|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Allen the fathead
Apparently in yesterday's debate with Webb, Allen went crazy when someone asked about his Jewish heritage.
"It has been reported," said Fox, that "your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?" Since when is asking somebody about Jewish heritage "making aspersions"? I'm trying really hard to find the video of this, because it sounds like more bigotry from Allen. I'm sure he'll give another non-apology and say he's sorry if we were offended (he'll never admit that he gave offense or said anything wrong). Pandagon linked the YouTube! Enjoy! Thanks to Fred for the heads up. |
7 Comments:
I understand your point. Allen may be a bigot towards immigrants or people who look like they may be immigrants from other nations. So maybe he is bigoted against Jews in particular. How will he react to questions about his Jewish ancentry, and when his family "stopped being jews"? Well he got mad and this may prove that he is also bigoted against Jews.
Maybe aspersions was just a poor choice of words. I think he maybe meant to say 'irrelevant insinuations', but couldn't find the right words, being spitting mad at the implications behind this question. The context of the reporter's question is clear: Allen made racist comments earlier, maybe if the man has jewish blood in his veins, he will feel guilt or hypocricy for being a christian, or anger or denial at his Jewish heritage, or take offense at the implication he was Jewish, because his Christian identity would be "attacked".
I think Allen felt, quite correctly, that this wasn't a simple question, and saw the question for what it was: just a thinly disguised slur. I'm inclined to agree with him. What other possible interpretations do you, blogger, take to this question? Perhaps some charitable ones? If you read Allen's answer, he was upset about the questioner's implication that religion or ethnicity should colour the ideas of a man who's running for public office: stating that is irrelevant. I agree with that answer. If that is a proper interpretation of Allen's answer, I think that he is quite correct to be angry at the reporter persisting with this kind of questioning. I find the reason the reporter gives for his question, "honesty", to be either an outrageous lie, or some sort obvious bear baiting. The question of the reporter has zilch to do with the subject of honesty, and everything to do with stoking the irrational prejudices of the reporter's audience, or the anger of the politician. I cannot think of any other reason, and all those reasons reflect badly upon the reporter, and not Allen. Religion and honesty or ethnicity and honesty are independent concepts: they do not inform each other. The answers to the reporters question have no place in a newspaper except the gossip column.
Perhaps you think the reporter should be cut some slack because the candidate himself is religious, and has perhaps mentioned it at some earlier point in his campaign? So what, I say. It isn't right for reporters to sink to a level of ignorance several fathoms below that of their interviewees.
2:59 AM, September 20, 2006
Actually, the context of the question is that Allen had, in the past, denied his Jewish ancestry, even though it's well-documented. (Interesting that since this debacle, he announced that he "just discovered" that his grampa was Jewish. Whatta perceptive guy.)
Your interpretation of the question is pretty out there. "Guilt or hypocricy for being a Christian"? Where on Earth did you pull that from? Try "guilt or hypocrisy for being a bigoted fathead, or at least someone who deliberately panders to bigots".
"The questioner's implication that religion or ethnicity should colour the ideas of a man who's running for public office" -- Now where did you see THAT in the question? Be specific.
Look, the context is clear: Allen is a guy who's blatantly been playing to the bigots in his state (see: macaca and posing with the openly racist CCC, to just name the most recent examples). Furthermore, he has lied about his Jewish ancestry. It is indeed about honesty, hypocrisy, and exposing the bigotry Allen's been blatantly using throughout his political career.
9:22 AM, September 20, 2006
I also don't like commenter's replacement for aspersions of "irrelevant insinuations."
One, it's come up again and again in this country that religion is important in politics. Kerry got blasted for not being Jeebusy enough in the last election (he's just recently clarified his Jeebusness in a clear bid for a presidential run), pretty much every politician uses religion and speaks from churches and pulpits.
Two, when did reporters adopt a code about not asking about religion? When did this become off limits or not classy? I think it became off limits the very second people figured out he had Jewish ancestry. If the reporter had asked how he felt about Jebus he would have smiled and replied, because he's not ashamed of that.
