According to a new poll…
Cidu Bill on Aug 19th 2010
… 18% of the American public believe Obama’s a Muslim. If you think that’s bad, what until you hear the percentage who believe he’s black.
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, politics, polls, religion | 105 responses so far
Molly J Aug 19th 2010 at 08:35 pm 1
I believe 18% of Americans are kind of stupid.
Elyrest Aug 19th 2010 at 08:42 pm 2
Molly J - From everything I’ve seen in my life I think 18% stupidity is a little low.
Steven Hunter Aug 19th 2010 at 08:42 pm 3
“[wait] until you hear the percentage who believe he’s black.”
But without those convenient labels, how am I supposed to quickly know whether or not I should hate someone? Why I’d have to judge them by the content of their character, and not just by the color of their skin!
Brian Leahy Aug 19th 2010 at 09:05 pm 4
Internet polls are close to worthless. The American culture wars are raging fiercer than ever; there are many people who dislike Obama so intensely that they’ll go along with ANYTHING negative that’s said about him. If you were to start a poll asking people if they believed Obama was secretly a space alien, you’d probably get almost 18% to say yes.
Rebecca Aug 19th 2010 at 09:35 pm 5
This is a post I don’t understand.
Brendan Aug 19th 2010 at 09:46 pm 6
This wasn’t an internet poll. It was a poll by the Pew Center with a margin of error of +/- 2.5%
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1779>
Brian Leahy Aug 19th 2010 at 09:58 pm 7
>> This wasn’t an internet poll.
Interesting… Even so, the error margins describe how accurately people’s responses were tallied, not how accurately their answers reflect their true beliefs. I still suspect a lot of these people were REALLY answering the question: “Do you dislike Obama enough to go along with any accusation that’s even vaguely negative?”
mitch4 Aug 19th 2010 at 09:59 pm 8
You can subscribe to a more-or-less weekly newsletter from the Pew reports, giving short blurbs on their latest results and links to longer articles.
For other fans of President Obama, here’s a brief guessing game. Can you name his quasi-officially-stated favorite (”classical”) composer? {As though he were answering questions on formspring.me}
Mark in Boston Aug 19th 2010 at 11:05 pm 9
mitch4: My guess is Aaron Copland. It may not be right but I’m sure you know the reason for that guess.
BetterBanon Aug 19th 2010 at 11:14 pm 10
@mark #9 — If only he would give us a moment of silence…
Here’s my guess — it is the same 18% that think he is doing a good job as president.
Cidu Bill Aug 20th 2010 at 12:37 am 11
I seriously want Fox News to insist that Obama’s a Martian, just to see how much people will believe.
mitch4 Aug 20th 2010 at 01:52 am 12
Mark — Yes, that was my intended answer. But I was probably posing an unfair question, as I now read it as implying some more direct interview answer — when in fact my basis was just the same as yours (probably), John Williams’s discussion of his “Air and Simple Gifts”.
(Man, Wikipedia is trying so hard to overcome the reputation as unreliable.)
There was a little more than this at the time, I recall, with Williams saying more directly that Obama had mentioned Copeland as a favorite. And I think “Fanfare for the Common Man” comes into it too. Not questioning Obama’s sincerity, but still, naming Copeland seems politically so well chosen.
labradog Aug 20th 2010 at 08:44 am 13
mitch4 @ 12 ~
There’s no such thing as a “politically well chosen” answer to your favorite composer question, since 98% of the electorate is too ignorant of all classical music for there to be a “well chosen” reply.
Powers Aug 20th 2010 at 08:51 am 14
BetterBanon @10: Actually 49% approve of Obama’s work as President so far.
And why would people who think he’s a Muslim be more likely to think he’s doing a good job?
Morris Keesan Aug 20th 2010 at 09:27 am 15
mitch4: “Copland”, not “Copeland”.
mitch4 Aug 20th 2010 at 09:31 am 16
True enough, Labradog. I hope I wasn’t being cynical. But given that there’s only a small audience that would have a reaction to his choice, and setting aside the size or impact of that group, can you suggest another composer that would have conveyed more of an on-point message to characterize the President? (Or the then-candidate probably.)
To toss out a few names, would any of {Ives, Barber, Gershwin, Bernstein, Ellington} work better than Copland? I could say a couple words about the drawbacks of each of those, and probably you would too — and that’s just the most plausible American candidates. Think of the message it would send if he picked Cage! Or “I really dig Morton Feldman, you should check him out<:”
Seriously, I remain an Obama fan, and don’t mean this to be knocking him. I’m about to go get breakfast at one of the “Obama eats here!” spots in the neighborhood, and see if I can reclaim the 4Sq mayorship there
mitch4 Aug 20th 2010 at 09:34 am 17
Thanks, Morris — I see I did it twice in a row, so I can’t blame it on my fingers
Philip Aug 20th 2010 at 09:44 am 18
Of course, it doesn’t help when you now have people calling the Ground Zero Mosque (which is of course neither at Ground Zero nor a Mosque) “Obama’s Mosque” as if he was building it personally. See: http://www.rickscottforflorida.com/home/blog/2010/08/16/obamas-mosque/
Tim Aug 20th 2010 at 12:25 pm 19
Well, that’s still 2 % less than the number of people who don’t beleive you landed on the moon.
Tim Aug 20th 2010 at 12:26 pm 20
we landed on the moon, unless you actually did land on the moon in which case that mistake was for you.
Lihtox Aug 20th 2010 at 12:47 pm 21
It could be that some of those 18% think he is a cultural Muslim– i.e. the way someone can be Jewish without practicing the Jewish faith. In some sense, he could be a Muslim AND a practicing Christian. It’s also possible that some of that 18% don’t really care: they heard somewhere that he’s a Muslim, it didn’t matter to them one way or the other, so they didn’t bother to find out if it was right or not. An interesting followup question would have been something like “Do you think a Muslim could make a good President?” or “Does it bother you that you think Obama is a Muslim?” or something like that.
