House of Eratosthenes

Obama’s new Attorney General Eric Holder says we’re a “nation of cowards” because even though our workplace is integrated, our backyards are not…when we have our barbeques.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” said Holder, nation’s first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but “we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

Complete speech is here. I don’t understand what this has to do with heading up the Justice Department. Neal Boortz offers…

He’s the first black Attorney General. And apparently he isn’t going to let us forget it.

Ah. Well good, thanks for clearing that up.

But Jonah Goldberg, oh dear, came up with a couple of pesky problems about this:

First, I think this is nonsense as we talk about race a great, great, great deal in this country. Endless courses in colleges and universities, chapters in high school textbooks, movies, documentaries, after-school-specials and so on are devoted to discussing race. We even have something called “Black History Month” — the occasion for Holder’s remarks to begin with — when America is supposed to spend a month talking about the black experience.

Second, to the extent we don’t talk about race in this country the primary reason is that liberals and racial activists have an annoying habit of attacking anyone who doesn’t read from a liberal script “racists” or, if they’re lucky, “insensitive.”

Thus “cowardice” is defined as refusal to do as your told when that would in fact be the cowardly thing to do.

I have another comment to make: Nouns and adjectives are important.

That’s a critique. Against Holder. Because I can’t help noticing, the bits of his speech that have elicited the greatest controversy, are sprinkled with nouns and adjectives that mean the opposite of what they are cosmetically intended to mean. As Goldberg has pointed out, the Attorney General is making the point that we don’t talk about race in this country when the truth is we talk about it to excess. Maybe we don’t do enough about it…that would’ve been a valid point. But to insinuate that we don’t talk about it is just plain silly.

Coward…as Goldberg points out, a coward would be someone who shuts up and does as he’s told because if he doesn’t, he’ll be called a racist. I would further add that it’s rather cowardly to stand ready with that R-word, to brandish it like a club, ready to play whack-a-mole with anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

Holder goes on to say, “…if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.” I doubt like hell Attorney General Holder wants a “frank discussion”; if he does, he’s just playing more of his little opposite-game, using words for the exact opposite of their intended meaning.

Because a frank discussion is like the one Boortz scribbled down:

Allow me a little input here. I’ve been talking for a living for about 40 years … so perhaps I can put a little light on this subject.

Let’s say that I go on the air today to talk about the anti-achievement policy that so permeates urban black communities. What if I resurrect some of those stories from sources such as Time Magazine detailing the anti-learning culture in America’s urban high schools. Learning, you know, is a white thing. Across this country there are young black men and women who won’t study, won’t answer questions in class, won’t do homework, and won’t try to do well on tests because their friends will think they’re trying to “act white.”

What if I were to gather some statistics detailing the fact that blacks commit violent crimes way out of proportion to their percentage of the population? How do you think that is going to go over?

Now just why would I bring these subjects up on my show? I like to illustrate that these problems are not race-based, they’re culture-based. I like to show that some people get outraged when these problems are based on culture rather than race. Why? Because if you’re part of the problem you can change cultural mores – but you can’t change your color. Showing these problems to be culture-based erases black’s claims to victimization.

Trust me … I try to bring these things up on the air, and I’m a racist. Nation of cowards? Hardly. There are a lot of people who are ready to address these issues – but as soon as they do the “racism” word is pulled out. End of conversation.

In the words of Jack Woltz: “Let me be even MORE frank”: What is a country with a black President doing with an affirmative action program written down, or put into practice, anywhere? That would be “frank.” Is that what Holder had in mind? Somehow I doubt it. Somehow, I think Holder was thinking about something else.

What Holder was thinking about is exactly what Holder was supposed to have been bitching about. Cowardice…used as a tool. Virtual electro-shock therapy. But this is a far bigger issue than just race (although that’s plenty big enough). Everywhere you look nowadays, anytime someone says they want to have an “honest discussion,” “open dialogue,” “frank exchange of ideas,” et al, that’s the exact opposite of what they have in mind.

…this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have.

Like your boss says, Mr. Holder: Be the change. Get away from the stinking bromides. The delta between what we’ve done, and what we need to do, has something to do with “com[ing] to grips.” What are these grips? How come you’ve veered off into some other critique right before you’re about to tell us what these grips are?

What authority figures like Eric Holder want, is more of this hot-stove, within-the-lines, “don’t do it because I said so,” orbito-frontal cortex thinking. They don’t want free ideas, they want ideas carefully corralled, like cattle, through the synapses we all have that inhibit our actions without comprehending the word “because.” He ends up using the words “frank conversations” to describe things that aren’t conversations…they’re lectures…and are anything but “frank.” Since this is the central thrust of his speech, he ends up meaning the exact opposite of what he’s saying, starting at the top, and continuing all the way down to the bottom. And the bit about insinuating we somehow aren’t talking about it enough, is sky-high absurd. It borders on mental incapacity.

But outside of the connection Boortz made, what does any of this have to do with being the Attorney General?

I just read the AG job description on the DOJ website, and it turns out that his little baseless tantrum has exactly nothing to do with being AG. Shocking.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/
- Andy | 02/19/2009 @ 18:28
Liberal struggles are rather like moebius strips this way. They twist around somewhat, defy lots of conventional laws of physics that normally apply in this universe, and most importantly of all, come to end exactly where they begin.

Thus it is with naming women and minorities to positions of high authority: Just getting them in there, is so important that it obscures any metric that would have to do with actual performance. And yet the minute the swearing-in ceremony is over, the struggle has only just begun.

I remember in my first software design and development job, there was no insulating layer between me and the salesmen. Worked just about as well as putting the fuel tank right by the rocket nozzle. But it was a wonderful learning experience for me about human nature, and the Faustian disasters that take place when people are given exactly what they demand. One of the quotes that’s stuck with me through the years is from one particular fellow who thought he knew so much more about what he and his customers wanted, than he really did: “When’s it gonna be DONE done??” How I wish liberal politicians were asked this, preferably out in the open, by their constituents…especially in the come a long way, we’re not there yet area of effort.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2009 @ 19:31
When you said “Liberal struggles are rather like moebius strips” I thought you were going to say that they are only recognized to have one legitimate side.
- Morenuancedthanyou | 02/19/2009 @ 23:15

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

What Has That To Do With Being the AG?Thursday, February 19th, 2009

What Has That To Do With Being the AG?
Thursday, February 19th, 2009