What are the chances

_Fenton

that if this is directly tied to Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, etc., any of them will apologize/change/get medicated?[url]http://gawker.com/5366498/census-workers-death-the-next-generation-of-lynching[/url]

salimoo

That story made me both teary and nauseous. Horrifying.

KristenBtobe

Jesus H. The Census bureau has used space in our office to train Kentucky canvassers.  I  hope this is an isolated, horrible incident.

SarahBethBR

That is horrifying.  I'm so glad my dad convinced my mom not to work the census this year.  I thought he was over-paranoid.

Novemberrocks

Not only am I horrified.  I'm amazed by how painfully stupid people can be.  It's the freakin' census.

lindsayll

Yes Nov, but it's "THE GUB'MENT!"

mashedpotato

it's a horrific story, but can you really blame them any more than you can blame say Marilyn Manson for teenagers shooting up a school or killing their parents.  Some people are just nuts and need very little probing.

wingedbride

I am beyond horrified.

FallinAgain

I'm appalled at both this story AND the level of vitriole in the public conversation.  I agree with Mashed, though, that you can't blame anyone other than the killers for there actions.

SarahBethBR

I'm appalled at both this story AND the level of vitriole in the public conversation. I agree with Mashed, though, that you can't blame anyone other than the killers for there actions. I agree to some extent.  It's not like I think Glenn Beck should be prosecuted or fired over this.But I do think there are some in the media and in the Republican party that are encouraging this rage (and let's be honest here, racism) at protests and in other forums.  Obviously they didn't expect or intend for it to go this far.If I was a leader of the Rep party I'd be trying to distance myself from these nutjobs (I'm talking about the birthers and teabaggers here) as much as I could.

CaptainSerious

But I do think there are some in the media and in the Republican party that are encouraging this rage (and let's be honest here, racism) at protests and in other forums. I fail to see what is different about what is going on now than in the last 8 years.  The entire reason we are guaranteed the freedom of speech is so that dissenting opinions can be aired and discussed.  Throughout the history of this country, the major impetus for major change in government policies has been rage.  Rage can have productive outlets and is a common motivator used by political entities.  Blaming anyone for this other than the the psychotic killer(s) is misappropriating emotions stirred by this horrible, unfortunate event to stifle the expression of opposing views.Also I am appalled by how often I hear that anyone who disagrees with the current administration's policies must be a racist.  It is possible to just believe in limited government without any the ulterior motivation of bigotry.

FallinAgain

Also I am appalled by how often I hear that anyone who disagrees with the current administration's policies must be a racist. It is possible to just believe in limited government without any the ulterior motivation of bigotry. Your same argument applies here though.  People who disagreed with the Bush administration were called siders of terror, unpatriotic, unChristian.I do think that you can disagree with Obama's policies and not be bigoted.  Absolutely.  I disagree that that there isn't something different going on here.  I do believe in my heart that the people still questioning his birth certificate are bigots.  I'm not sure that there isn't some there with the "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" gun-toters too.  That kind of crap hasn't been happening in the last 8 years.  People called Bush a bad president and stupid, but people weren't showing up to his speeches with guns strapped to their chests.

CaliopeSpidrman

There's a different level of insane people out there now though.  Before, it was more like the kind of crazy you find on NEY.  Now it's the kind of crazy you find on P&E.

CaptainSerious

Your same argument applies here though. People who disagreed with the Bush administration were called siders of terror, unpatriotic, unChristian.While this is true, and I disagree with those comments, I don't think it's a different story when its coming from his own cabinet and a former president.  With Bush, it was rhetoric perpetuated by the political parties, but now it seems a way of shutting down conversations that the administration doesn't want to have.I agree that the rage is more vocal and pointed at this very moment, but I think it's because their have been so many changes so quickly.  Bush waged war, but it was after an attack (even if not from the same country we are currently fighting with), and a lot of people saw it as an appropriate response.  Other than that, there weren't too many massive reforms/legislative changes.  I think the extent and speed of changes is what's lighting a fire under those who oppose Obama's policies.

CaptainSerious

There's a different level of insane people out there now though. Before, it was more like the kind of crazy you find on NEY. Now it's the kind of crazy you find on P&E.I'll grant this.  But we live in a country in which they are entitled to their crazy--until it hurts someone else.

