horribly created .. gift of life, accept what God is giving to you."

2. Honest Rape (Ron Paul): "If it was an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room."

3. Forcible Rape (Paul Ryan): Federal law should prevent abortion except in the case of "forcible rape."

4. Emergency Rape (Linda McMahon): "It was really an issue about a Catholic Church being forced to issue those pills if a person came in with an emergency rape."

5. Legitimate Rape: (Todd Akin): "If it was a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:09 am

You're correct that Tim should not have played the race card

in his title. And he made no attempt at balance by citing terrible things that blacks and hispanics have done. So I make no apology for calling him out on his race baiting.

If as a result of this thread being hijacked by the race issue, it's main purpose is thwarted, then so be it. Perhaps next time Tim will be more circumspect with his race-based stereotypes.

And that goes for any white liberal here who seeks to assuage their "guilt" by pandering to people based on their skin color. Shame on you, because that is the real racism in modern America.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 9:41 am

Nobody is the least bit fooled by this racist troll.

The only real problem with the headline is that it gave you an excuse to prattle on impertinently, but you would have find another in any case. Metaphorically-speaking, you are a very smelly person.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:08 am

So, Lilli, why choose to focus on "white males"?

Especially since (I will bet) almost everyone who posts here is themselves a white male?

Even the SFBG is happy to take cheap shots at the Asian power bloc in San Francisco. Nor does it hold back when criticizing a powerful black like Wille Brown.

So can't we just keep race out of these pieces, regardless of whether they are attempts at wit and whimsy (as Tim now claims, having seen the reaction) or serious racial stereotypes?

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:27 am

It's not about white males; that's only an attempt to be clever.

Read the text of the story.

It's a story folks on your side of the political spectrum talking and acting like proper ass-hats, it is not a race- or gender- based collection, but rather "white males" is a metaphor for the country's power elite.

Don't forget, for instance, the Herman Cain quote -- who, if I recall, identifies as "black."

That said, I find discussion of race distasteful. We should speak about ethnicity rather than race, since the latter concept is not only unscientific but dull-witted. Ethnicity encompass far more (and far less) than the incredible notion of skin-color-based classification.

... Of course, the only reason society can't dispense with talk of race is because of racists. A Catch 22.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

It seems odd to claim that "white males" symbolize the

establishment when our President is black (or, at least, half black). Of course, some would claim he is acting like a white, but then the term "white" becomes meaningless.

I actually agree with you that race should not be an issue here. But then why frame the piece that way? If Tim has given the same quotes but not stereotypes the utterers as "white males" then they could all have been white males and nobody would have complained.

Labels don't help.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

Racist troll.

Racist troll.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:15 am

Posting as "Guest" now, Marcos?

At least change your style a little so you don't give it away that easily.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:28 am

Troll.

Troll.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 03, 2013 @ 10:50 am

Troll