This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/30/obama-first-term-racism-charges

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Various items Various items
(35 minutes later)
A fairly miserable flu is preventing me from writing much today, so instead I will point you to several items I think are worth reading:A fairly miserable flu is preventing me from writing much today, so instead I will point you to several items I think are worth reading:
(1) The devastation from Hurricane Sandy is remarkable. The Guardian has live, ongoing coverage here, while Salon has compiled a slideshow of some of the most extraordinary photos of the post-storm destruction. There are all sorts of shocking photos being circulated, such as this one posted by The Atlantic of the destruction in Breezy Point, NY.(1) The devastation from Hurricane Sandy is remarkable. The Guardian has live, ongoing coverage here, while Salon has compiled a slideshow of some of the most extraordinary photos of the post-storm destruction. There are all sorts of shocking photos being circulated, such as this one posted by The Atlantic of the destruction in Breezy Point, NY.
(2) Economics Professor Robert Prasch has a provocative look at President Obama's first term from a progressive perspective. On the same blog, Philosophy Professor and feminist Falguni Sheth looks at Obama's record vis-a-vis women.(2) Economics Professor Robert Prasch has a provocative look at President Obama's first term from a progressive perspective. On the same blog, Philosophy Professor and feminist Falguni Sheth looks at Obama's record vis-a-vis women.
(3) Oliver Stone is releasing a new book, entitled "The Untold History of the United States", which highlights key facts in US history over the last century that have been largely ignored or affirmatively distorted. I've read parts of the book and recommend it highly (a summary of his chapter on the Obama presidency is here). Beginning 12 November, Showtime is broadcasting a 10-part documentary to accompany the book; I've seen the first four installments and cannot recommend it highly enough.(3) Oliver Stone is releasing a new book, entitled "The Untold History of the United States", which highlights key facts in US history over the last century that have been largely ignored or affirmatively distorted. I've read parts of the book and recommend it highly (a summary of his chapter on the Obama presidency is here). Beginning 12 November, Showtime is broadcasting a 10-part documentary to accompany the book; I've seen the first four installments and cannot recommend it highly enough.
(4) On Saturday, Salon published "The Progressive Case Against Obama" by Matt Stoller - the former Democratic Congressional staffer and MSNBC producer, currently on Russell Brand's FX show - which offered a scathing indictment of Obama's domestic record and explained why Stoller believes that a vote for a third-party is the optimal course of action. Stoller's piece predictably generated intense reaction: it has been recommended on Facebook more than 13,000 times and has been viciously attacked in many precincts. That's all perfectly legitimate: he's making a provocative argument that is threatening to Obama's re-election and so it's perfectly understandable that it has been aggressively critiqued.(4) On Saturday, Salon published "The Progressive Case Against Obama" by Matt Stoller - the former Democratic Congressional staffer and MSNBC producer, currently on Russell Brand's FX show - which offered a scathing indictment of Obama's domestic record and explained why Stoller believes that a vote for a third-party is the optimal course of action. Stoller's piece predictably generated intense reaction: it has been recommended on Facebook more than 13,000 times and has been viciously attacked in many precincts. That's all perfectly legitimate: he's making a provocative argument that is threatening to Obama's re-election and so it's perfectly understandable that it has been aggressively critiqued.
But the well-read pro-Obama blog Balloon-Juice went far beyond legitimate, aggressive critique. Based on that article, the blog publicly smeared Stoller as a racist without the slightest basis. The entirety of its smear, contained in a playful "ps", is here:But the well-read pro-Obama blog Balloon-Juice went far beyond legitimate, aggressive critique. Based on that article, the blog publicly smeared Stoller as a racist without the slightest basis. The entirety of its smear, contained in a playful "ps", is here:
"ps: John was spot on about Stoller. We are plagued with self-important white males pretending to speak for progressives even as they work overtime to block and damage any liberal progress. It is hard for me to read Stoller and not wonder if his real problem with Barack Obama is this and not any policy. Assholes like him make the GOTV effort even more important.""ps: John was spot on about Stoller. We are plagued with self-important white males pretending to speak for progressives even as they work overtime to block and damage any liberal progress. It is hard for me to read Stoller and not wonder if his real problem with Barack Obama is this and not any policy. Assholes like him make the GOTV effort even more important."
