Tuesday, August 16, 2005

LIBERALS FOUND A NEW BUZZ TERM: The "straw man" or the "straw man fallacy"



Ok folks, I know some of you won’t believe me but I do have a sense of humor. I like to read funny stuff. But most of all I pay attention, VERY close attention to liberals not only what they say but how they say it.
Lets face it folks ALL of us here on the web are a bunch or liars and fakes. Did you know my name is NOT Snoop? Yes I’m a fraud, much of the stuff here on my blog is written by someone else. People who are likely paid more that I. The photos were taken by someone else. I just copy and paste. I did not do the template either, some web geek designed it.
But truths about me are, I am black, I did take the photo in the lower left, I have engaged in inappropriate behavior one time or another. I have drank too much on occasion and I am quick tempered and slightly nutz!
Having said all of that more of you who blog need to go to confession. The lying and deceit is rampant.
Take the title of this entry.
Note on the intro (top of the blog) a reply from (underdogdem)
He has a blog called the Underdog Democrat. Its on my sidebar.
I made a statement on another blog in response to a question the host blogger posed to his audience a question something like: What do Democrats/Liberals need to change?
I added a piece from my Snoopitorial
The crux of my post focused around an e-mail I received that prompted the editorial in the first place. The young lady who wrote me stated that “my attacks on liberals are an attack on the very people who try to help blacks and other minorities receive opportunities in this country.”

To which I called them ridiculous and condescending. (underdogdem)
Hence wrote what you see above.
Another reply prompted the following response:

“I wont apologize for logically analyzing what is put in front of me.
In the terms of the whole straw man concept, a better explanation is above, or you can google for straw man. I was using it to a host of comments other than yours.
(AS IF I DID NOT KNOW ANY BETTER)
To a certian extent this can go round and round with your interpretation of what she said vs. mine. Part of the confusion comes from the difference between what you posted on the Angry Democrat originally that I reacted to, and what you posted this time.
As you posted it originally,
"that my attacks on liberals (on my blog, which I don’t do BTW) are an attack on the very people who try to help blacks and other minorities receive opportunities in this country.”
I reacted to that with puzzlement, saying 'All she said was liberals try to help.' Classic Straw Man.

Here's how you made me aware of it today. There is a slight difference. Maybe it was just memory or something.
(CLASSIC ELITIST CONDESCENSION)
"attacking liberals the very people who work to reach out to blacks and other minorities adds to the suffering of black individuals in this country.”
Now I have to admit, the second version is stronger in terms of saying you add to the suffering of black people just by attacking liberals.
But here's your reaction:
The sheer condescending and elitist and nature of your arguments, making the mistake that all blacks think alike and that all blacks “need” the liberal left to succeed...
Maybe not as much of a straw man, but I still think you exaggerate what she says. It's not as if she said "liberals are the ONLY ones who can help blacks." And I doubt this woman would consider that she was an 'elite,' as if she was better than anyone else.
(LIBERAL ELITIST PSYCHOBABBLE)
Of course, if you have her contact info you can ask her for clarification. Did she mean to say "liberals need blacks? Is she an elitist?" My guess is she'd probably say no.
With little or no benefit or gains in opportunities, blacks have been pimped and patronized by liberal democrats for 40 plus years.
Wait. Is someone sticking a gun to their heads and forcing them to vote Democrat? If that's the case, I'll be the first to stop it. They should be able to vote Republican if they want to.
(MORE CONDESCENSION, BUT I HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR FOLKS)
(yes, I was strawmanning there)

...Or is it just that they elect to vote Democratic, and in large numbers?
former Klansman Robert Byrd as a “AMERICAN HERO!” Could Democrats be so partisan as to simply ignore the racist soul of this individual
I think the blog is referring to his considerable legislative acheievements and long history of service, not his KKK membership.
(WHAT CONSIDERABLE ACHIEVEMENTS?)
Anywho....so I’m wondering anytime I start to see certain buzzwords on liberal websites/blogs or replies I try to find a recent source that gave birth to it and I find the Molly Ivans piece below:
Yes folks this is not a new term or concept but this term is like when Democrats recently turned around the term of “judicial extremists,” in describing right leaning judges.
KNOWING the public perception of wacked out left leaning judges fits the term to a tee.