The fact that the percentages correlate so strongly with party is disturbing, however. It’s clear that “Muslim” is our version of “Communist”.
Cidu Bill Aug 20th 2010 at 12:52 pm 22
I have to wonder how many people really think he’s a Muslim and how many are saying that because they think it will discredit him (presumably not realizing that it makes them look like idiots). For that matter, how many people say “he’s a Muslim” because they’re not comfortable saying “he’s black.”
Jeff S. Aug 20th 2010 at 01:57 pm 23
The sad thing to me is that 6% of Liberal Democrats think he’s a Muslim… and 7% of blacks think he’s Muslim. Yeah, I know some of the blacks are Republicans, but still…
The interesting thing is, the Independents are almost exactly the same percentages as the totals, across the board.
paperboy Aug 20th 2010 at 02:18 pm 24
I really take polls with a grain of salt. Best to think of it as “6% of Liberal Democrats ASKED think…” rather than “6% of ALL Liberal…” ( and of course, “14% of Americans believe poll numbers inaccurate”)
Elyrest Aug 20th 2010 at 02:51 pm 25
paperboy - I agree with you about polls. Responders self-select in that they are the ones who decided to respond. When was the last time that most people responded to “can I ask your opinion on…”? Most of these are done by phone so that is already exclusionary - most likely no cell phones.
Philip Aug 20th 2010 at 03:25 pm 26
He must be a Muslim since apparently he’s personally building a mosque at Ground Zero.
http://www.rickscottforflorida.com/home/blog/2010/08/16/obamas-mosque/
Brian Leahy Aug 20th 2010 at 04:45 pm 27
@Lihtox — he’s been called that (Communist) too….
Mark in Boston Aug 20th 2010 at 05:39 pm 28
mitch4: John Williams usually writes music that sounds like something by another composer, but never so much as with the piece he wrote for the inauguration. In fact I couldn’t even remember who wrote it until you told me. I just remembered that it wasn’t Copland although it sounded like Copland.
Now here’s a quiz for you: John Williams wrote a piece for Seiji Ozawa, entitled “For Seiji”. I was at Symphony Hall to hear it performed by Ozawa and the Boston Symphony Orchestra. What classical piece did Ozawa conduct on the same program? Hint: “Superman”. (No, the movie “Superman”, but you guessed right on the composer. Try again.)
padraig Aug 20th 2010 at 05:43 pm 29
Of course Obama’s Muslim. If he’s not, then why is he building a giant mosque out of the World Trade Center rubble and inviting Osama bin Laden to live there? Answer me THAT Mr. Liberal Bi-assed Media Guy!
CIDU Bill Aug 20th 2010 at 05:48 pm 30
Keep in mind that this poll was conducted BEFORE Obama showed his true colors.
Conductor Aug 20th 2010 at 06:06 pm 31
Still not 100% convinced he was born in the US. Still think there was a cover-up involved with the Hawaiian state government to make it look like was born here. Otherwise why hasn’t he shown his full birth certificate? Birth certificates are easy to doctor. Just have to pay off the right people, or have them agree with your beliefs
Lola Aug 20th 2010 at 06:29 pm 32
Yeah, like Hawaii’s a state. C’mon. Can you drive there? Noooo. So not a state. I actually heard someone making this argument and they were serious.
Thank goodness it wasn’t Puerto Rico.
CIDU Bill Aug 20th 2010 at 06:30 pm 33
The birth certificate would have to have been forged pretty early on, since he claimed to have been a natural born citizen throughout his school years. If his family had had the foresight to forge it, on the chance that he’d run for president someday, you’d think they’d have had the foresight to change that troublesome middle name.
Winter Wallaby Aug 20th 2010 at 06:36 pm 34
Conductor has a good point. But even more troubling, why won’t Obama submit to tests proving that he’s not a Cyclon? I’m still not 100% convinced that he’s not a machine. He may look and act human (most of the time), but remember, Cylons look and act just like us, so if anything, that’s evidence against him.
CIDU Bill Aug 20th 2010 at 06:42 pm 35
Now you’re being silly, Winter: If Obama’s anything, he’s a Vulcan. Michele is clearly the Cylon. Seriously, have you seen the forearms on that woman?
FeelinOld Aug 20th 2010 at 06:42 pm 36
Gotta say one thing as an outsider watching the American political process, it can be entertaining (I’d never say ours was any better, but if it takes over a year for a simple election there is plenty of time for stupidity)
Bob Peters Aug 20th 2010 at 07:02 pm 37
However, the past decade convinced me that about 30% of the U.S. population are complete wingnuts. And even a third of those don’t buy that one.
Odd that those of us who don’t care what religion he follows also don’t buy the Muslim tale either.
Ray Brady Aug 20th 2010 at 09:06 pm 38
“C’mon. Can you drive there?”
—–
And yet they have interstate highways…
padraig Aug 20th 2010 at 10:00 pm 39
Ray, you have to use your AquaCar on those highways. Dontchoo know nuthin’?
Sal Aug 20th 2010 at 10:35 pm 40
Wait…..Obama is black?
Cidu Bill Aug 20th 2010 at 10:52 pm 41
Seriously, would anybody have guessed, two years ago, how much of a non-issue Obama’s race would turn out to be?
Or maybe I’m just deluding myself…
Molly J Aug 21st 2010 at 03:30 am 42
Yes, yes you are. Anyone who thinks his race isn’t an issue among - say - the members of the Tea Party movement is delusional.
Proginoskes Aug 21st 2010 at 03:35 am 43
In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.
I wouldn’t put too much faith in polls.
BTW, John McCain wasn’t born in this country; he was born in Panama. Not even the Republicans are debating that one.