The link over the phrase "is this" is to a recently released poll from AP finding that a majority of Americans "harbor prejudice against blacks" and that this biogtry could impede Obama's re-election. In other words, claimed this Balloon-Juice writer, Stoller's decision not to vote for Obama is based not on any genuine policy objections (as he claims), but rather on the fact that Obama is black and Stoller is a racist.The link over the phrase "is this" is to a recently released poll from AP finding that a majority of Americans "harbor prejudice against blacks" and that this biogtry could impede Obama's re-election. In other words, claimed this Balloon-Juice writer, Stoller's decision not to vote for Obama is based not on any genuine policy objections (as he claims), but rather on the fact that Obama is black and Stoller is a racist.
Amazingly, when numerous readers objected to this smear, the Balloon-Juice writer - deep in the comment section - repeatedly confessed that he had no basis whatsoever for making that accusation:Amazingly, when numerous readers objected to this smear, the Balloon-Juice writer - deep in the comment section - repeatedly confessed that he had no basis whatsoever for making that accusation:

"You have a point. It could just be that Stoller is a complete idiot and he comes to his destructive dribble on the basis of his ego and ignorance alone. I do not deny that possibility. It was snark to link to the AP poll on the growing racist attitudes of a majority of white Americans. . . .
"You have a point. It could just be that Stoller is a complete idiot and he comes to his destructive dribble on the basis of his ego and ignorance alone. I do not deny that possibility. It was snark to link to the AP poll on the growing racist attitudes of a majority of white Americans. . . .
"Is Stoller one of them? I really do not know, but it is pretty clear that he has a visceral hatred of President Obama that would make a Teabagger blush. Perhaps his anger is all based on policy. It is possible, but it is not unreasonable to think that some other factors are also influencing his opinions."Is Stoller one of them? I really do not know, but it is pretty clear that he has a visceral hatred of President Obama that would make a Teabagger blush. Perhaps his anger is all based on policy. It is possible, but it is not unreasonable to think that some other factors are also influencing his opinions.
"Still, I'll give you the point and accept that fact that it is possible that Matt Stoller is simply a self-absorbed asshole who is too busy thinking about his own 'brilliance' to consider race in his thinking. . . ."Still, I'll give you the point and accept that fact that it is possible that Matt Stoller is simply a self-absorbed asshole who is too busy thinking about his own 'brilliance' to consider race in his thinking. . . .
"It is also a fact that a decent number of white folks who call themselves progressives have racist attitudes. I suggested that that could be an alternative explanation for Stoller's idiocy. It was snark and troll bait. I do not know the truth of Stoller's attitudes about race and neither do do you.""It is also a fact that a decent number of white folks who call themselves progressives have racist attitudes. I suggested that that could be an alternative explanation for Stoller's idiocy. It was snark and troll bait. I do not know the truth of Stoller's attitudes about race and neither do do you."
Despite those confessions, the public smearing of Stoller as a racist remains on that blog, completely unretracted and uncorrected (the fact that Stoller echoed and/or relied heavily in making his arguments on non-white and non-male writers like Sheth and Margaret Kimberley of the Black Agenda Report is revealingly ignored).Despite those confessions, the public smearing of Stoller as a racist remains on that blog, completely unretracted and uncorrected (the fact that Stoller echoed and/or relied heavily in making his arguments on non-white and non-male writers like Sheth and Margaret Kimberley of the Black Agenda Report is revealingly ignored).
There are few things more reckless and disgusting than publicly smearing someone as a racist - easily one of the worst things you can say about someone in America, for very good reason - purely for partisan gain. That's especially true when you are well aware that you have no basis for the accusation.There are few things more reckless and disgusting than publicly smearing someone as a racist - easily one of the worst things you can say about someone in America, for very good reason - purely for partisan gain. That's especially true when you are well aware that you have no basis for the accusation.
For years, neocons did the same thing with "anti-semitism" charges. They seized on a real and serious problem - anti-semitism - and converted it into an exploitative, opportunistic weapon to punish those who deviated from their political views, particularly on Israel. The worst part of that behavior - aside from ruining people's reputations by casting them as bigots without any cause - is that it dilutes the power of that term and makes it no longer effective to use when it actually appears.For years, neocons did the same thing with "anti-semitism" charges. They seized on a real and serious problem - anti-semitism - and converted it into an exploitative, opportunistic weapon to punish those who deviated from their political views, particularly on Israel. The worst part of that behavior - aside from ruining people's reputations by casting them as bigots without any cause - is that it dilutes the power of that term and makes it no longer effective to use when it actually appears.