You see folks those of us who write blogs are not that smart or clever and we sure as hell are not that damm original.
Dude on the initial website where I made my initial comment nor underdogdem cared about mine or any other issues, views responses, debate. Liberal sites like his entire existence is to simply manipulate, impugn and malign those who question liberal Democratic ideology.
So they buttfuck a tired phrase and use the term to spin and argument and claim originality.
Again this is why I view liberal sites very carefully. They take their marching orders on manipulating the public very seriously. Just like calling this Cindy Sheehan an American Hero and Patriot when she is far from it.
I do thinks liberals are wacked, but I do learn from them and they are fun for the most part.
Enjoy the Ivans piece. I heard her in person and actually like reading her
columns. Apparently Underdogdem does too!

The liberal straw man


By Molly Ivans

AUSTIN, Texas -- The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself.

I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always ..." My name is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe.

Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem to get tired of this old game. If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.

The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove, who is not, actually, an objective observer. He is George Bush's hatchet man. Last week, Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made the following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

This seemed to the editorial writers at the San Diego Union-Tribune such a reasonable summary of the liberal position they couldn't figure out why Democrats were "hyperventilating" and getting "bent out of shape."

"What is harder to understand is how Democrats can think they can have it both ways," they wrote. "Even as they beat their chests and profess support for military action, they can't help but criticize the military and do everything they can to undermine the war effort."

What a deep mystery. Let's see if we can help the San Diego thinkers solve it. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98 to zero; the vote in the House was 420 to one. The lone dissenter was Democrat Barbara Lee of California, who expressed qualms about an open-ended war without a clear target.

Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote. Anyone remember what actually happened after 9-11? Unprecedented unity, support across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican political leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper in France headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent troops and money to help. That is what George Bush has pissed away with his war in Iraq.

The vote on invading Iraq was 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House. By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion because: A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and B) it looked increasingly unlikely that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, since the United Nations inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find any sign of them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed we knew exactly where they were.

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable s.o.b. back in the '80s, when our government was sending him arms.

I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq -- which, once again, had nothing to do with 9-11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration used 9-11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do for other reasons.

It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Karl Rove to impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with him: We have seen this same crappy tactic before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9-11 for political purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going to let them get away with it?

The first furious assault on the patriotism of Democrats came right after the 9-11 commission learned President Bush had received a clear warning in August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was planning a hijacking.

Batten down the hatches: This is the beginning of an administration push to jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with enough sense to raise questions about how it's going.

In case you were not aware.....Blacks owned slaves too!

Hey I'm short on stuff to post, so another recycle

By Robert M. Grooms

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).
In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.
At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.
On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."
Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.
Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.
Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."
In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.
On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.
In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.
Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.
Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations.
In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."
Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property.
The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.
In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.
By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.
In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.
Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9). Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.
While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.
As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.
William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.

Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.
The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."
Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10).
A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

Black and white attitudes surrounding race and choosing a doctor


WELL SNOOP DOES NOT TRUST “OLD” WHITE PHYSICIANS. AS IN OLD I MEAN 60 OR OLDER. I SIMPLY DO NOT TRUST THAT THEY HAVE MY BEST INTEREST OVERALL. ALTHOUGH I DO CURRENTLY HAVE A WHITE PHYSICIAN, HE IS A GOOD COMMUNICATOR AND LISTENER. MY ADVANTAGE IS I HAVE WORKED IN THE HEALTH CARE FIELD AND I KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK. HOWEVER, BLACKS MISTRUST OF THE HEATH CARE SYSTEM GOES WAY BACK AND EVEN CURRENT DAY CARE CAUSES SOME BLACK TO WONDER IF THEY ARE RECEIVING QUALITY CARE.
A new pilot study from the University of Cincinnati reveals racial attitudes of both African Americans and whites when it comes to seeking medical care. Jennifer Malat, assistant professor of sociology, says the preliminary findings show there are two different factors between the races that affect those decisions

The survey polled approximately 1,000 people living in Greater Cincinnati. "Previous research has focused on African American attitudes toward choosing a same-race or different-race doctor, and how their personal experiences of unfair treatment from whites leads to preferences toward an African American doctor," Malat explains. "Now, we're comparing attitudes of both African Americans and whites, as we ask if they believe a doctor of a different race would understand their health problems."

The researchers found that for whites, their general racial attitudes toward people of other races affected how they felt about receiving treatment from a doctor of another race. The more negative their attitudes, the more they preferred seeing a doctor of the same race. Malat adds that racial attitude toward other race groups were not a factor for African Americans consulting with a health care professional. Instead, their perception of, first, white apathy or hostility against African Americans and second, poor past medical care due to race, made them more likely to prefer a same-race doctor.

The study suggests that future surveys consider general experiences as well as experiences within the health care system in measuring how race affects patients' decisions about health care.