How Not To Be A Racist

Tuesday, August 28, AD 2012



I wish I could say  the above video is an exaggeration, but it really isn’t.  Timothy Noah demonstrates this in The New Republic in a charming article entitled, Romney Cribs from the GOP’s Willie Horton Playbook.  In the article Noah somehow fails to note that in 1988 the first candidate to bring up the fact that Michael Dukakis as governor of Massachusetts defended a furlough policy for prisoners, including convicted first degree murderers serving a life sentence, was Al Gore.  Willie Horton, a first degree murderer serving a life sentence, received a weekend furlough, did not come back, and committed the crimes of rape, assault and auto theft.  Horton was sentenced to two life sentences plus 85 years in Maryland.  The Maryland judge refused to return him to Massachusetts, saying, “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again.”  Michael Dukakis as governor of Massachusetts thought that such furloughs were a great idea and defended the policy.  Bush is accused by Noah of racism for bringing up these very inconvenient facts against Dukakis.

So much for history.  How is Romney guilty of racism according to Noah?

Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race in two ways. Most overtly, the Romney campaign is accusing President Obama by of gutting welfare reform by dropping the work requirement—a gross distortion of an unexceptional waiver Obama granted several states allowing them to experiment with alternative ways to meet the work requirement. Two of the five governors requesting the waivers were Republicans, and among those who have denounced the workfare accusation as flat-out untrue is the Republican former congressman and current talk-show host Joe Scarborough. The second way Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race is more subtle. According to Edsall, Romney is conveying a racially-charged message in accusing Obama of taking money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority non-white recipients of) Obamacare.

According to Edsall, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have so far been leaving the race-baiting to ads on TV and the Internet while taking the high road in their own appearances. That isn’t quite right, as TNR’s Alec MacGillis has shown; Romney is not above integrating the welfare-based attack into his speeches. Now Romney has taken the game to a new level in an interview published today in USA Today. Romney tells USA Today’s Susan Page that Obama issued the welfare waivers to “shore up his base.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to How Not To Be A Racist

  • I believe it was Newt who earlier today said something to the effect that if you can hear a dog whistle, that must mean you are a dog yourself. Res ipsa loquitur, Mr. Noah.

  • The Democrats have to play up race, since that is the only way they’ll win. They cannot run on their record. It is not racist for blacks to break 90% for a supposed black man, but any white voting for Romney is definitely KKK at heart, I mean just look at the man’s family. The Democrat propagandists have mastered the highest art of totalitarianism – how to commit any crime, but make the victims bear the guilt.

  • More racism uncovered at the RNC:

    “She said America’s narrative has never been one ‘of grievance and entitlement.’”

    That “she” is Ms. Condi Rice.

    Seems the race card may not trump massive unemployment and expansive poverty.

    “For the very first time, the favorable/unfavorable ratios are now higher for the Republican Party than for the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, the Democratic favorability ratio, which has always been within the range of 1.20 to 1.56, is now below 1. It is a stunningly low .83, which is 31% lower than the prior Democratic Party low of 1.20, which was reached in 2004. . . . Under President Obama, there has been an unprecedentedly sharp and first-ever switch to preferring the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. In fact, the damage that has been done to the Democratic brand under the Obama Presidency, going from a historically normal Democratic ratio of 1.38 in 2008, down 39% to the present .83, compares with the Republican fall-offs under George W. Bush’s Presidency, which declined from the Republican ratio of 1.41 in 2000, down 18% to 1.16 in 2004, and then down yet another 31% to .80 in 2008, when the Republican Party hit its all-time (back until 1992) pre-convention low – which virtually doomed the campaign of Presidential candidate John McCain and made Obama’s win almost inevitable. The Democratic brand has thus suffered more (down 39%) under Obama than the Republican brand suffered under either of George W. Bush’s two terms (-16%, then -31%).”

Dr. Johnson and His Dictionary

Tuesday, May 3, AD 2011

Dr. Samuel Johnson was a curmudgeon of the first order:  he hated Americans, Scots and any number of other groups.  A writer of genius in his own day, much of his writing has not held up well.  ( I defy anyone, for example, to read Rasselass without nodding off.)  A pensioner of King George III, his pen was bought and paid for, and he entered the lists against the King’s enemies in the pamphlet wars of Eighteenth Century England, as he did against the rebellious American colonists.  Having said all that, I do honor Johnson for two reasons.

