Cenk hates Indians / Hindus !!!!

Email Print posted by sahewa 10/13/2008 03:23:29 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Cenk has repeatedly and consistently insulted and ridiculed India, Indians and Hinduism/ hindu culture whenever he relates a story about India or Indians.
However he shys away from criticizing the middle east/Islamic customs and traditions (which are much more flawed than anything in India) with the same vigour.

Huy, and hope you are all having a great time (inspite of the economic crisis).
I watched the clip about the 'Nepalese living goddess' and came to a very different conclusion than Cenk. I am Indian myself (currently living in Australia) and has been watching 'the young turks' for some time now, with much enthusiasm I might add.
However I don't think I'll continue doing that for much longer, cus I believe Cenk is a racist. Here's my case,
Cenk has consistently insulted and ridiculed indians and hindu culture whenever he could. The stories about 'amma', 'names of Indian business ', 'Indian laws against immodesty', 'hindu religion and priests' were characterised in a such a way by cenk which made Indian/hindu culture look ridiculous and cruel. He did not interview a single indian scholar or an indian for that matter to get their opinion about these things. He just insulted hinduism and india. In addition he has never related stories about the recent achievements India has gained or richness of indian spirituality. But what else can you expect from a racist.
However He is also a hypocrit. He has hardly ever criticized Islam or Islamic traditions/customs/events in the middle east / turkey with the same vigour. As every body is aware there are much more flaws and cruelty in the middle east and don't tell me Islamic traditions hasn't brought untold misery to women and minorities in pakistan, saudi arabia, iran etc. In fact has he ever touched on the how buddhists and hindus are discriminated against and how brutally treated they are in Islamic majority countries. Tell me a single Islamic country which treats it's minorities failry. India may have it's flaws, but it's tyring to be better towards it's disadvantaged. Cenk has never touched on this fact or even debated it.
I am bitterly disapointed with 'the young turks' because of this, and I don't think I will continue watching this hypocritical and racist anchor.

< Will the polarization of the US continue after the election? | POLL: Can McCain Save Himself with a Shakeup at HQ? >

Poll

Does Cenk hate India/ Indians / hinduism

Votes: 0
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Cenk hates Indians / Hindus !!!! | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
My thoughts (none / 1)
  1. You need to have options in a poll, otherwise, it's awfully difficult to vote.

  2. I'm not just criticizing your poll because you're Indian.

  3. I criticize Muslim countries, Turkey in particular and Islam all the time. And far more often than I criticize India or Indians. It's not even close. You just get more offended at the comments about India, so that's why it seems like more to you.

  4. There are no living goddesses in Nepal. The idea is absurd and ridiculous.

  5. Mohammed invented Islam to get more power, conquer more land and have sex with more women. All of Islam is a fraud.

  6. Nearly every religion is just as absurd as the next.

  7. I know you're not allowed to say "Some of my best friends are ..." But I say a lot of things I'm not allowed to say, so here it goes -- I grew up with Indian kids and they are literally my best friends. In fact, I have two Indians in my wedding party.

Here are some of the people invited to my wedding: Sujay, Samip, Shailesh, Pallavi, Minal, Sanjiv, Praveen, Sapna, etc., etc.

8. I kid around about everyone's culture. If you can't take it when it comes to your religion or culture, then this is probably not the right show for you. But I love you nonetheless and appreciate that you listened to us and gave us a chance in the first place.

by Cenk on 10/13/2008 04:03:29 AM EST

Don't you dare (none / 0)
stop the voices, whether they be Indian, English, French, Spanish, Swedish, ...

it is called COMEDY and I like it

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:32:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk can only do one accent (none / 0)

It's a mixture of Transylvanian, Russian, and Martian.

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 10:39:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As long as he does it (none / 0)
I'm paying to hear themn which he would do many more

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:42:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I give him $10 a month... (none / 0)

...but it isn't to hear him try pass off an impression of a Martian Kruschev as Jamaican.

Well, maybe that is the reason...

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 10:52:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ROLF (none / 0)
I always wondered what that impersonation was.

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 03:49:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's True (none / 1)

The reason Cenk tried to defend himself so vigorously is because subconsciously he knows it is true.

While Cenk also has many Jewish friends, his predjudice prevents him from being objective about Israel.  His statements about the Palestinian situation and Lebanon were born more from anti-semetism than from reason.

