Chair of the “liberal but not a fucking lunatic” committee here, taking a break from the wine tasting over there, coming over to comment that we took a vote to give a drubbing to those who took these remarks out of context (normally a time honored campaign tradition), making a tempest out of a drop of water.
I cannot stay, however, since we’ve just decanted a very nice Chablis.
You decanted a white wine?
what can I say, the somalier is a republican.
Somalier? A Somali wine steward?
And that’s why this remark is hurtful to the people Barbour allegedly wants to help.
When I was 20, I had a protracted phone conversation with an ex-SO of my sister’s. He was concerned, rightfully so, for the welfare of my nephew. Basically, as soon as Brad* turned twelve, Cindy* stopped putting any restrictions on him at all. For instance, she and Tom* came back from a date one night at 1am and saw Brad standing on someone’s front lawn with a couple-three other guys. All she did was slow down and wave to him. :eek:
Tom and Cindy broke up primarily because he had the nerve to suggest that this wasn’t the best way to raise a kid. When she told him to get lost, he started contacting my mom, and me. We already knew what the situation was, and hadn’t had any more success reasoning with Cindy, but I was eager to talk with someone about this.
So after an hour or so, Tom was pretty worked up, and started ranting about all the things Brad might be doing when out of Cindy’s sight. “He could be breaking into cars, or tagging walls, or smoking crack…” Now, I knew these were real risks, but that last word was spoken in a harsh tone that I really didn’t care for.
“Yeah, yeah…Please don’t say it like that.”
“Well, he could be doing anything!”
“I know, but please don’t say it like that. That’s my nephew you’re talking about.”
“Just because he’s your nephew doesn’t mean he couldn’t become a crack addict!”
I mean, I wasn’t living in denial. I knew all these things, but I just didn’t want to picture Brad sucking on a god damned pipe. And Head Start kids whose mothers are prostitutes don’t need to hear about a caricature of their real situation. We’re talking about people here, not statistics.
I went for speed vs. accuracy.
Rilchiam -
What did your post have to do with anything, and what are you talking about?
Someone doesn’t want to think about your nephew being a crackhead, so Head Start children whose mothers are prostitutes are getting their feelings hurt?
Barbour said that some children are so badly off that almost anything would be an improvement. Head Start, a program he supports, would be a “godsend” to those children.
What does that have to do with someone whose parents are in denial about the chances that their unsupervised kid will start using drugs?
Regards,
Shodan
The connection is that in both cases, the intention was honorable but the attitude sucked.
True.
Also true. But his phrasing was crude.
First off, the Head Start kids whose parents are addicts, prostitutes, whatever, may very well still love their parents. You just don’t dis somebody’s mom, and that’s what Barbour was doing.
And secondly, not every kid in Head Start has a parent or parents who are addicts or whores. Not everyone who’s struggling got that way because of their own depravity. Imagine being a Head Start kid and having to hear “Your mama’s a ho!” from everyone else in the neighborhood, when in fact, she’s working two jobs, on the books, to raise you and your five siblings, who all have the same dad.
I wasn’t the one in denial. I knew very well what might happen; I didn’t need to be presented with that very unpleasant image. It wasn’t just what he said, it was his tone. All I’m saying is, I know how someone might feel, being tarred with Barbour’s brush.
Well let the person from Mississippi who has actually supported the Headstart program with their own PERSONAL TIME have a little say about this why don’t we.
Let me tell you a little about how the Headstart program works here ok. First of all the program for all the good it does sucks a big one not because of the people like my wife and I who go and try to help these kids out. Now my wife at the time was a college student who was majoring in education, I am an engineer who likes political science and history. She helped with english and I did math, science, and history. At the time I was trying to get a business off the ground, but still somehow found time to volunteer to do this in the afternoon. We were not paid and the only thing the “heads” :rolleyes: of the Headstart program around here did was let us know of potential kids who might need help. It was up to us to get in touch with the kids, find a facility available and then do all the work.
Some of these kids would have in fact been better off in a whorehouse because for all of the parental supervision they were getting at home they might as well have been raised by a fucking pack of wolves and I am being very serious about that. No I wouldn’t say most of the parents were drug addicts or prostitutes I would characterize it as complete and total apathy.
