Twilight Trumps Obama Girls

A 16-year-old neighbor reports this from the Jonas Brothers concert on July 13:

Audience members were able to text messages, and some were selected to be shown on a big screen.

When a message read "Scream if you like Sasha and Malia" a yell went up. (Probably in appreciation that the Obama sisters' attendance did not delay the start of the show, which actually started 3 minutes early.)

"But," said this wise conservative young lady, "when the next one said 'Scream if you like Twilight!'  Three times as loud."

Wonder what it would have been if it said "Scream if you like Sarah Palin."

Probably somewhere in between...

A picture of the screen at the Jonas Brothers concert on July 13.

Comments

[Pat]

So what?

[Pat]

It's unfortunate that, when even O'Reilly is taking Free Republic to task for its members' horrible posts regarding Malia and her wearing a peace-sign T-shirt, that you've chosen this silly and unfair topic.

[Colette Moran]

Yeah, so what?

I did not see the posts about Malia's t-shirt -- I had mixed feelings when I saw her wearing it, but figured, ah, she's just a kid. She just thinks it's cool.

Yeah this post was silly. But unfair? I don't see how fairness has anything to do with it.

It wasn't a scientific poll. It wasn't a thorough, probing diatribe. It was simply a comment on how crazy those young girls are about that Twilight -- even more so than the Obamas.

The Palin comment was pure speculation. I could easily be wrong about it. Palin may be off their radar -- it's so crowded with boy bands and vampire books, movies, and tv shows.

Gee, Pat -- why do you keep coming back? Isn't there a bigger fish you could fry?

[Pat]

Just trying to keep you balanced...your hatred for the Obamas often dimishes your commentary, but the timing of your Obama girls post is most unfortunate given the brouhaha of late. Thought you should know.

You don't want visitors, then? Sorry, I was just trying to be charitable and give you a smidgen of viewership. But you're right...my time would be better served seeking out the bigger fish.

Best to you.

[Colette Moran]

Attacking me at every turn -- that was charity?

Visitors are welcome -- and opposing opinions. But I don't much care for folks who jump to conclusions, think they can read my mind, and assume I'm like the nasty bloggers who are nothing but hateful (on both sides of the fence).

I don't hate the Obamas. I don't know them. (Neither does the vast majority of the American public, but that doesn't stop women from declaring they love Barack.) It's amazing how libs view any sort of opposition as "hate."

I am strongly opposed to most of his policies, his political beliefs and his methods of accomplishing his election and his agenda.

And I'm still waiting for him to effect the change he can on the black community. Beyond joining ACORN and voting -- he could play a huge part in changing many of the attitudes that lead to dead ends.

Instead, he's helping to create a society that feels entitled to be cared for by the govt from cradle to grave. Why not work toward a society that is encouraged to take care of itself so the govt can focus their efforts on those who truly can't help themselves?

Yes, actions speak louder than words -- they are a great example of a loving family. AND words can make a big difference. More speeches like his Father's Day address, and less spending-far-too-much-money-for-a-night-on-the-town.

You're welcome to come back any time -- something tells me we ain't heard our last from you...

[Pat]

"And I'm still waiting for him to effect the change he can on the black community. Beyond joining ACORN and voting -- he could play a huge part in changing many of the attitudes that lead to dead ends.

Instead, he's helping to create a society that feels entitled to be cared for by the govt from cradle to grave."

This is so vague a statement that I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you here. Please do not tell me you're perpetuating the racial myth that most recipients of welfare are blacks and it's Barack Obama's obligation to change the black community's mindset regarding welfare. Because if you were saying that, you would be woefully mistaken.

[Colette Moran]

Back so soon?

That's right -- suspect me of racism and perpetuating myths. Once again, too quick on the draw and looking for the worst.

See, welfare numbers are tricky. Though currently blacks and whites are about even at about 40% of recipients (much different than in the 1990 census when whites were about 60% and blacks were about 33%)the number you obviously have to point to is what percentage of their own population within the US is on welfare.

Whites are just under 10 percent while Blacks and Hispanics are 23 and 21 respectively. There is a real problem here -- one that I admit I have no personal insight into. But BO does.

Is Obama *obligated* to change any mindset? Of course not. Does he have the *tremendous opportunity* to do so? Absolutely.