That doesn't keep me from listening to TYT.  Just as Cenk has many Indian and Jewish friends, I have a few racist friends.  I just accept that some of the things they say are filtered by their predjudice, and I find other ways to relate to them.

by rbruck on 10/13/2008 09:49:12 AM EST

what what what?! (none / 0)
Cenk ALWAYS critisizes Islam (especially their treatment of women) what are you talking about? I haven't seen another person so equally distant from all religions.

I was raised Muslim (and I'm Turkish) and do not find his comments about Islam (or Turks for that matter) insulting because I am open minded  enough to take it when shit is bull you gotta call it how it is. You must have missed the time he talked about Turks and donkeys (or what it goats?)...

As for his coverage of Palestine and Isreal, I think he covers it pretty fair he rips on boths sides equally. I think it surprises people because they are used to seeing the media in the US lean toward Israel in this matter so when Cenk gives Palestine the benefit of the doubt it makes him look like he is leaning one way, he rips both when necessary.

But seriously, if you want something PC you're at the wrong place becuase TYT brings it and that's why I think my $10 is going to a good cause and not that filtered stuff you get on cable news.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 10:08:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you people even watch the show? (none / 0)
"While Cenk also has many Jewish friends, his predjudice prevents him from being objective about Israel.  His statements about the Palestinian situation and Lebanon were born more from anti-semetism than from reason."

no it isn't, true Cenk's opinions about Israël aren't mainstream American, but they are very much mainstream European. It's not Cenk's fault that most Americans only know Israëli propaganda and only see insided news about the conflict.
Look I've got a lily white ass, I'm not Jewish and I'm not Muslim, love the Jews, but I hate the majority of Israëli policies, am I an anti-semite now?

The problem with the majority opinion in the US about Israel and Palestine is that it's an inch deep.

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:20:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 0)
people need to stop thinking that Israel is this holy country that never does anything wrong, because they are war mongers too ( like the current U.S. administration).  What's more, Anti-semite has come to mean Anti-Jew, when really the semitic nations include more than Jews.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 10:26:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: "Exactly" by chrisandyasemin (none / 0)

Ummmm.... Don't even get me started on that topic... Oh.. too late. But I'll "try" to keep it short.

First of all it is important that I confirm that I have No Religious Beliefs. In fact, I have always stated that my Religion if forced to name any, is "Science and the World of Reason". No No No.. do Not confuse this with anything related to Scientology ... that religion to me seems completely retarded (while I woudn't necessarily say the same for its members).

No .. in fact, I borrowed the term "Science and the World of Reason" from a book I read many years ago called "Black Holes, The End of the Universe ?" written by John Taylor in 1973. While his book has nothing to do with this topic, I have adopted his phrase many times in my life. ANYWAY,

After many years of watching mainstream media news who have always illustrated the situations in Israel/Palestine from what I learned to almost always be an Israeli screened/approved viewpoint, I also inevitably learned that there were also many video documentaries on the Web that have been produced by Independent Film Makers, Humanitarian organizations, and international civilians who have managed to sneak videos out of Palestine and/or Israel. Most of these videos are anything but partisan. Most simply document facts and opinions on both sides of the "so-called borders), leaving the viewers to make up their own minds.

After digesting all that I can find, it is very apparent to me, that Israel is NOT run by "Holy" people. In fact, that which takes place in Palestine, thanks to Israel and backed by USA, is second only to the treatment of Jews by the Nazi's. And that may only be because Israel hasn't found large enough ovens !!

Now that I have made this serious accusation or statement, there may be many who would think I am simply against Jews. On the contrary, I have nothing more against them than Anyone who practices and or believes in ANY "God Loving, Fearing or otherwise Worshiping Religion". While I believe that all of these people are lacking good sense, it does not affect my ability to see who any individual is as a person. Especially, when I know that their seemingly good morality stems from their religious beliefs. It just means I don't necessarily agree with the application, relevance or necessity of their beliefs in this day and age. But this is just "My Opinion".

On that note, it is important to indicate that I have many friends coming from as many different religious and geographic backgrounds. We discuss everything from Fishing to Politics and Religion. Due to the variety of opinions, which are often based on their religious beliefs, we have many really interesting and educating conversations. Everyone is given equal opportunity to voice their opinions in any tone they like. Some times there is a lot of emotional tone. Of course we try to discourage this so we can hear one's points without having to feel like it is necessary to be defensive.