First, because of his quick wit, often conveyed to us courtesy of James Boswell, Johnson’s companion and biographer.  A few samples:

Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.

Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.

No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned.

Wine makes a man more pleased with himself; I do not say that it makes him more pleasing to others.

What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure.

The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!

Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging. (Johnson, referring to Americans.)

It has been a common saying of physicians in England, that a cucumber should be well sliced, and dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out, as good for nothing.

I told him I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach. Johnson: “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Dr. Johnson and His Dictionary

  • Pingback: Dr. Johnson and His Dictionary | The American Catholic - Christian IBD
  • Perhaps the inevitable change of ‘living’ languages is the reason the Mass said in Latin, a ‘dead’ language is preferable to the vernacular. We have a new, more true American-English translation of the Order of the Mass coming into use this Advent and this is a good thing; however, one has to wonder, had we taken Dr. Johnson’s advice, perhaps a ‘correction’ would be unnecessary.

  • It may be worth mentioning that Johnson vigorously denied that “his pen was bought and paid for,” and claimed he would have refused his pension if it had been. I don’t know that there’s much reason to doubt him on that score.

    From his Dictionary:

    “Pension. n. s. [pension, French.] An allowance made to anyone without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country.”

  • He could deny it all he wanted to Tom. The facts speak for themselves. If he didn’t want to be regarded as King George’s hireling he should not have taken the King’s shilling. Considering that Johnson prior to the pension had been something of a Jacobite a certain betrayal of principal was involved by the mere acceptance. He wrote the definition of pension under George II, who he abhorred and whose government he attacked regularly, prior to him accepting a pension under George III in 1762. His words about pensions were famous by the time he accepted one, and his numerous critics made considerable hay out of it, as they had every right to.

  • I have Boswell’s Life of Johnson in my Kindle queue and am very much looking forward to it. I’m a Tory at heart.

  • Francis, if this is the first time you are attempting to get through Boswell’s Life of Johnson I would recommend skimming it first. There are plenty of nuggets of gold, but quite a bit of dross. Boswell could have used a good editor.

  • Well, I read Rasselas not only without nodding off, but eagerly — I found it very engaging, actually a page-turner. I really enjoyed it. But maybe that says more about me than about the book ..

    As to being paid-for, Johnson was an odd enough bird, I think, to withstand the worst of that charge. From what I read, his was not the kind of character that could be bought; he would not have been able to sell, even if he had eagerly wanted to. Consider the way he treated his own patron, the earl of Chesterfield! Note also that he continued to rail against the Hanovers, and to be a Jacobite not less, but if anything more, after the pension began, and it began somewhat late in his life anyway.

    I think he accepted the pension for the same reason that he accepted the invitation to the audience with George III, whom he regarded as more or less a usurper: because of his respect for authority and office. To refuse the pension, as the audience, would have been a violence against the state, and Johnson would never have done such a thing. With Johnson, it was his country, right or wrong.

    And maybe the Life of Johnson could have been better edited, but I’m glad it wasn’t. A good editor would have cut out and thrown away many things from it which we’re lucky to have.

  • “But maybe that says more about me than about the book”

    “Page turner” is certainly not how I would describe Rasselas; “a sure cure for insomnia” leaps to my mind instead. To each his own.

    “Consider the way he treated his own patron, the earl of Chesterfield!”

    Yes, consider it indeed. Johnson broke with Chesterfield after the failure of Chesterfield to pay him anything for seven years, a fact which Johnson highlighted in his famous letter telling off Chesterfield. Unlike Chesterfield, George III kept the money coming.

    “Note also that he continued to rail against the Hanovers, and to be a Jacobite not less, but if anything more, after the pension began, and it began somewhat late in his life anyway.”

    Johnson enjoyed the pension from 1762 until his death in 1784. He had been a fierce critic of George II who had not paid him, and was a fierce supporter of George III who did. Res Ipsa Loquitur as we say in the law. Even Johnson admitted to Boswell that with the granting of the pension he would have to give up his Jacobite leanings.

    “And maybe the Life of Johnson could have been better edited”

    I think it could have been shrunken by a third without any reduction in substance.