Detcord Aug 21st 2010 at 04:19 am 44
Molly J (40)
I assume you have some evidence for that assertion?
Detcord Aug 21st 2010 at 04:29 am 45
… like this , for example.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38303950/
Carl Aug 21st 2010 at 07:45 am 46
I can’t tell if that’s a terrible pun about a biracial guy or just a reference I am not understanding.
mitch4 Aug 21st 2010 at 08:41 am 47
Mark in Boston — I’ll try your fun-quiz at #26, but as this is already getting beyond my depth I’ll express the hope that others will care to play along too.
Not sure what “the movie” is correcting about how your Superman reference is to be taken — is the alternative the ice-cream flavor discussed on CIDU recently? I see from IMDB that Williams is credited with the score for that movie, but I don’t recall what it sounded like. [The 50s/60s TV series is my idea of the fundamental expression of that mythos, more than the movies or even the comic books.]
So I’m going to trust your hint to go with my first guess on the composer — and that would have to be Wagner. I have no interesting guess on the particular piece, but probably something from the Ring — Ride of the Valkyries? Siegfried’s Funeral?
Second guess: Richard Strauss — Zarathustra (for the movie-fame connection, plus some sort of Nietzsche tie-in)? Or Ein Heldenleben?
George P Aug 21st 2010 at 09:48 am 48
Lola, I have run into people who didn’t think it was possible to drive to Alaska. Seriously. I guess that’s something that doesn’t come up in conversation very often, so we don’t know how many of them are out there. We need a poll.
My favorite John Williams composition is the second theme of Lost in Space.
Lihtox Aug 21st 2010 at 10:49 am 49
@padraig: “building a giant mosque out of the World Trade Center rubble and inviting Osama bin Laden to live there?”
Do you think that would work? Because we haven’t been able to find Osama any other way….
CIDU Bill Aug 21st 2010 at 10:55 am 50
But Molly, to the Tea Partiers, his race is superfluous: he’s also a Communist, a native-born Kenyan and a Muslim, so they have plenty else to work with.
CIDU Bill Aug 21st 2010 at 10:57 am 51
Proginoskes, this doesn’t mean polls are inaccurate, but rather that they accurately reveal how stupid people are.
CIDU Bill Aug 21st 2010 at 11:04 am 52
George, considering the number of people who don’t believe New Mexico is part of the United States…
BetterBanon Aug 21st 2010 at 01:34 pm 53
@CIDU Bill 52 — Or Arizona
Mark in Boston Aug 21st 2010 at 02:44 pm 54
mitch4: You got the composer right on your 2nd guess. Richard Strauss. I expected Also Sprach Zarathustra would be your first guess; it’s Nietzsche’s book about the Ubermensch set to music.
Think of the “Flying” theme in Superman, the movie. Superman is flying through the sky carrying Lois and she is mentally singing “Can you read my mind?”. c’ d’ e’ e” d”. Now think of the big theme at the end of Strauss’ “Death and Transfiguration.” Same notes. If I were playing a piece by John Williams and wanted to program another piece that everyone would notice as the source for a ripped-off theme, “Death and Transfiguration” is the one I’d pick.
I don’t know if Ozawa meant it to be taken this way or not. Probably not, but it is quite a coincidence.
mitch4 Aug 21st 2010 at 06:35 pm 55
http://www.gocomics.com/clayjones/2010/08/21/
Editorial cartoon characterizing the poll respondents who got this wrong. Not extraordinarily clever, but on point for this thread.
mitch4 Aug 21st 2010 at 06:58 pm 56
To continue the musical threads …
Mark in Boston #54 — I’ve never really come to terms with Nietzsche as a writer or thinker, but music hath its powers and a Nietzsche text is the basis for a song/movement that looms large for always commanding my attention — “O Mensch! Gib Acht!” the 4th movement (of 6 IIRC!) in Mahler’s 3rd Symphony.
And for my #16 … How about John Adams? Naming him would raise any number of (ultimately irrelevant) political associations.
Dave in Boston Aug 22nd 2010 at 12:52 am 57
That’d require actually liking something by John Adams
How about Libby Larsen?
Alexander D. Mitchell IV Aug 22nd 2010 at 08:28 am 58
For years a small but not statistically insignificant proportion of the American public insisted that every word emanating from the White House was a bold-faced lie, and/or that the White House was full of pathological liars. So why are these (mostly) same folks astonished–SHOCKED, I tell you–that polls show a similar proportion of the public doesn’t believe the White House when they say Obama is Christian? Or that he already had his Hawaiian birth certificate shown/released to auditors?
@Proginoskes (43): Technically, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which counts as American soil by legal definition for birthright. Not that anyone was ever disputing his right to run for the Presidency on such grounds……..
Molly J Aug 22nd 2010 at 10:50 am 59
Detcord (44,45) - If you’re willing to take Joe Biden’s opinion as a solid source (and you seem to be, as you are trying to use it to refute my statement,) then the first line of your link kind of takes care of making my point.
I said, “Anyone who thinks his race isn’t an issue among - say - the members of the Tea Party movement is delusional.” IOW, race is important to at least some members of the Tea Party.
The first line of the article says, “‘The tea party is not a racist group, ’says Vice President Joe Biden, though he believes that some of those involved in the movement have expressed racist views. ”
I suppose I might have to plead guilty to leaving off the qualifier “some,” though I did say “among members” and not “to every single member.”
A Google search of images of Tea Party rallies turns up some pretty racist signs and slogans, as well as a whole lot of very creative, innovative spelling.
Mark M Aug 22nd 2010 at 12:15 pm 60
Molly J - The problem is that when someone starts a group that does not like Obama’s policies, then those who do not like him because of race “join the cause”. Substitute “men” for “the members of the Tea Party movement” in your and Biden’s quote, and it’s just as true. And you could just as easily have come back and said that you meant “some” men.