All said, it means that we are open-minded and interested in other cultures and opinions, even if and when we don't agree with them. Having an understanding of "where someone is coming from" with any particular view point, helps enable "everyone" to understand why they believe so strongly one way or another. In the end, we may "agree to disagree", but have no lesser opinions about one another. Usually, just the opposite. We remain and always will remain, respectful friends.

Now when Cenk states anything about anything, he is giving his "opinion" based upon whatever (depending the topic). In fact, it is possible that some of what he says, he may not even really believe. Speaking out loud about any topic that gets a rise out of the listeners (positive or negative rise), is simply good broadcasting. It makes people think straight from their hearts.

The beauty of TYT website, is that it permits all opinions to be voiced. However, because many of the topics posted and/or discussed appear to be generally progressive, Liberal or maybe even considered "left-wing", doesn't make anyone here RACIST. It only means that they feel comfortable speaking their mind in an open forum, knowing that there may be a reaction that doesn't please everyone. And if or when any statements are made by anyone that "are likely racist" in nature, then those offended are welcome to voice their disgust. Whether or not this ultimately changes the opinions of the original auther or show host, remains to be seen, but at least you have the chance to say what you think.

Luckily we live in a place that permits freedom of opinions and expression, providing no physical or mental harm is intended or results from those freedoms.

OKAY... I promised I would keep this reply Short.

So I'll stop now before I really get going !!!!    LOL  !!

by SnowTiger on 10/13/2008 01:59:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not all People Who Disagree with you Are Ignorant (none / 1)

To answer your assertions, I watch every minute of TYT that is available as podcast in the member's area.  I'm also intimately familiar with Israel's policies, and not only from Israeli or US press viewpoint.  I watch Al Jazeera as much as I watch any news channel, because I am interested in seeing middle eastern news presented from all viewpoints.  Do you?  Does Cenk? Honestly I don't watch Al Jazeera for their viewpoint, but because they have access to things going on in the Middle East that the western press can't get near.

I don't give a f*ck what the typical American or European viewpoint on the Palestinian and Lebanese situations is.  I have a nuanced opinion of what is going on in the region and I can evaluate actions by the Israeli government, Palestinian authorities, and groups like Hamas and Hezbullah based on that nuance, which is something that Cenk is unable to do.

So PLEASE don't assume that people who don't agree with you or with Cenk's clouded view of the situation in Palestine or Lebanon is because they only know Israeli propaganda.  Saying such a thing only shows your own ignorance.

by rbruck on 10/13/2008 11:05:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You ignored the criticism of you (none / 1)

You accused Cenk of being prejudiced and anti-Semitic but you provided no evidence for the accusation.

Just because someone thinks that Isreal's policies are sometimes dangerous and not in America's best interests does not mean that person is anti-Semitic.  That is simple logic.

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 11:19:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Al Jazeera has cited Cenk (none / 0)
Cenk is who Al-jazeera sees as a truth speaking liberal apparently...
does that mean I watch al-jazeera?

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 12:21:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Then why don't you show your nuance (none / 0)
instead of ignoring the point and prooving the things you said about Cenk

if you don't give a nuanced position how am I not to believe you have a mainstream American view, which is truely ignorant or at least onesided.

" I can evaluate actions by the Israeli government, Palestinian authorities, and groups like Hamas and Hezbullah based on that nuance, which is something that Cenk is unable to do"

are you watching the same show? Cenk's view on Hezbullah is not nuanced?

"So PLEASE don't assume that people who don't agree with you or with Cenk's clouded view of the situation in Palestine or Lebanon is because they only know Israeli propaganda.  Saying such a thing only shows your own ignorance."

true, there are other reasons  besides Israëli propaganda, you can actually believe it, which only makes it worse. NOT saying this about you, but many in that corner don't really see Palestinians as equal as Jews.

You know who should talk here: the Israëli Apache attack helicopter pilots who refused to obey orders, because they were sick of killing innocent civilians, guess that story never made into the US news cycle.