That is precisely what spouting knowingly baseless accusations of racism achieves. Obviously, racism plays a substantial role in motivating some of the hostility toward the first African-American president, just as anti-semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel. That's precisely why it's so vital to avoid casually exploiting those terms for gross partisan opportunism: because people will stop taking the terms seriously when they genuinely arise.That is precisely what spouting knowingly baseless accusations of racism achieves. Obviously, racism plays a substantial role in motivating some of the hostility toward the first African-American president, just as anti-semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel. That's precisely why it's so vital to avoid casually exploiting those terms for gross partisan opportunism: because people will stop taking the terms seriously when they genuinely arise.
Few things are lowlier than tossing around those accusations purely to discredit someone for partisan gain. It happens often, but this case is particularly egregious given the accuser's admissions in the comment section combined with the total lack of retraction or correction by that blog. This happens often, but this case is particularly egregious given the accuser's admissions of baselessness in the comment section, combined with the total lack of retraction or correction by that blog.
(5) The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, the consummate establishment-revering centrist, reviews the Supreme Court's oral argument yesterday in the constitutional challenge brought by the ACLU against the FISA Amendments Act, the 2008 statute enacted by a large bipartisan majority that, in essence, legalized many of the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping powers. In particular, Rosen reviews the warped tactic of the Obama DOJ to simultaneously (1) keep the list of eavesdropping targets secret and (2) argue that an individual unable to prove that they've been targeted by the eavesdropping is barred from challenging its constitutionality: an obvious Catch-22 that removes secret executive branch actions from judicial review - i.e., from the rule of law - and has been used repeatedly by the Bush and Obama DOJs to shield its conduct from scrutiny.(5) The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, the consummate establishment-revering centrist, reviews the Supreme Court's oral argument yesterday in the constitutional challenge brought by the ACLU against the FISA Amendments Act, the 2008 statute enacted by a large bipartisan majority that, in essence, legalized many of the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping powers. In particular, Rosen reviews the warped tactic of the Obama DOJ to simultaneously (1) keep the list of eavesdropping targets secret and (2) argue that an individual unable to prove that they've been targeted by the eavesdropping is barred from challenging its constitutionality: an obvious Catch-22 that removes secret executive branch actions from judicial review - i.e., from the rule of law - and has been used repeatedly by the Bush and Obama DOJs to shield its conduct from scrutiny.
(6) An old post of Jonathan Schwarz's, from 2006, documents how frequently - really, reflexively - western invaders claim that their invasions are for the good of the invaded populations and are even called for by those populations. Related to that, and based in part on Schwarz's work, I gave a 30-minute speech a few months ago at the University of Chicago on the fraudulent concept called "humanitarian war":(6) An old post of Jonathan Schwarz's, from 2006, documents how frequently - really, reflexively - western invaders claim that their invasions are for the good of the invaded populations and are even called for by those populations. Related to that, and based in part on Schwarz's work, I gave a 30-minute speech a few months ago at the University of Chicago on the fraudulent concept called "humanitarian war":
(7) I have a few speaking events coming up this month. On November 10 in Seattle, I'll be delivering the keynote speech to the ACLU of Washington's annual Bill of Rights dinner; ticket information is here. On November 17 in San Jose, I'll be speaking at the annual dinner of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in the Bay Area; ticket information is here.(7) I have a few speaking events coming up this month. On November 10 in Seattle, I'll be delivering the keynote speech to the ACLU of Washington's annual Bill of Rights dinner; ticket information is here. On November 17 in San Jose, I'll be speaking at the annual dinner of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in the Bay Area; ticket information is here.
On November 13 in New York, I'm moderating an evening panel discussion at the Sundance Institute involving various political documentary filmmakers, including Jeremy Scahill, currently working on "Dirty Wars". Finally, I'll be on Al Jazeera English all day next Monday and Tuesday from their studio in Doha covering the US election; that coverage should offer some different perspectives than you'll likely find elsewhere; local listings and live streaming will be here.On November 13 in New York, I'm moderating an evening panel discussion at the Sundance Institute involving various political documentary filmmakers, including Jeremy Scahill, currently working on "Dirty Wars". Finally, I'll be on Al Jazeera English all day next Monday and Tuesday from their studio in Doha covering the US election; that coverage should offer some different perspectives than you'll likely find elsewhere; local listings and live streaming will be here.