Lihtox Aug 22nd 2010 at 01:31 pm 61
I would agree that the Tea Party is not primarily motivated by racism, simply because Clinton, Gore, and Kerry got the same amount of vitriol thrown at them as Obama has. It’s anti-left, not anti-black.
Racism is a very loaded word; some use it to refer to the mild xenophobia that frankly most people have (I certainly feel uncomfortable and awkward when I find myself in a neighborhood of a different ethnicity than mine), and others use it to mean “Get out the white sheets!” I think there are people who don’t trust Obama partly because he’s “not like us”, but that doesn’t make them white supremacists. I think some of the Tea Partiers (who tend to be older) think back in fondness to a more homogeneous era, where the people they grew up with had the same background and tastes and language and religion as they did, where it was harder to step on toes by making unwarranted assumptions. Culture clash can be uncomfortable and even distressing sometimes, and while it *is* racist to say “Mexicans go home!” in such instances, it doesn’t necessarily arise from a sense of superiority but simply from extreme, maybe even radicalized nostalgia. Being a liberal but also a nostalgic sort, I disagree vehemently with their proposed actions, but can sympathize (to an uncomfortable degree sometimes) with their motivations.
MRKenneth Aug 22nd 2010 at 02:03 pm 62
Lihtox @61 - “racism is a very loaded word”
I agree, what I do not understand is why the left uses it so often to denigrate people who disagree with them and there is an ethnicity other than Northern European involved?
Lihtox Aug 22nd 2010 at 02:36 pm 63
MRKenneth@62: Some people on the left use “racist” as an epithet in the same way that the right uses “socialist”. Others are using it for its more innocuous definition (as in, “You should be careful because what you said is insensitive”), while ignoring or being unaware of the fact that the term “racist” can be highly insulting, on par with comparing someone with Hitler. I for one would prefer that we come up with different words for the two phenomena: one word referring to racial stereotypes and one word referring to people who believe in their own racial superiority. But I am perhaps among the minority on the left.
Why focus on non-white racism? Because we live in a white-majority society which has historically oppressed and denigrated non-whites. Context is important. And the really insidious forms of racism are not the rantings of some racial purist, be he black or white, but the unspoken assumptions we make when we walk down the street, the way people are portrayed in the media, and even how people feel about themselves. These assumptions, on average, tend to favor those groups which some call “privileged” in any given society.
CIDU Bill Aug 22nd 2010 at 11:58 pm 64
Lola sent me this video, wondering whether it was meant to be serious. I’m pretty sure it was, though even Fox News would think (most of) it’s nuts
James Pollock Aug 23rd 2010 at 02:32 am 65
Going back to the original post, 18% of Americans believe that Elvis is still alive. And I suspect that there is a far higher percentage that honestly believes that “Global Warming” means that everywhere in the country will be like Florida, all year long, and therefore that record winter snows really do disprove the theory. Which is why we’ll be stuck with “snow+where’s Al Gore” cartoons until well after Florida itself is underwater.
I assume that the “Obama’s a Muslim” is part of a logical progression. First, they started by saying that he was a socialist, but that didn’t scare anybody. So they started adding “Marxist”… referring to “that Marxist socialist Obama” (when they could be troubled to actually spell his name correctly). That didn’t work either, so they tacked on “Communist”. Still didn’t work. They tried adding “Nazi” (either not noticing or, more likely, not caring that “communist” and “Nazi” are mutually exclusive). They didn’t get any traction with normal people until they added “Muslim”, so now he’s “that socialist Marxist communist Nazi Muslim Obama” and still only reaching 18%. Some add foreign, and some add Kenyan, but this is not consistent.
I think they will continue to add hostile terms until they find something that scares > 51% of the population. I just don’t know what direction that’ll be. I think “Ivy League” will be added next.
By far my favorites are the citizens who are mad at the federal judges who don’t rule they way they want to, so they want to “vote out all the judges and replace them with some that will follow the Constitution!” Yes, that is verbatim from a Yahoo message board.
Molly J Aug 23rd 2010 at 12:32 pm 66
Mark (60) - I take your point. In any given group of people, it’s quite possible that one ore more of them are “racist.” However, the Tea Party seems to provide an atmosphere where such sentiments are widely tolerated and therefore tacitly (if not openly) encouraged.
It would be a scenario worthy of SNL to have two guys at a Tea Party rally and one says to the other, “I really think you should get rid of that sign. It’s kind of racist.”
Elyrest Aug 23rd 2010 at 01:31 pm 67
From the Doonesbury “Say What?” quote today:
“He personally told Muslims he is a Muslim. Read his lips.”
– RNC committeewoman Kim Lehman tweeting about Obama
“[In his Cairo speech] it didn’t appear to me he said Christianity was part of his religion.”
– Lehman, explaining her tweet
“I’m a Christian.”
– Obama, in the speech she refers to
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/
paperboy Aug 23rd 2010 at 01:58 pm 68
I don’t think Obama has any strong attachment to Religion, but saying so is political suicide. As for being Muslim, the guy has a pet dog and lets his wife go on vacation without him; does he have to eat a ham sandwich on camera, too? But maybe the Left wants the Muslim rumours; better a Muslim than a member of The Rev. Wright’s church.
CIDU Bill Aug 23rd 2010 at 02:04 pm 69
paperboy, I’m sure many people are capable of believing Obama is both a Muslim and a member of Wright’s church.
paperboy Aug 23rd 2010 at 02:57 pm 70
Maybe The Rev. Wright IS Muslim. Hmmmmm….
Tim Aug 24th 2010 at 05:43 am 71
@Bill #69,
There’s no incompatibility between being Muslim and being part of Wright’s church. I had somebody high up in that denomination tell me that 40% of their members are agnostic. There’s no core requirements for membership there. If he were a Muslim, it would be a great place to be a part of “the Christian community” without having to make any kind of change.
