There is Tariq Ali.
http://www.tariqali.org/ He is Pakistani ,not quite the same. Across the border.
Well, I think suggesting that Obama knows nothing of work because he has spent all his adult life with blacks who’ve achieved success through affirmative action is pretty racist. I don’t think I have an idiosyncratic definition of racism there. Do you disagree?
What about Neel Kashkari? I know very little of his politics, but he seems to be pretty sharp. I don’t know if he had a hand in designing the bailout plan, but I gather he is pretty competent.
(He’s also a family friend of my in-laws. My in-laws, however, are kind of nuts, so I put little stock in that.)
In that particular quote, I don’t think the guy was saying nothing more than that Obama has lived a kind of cloistered life. After all, you did leave off his lead in sentence: “Obama strikes me as a very intelligent person, but with that intelligence narrowly focused.” I don’t know if that makes your definition idiosyncratic, but it does appear to be broad.
Yeah, that is pretty ridiculous on all sides. I wonder what the Hispanic vote really was compared to the national average: McCain and Obama aren’t much different on immigration and I’d imagine that the slight tendency toward social conservatism would almost balance the slight tendency toward economic liberalism.
A united radically-hispanic pro-obama front is not a bogeyman to be afraid of, least of which because there isn’t any, even if those same groups described in that quote believe there is.
I suppose that would depend on whether he’s the one responsible for refusing to disclose where exactly the bailout money is going. It appears to be Paulson rather than him, but if it’s him, he’s a douche.
Latinos backed Obama two-to-one. They strongly preferred him to Kerry, maybe because McCain turned them off by reversing course on his immigration bill, and because Obama’s people focused on minority turnout.
Unless we want to say that only explicit statements of racism (e.g. this black man is inferior to white men) can be called racist, then allegations of racism will always involve delving into implied meanings and underlying assumptions. So it is, I admit, a bit of a subjective endeavor. Combine that with the fact that I’m using this an example of mild racism, and there’s obviously room for disagreement.
That said, I don’t think my definition is all that broad or unfair. That little paragraph is full of assumptions and innuendo that can be most plausibly explained by the author’s racism.
Why, for example, does he say that Obama has “spent his adult life among the tiny sub-class of black Americans who have grown wealthy, or hope to, via the affirmative-action rackets?” He obviously isn’t talking about the US Senate, where he is the only black man. He isn’t talking about the Illinois State Senate. He isn’t talking about Harvard Law, or Columbia. He isn’t talking about organizing poor black people. So what the fuck is he talking about? The notion that Obama’s life has been “cloistered,” much less limited to spending time with only black people whose success rests on affirmative action programs is entirely baseless. Entirely baseless but entirely consistent with racist assumptions.
And the idea that he knows little of work, science, or “high culture”? Seriously? Surely you can see how that’s extremely suggestive of a stereotype of laziness and “low culture” that pervades racist notions of blacks. The man helped write an article applying scientific ideas to the law. He routinely works allusion to high culture into the speeches he writes. There’s just no plausible basis for these allegations aside from racism.
There is also the implicit argument that Obama himself was a recipient of affirmative action (a kind of stigma that is one of the best arguments against AA, if you ask me). If so, he’s the goddamn poster child for why the program is a good idea. Anyway, none of this has any basis in fact, and all of it is consistent with racist assumptions.
Good point.
I can see where you’re getting the idea of racism the AA part, though I could imagine non-racist beliefs behind the authors statement. I don’t know who he’s talking about, either. But, he does refer to it as a “tiny sub-class.” He may know something I don’t. Is it possible there actually are people who try to make money through AA?
As far at the military, business, science, work, high culture reference - aren’t those highly specific to Obama himself (whether you agree with the accuracy, or not)? Obama really hasn’t been involved much in any of these. Obama is a lawyer, an academic, an activist, and a politician. He really hasn’t worked in business, science, or “worked” a typical physical job. Looks to me like he’s saying Obama is an egghead, and that’s not steorotypically a black thing.
Anyway, I agree with you that it’s subjective. The only reason I asked you to clarify was that racism is a pretty serious charge. You’re painting the whole group of NRO contributors with a broad brush, even implying Ponnuru is racist by association, I think. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Accusing them of racism is something different.
Racism aside, do you really think it’s fair to criticise Obama for not having worked at McDonald’s or something?
No, the falsity is key. When you falsely accuse a black man of being ignorant of science, culture, etc., because he (falsely) associates exclusively with other black people is racist. It doesn’t make sense to read it as calling him an egghead while simultaneously saying he knows nothing of business, science, or culture. That’s not the stereotype of an egghead. It is the racist stereotype of a black man.
Well, it is incredibly ironic to criticize me for using guilt by association, the logical fallacy that is the raison d’etre of NRO in the last months. To be clear, I’m not suggesting Ponnuru is a racist. But I do think that, for example, if I regularly wrote for Hustler you might reasonably conclude that I have no problem with pornography.
“I only work there for the articles.”
Wasn’t it NRO a few weeks ago that had the columnist who said Obama would be bad for science because he would object to all the super sekrit findings that demonstrated that blacks are genetically inferior? I think that was NRO.
Yep. The very same John Derbyshire, in fact.
Thanks! I thought I wasn’t confusing my Freepers and Redstaters and NROs. 
Holy shit, this is an amazing clip.
Does he sound like he’s sucking on helium a few times? Ponnuru, that is, not Jon Stewart.
I did not realize until looking at his wikipedia page that John Derbyshire believes black are, in fact, genetically inferior to whites. So I suppose that vindicates my reading of his blog posts.
He’s not opposed to sexism either.
from the article linked in post #35