A study found that if you do 3 simple things before the age of 18, there is an overwhelming chance you will never be on welfare.

-- finish high school
-- stay on the right side of the law
-- don't become a parent

And of course this does not apply to *just* the black community. BO has inspired a lot of people, but obviously the black community identifies with him the most.

Obama has an opportunity like no President -- heck, like no individual before him -- to make a positive change that encourages people to make the most of their lives by taking it into their own hands and making the best of it.

That Father's Day speech was his best moment in that regard so far. BO has plenty on his plate, but it would really take so little to effect so much. I'm afraid he's doing quite the opposite instead.

Welcome back!

ps Yeah, you'll probably turn up different percentages -- I couldn't find anything official from the AFDC. Maybe they don't release the figures? But the fact will remain that while whites may make up the larger raw number of recipients, blacks have a much higher % within their own population.

[Pat]

1) Although I was startled by the tone of your statement, I very clearly stated that I believed I was misreading you, and that was your invitation to clarify, which you did. What's so "quick on the draw and looking for the worst" in that? Apparently libs aren't the only ones who like to pull the "I'm offended" card...

2) I do have different numbers regarding the various Americans who collect welfare, but I won't make a big deal out of it because I agree that black Americans have some housecleaning to attend to. But what I will say is that your assumption that Barack Obama is in a unique position to inspire sweeping changes in the black community is flawed. Why should he care so much more about black Americans than, say, any other American president we've ever had? Because he's biracial? This kind of thinking has been studied by sociologists, black scholars, and others, and it's called "symbolic representation." It works on the belief that one person in one ethnic group is responsible for the whole.

Your application of this idea isn't malevolent, but bear in mind that it's been used in extremely ignoble ways by others, and it's not too far removed from the use of racial stereotypes to inspire fear. The use of the Willie Horton attack ad comes to mind. Also Reagan's term "welfare queens," which, much to the detriment of the black community, seems to have stuck fast.

I suggest you actually ask a black person what he or she feels Obama should do for the black community, if you haven't already. I have some personal insight into the matter, and surprisingly enough, among those blacks who've shared their feelings with me, they have not expressed what you've said here.

I wonder what you mean by, "it would really take so little to effect so much." What is this "little" that Obama should do, and what "effect" are you looking for this "little" to have? And let's be for real here: all we'd need to send this country spiraling into oblivion would be for us to have a biracial president who focused on uniquely black problems and incited the wrath of all those Repubs who are already besmirching the GOP brand with name-calling and irrational anger. Could you imagine the accusations of reverse racism aimed at the president in that case?

[Colette Moran]

1) Yeah, framing "you sound racist and are perpetuating myths" with "I believe I'm misreading you" shouldn't make anyone feel offended. Next time, try just saying the facts you want to point out, and then I can make any counterpoints.

2) I did not say that Obama *should* care more than any other President. I said that I think the black community most identifies with him amongst all Presidents, and so I think this puts him in the unique position of making the most difference. In no way do I think that he carries the "sole responsibility" for black America.

Dragging Willie Horton into this picture is ignoble. I'm talking about inspiring people of all races, and you make a comparison to fearmongers.

And everyone knows that "welfare queens" come in all colors. Jumping to the conclusion that using that term referred to blacks -- who are the racists?

3) What did those blacks who shared their feelings with you say? You say they don't agree with me, but what exactly did they say? Are you saying that they disagree that BO can make real change by inspiring the black community and others stuck in a vicious circle of poverty and dependency to break free?

4) How does my statement that he has a lot on his plate and that so little could do so much -- how does that then cause you to make the leap to having him focused on uniquely black problems? Oh, yeah, you can't pass up another opportunity to bash the GOP.

Here's a little thing he could do: Remind all the youth of our nation -- whatever color they are -- who are at risk of dropping out what a *privilege* it is to be educated. They aren't trying to force something on you, they're giving you something -- you gotta grab it and make the most of it.

Just those few words, thrown in at these townhall meetings or in a national address -- I could be wrong, but with the influence the man seems to have, with the personal example that he has lived -- he could plant the seed that an education is the ticket out. It would then be up to us as a nation to nurture that seed and see that it flourishes.

Just one example -- plenty more, just as easy, along the same lines.