FallinAgain

If you don't think the Bush admin., incl. Cheney, used things like "you are either with us or with the terrorists" or accusations of not wanting to protect America to shut down debate of things like the insanely, geniusly monikered U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, then I just think you weren't paying attention.In addition, to starting a war in Afghanistan, presumably as a result of the 9/11 attack, Bush also launched a second war based on (to give the benefit of the doubt) faulty intelligence.  He also expanded the powers of the federal govt.  and created the largest new government department in decades and many of the "czars" that the right is suddenlt so freaked out about.  People don't react unless it hits them in their pockets.I'm unclear on all the fast changes.  Obama signed a large stimulus bill, furthering only what Bush started.  Healthcare reform has been debated since Clinton.For me, both sides want big government.  The question is where they want the big govt. to have its hands.  I'm more comfy with where the Dems wants theirs.

CaptainSerious

If you don't think the Bush admin., incl. Cheney, used things like "you are either with us or with the terrorists" or accusations of not wanting to protect America to shut down debate of things like the insanely, geniusly monikered U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, then I just think you weren't paying attention.I agree that they used things like that to try to shame their opponents or make them look bad, but I don't think it was used to shut down conversation.  I never saw someone refuse to continue a conversation after accusing someone else of siding with the terrorists, but I have seen people--including some in this administration--end conversations after accusing others of racism.  "You side with terrorists" is an insult, not a conversation stopper.In addition, to starting a war in Afghanistan, presumably as a result of the 9/11 attack, Bush also launched a second war based on (to give the benefit of the doubt) faulty intelligence. He also expanded the powers of the federal govt. and created the largest new government department in decades and many of the "czars" that the right is suddenlt so freaked out about. People don't react unless it hits them in their pockets.I also agree that the way in Iraq was a separate, indefensible action.  But, at the time, a good portion of the population was so crazed by the fact that we were attacked on American soil that they overlooked that fact, and considered the war retaliation.  I'd even argue that it was more bigotry (against anything and everything from the Middle East) than anything else that spurred the compliance.I'm unclear on all the fast changes.Stimulus bill, car industry buy-out, increased "controls" on the financial sector, cash for clunkers, health care, now talking about limiting salaries, requesting to be able to seize the airways in emergencies....For me, both sides want big government. Agreed, which is why I'm a libertarian.  There are many things I didn't agree with in the Bush Administration, including first and foremost, the Patriot Act and continued closed wire-tapping "courts."

FallinAgain

I just flat disagree that calling someone a terrorist is not a conversation stopper. I see most of what is listed as part of the stimulus.I'm sympathetic to the Libertarian ideas, I just don't see how they can work in practicum, as least as I understand them which is admitedy limited.

CaptainSerious

The questions of his citizenship--which I believe should be put to rest since he is currently our sitting and acting president and should therefore serve his full term--are not based in his skin color, but in the questions of:1. the country of his birth; and2. whether he's actually a naturalized citizen or a citizen by birth (which I actually think is a silly, antiquated distinction, but nonetheless, it's still a Constitutional requirement).The first question would truly be an easy one to put to rest with a presentation of a long form birth certificate, but Obama has resisted doing so.  Why?  If it's out of principle, it seems to me he's just cutting off his nose to spite his face.The second question has to do with the fact that he was enrolled in school in Indonesia, a country which only allows citizens to attend school.  If he took on Indonesian citizenship when he lived there, and renounced his American citizenship, then became an American citizen again upon returning to the states, he would be a naturalized citizen, and not a born citizen.  I don't know if this happened, and I'm not arguing it did.I think the time for questioning all of this was when he announced his candidacy and not now.  He is the sworn-in POTUS, and citizenship questions are now mute.I believe the questions were designed to invalidate his candidacy/presidency because people do not want him as president.  But it is a far jump from that to saying its based on racism.

FallinAgain

I just call BS on all that jazz.  No one would be asking to see a long form birth certificate or concerned that he attended school overseas if he was a white dude named John Robert Smith.  No one would have even bothered.  It may not be racism purely (though I believe that is a part of it), but it is due to his otherness--the fact his dad was from another country and he has a "funny" name.I do not believe for a second that if John McCain won people who still be questioning whether he was a natural born citizen b/c he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

PDXPhotoGrl

That's totally ridiculous, CS. It has everything to do with him being a black man with a funny name.