"I have a little daughter, how can I look her in the eyes, if I spend my day killing someone else's daughter" Israëli pilot, no clue what his name was :)

by callisto on 10/13/2008 12:56:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perfect Example of Your Bias (none / 0)

Your example:

You know who should talk here: the Israëli Apache attack helicopter pilots who refused to obey orders, because they were sick of killing innocent civilians, guess that story never made into the US news cycle

I don't know the exact incident you are referring to, but your example implies that you feel the Apache helicopter was TARGETING civilians.  After fifty years of following this conflict in detail, I can categorically say that is 100% false.

The only country in the world more careful to prevent civilian casualties than the US is Israel.

In the case of Hezbullah, which you brought up as an example, for a long period of time, they lobbed bombs into Israel, targeting civilians.  They celebrated in the street when one of their bombs hit a shopping mall, killing and injuring scores of civilians.  Hezbullah has no intention of targeting military - they target civilians because their strength is based on terror.

The easy thing for Israel to do would have been to conduct bombing raids on Hezbullah strongholds - targeting places where the bombs were being launched.  It would be wrong to argue that such a response was not warranted or anything other than self defense.

But they didn't, because they were concerned about civilian casualties.  So what they did was send in troops, at great risk, to try to rout out Hezbullah terrorists.  Israel risked the lives of their own soldiers, and indeed there were Israeli casualties, in order to save innocent Lebanese.

What other country in the world would do that?  None.  After all, it was Hezbullah lobbing bombs and targeting CIVILIANS, and yet Israelis died protecting Lebanese civilians.

Did Cenk ever recognize the situation as what it was?  OF COURSE NOT!  No, Cenk's position on this conflict was not nuanced, it was anti-Israeli.

You suggest that Israelis don't see Palestinians as equal to Jews.  That might be true for a small racist minority, but Israelis have given their own lives protecting Palestinians.  In terms of Israeli government response, it couldn't be further from the truth.

by rbruck on 10/13/2008 02:06:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How does this proove bias??? (none / 0)
"I don't know the exact incident you are referring to, but your example implies that you feel the Apache helicopter was TARGETING civilians.  After fifty years of following this conflict in detail, I can categorically say that is 100% false."

1. pilotS , multiple pilots basically went on strike
2. "TARGETING civilians" are your words, but yeah he felt the "collateral damage" was too big and hence you might call it targeting civilians (funny how 9/11 victims are never called collaral damage and half a million Iraqis are. MY OPINION: neither should be called collaral damage)
3. you are 50-70 years old (the following it 50 years)?

"The only country in the world more careful to prevent civilian casualties than the US is Israel"

just prooved how naïve you are. The US has been careful to prevent civilian casualties???? In what dreamworld do you live? Half a million dead Iraqis, even if it's only 300.000, nice being careful. America was careful in Vietnam now?????

"In the case of Hezbullah, which you brought up as an example, for a long period of time, they lobbed bombs into Israel, targeting civilians.  They celebrated in the street when one of their bombs hit a shopping mall, killing and injuring scores of civilians.  Hezbullah has no intention of targeting military - they target civilians because their strength is based on terror."

you know what the civilian/military casualty rate was in the latest Lebanon war:

Hezbullah killed 100 Israelis, 90% military
Israel killed 1000 Lebanese, 90% civilians mostly women and kids

my personal opinion about Hezbullah? kill 'm all, they take up a gun... kill 'm, they're in "the game", so what the hell do I care. BUT you leave civilians out of it, you do this by not using blunt instruments as for instance tanks, if Israel triples their Mossad staff, fine with me

"The easy thing for Israel to do would have been to conduct bombing raids on Hezbullah strongholds - targeting places where the bombs were being launched."
Hezbullah strongholds? like fortresses and shit :) these rockets are most of the time launched from temporary locations

"But they didn't, because they were concerned about civilian casualties.  So what they did was send in troops, at great risk, to try to rout out Hezbullah terrorists.  Israel risked the lives of their own soldiers, and indeed there were Israeli casualties, in order to save innocent Lebanese."

1. they moved into the mountain area, caves and shit, carpet bombing wouldn't have helped much
2. the civilian casualties fell in Beirut, Israelis didn't go in there with soldiers, instead they levelled the southern part of the city, they LEVELLED it
3. you saw unbiased news during that war????