It's that disparity that exposes the bigotry here. Conservatives and this crowd felt he was being impugned by this reporter as being a dirty Jew. Liberals don't give a shit about Jewish heritage and saw this as what should have been a soft-ball question that any competent politician would have caught and flipped to Jesus. It's not like fundies don't like Jews these days, and it's not like Christians don't love hearing conversion stories. The only possible implication is his shame over having "Jewish blood."
What a fathead. If he had just answered the question, talked about Jebus and moved on, no one would have noticed. That's what a good politician would have done.
9:44 AM, September 20, 2006
"The questioner's implication that religion or ethnicity should colour the ideas of a man who's running for public office" -- Now where did you see THAT in the question? Be specific.
The question is being asked on the campaign trail, is it not? So the implication is that the answer to this question of whether Allen has Jewish Blood is relevant to kind of decisions the candidate will make if elected. The candidate told the reporter that it didn't matter, and why it didn't matter, and that he was offended that the reporter would ask such a question when it clearly doesn't matter.
How is denying or acknowledging that you are Jewish or not resolve a question of whether "you're a bigoted fathead"? How does Allen replying that he think's the question is outrageous, and explaining why it is outrageous (with the argument that one's religion shouldn't colour one's policies for public office holders), and then getting angry with a non-answer from the reporter after asking the reporter why the reporter thinks his question is important, go any way to advancing the blogger's and some of the commenters' opinions that he is a bigot?
Why do we have to take Rev jr's claim that because "religion is important in politics" it is unseemly to point out that it shouldn't be? This is what Allen stated, quite plainly. It is the blogger and commentator who are trying to read into this plain answer some hatred of Allen's towards Jews (because of his earlier bigoted opinions expressed towards the reporter.) I don't think that is fair or logical on the part of the blogger.
The blogger and commentators do not acknowledge that for a conservative Christian, or conservatives of other faiths, asking questions like "what do you think about your ancestors being some faith other than your own" could ellicit the one possible "honest" answer of "I'm sorry that they are rotting in hell", because according the christian doctrine, as the reporter ought to know (since he's asking about religion, he should have some background knowledge of it), that is where they ended up? Perhaps that is why Allen meant by "casting aspersions". Asking those kinds of personal and private questions about religion has no part whatsoever to play in determining someone's competency for public office in a secular government, like the united states government. Rev. dr. thinks the candidate should just like through his teeth and talk about Jesus, rather than point out publicly why such questions shouldn't be asked. I fail to see why Allen shouldn't angrily state why he finds those questions irrelevant. Indeed, the reporter couldn't offer any competent answer why he was asking the question. "Honesty" as reason for why you're asking a question is a complete cop out.
1:51 PM, September 20, 2006
That's a massive leap in logic, crf. All sorts of questions are asked of candidates all the time on the campaign trail. When Bill Clinton was asked "Boxers or briefs?", do you think he was being asked about his proposed Boxer Initiative 2000?
Similarly, candidates can be asked direct questions about their perfidy -- ie, "Did you funnel money to an offshore Orphan Grindery?" -- and expect a direct answer, not the candidate's feelings on orphan grinderies or how money-funneling affects their day-to-day decision making.
Allen was asked about something he had been at the very least evasive, and most likely dishonest about.
You're absolutely right that religion shouldn't count, but maybe character should. Allen has none.
8:07 PM, September 20, 2006
I would take minimalists arguments a step further. Religion does count, and the Republicans are responsible. In our country it has been the part of every election I can remember. Now that it's a religion that they might be ashamed of, now it's suddenly off limits. This is bullshit.
8:28 PM, September 20, 2006
"Now that it's a religion that they might be ashamed of, now it's suddenly off limits."
The only part of this clip that bothered me was the bit where he actually answered the question: stating that his mother was of mixed European descent with "a little spanish" and that he was raised a christian, after he soapboxed that it didn't matter. If it REALLY didn't matter, he would have just left off at "religion shouldn't be an issue."
10:01 PM, September 20, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home