Jump to content
I agree with you here. The point I was attempting to make was that D'Sousa's anecdote of a very rare black female millionaire was - in my view - his way of negating or countering the other very legitimate complaints blacks have had regarding the discriminatory laws and practices they have faced since the end of slavery. I'm not calling for reparations or anything like that, and I DO agree with you that ALL children must be taught they can do or become anything they want; however, the legacy of past racial abuses (and some that is ongoing) has not yet fully passed. There is still work to be done on that front, which I sense that D'Sousa would rather not acknowledge.
It is like showing us the one scientist who is skeptical of global warming and not bothering to interview the 99 who have come to a different conclusion. It's an intentional distortion.
Democrats have their share of criminals, like Blagojevich, and John Edwards and Andrew Weiner turned out to be narcissistic creeps. I'll give you that. But the Bill Ayers types we do not elect - or if so, rarely.
Dennis Kucinich was to the Democratic party what Ron Paul was to the Republican party: representatives of a highly principled, non-violent, but more extreme version of their party's core values.
I will also acknowledge that both parties have historically had some pretty strange characters, extremists, perverts, criminals, etc. get elected from time to time. The distinction I am trying to make is that the ones with far-out views used to be rarities, particularly in national offices, for both parties. The Democrats haven't changed much in the past 20 years. In fact, they may have drifted a bit more centrist. The Republican party, however, has largely been radicalized. I truly believe that Reagan could never get through the Republican primary process today with his record on tax hikes and his views on moderate gun control. The party is driving out all of its moderation in favor of uncompromising, far right, evangelistic, science-denying, Obama-obsessed, Fox-worshiping crazies. Ted Cruz is now a leader in that party, which should be evidence enough.
I apparently liked what I wrote so much that I had to post it twice. Sorry about that.
I read it. The majority of the sources are right wingers like Sean Hannity, The Blaze, Breitbart, etc. The most damning evidence seems to be this vague statement by a Blaze reporter, who writes about an early 2014 government bid for a contractor to transport up to 65,000 children: “The surge to 60,000 or so children seen this year was said to catch many off guard, especially since just 6,500 children entered the U.S. as early as 2011,” reported Pete Kasperowicz for The Blaze.
It "was said to catch many off guard." So in other words, the fact that one agency apparently began in January to recognize and plan for the oncoming immigration influx is evidence that the Obama administration has intentionally manufactured this crisis. How do we know it was manufactured? Because it "was said to have caught many off guard." Again, note the words, "was said," and the word, "many." This is terrible journalism. "Was said" by whom? Who is "many"?
Sorry, but this appears to me to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
This appears to me to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
We've discussed on this thread how polarizing political documentaries can be. I'd like to suggest that you all check out Robert Reich's "Inequality for All," as I believe - while it does take a position - that it is intentionally not polarizing and is certainly scholarly. You may or may not agree with it, but I think you would find it at least to be intellectually competent. I thought it did a great job of boiling down some of our core economic anxieties that most Americans feel.
It streams on Netflix. Here's a link. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70267834?trkid=7808591
That's fair, though I like Rachel Maddow and wouldn't mind being associated with her. Chris Matthews, though, is a blowhard. The Buchanan to whom I was referring was our own Craig Buchanan, who occasionally writes letters to the U-B.
stvsngltn, I've found it to be an interesting discussion, too. Regarding the Lucifer reference, allow me to point to a quote from Mr. Buchanan's letter to the editor just the other day (Border Crisis Created by Obama).
Buchanan wrote that Obama's actions are "beyond normal politics, but would delight Saul Alinksy, who wrote Rules for Radicals, President Obama’s guidebook as a community organizer. (The book was dedicated to Lucifer, the devil.)" Then Buchanan made other references to the D'Sousa work.
D'Sousa's Lucifer reference was subtle, but the connection to Obama was obviously not lost on Mr. Buchanan, as demonstrated by his use of it in his letter.
You probably didn't notice it because you are smart enough to have dismissed it as absurd, but not everyone will (or did) do this.
D'Sousa does make the arguments you are suggesting regarding the darker parts of our history, but my criticism is that in doing so he is also dismissive of the magnitude and legacy of those events. For example, he shows us that white indentured servants worked alongside black slaves. Sure, they were freed after seven years, but not all of them survived long enough to be freed, he argues. The implication being that their descendants turned out okay, so why can't black people? What he leaves out is the whole system of Jim Crow laws and much more.
Then he shows us a black woman 100+ years ago who became a millionaire, as if to say: "See, black people could find the American dream, too, if they would only apply themselves." Again, he gives us images of this happy, benevolent black woman and whitewashes the degree to which the cards have been systematically stacked against them for generations.
As for his depictions of liberals, the dominant moments are of that kooky guy hesitating regarding whether or not he would bomb America, a Native American woman who (understandably from her perspective) regrets the establishment of the U.S., and then Obama and Sen. Warren - amid dark, scary music - being taken out of context regarding the "You didn't build that" sentiment. (The rest of the context from both has consistently been that the entrepreneurial spirit is an integral part of the success of America, but that the success of those individuals is aided greatly by our collectively having created a system of laws, roads, protections, education, etc. whereby they might thrive.) Later, D'Sousa goes right from Alinsky's admiration of Lucifer to Hilary's and Obama's admiration of Alinsky.
The line he is trying to draw there is pretty obvious, and I take issue with it. This is his characterization of liberalism in America. I know of zero elected Democrats who would hesitate regarding whether or not to bomb our country, and so on. Our nuts exist, but we don't elect many of them. Republicans, on the other hand, now have Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and a host of other radicals, who would have been laughed off the Republican stage 30 years ago. The reasonable ones like G. H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, etc. could no longer get past the primaries.
I don't disagree with your characterization of what you saw in the film. That's all there. But my criticism is that there is more there than just that.
Sorry for the length. If it's any consolation, I left out a lot. :)
Last login: Friday, July 25, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.