MANY countries would do that, move in troops instead of bombing raids on cities, you're so in your own world where it seems only America and Israel are decent countries. You know what I'm pretty sure Canada would be much better at this :)

"You suggest that Israelis don't see Palestinians as equal to Jews.  That might be true for a small racist minority, but Israelis have given their own lives protecting Palestinians.  In terms of Israeli government response, it couldn't be further from the truth."

I NEVER suggested they were Israeli, I was actually thinking of rightwing religious nuts from America. I believe the average Israeli in the street wants the same thing as the average Palestinian, both are victims of a small group of extremists who wield way too much power and dictate most of the policy

the only thing you prooved was your own bias
all that Al-Jazeera time you claim you have, doesn't seem to have made a dent :)

by callisto on 10/13/2008 02:56:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You Did Not Follow Closely Enough (none / 0)

You wrote:

Hezbullah killed 100 Israelis, 90% military
Israel killed 1000 Lebanese, 90% civilians mostly women and kids

Your confusion about Israel could be based on misinformation that you believe to be true.  Maybe it is also based on Cenk's anti-Israeli reporting.

Israel killed approximately 500 Hezbullah soldiers.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/1526970/Peacekeeping-f orce-won%27t-disarm-Hizboll ah.html)

Israel estimated between 900 and 1100 Hezbullah soldiers could have been killed.  In the heat of battle, it is hard to distinguish between killed and wounded.

There are no credible estimates of Lebanese civilians who died in the conflict, because it is believed by UN and other groups that there were no Lebanese civilians killed by Israelis during this conflict.  Israel eliminated civilian casualties by giving warnings before they bombed strategic locations.  For example, they leafletted the Jiyeh power station 3 times, at 1-hour intervals, before taking it out in a bombing run.  There were, however, Lebanese civilians killed during and after the conflict, includling many children, because they stepped on Iranian land mines planted by Hezbullah.  Hezbullah claimed these deaths were caused by unexploded Israeli cluster bombs, but Israel claimed, and the US confirmed that Israel did not use any cluster bombs during the conflict.

As for Israeli civilian casualties, Hezbullah rockets killed 43 civilians and injured 4,262 civilians.

You might not believe it, but Israel could have taken out the rocket launchers at the risk of civilian casualties.  They had the ability to attack launch sites within 3 minutes of firing missles.  There are only a limited number of structures that a rocket launcher can get to in 3 minutes, and Israel could have taken out them all.  Instead they lost 117 soldiers and suffered the civilian casualties I listed above.

Again, what other country would do this?  None.

by rbruck on 10/13/2008 09:47:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Become a Repuglican or what (none / 0)
it's almost 4.25am here, so will answer this in full in morning, but you're switching subjects, I clearly stated numbers about civilians which you countered by number of Hezbullah

low, very low, something Kenny Tx would pull

just something that's coming after some sleep: Lebanese civilian deads estimated at 1,191 dead
 
so that makes what 1 Israëli life is worth 22 Lebanese lifes? Honestly thought it was a 1/10 ratio, seems it's worse then I expected

more to follow

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:21:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you paid by AIPAC? (none / 0)
You're right I got my percentages wrong, I blame getting drunk in Portugal at the time, but even after I adjust the percentages, my point's still valid.

"There are no credible estimates of Lebanese civilians who died in the conflict, because it is believed by UN and other groups that there were no Lebanese civilians killed by Israelis during this conflict."

you pull that one out of your ass? The Wikipedia article alone sources BBC, AFP, Bloomberg AND a UN report (http://www2.ohchr.org/engli sh/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/sp ecialsession/A.HRC.3.2.pdf)
regarding Lebanese:
"The conflict resulted in 1911 deaths and 4409 injured. More than 900.000 people fled their homes. It was estimated that one third of the casualties and deaths were children"
man, you're lucky you're not KennyTx or I would say a really mean thing concerning the kids

"but Israel claimed, and the US confirmed that Israel"

great sourcing there, it's like Larry Craig claiming he's not gay :)

"As for Israeli civilian casualties, Hezbullah rockets killed 43 civilians and injured 4,262 civilians"

1. you used a biased source
2. you willfully came to that number and that would say more than enough about you IMO

UN numbers for Israëli civilian injured are 997 in total of which 75 seriously injured, 115 moderately injured, 807 lightly injured.
So how does rbruck come to the 4262 figure? He used the Israeli governments numbers which also include "2,773 treated for shock and anxiety", r u f-ing kidding me, how many of the 900.000 refugees or people from the 30.000 homes which were destroyed or damages on the Lebanese side would suffer from "shock and anxiety"? By that logic most people in New York City would have counted as injured on 9/11.