Just saying.
Molly J Aug 24th 2010 at 09:33 am 72
So it’s not a REAL church - you know, where they tell you what to think.
Elyrest Aug 24th 2010 at 11:17 am 73
“There’s no core requirements for membership there.”
Sounds like the Unitarians, but Rev. Wright sounds nothing like a Unitarian.
paperboy Aug 24th 2010 at 12:57 pm 74
Tim#71- “I had somebody high up in that denomination tell me that 40% of their members are agnostic. There’s no core requirements for membership there.”
That’s sounds like it’s a club-house, rather than a church. Fine with me; my only beef is the tax-exemption.
Elyrest Aug 24th 2010 at 01:13 pm 75
“That’s sounds like it’s a club-house, rather than a church”
paperboy - This made me wonder what are the requirements for something to be deemed a church. Some “religions” do not worship any god as most people would recognize it, but they are still categorized as religions. Having a group pf people gather to worship/pray/meditate/chant etc. have all been accepted as religions, but clearly many people don’t believe that many of these are true religions. I myself usually don’t mind the tax-exemption, except that I find that I do with some churches. So who would get to decide? Me? You?
paperboy Aug 24th 2010 at 02:35 pm 76
Elyrest - There HAS to be a definition of “Religion” in order for the State to recognize it when the law is involved, especially if you want to collect taxes, and it can’t be too loose, otherwise something like Scientology could be declared a “religion” and be tax-exempt. Who should decide? Yes, me and you, and all Americans, through our elected representatives.
Elyrest Aug 24th 2010 at 02:49 pm 77
paperboy - I know there has to be an accepted definition, but what is it and is it different for each state? From what I can find the rules and regulations are as confusing as the tax codes themselves. I thought Scientology was already considered a religion as it gained tax-exempt status from the IRS in 1993.
CIDU Bill Aug 24th 2010 at 02:52 pm 78
If “authorizing” religions were a function of Congress, this would actually be a campaign issue in this year’s election: “A vote for my candidate is a vote to give taxpayer subsidies to the the 9/11 terrorists.”
Winter Wallaby Aug 24th 2010 at 02:53 pm 79
Scientology is classified as a religion under U.S. law, and donations to it are tax-exempt, so long as you don’t receive services for them - see Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Elyrest, my strong suspicion is that Congress left it up to the IRS to make determinations over whether a religion was “genuine,” and if a group disagrees, they take take it to court.
It’s funny that within two comments of Bill #69, Tim #71 jumps in to show that, yes indeed, some people are capable of beliving that Obama is both a Muslim and a member of Wright’s church. Weird. It’s even weirder that the following discussion takes Tim’s implausible and unsubstantiated claim at face value. Really? Tim knows someone “high up” in Wright’s church, who for some reason took an internal poll that determined that 40% of their members are agnostic, and they revealed to him alone this otherwise undocumented statistic. Really?
Let me take this opportunity to settle the debate over whether the Tea Party is racist. I know someone high up in the Tea Party and they told me that 85% of their members are racist. Case closed!
paperboy Aug 24th 2010 at 03:44 pm 80
Tim#71’s comment IS unsubstantiated, and wasn’t taken as gospel truth, but did provide a basis for a short discussion on the definition of religion in regard to tax-exemption, not in particular to Wright’s church’s true congregation, so the plausibility wasn’t really addressed.
Igelino Aug 25th 2010 at 09:20 am 81
Hmm, my understanding of Islam is that there is an objective way to tell if someone is a Muslim: if they publicly proclaim themselves to be.
Which would put him in a tough spot if he was in for example Saudi Arabia and someone asked him to come pray. Refusing to pray is like denying your religion, and I am told it’s the death penalty.
So he’s Muslim and breaking some serious Islamic laws.
Detcord Aug 25th 2010 at 04:49 pm 82
Molly J (59)
I thought YOU would accept Joe Biden’s opinion. You seem to have a bit of difficulty providing evidence (as opposed to assertions) to support your points, such as your subsequent post at (66). Here, let me help you out (again).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM
Molly J Aug 26th 2010 at 01:26 pm 83
Look, Det, you’re doing it again. Please re-read my post #59. You found me a video of some black people attending a Tea Party rally (although the last guy states he is not “affiliated with the Tea Party.”) Great. Good for you. SOME people who attend these rallies are not racist. I think that’s what I just said. SOME may not be. But at least SOME are. And the unchallenged vocal and visual presence of those who are give the stamp of approval to such behavior.
I would have loved (and I was hoping for) the interviewer to ask some of these people how they felt about the racist signs seen at many Tea Party rallies.
I don’t know what would satisfy you. I don’t believe there is any type of independent poll that would give you exact numbers regarding Tea Party followers and their racist beliefs or lack thereof. I also personally know a number of people who say and do racist things, but claim - hand on heart - that they are not racist, so I doubt such a poll would even be accurate. My conclusions are based on the gathering of evidence from images at Tea Party rallies and from my personal experience with Tea Party followers - IOW, the evidence of my own eyes and ears. What would you have me use?
Detcord Aug 26th 2010 at 02:30 pm 84
Molly J (83)
If by, “doing it again”, you mean I am once again pointing out the flaws in your one-note arguement, then I guess I am… doing it again.
I’ve seen videos of those same individuals you describe carrying racist signs at Tea Party rallies too. I have also seen videos of Tea Party organizers following these individuals with cameras and signs saying something like, “Not one of us”. All this proves is that some people, of whatever color or political persuasion, are racist - and others aren’t.
By all means attack the ideas of the so called Tea Party, if you happen to disagree with them. But name calling, especially with such an incendiary epithet as ‘racist’ is beyond childish. I would be more than happy to debate ideas with you - just not slurs, racial or otherwise. THAT, Molly J is the behavior that would satisfy me - and I hope, you.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Aug 26th 2010 at 06:36 pm 85
Detcord @ 84
“By all means attack the ideas of the so called Tea Party, if you happen to disagree with them. But name calling, especially with such an incendiary epithet as ‘racist’ is beyond childish.”