So in conclusion for all the sanctimonous assholes jumping up and down about getting their sensitive little feelings hurt I say a hearty FUCK YOU.
As far as I can tell, Rilchiam’s objection is that the comment was insensitive. No argument there. In the same way, a stout friend may not wish to be called “fat.” It’s a blunt truth, although very insensitive.
I agree.
But was it (a) untrue, (b) bigoted, or © racist?
No.
Well, OK, but what Barbour said was that some kids need Head Start so badly that practically any change would be an improvement.
If it is blunt or impolite to say out loud that some people are addicts and prostitutes and have children, then yes, it was blunt. Abused children often love their parents - that doesn’t mean that they aren’t being abused, or that we need to keep silent about the abuse.
He did say, “some children”. I don’t think it would be fair to accuse Barbour of saying that all children in Head Start have prostitute mothers.
No, I didn’t think you were. From your post, I gather that it was your ex-brother-in-law (or the unmarried equivalent). I was referring to the parents of your nephew as being in denial. If I was unclear, I apologize.
I don’t think it’s Barbour’s brush at all. If there is anyone mentioned in this thread who is not in denial about the dire situation of some children, it would be Barbour. Which is why he wants to get them into Head Start.
I think the misleading misquotation cited by the OP is leading to confusion. I would be interested in hearing from Payton’s Servant why he feels the quotation is either bigotted, stupid, or racist. Or how it violates Republican support of family values.
The real quotation, not anybody’s misrepresentation of it.
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t say it was b) or c). Just that it was insensitive, and only partly a).
Why “fuck me”? Did you overlook this part of my post:
I’m sorry to hear that the HS program is so poorly organized, and glad to hear that you were willing to offer your services for free. But I’m not a “sanctimonious asshole”. If the “better off in a whorehouse” assessment is true, then it is, but Barbour could have phrased it in a way that was less likely to be taken wrong.
No, we certainly don’t.
On further reflection, I’m willing to give Barbour the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to draw attention to a problem that is of grave concern to him. His only mistake was using an inflammatory word like “whorehouse”. As I said above, it was inevitable for his quote to be taken wrong.
**
Well, okay, then.
It was just upsetting to me because I was on the receiving end of a rant that should have been directed at my sister, but to which she wouldn’t listen. Which is also what seems to be going on here: Barbour is frustrated with the apathetic/addicted/abusive parents, and the frustration led him to say something inflammatory. It was just the fact that he said “these kids”, not “these parents”, which, at first glance, sounds like a put-down of the kids themselves and not their circumstances.
**
Indeed. I don’t doubt his intentions.
**
Just saying again FTR that I never said it was any of the underlined things, but also that it seems that Barbour was reckless in saying something that was so vulnerable to misinterpretation.
I think Rilchiam’s analysis is absolutely correct. The comment was foolish, in that perception often becomes reality, and the comment was ripe for misinterpretation.
That doesn’t exclude anyone who does, in fact, misinterpret it from being corrected on their error, especially if the misinterpreter is a Doper, and held to a high standard of fighting ignorance.
Hey - anyone else notice that the Original Poster never showed back up to discuss this? :dubious:
Would you, if you started a train wreck of a thread that went downhill almost from the outset. 
It did, however strike me as somewhat faint praise for Head Start.
Possible way of perceiving it:
“Head Start is better for some of these kids than their home life. But then, so is sitting on a piano bench at a whorehouse.”
Rather clumsy of Mr. Barbour to make a remark that could be interpreted that way, IMHO.
It helps to put it back in context, kaylasdad. As cited earlier in the thread, the quote went:
Calling Head Start “a godsend” can hardly qualify as faint praise.
FWIW, I’m not sure any politician is so adept in his phrasing that a sentence of his, lifted from its context, can’t be used to make him look bad.
Damn, just a figure of speech. Holy cow. To suggest that he was actually in favor of setting kids up as piano bench-sitters in a whorehouse is just … ugh…uhh… I think I’m developing a tic over here…
Granted. But how long has it been since keeping things in context has been the norm in the national dialogue?
Ah, well, Barbour’s a Republican, so I guess the best thing for me to do is keep my schadenfreude decorously concealed.