FallinAgain

I believe the questions were designed to invalidate his candidacy/presidency because people do not want him as president. But it is a far jump from that to saying its based on racism. This reminds me of the people who argue that the Civil War was about states rights.  States rights to OWN SLAVES.  People do not want him as president B/c HE'S OTHER. 

CaptainSerious

but it is due to his otherness--the fact his dad was from another country and he has a "funny" nameTHIS, I believe. But I still don’t think that’s the same as racism. His otherness is due to his heritage, and possibly his nationality, so it directly affects the citizenship concern. Also, not understanding something new or different is a far cry from hating it and wanting to keep it at a disadvantage. I think these people don’t like Obama’s platform, and his otherness gave them something to latch on to that might disqualify him, so they ran with it. Again, that’s not the same as racism because their actions aren’t necessarily motivated out of hatred or intolerance of his race. To pretend there's not a problem with racism against the president is ridiculous. I never said that none of the dissenters were racist; I said that I’m appalled that anyone who disagrees is labeled a racist. There are people who simply disagree based on philosophical differences in how government should operate. I have curbed my comments on the current state of affairs in certain company for fear that someone might consider me a racist. That is what I have a problem with, because it hinders an open discourse of ideas. And lest anyone in this conversation think I’m a racist, half my family is from the Middle East, the other half from Europe, and I’m adopting a child from South America. If I were a racist, I don’t know how I’d live with myself. Like I said, if members of my own party were acting that way, I wouldn't pretend it wasn't a problem. I would denounce it as loudly and as often as I could. I do not consider myself a member of their party; I am only registered as a member so I can vote in the primaries. As I said before, I am a libertarian. I also work in a non-partisan legislative of my party office, and am forbidden by law to be involved in any political activities.

FallinAgain

  but it is due to his otherness--the fact his dad was from another country and he has a "funny" nameTHIS, I believe. But I still don’t think that’s the same as racism. His otherness is due to his heritage, and possibly his nationality, so it directly affects the citizenship concern. Also, not understanding something new or different is a far cry from hating it and wanting to keep it at a disadvantage. I think these people don’t like Obama’s platform, and his otherness gave them something to latch on to that might disqualify him, so they ran with it. Again, that’s not the same as racism because their actions aren’t necessarily motivated out of hatred or intolerance of his race.I might be too late with this.  I don't think you can disconnect his race and his otherness here.  It's not like Mitt Romney being Mormon  It's all interwoven.  You are going to find a lot of people named Barack Hussein Obama with Kenyan fathers who look like Glenn Beck.I just disagree that these questions and repeatedly using his middle name and calling him Muslim are not motivated from fear and intolerance.

CaptainSerious

I just disagree that these questions and repeatedly using his middle name and calling him Muslim are not motivated from fear and intolerance.I see a difference in the questions and wanting to debate policies and those that are repeatedly using his middle name and calling him Muslim.  I agree that the second group is trying to perpetuate fear (although I don't necessarily think they are all motivated by fear).  But I think the questions of nationality can be asked in a vacuum of race, fear, and intolerance.  I see them more as a political maneuver to kill a candidacy than anything else.

FallinAgain

I definitely think policy debate can and often is be divorced from race.  I absolutely believe you can have issues with his policies and not care about his race--I do, myself.   I think questions of nationality might, possibly in some context be divorced, but I do not think they are divorced here.  I'm not sure I've seen something that questioned his birth certificate that didn't also use the middle name. 

CaliopeSpidrman

This has me in a fit of giggles:  And lest anyone in this conversation think I’m a racist, half my family is from the Middle East, the other half from Europe, and I’m adopting a child from South America.You really didn't need to explain it to us.  I don't think anyone here was suspecting you of racism.

CaptainSerious

Perhaps, Cali, but I just wanted to make sure.  That's what I think sucks about this situation, I always feel like I have to defend myself against accusations/assumptions of racism if I want to discuss politics.

CaliopeSpidrman

Yeah, but it's sort of a silly statement anyway.  Like all the people who say they aren't racist because they have black friends.  Or "I'm not racist because I love Mexican food and pizza."  It just sort of caught me as funny.

CaptainSerious

I hear ya, and I thought about that, too.  Just thought I'd throw it out there.

_Fenton

I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!