Adjusted numbers:

Hezbullah killed 163 Israeli, 73% military
Israel killed around 1750 Hezbullah+Lebanese, 69% civilians

"Again, what other country would do this?  None"

Look Israel took out a great number of Hezbullah fighters, which is great, BUT the collateral damage amongst civilians they caused is NOT low, Isreal isn't that careful, just look at the numbers.

BTW are you claiming that non US and non Israeli forces in Afghanistan under NATO for example are more reckless? You're saying that Canadians, Brits, Dutch, Germans, ... would not behave in such a way?

funny thing in the UN report it reports 30000 Lebanese homes destroyed and damaged, on Israeli side is reports 6000 homes were affected.
And if you saw the images you would understand why: Beirut has whole parts levelled to the ground, in Israel they were sweeping the street after a rocket hit (not saying there wasn't serious damage also).

also if you didn't know many of those rockets aren't effective since they are launched from too far away which makes them unpredictable to where they'll hit and they loose too much of their velocity.
Hezbullah fired 3900 Katyusha rockets killing 44 Israeli civilians and 106 soldiers.

"bombed strategic locations"

included in those according to UN: water and sewage treatment plants, commercial structures, schools, hospitals and private homes. 78 health facilities were seriously affected, with 2 hospitals destroyed. 789 cluster-bomb sites have been identified and over 1 million bomblets have littered the region. bomblet = small unexploded part of a cluster bomb, you know the things they're cleaning up now, killing a Belgian UN soldier just last month.

What other country would... use white phosphorus in recent years: US, Israel, Russia, Argentina. I know I know the US claims it's not a chemical weapon... BULLSHIT, first it was the napalm, now the WP (military jargon:)

truely a shining example, this is not even touching the subject how the US threads it's veterans (1/3 of homeless fought for their country, see what it got them)

BTW even after following Al-Jazeera for all that time, as you claim, you still only end up with the general view in America about the conflict :)

by callisto on 10/14/2008 09:59:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Quick note (none / 0)
just wanted to say that I would have the same heated disagreement with Bill Maher, who otherwise I adore, for a few years he even seemed the only sane man left in America.

to Maher I would simply say: we agree on most thing, but disagree on your inflexibility when it comes to Israël & meat

peace out

by callisto on 10/13/2008 03:02:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dear sahewa, (none / 0)

I hope you don't think I'm a racist.   I really despise racists.  I don't mind pointing out differences between races when it's important -- and there are real differences, such as some races' suscepitibility to sickle cell anemia, and others' susceptibility to skin cancer -- but I really don't care much about race.

Culture, on the other hand, I always consider to be fair game.  Culture is a set of ideas, customs, and behaviors.  None of those (ideas, customs, and behaviors) is an intrinsic characteristic of any person.  They are not things with which we are born, they are things which we learn.

I am particularly disappointed, for instance, that religion is protected from criticism in too many respects because religions are simply nothing more than sets of ideas that may have nothing to do with reality.  Adherents to religions should be open to criticism of their ideas and to the consequences when they do something stupid because of their beliefs.  If I'm hiring someone to do a job, I don't want someone who is so religious that he believes that Armagedon is coming next week and, therefore, he doesn't have to care about the quality of his work since the world is ending anyway.  If I can avoid it, I don't want to hire nutcases.  So far, however, we rarely make a clear understanding of reality and an ability to employ logic survival skills; instead, we protect our insanities.

So when I learn about a ridiculous Nepalese tradition of abusing young girls, I don't simply want to ridicule it, I want to slap that baby's parents silly and give that child to someone with some sense in their heads to save her from a life of misery.  Unfortunately, I try to eschew violence whenever possible, and it's not practical for me to go to Nepal right now to work on this issue.

I don't have anything against anyone because of how they were born.  It's what they do afterward that concerns me.  And if I criticize someone's behavior and his or her feelings get hurt, then... well, good!  I'm pleased that I've had an impact.  Hopefully, that person will change his or her behavior.  Too often, however, I get criticized for pointing out the problem...