How about the fairly common Tea Party approach of calling Obama and all of his supporters Socialists or Marxists, when they clearly aren’t by _any_ accepted standard. This is done purely as (incendiary) epithets, not as a serious attempt to debate economics. Will you call _them_ childish?
Detcord Aug 27th 2010 at 03:20 am 86
Ted (85)
That depends on whether you consider the label ‘Socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ to be an incendiary slur. Since millions of people throughout the world call themselves one or the other, including my German friend (who is the nicest guy in the world - despite being a Socialist) :-), I’d say you’re on thin ice with that line of thinking.
And you say, “Obama and all of his supporters”… “clearly aren’t Socialists or Marxists”. On what do you base that assertion? President Obama’s spending patterns certainly mimic those of socialist nations in Europe. I should think calling him a socialist would be as awful as calling a Democrat a Repubilcan (oh, wait, you DO call Democrats with an aversion to massive social spending Blue Dogs, don’t you).
Come on Ted. Stop supporting name-callers and start debating policy. If one can encapsulate that policy with a well known legitimate label, such as Republican, Democrat, Socialist, or Marxist, then knock yourself out. I do agree it would be better to focus on the specifics, such as unaffordable social spending that leads to massive and cripling national debt. Debt that threatens the very freedoms Americans hold dear. I mean, have you SEEN how much we owe Marxist China?
Dave in Boston Aug 27th 2010 at 04:50 am 87
Those are meant to be incendiary slurs. In the US “socialist” is code for “commie pinko”, regardless of what it might mean in a saner context. Remember that Dukakis got slagged off in 1988 merely for being “liberal”.
Meanwhile, China isn’t Marxist. Do they even pay lip service nowadays?
Detcord Aug 27th 2010 at 05:15 am 88
Dave in Boston (87)
I see! You define the term - and then asign its usage to your opponents. Clever.
And since when is the term ‘liberal’ some sort of code for ‘evil’? Good gracious, everyone acknowledges that the US is a Liberal Democracy. Or is that now a slur too?
China not Marxist? Since when? It’s still the Peoples Republic of China - yes? It is still ruled by the Communist Party of China - yes? It is still, by law, a One Party State - yes? It is still regarded by several political scientists as one of the last five Communist states (along with Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, and Cuba) - yes?. [Look up Wikipedia, Peoples Republic of China]
Oh, I’m sorry. It’s not Marxist because YOU say it isn’t. I had no idea you had such power.
I’ll grant the PRC is trying to apply the priciples of a Market Economy - on a limited basis in test areas. Indeed, they have already learned to corner the market of Rare Earths - and are starting to use that leverage to incluence Western Policy in their favor.
Wonderful! Do you feel comforted by these developments?
Lihtox Aug 27th 2010 at 09:51 am 89
@Detcord: You clearly have never watched US media, if you are unaware of the way the words “liberal” and “socialist” are used in this country. (And “Muslim”, for that matter.) When McCarthy was calling people “communist”, did you think he was merely making a neutral statement of fact?
I AM a socialist, and I say Obama is nowhere near left-wing enough for that. When did he campaign on single-payer healthcare, for instance? Why isn’t he pushing for stronger unions? Why hasn’t money been poured into works projects like FDR did during the Depression, to pump some money back into the economy, get people back to work, and fix our crumbling infrastructure at the same time? Obama is and always has been a moderate. If he is a socialist because he supports Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid (which are socialist programs), then so were Reagan and Bush and Nixon, none of whom made attempts to dismantle those programs. If he is a socialist because of deficit spending, then he’s not even in the same league as Reagan and the two Bushes, who jacked up the national debt higher than any Democratic president has ever done.
Dave in Boston Aug 27th 2010 at 12:01 pm 90
Power? Me? I’m merely reporting on existing usage. If you don’t believe me, GIYF… and yes, “liberal” was used as a slur in the 1988 election campaign. That’s long enough ago that information may be hard to find on the net, but searching for “the L word” might pay off.
(and on China, I think you’ll find that “limited basis in test areas” is some years out of date.)
Detcord Aug 27th 2010 at 12:46 pm 91
Dave in B
Yes, I love Google. Here what I got in the first 4 lines of Define:Liberal
# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions”
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
You’re right - these are clearly common-usage ’slur’ references, Thanks for the GIYF tip!
Seriously, the word ‘liberal’ can only be a slur if the one it’s applied to allows it to be that way. I was there, in Boston, when Governor Dukakis ran for President. The last time I saw an equally incompetent campaign was when President Gerald Ford tried to retain the office in 1976.
With regard to China, I think you’ll find their leaders are not stupid. As I posted some time ago, the concepts of Capitalism will work in any political environment - even Marxism. That’s because Capitalism isn’t a Political Philosophy, but a business one. So, more “State Controlled” areas are turning over to a Marxist version of Capitalism. http://www.socialismtoday.org/122/hybrid.html
The Sleeping Dragon awakens and, as per my Rare Earths comment, it doesn’t like the West. You try Goggling THAT and see what it gets you. I’ll be amazed (or concerned) if you’re still sanguine.
mitch4 Aug 28th 2010 at 12:52 am 92
Detcord, I’m afraid you’re just off the rails here. You’re denying some facts and usages, as brought out by Lihtox and Dave-in-Boston, that any wide-awake observer of the U.S. political scene, no matter what their own position, knows perfectly well. The term “liberal” has been turned into an accusation, and your sticks-and-stones advice about not “allowing” it is (1) supercilious, and (2) superfluous, as something the organized Democrats, and the genuine liberals, are certainly aware of and have tried. Allow me a moment of all-caps: No matter how many links and citations you post, this is something that EVERYBODY KNOWS and you’re just bewildering yourself with. And of course the respectable neutral sources don’t reflect that — they’re struggling to not play along with the demagoguery.