Now, would that be so outrageous?

[Pat]

The use of "welfare queen" and the term's effects on the black community is NOT a conclusion I jumped to. I've studied it. I studied the history of black America -- at length -- in college. I was just trying to let you know how your point of view could be otherwise perceived.

As for Obama's "little thing that he could do: Remind all the youth of our nation -- whatever color they are -- who are at risk of dropping out what a *privilege* it is to be educated. They aren't trying to force something on you, they're giving you something -- you gotta grab it and make the most of it,"

Don't you think he's leading by example? A man born to an African father and a single white mother -- not wealthy by any means -- who rose above the stereotypes, graduated from an Ivy League institution, and became president. That's what the blacks I've spoken to have actually said -- that he's a fine example that young blacks can emulate, that he's done and is still doing a great job inspiring black youth.

You Repubs gotta get it together. You either want him to come down to your level and stop being elitist or rise above and be a shining example. Which is it?

[Colette Moran]

Ok, there are single moms out there -- of all colors -- who truly need welfare. And then are those --again, of all colors -- who work the system, who claim they can't find the father and give a generic name, etc. They sit back and expect the govt to take care of them. (Much like a queen.) They are just one subset of folks -- of all colors -- who are ripping off the taxpayers.

Please tell me how using the term "welfare queen" as a descriptive short-hand for those women affects the black community. How does that stop them from bettering their lives? Sure, if someone is told they're no good, or can't do anything, or are stupid -- that would be oppressive. But in talking about certain women -- of all colors -- who are engaging in behavior by their own choosing -- how does that bring down one set of people?

Seriously, I'm not insensitive to how when people are down and they hear what they perceive as bad names being thrown about, that it can be disheartening. But by no means should it be paralyzing. Reactions are natural, inaction is a choice.

And of course, he's leading by example. As a career man and as a father. But what good is that example if he perpetuates the programs that have not worked. Not everyone will have the opportunities BO has had (exactly what, we don't know -- we don't know *how* he was able to go to those schools -- but I imagine there won't be scholarships or whatever for *everybody*) some will have to work even harder. He can tell them to stick to it.

And I don't think he has to come *down* to our level. There's a big difference between being an elitist and being a good example.

If I have to explain the difference to you...

[Pat]

Well, I'm not going to explain to you how the term "welfare queen" has come to affect the black community, because there's too much background to go into here. If you're truly interested, then I'm sure you can find all kinds of info on the topic on your own.

And your point that Barack Obama should be "telling" people what to do, although you agree he's leading by example, is very convoluted. If he's leading by example, then what more can one ask for?

Don't worry, you don't have to tell me the difference between an elitist and one who serves as a good example. I serve my community in lots of ways.

[Pat]

Your desire to hear Obama "tell them to stick to it" was timely.

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-speaks-to-naacp/574287

[Colette Moran]

Huzzah! Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

Go ahead -- tell me that maybe I was right... :)

ps I have an understanding about how terms like "wq" have had an effect on communities -- but when do we get past having to be so worried about using the exact right wording or if we don't then we set back racial relations by decades? I mean, a simple vocal tick like "you people" out of the mouth of a politician and you would think he had used a truly derogatory term like some back-assed bigot. Yes, this community has been thru a lot and there are problems that won't be solved overnight, or with a single speech to the NAACP -- but let's turn the page on speaking "politically correctly" and being "racially sensitive" -- not forget, not simply "move on," but turn the page.

[Pat]

We can get past having to be worried about using the "exact right wording" when we first acknowledge what the effects of the original, insensitive wording were in the first place. It only makes sense to "turn the page" when you have thoroughly read and understood the page before it. And to do so, both the injurer and the injured have to shake hands and move on. Unfortunately that's not going to happen right now, given our country's current political climate.

[Colette Moran]

Ok -- so using the example I mentioned above -- Ross Perot:

I think everyone was well aware of the effects of badly chosen words. So everyone knew not to use even simple words like "boy" let alone more derogatory and inflammatory ones.

But Perot is making a speech, and he says "you people" -- not meaning anything different than "you folks" or "y'all" -- and there is an uproar.

And here we are SEVENTEEN years later -- and nothing has changed!?

Just *who* has to "shake hands" and *why* is it impossible in this climate?