...as you are doing to Cenk.

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 09:55:44 AM EST

Darn! I keep forgetting to sign some of these. (none / 0)
-- David Dickinson

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 10:23:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk is a sexist pig (none / 1)
If a big load of male blandness from some nowhere state, Tim Pawlenty for example, had been chosen as John McCain's running mate, Cenk would not have said, "His convention speech meant nothing. It was written by someone else. He is just a good actor when reading a teleprompter. And by the way, his speech wasn't that good because it was not a positive uplifting message about how fucking wonderful Barack Obama is."

Sarah Palin: Change We Can Trust

by Sally Socialist on 10/13/2008 10:18:19 AM EST

And you are a transvestite (none / 0)
Which is all good, all good, just wish you wouldn't hate the people who openly do it

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:23:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
yeah he would've (none / 0)
in fact, he says Obama speeches are uninspiring and bland all the time...you're just biased because you support an idiot.  don't blame cenk for your bad choices....c'mon, you know sarah palin is a waste of a vp pick.  She's a terrible politician that only has "character" that's fabricated anyway.  She might as well be a man based on her anti- woman policies.  You know what's REALLY sexist?  Putting a woman on a pedestal trying to convince other women to vote for her simply because she has a vagina, because we all know she has no real experience.

Chris

p.s.
and before you bring up her "energy" experience, that has been proven to be a lie, and she does not handle ANY energy affairs.

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 10:24:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh-oh. (none / 0)

Sally Socialist hasn't learned, apparently, that one's arguments must obey the rules of logic if one is to avoid criticism.  Either that, or someone unlocked the doors to the asylum.

Why is a "socialist" defending Sarah Palin, anyway?  That qualifies as "totally bonkers", doesn't it?

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 10:28:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Socialists getting a bad rap (none / 0)
especially with these bailouts, while if you look at the facts it's the (center)-rightwing parties who are bailing the banks out in Europe

mainstream Socialist (again it's a normal political stream worldwide comparable to liberal Democrats in the US) thought isn't a fan of it, they only go along with the bailouts if people's saving gets to be 100% insured by the state

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:40:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Question for Sally (none / 0)

I noticed you and Ken's absences coincided.

Are y'all having an affair?

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 10:42:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
FUCKIN HILARIOUS (none / 0)
Yasi thought sally might be ken in disguise because a while back she called him out on trying to represent the women's vote even though he's not a woman.  could this be ken's alter ego that gets in touch with that oh so feminine side?

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 10:54:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Said so from the beginning (none / 0)
I think it's Ken wearing some stockings :)

by callisto on 10/13/2008 12:24:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reply for Rich (none / 0)
We need to get beyond these divisions that distract us from our common challenges and our common opportunities and move the country forward. This is a red herring, KenTX is just a guy who lives in my neighborhood and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated.

Sarah Palin: Change We Can Trust

by Sally Socialist on 10/13/2008 01:02:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The mean to civilized flip (none / 0)
so Kenny Texas, he or should I say the other you, does this often: start by saying something extremely mean and after being trashed by everyone, try to be über responsible and sensible.

EXPOSED :)

by callisto on 10/13/2008 01:26:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
exposed (none / 0)
like a republican congressman to an undercover cop...

boom goes the dynamite

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 01:32:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question for Ken (none / 0)
Do you have a different outfit you wear when you are "Sally"?

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 01:41:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
i think we saw ken on cops (none / 0)
wearing a skirt and matching red top...the guy didn't have any id, so it could've been ken using republican logic...

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 02:10:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chris, you are onto something (none / 1)

Can Ken prove it wasn't him?

In Kenland, the burden of proof is on the accused.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 03:59:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
looks sorta like lipstick on a pig to me (none / 0)
I'm glad someone outed this sockpuppet of Ken's.  It has been outed previously.

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 04:01:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
w00t (none / 0)
Did I hear someone say, "sockpuppet?"

by Leeeberal on 10/15/2008 11:18:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Down, Boy (none / 0)
I bet you'd like to know what I'm wearing, Perv.

Sarah Palin: Change We Can Trust

by Sally Socialist on 10/14/2008 01:14:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Settle down Sally (none / 0)

I was talking to Ken.  As was made clear in my subject line.

Are you coming on to me?