Dave in Boston Aug 28th 2010 at 03:20 am 93
Also, looking for current or past colloquial usage information by asking a dictionary is fundamentally doomed. It seems that `the L word’ is a TV show, but asking Google for `”the L word” Dukakis’ brings up several pages of highly relevant material.
Meanwhile, the distinction you’re trying to draw about China doesn’t work because Marxism is also an economic/business philosophy. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say; it sounds like maybe you mean that capitalism per se is not incompatible with an authoritarian government. Everyone ought to know that already, though; after all, some large fraction of the West’s client states in the Cold War were overtly authoritarian.
Detcord Aug 28th 2010 at 05:44 am 94
mitch4 (92)
“Off the rails”. “Denying facts”. Wow! Loony bin here I come.
I realize I am challenging some of your basic assumptions, and that makes some people nervous (you?). I am also challenging you to “wake up” and “up your game” and not give in to slur exchanges and name-calling as these behaviors are for children who don’t know any better and the weak-minded who cannot come up with cogent arguments to make their case. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum and it was my opinion that Governor Dukakis mishandled the smear attempts of some of his opponents - and paid the price for it.
I should note that my disagreeing with you does not put me, “off the rails” as you term it - though it does suggest you have an ego problem as you don’t seem able to deal with an alternative opinion without rancor. I am willing to listen to intelligent arguments, and even change my opinion - if I find the case sound. It’s called an open mind. You should try it sometime.
One give-away to a closed mind is usage of the term, “EVERYBODY KNOWS”. There is a vast array of knowledge out there mitch4, and not a single person in the World knows it all. Likewise, there is no single fact that every person in the World knows. Thus EVERYBODY KNOWS is literally impossible - and its usage therefore daft.
Demagogue - heal thyself.
Detcord Aug 28th 2010 at 06:10 am 95
Lihtox (89)
You make an interesting assertion (i.e. “You clearly have never watched US media”). Since I was born and raised in the USA, and am obviously familiar with several Presidential campaigns (per my previous post), your statement is preposterous. The interesting part is that, as I have been in the United Kingdom for the past 20 years or so, and as I threw-out my TV 15 years ago, you would have been right to say that I haven’t watched much recent US media - directly.
Of course, I am well-read and, in addition, the Internet offers a much wider array of opinion that US Television. So, if that is your primary source of information then I would argue that I am better informed than you are. Indeed, due to my current residence, coupled with my interest in my homeland, I may have access to greater and more diverse range of opinion that yourself. Heigh-Ho.
Regarding your McCarthy comment, though I don’t agree with what he did, or the way he did it, time has revealed that from a fact perspective, he was often right.
“Obama’s not a Socialist.” Well, I never said he was. He’s supposed to be a Democrat, so that has to be, at least nominally, true. I did say his, “spending patterns certainly mimic those of socialist nations in Europe.” A vast amount of US money is being poured SOMEWHERE Lithox. Since you’ve asserted your closer to the facts, you tell me where it’s going.
I don’t particularly CARE if he is a Socialist. I do care that my country isn’t bankrupted into oblivion, be it Bush, Carter, Clinton or whomever.
Igelino Aug 28th 2010 at 06:23 am 96
“Everybody knows” is a hyperbole, not a statement of literal fact. Everybody knows that.
Detcord Aug 28th 2010 at 06:57 am 97
Dave in Boston (93)
How do you square your, “If you don’t believe me, GIYF”, suggestion with your subsequent, “usage information by asking a dictionary is fundamentally doomed”, comment. Are you being obtuse?
RE: Marxism: As I read it, Marxism is supposed to describe the process by which Communism replaces Capitalism. Since Adam Smith defined Capitalism as “Enlightened self-interest”, I assume (and I’m free-wheeling here) that Communism might be defined as, “Enlightened total group-interest”? I have to confess that sounds difficult to implement - unless the “group” is guided by someone - which makes it sound more like an Autocracy.
Wikipedia has this to say about China’s recent development: “China’s growth comes both from huge state investment in infrastructure and heavy industry and from private sector expansion in light industry instead of just exports, whose role in the economy appears to have been significantly overestimated. The smaller but highly concentrated public sector, dominated by 159 large SOEs, provided key inputs from utilities, heavy industries, and energy resources that facilitated private sector growth and drove investment, the foundation of national growth. In 2008 thousands of private companies closed down and the government announced plans to expand the public sector to take up the slack caused by the global financial crisis.”
None of this changes the facts I posted in 88. Still, the subsequent paragraphs do suggest China is seeking a more productive business model, which I believe was your point. I have read that there is a conflict developing between the State Republics (such as Venezuela) and the Democratic Republics (such as the US) over which can deliver the better economic results - and what the social cost of that delivery will be.
It could be ‘Interesting Times’.
Here’s the Wiki link, if you’re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Detcord Aug 28th 2010 at 07:06 am 98
Ingelino (96)
So you are saying that the phrase, “Everybody Knows”, is an,”extravagant exaggeration”, that everybody knows. Sounds like tautology to me (i.e. A group of words that merely repeats the meaning already conveyed. Ex: “If you don’t get any better, then you’ll never improve.”).
Nope. Doesn’t work. Try again
Igelino Aug 28th 2010 at 08:06 am 99
Det: ; )
mitch4 Aug 28th 2010 at 08:53 am 100
Oh piffle! “Off the rails” is just like “going astray” and only means that I think you’re very mistaken, not that I want to send you to a loony bin.
Detcord Aug 28th 2010 at 10:06 am 101
mitch4 (100)
I like piffle! I’ll accept piffle. … though I don’t think I am writing piffle.
