I didn’t say it was stupid, I said it was ugly.
Sad but true.
Leading us to consider setting aside distinctions between stupid and smart to consider the differences between shrewd and wise.
Actually, since his rant is pretty much identical to his predecessors’ rants against Catholics, I would say that it is still stupid.
If we want to be able to deal in a global economy, we need more people from more parts of the world who understand the places we want to sell things. If we want to be able to discover what the “bad guys” are doing, it would help to have more us “us” who speak their language and understand their culture. While getting elected indicates a certain base intelligence (see the current White House), it is not necessarily an indication of an ability to carry out the duties once elected (see the current White House).
I think that anyone who is prejudiced against someone because of their race or religion in this day and age is stupid.
Undoubtedly true, but I don’t see the relevance. If his constituants are bigots, then it makes sense for a bigot to represent them.
Why? Active prejudice against someone because of their race or religion is probably immoral, but I don’t know that it’s stupid. What it comes down to is that he has different values than you do, values you think are immoral, and you consider him stupid because of his values.
I think it’s been shown enough times that there are good people of all sorts of different races and religions, as well as bad people of all sorts of different races and religions. Racial or religious prejudice just isn’t a useful way to determine who’s a decent person, and it requires either stupidity or willful blindness to not realize that.
Depends on how one defines “representing.” If the only purpose of representational government is to substitute a figurehead for a series of plebecsites, then that may be true. On the other hand, if legislators are supposed to look out for the interests of the people on matters in which the people may act with too little information, then I would say that good representation would be carried out by doing the right thing, then persuading the constituency as to why the choice was the correct one.
The problem with that is that if you do the right thing against the wishes of your constituents, then, if you fail to persuade your constituents that your choice was the right thing, you might be voted out of office. So it’s in your best interest to concentrate more on being a popular representative than a good one, because it’s a better guarantee that you’ll stay in power for a longer period of time and enjoy the benefits that that brings.
Provided, of course, that your sole motivations are a lust for power and wealth, and not an interest in doing the right thing for your country. I’d like to think that there are one or two people in Congress who have a small smidgen of ethics.
If you want to do the right thing for your country, you have to be in power to start with. If you start setting off on quixotic crusades to save the people from themselves, you don’t last long.
So, what is the rational, fact-based, non-stupid defence of racism?
I doubt there is one. Racism isn’t fact based, it’s value based, and values aren’t fact-based. They’re the way in which someone organizes facts, which is why two people exposed to the same set of facts can come to different conclusions.
In the case of the racist, he or she likely grew up in a racist society, and internalized those attitudes and beliefs, the same way everyone internalizes the attitudes and beliefs of their society.
Furthermore, while it’s trivially easy to contradict someone who says “every black person is stupider than ever white person”, it’s much easier to prove someone wrong who says something more like “black people have a genetic tendency towards laziness, which frequently leads to criminality. Sure, there are some exceptions…”
I’d guess that many of them have small smidgens of ethics. More’s the pity.
Just a random thought. You got to assume there is a lovely photo of Virgil Goode shaking George Bush’s hand. They are both Republicans after all. I wonder if there is a site devoted to politicians posing with idiots in the news.
So, the idiot would be. . . ?
True, but you also do not have to go out of your way to inflame the worst elements of the electorate.
It is one thing for a legislator to keep his or her head down and not call for changes to unfair laws; it is another thing altogether to get up and say really stupid things about a group that does not even threaten one’s constituency. (Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota have substantial numbers of Muslim immigrants. I have not heard that Richmond or Virginia Beach (or, more particularly, Charlottseville, Danville, or Bedford) are under similar “siege.”)
Hmmm…
George Walker Bush
John Walker Lindh
Hah! I knew it! No one could be THAT incompetant; I mean the man went to Yale. He’s secretly been working for Them all along.
No, racism IS fact based; it’s just based on…untrue “facts”. Or in other words, it’s stupid.
No one ever says “Factually, there is no difference between people of different ‘racial’ backgrounds in terms of intelligence or morals; but I choose to hate [people of ethnic background x] just as a ‘leap of faith’.” Racism is generally if not always based on alleged objective differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds, or alleged historic events: Black people are less intelligent than white people. Jews caused the Black Death by poisoning the wells. White people have emotional problems on account of their lower levels of melanin. All of these things are in the realm of fact–what Stephen Jay Gould would have called the “magisterium” of fact or science–they aren’t abstract, metaphysical questions of ethics or justice or esthetics. They just all happen to be objectively verifiable or falsifiable assertions or hypotheses that have already been shown to be a load of crap.
A member of Congress swears or affirms to support and deffend the Constitution. How can he do that when he is discriminating against a religious group?
Has anyone asked the Islamist fundie militants how they like Keith Ellison and his religion? It may prove illuminating.
http://tariqnelson.wordpress.com/2006/11/19/khawarij-make-takfeer-of-keith-ellison