I know, for example, that there are some in the US political spectrum who think it hilarious that they have gotten self-styled members of the Tea Party movement to refer to themselves as, “Teabaggers”. For most people, this is an innocuous (and logical) tag, and thus reasonably acceptable.
What they don’t know is that a certain subculture in the US has a different meaning for the teabag (or rather, teabagging), which if the Tea Party folk were to become aware, they would probably be disgusted. I watched one online episode, where an alternative newsroom (I forget the name, exactly), was having fun getting Tea Party representatives to say teabagger, with regard to themselves.
It was briefly kind of funny. Sort of like being in a room where someone is laughing for no reason, and soon the whole room is laughing. But the Tea Party folk seem to have taken it in their stride, and now I only see it used by Tea Party folk, and proudly too. Sort of like the way Americans (well, Northern ones) embraced Yank (or Yankee) and turned a British slur into a group to be proud of.
The only weakness to my “raise your game” argument is that it is dependent upon a reasonably educated electorate, who would punish infantile debating techniques used in place of reasoned argument. In the past, this was the justification for universal primary education in both Britain and America as democracy does not work nearly so well with an illiterate and uninformed electorate. If educational standards have dropped in the US, then one might argue that name-calling, slurs, and dirty trick would have more play. As you may have gathered, I certainly hope not, as an informed electorate is the greatest strength a democracy has.
Lihtox Aug 28th 2010 at 12:56 pm 102
What are we arguing about again? Such a scattershot debate going on here; fortunately the original post was actually about politics, and not Cathy or something. (Ack!)
@Detcord: I’d say that the US electorate is often uneducated or miseducated, though no doubt my own bias skews my view of the matter. Many of them only get their news from radio and television, and because they have the power to change the government, what is said on radio and television is very important. Take Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for examples: they are such ridiculous self-aggrandizers that ignoring them might seem the wise course, but they *can’t* be ignored because their rhetoric is shaping the worldview of a not-insubstantial part of the electorate. And remember, there are a number of armed conservative militias in the US; fortunately there haven’t been any incidents, but their ranks have swelled since Obama was elected, and we have to hope that it isn’t only a matter of time.
In politics, it doesn’t really matter what the dictionary definition of liberal or socialist is; what matters is what the electorate thinks liberal or socialist means. Even though Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, any candidate who labelled herself as “socialist” would lose, automatically, in almost any part of the country. (Bernie Sanders in Vermont is the primary exception; maybe there are others– maybe San Francisco?) One can try to embrace a scornful term and make it one of pride, but that’s a difficult process: teenagers still use “gay” as an epithet even though support for homosexuality among the young is very high; and while “teabagger” may have been embraced by some in the Tea Party movement, it has certainly contributed to their reputation of ridiculousness among the younger part of the electorate.
Anyway, I guess the original argument was whether the Tea Party is racist or not. Maybe the best answer is that it doesn’t really matter, and that it is dumb for my fellow leftists to harp on the question. Call out racist comments and actions certainly, but determining whether a given individual is racist is futile (unless they’re a white supremacist or something, of course), and trying to determine the level of racism in a diverse movement such as the Tea Party is silly. (cf “How to Tell People They Sound Racist” @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc ). There are so many other reasons to dislike the Tea Party, starting from their original panic over raising taxes at the exact same time Obama was cutting taxes.
Dave in Boston Aug 28th 2010 at 09:01 pm 103
Detcord: Google is a search engine. It can retrieve lots of things. By asking it to serve as a dictionary rather than, say, to retrieve a sample of things that are being said on the net, you totally missed the point. I think if anyone’s being obtuse it’s not me.
“Marxism” can mean a lot of different things, depending on who you ask and on context. It appears that you’re trying to say that China is still authoritarian (one-party state, dissent is mostly not tolerated, etc.) regardless of the economic liberalization that’s been going on. Which it is. If that’s all you’re trying to say, I don’t think there’s any disagreement.
Recently there’s been a bunch of hand-wringing in the press about countries that are “capitalist” (that is, not “communist”) but are not “democratic” or “free”, as if this is a new development. As far as I can tell this is a result of people growing up on Cold War-era rhetoric that equated “capitalist” with both “democratic” and “free”. In point of fact many/most of the West’s client states during the Cold War were, though claiming allegiance to the “capitalist” side, authoritarian dictatorships, and many of these came to power by overthrowing elected governments. (And, for that matter, it’s also fairly common to have a “democratic” country that is not “free”.)
Lihtox: following any nontrivial discussion in wordpress is a real pain. Once upon a time the internet had better tools for this… but the least common denominator won out.
Detcord Aug 29th 2010 at 10:00 am 104
Lihtox (102)
I think we are now on the same sheet of music as I cannot disagree with your latest post. I would only add that, once a problem has been identified, it only remains to solve, or address, it. (Not always an easy task, granted, but impossible if not identified). PS: I loved your link!
Dave in Boston (103)
I was having a go at you for your GIYF comment. My Google result was to show that the term ‘liberal’ has many meanings, with most of the more common usages being benevolent. That’s what Google does, by the way. It lists definitions according to usage.
My point is that, to some degree, the understanding of a term can be influenced - by interested parties. There is no reason the word ‘liberal’ cannot be seen as positive in the US - if some intelligent effort is applied. Granted, given the state of US education, this might be more difficult than one would like, but then, there is another ‘problem’ identified - No?
Regarding your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, like Lithox, we are on the same sheet of music now.
Dave in Boston Sep 1st 2010 at 12:09 am 105
Yes, and my point is that you went and got a (nearly) useless piece of irrelevant information from Google instead of that which you were looking for. You don’t ask a dictionary about current colloquial usage; that’s not what dictionaries are about.
How feasible it is to make “liberal” positive again isn’t clear. It would take a lot of pushing. It would take quite a bit more pushing to make “socialist” positive.