And why are you asking questions directed at Ken?

Curioser and curioser

by ProfRich on 10/14/2008 01:31:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Questions for Rich: (none / 0)
Do I sound like Sally, in any way? Outside of spoofing a couple of nutjobs like Tiny, do I have a history of employing sock puppets? Would my egotistical arrogance allow me to give credit for witty posts to someone named Sally? Outside of the fact that "socialist" is my favorite word, what is the world makes you think that Sally is my puppet. Think about it, won't you, please?

by KenTX on 10/14/2008 02:15:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Answers (none / 0)
Yes. Yes, Apparently. When I asked Ken a question, Sally answered. Yes.

by ProfRich on 10/14/2008 02:31:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Onehitkill in 3, 2, 1... (none / 0)
Where's OneNoteJohnny to tell Ken he's never had a witty post to take credit for?

Sarah Palin: Change We Can Trust

by Sally Socialist on 10/14/2008 02:40:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
lol (none / 0)
why yes, you do have a history of employing sock puppets.  Hopefully you aren't employing illegal immigrant sock puppets!!

by desertpear on 10/14/2008 03:36:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
apparently she missed the headline (none / 0)
that socialism is going to save the world economies...

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 10:53:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the funny thing is (none / 0)
That just a few weeks ago what 13 some people drop out of TYT because of Cenk's critism toward Varack Obama, so Sally Shit-Head, don't even go there, don't tell me Cenk gives Obama a free ride. Cenk tells it as it is, even if it means some people Leebrals or Rethugs, are gonna get pissed.

So spare me.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 04:03:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
teehee (none / 0)
Varack Obama is, of course, Barack Obama's Transilvanian cousin. (oops)

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 04:04:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
100% off the mark (none / 0)
Sahewa do you even watch the show? If you did, you would know Cenk grew up amongst Indians, his best friend is an Indian.

Cenk also consistently slams all religions, the people who should have the biggest beef with Cenk, are the Christians, since they get slammed the most, which is also normal in a country where the vast majority is Christian and some even want to make it a christian country.

Have you ever seen the great English show "Little Britain", are they being racist against Brits?

Your post prooves one thing: you aren't that well informed, probably saw a couple of youtube clips and formed an opinion out of that

by callisto on 10/13/2008 10:30:17 AM EST

Cenk isn't a racist (none / 0)

He has a pretty extreme bigoted view of southerners.  But he is not a racist.

And to be fair, he has backed off the south.  Back in the day though, it was out of control.

Jill was ten times worse.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 10:40:56 AM EST

My family is rooted in the deep south. (none / 0)

I don't think they get enough criticism, and what they do get is not nearly as withering as it should be.  My redneck cousins are proof of why the law of natural selection is a good thing.

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 11:04:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0)

How many people could say the exact same thing about blacks with a straight face?

Its about the stereotypes, man. 

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 01:24:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are stereotypes always bad? (none / 0)

I propose that stereotypes are useful concepts.  They allow us to identify characteristics that are shared by many members of a particular group.  That some of those characteristics might be shared by various people who are not a part of that group is irrelevant.  Also, the fact that not all members of the group might not share all of the characteristics that comprise the stereotype does not make the stereotype less useful as long as we recognize that caveat.

We have problems with stereotypes only when we generalize that all members of a group always have all of the characteristics which define the stereotype.

My redneck cousins, a particular group of people, believe that they are superior to various other groups, such as nations and races.  Their unique culture, southern white racism, includes these prejudices and the bigotted behavior that usually goes with them and separates them from other groups.  Their culture is defined by a stereotype, and we find that stereotype to be useful because it allows us to use fewer words to describe their set of customs and behaviors when discussing that group.  That they may practice only a subset of the customs and behaviors associated with that stereotype is irrelevant, although the fact must be recognized when talking about particular individuals or people who are not members of their group.  For instance, I know many whites who share none of those characteristics.

My complaint cannot be criticized as racial.  It's a complaint about a culture.

Am I prejudiced for recognizing the applicability of a particular stereotype to these people whom I sincerely regret having to claim as my family?  Just because I use the stereotype as a weapon against their culture doesn't make the use of that stereotype invalid.

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 01:53:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that's it (none / 0)
you hate all white people

chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 02:08:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Might be a reasonable point (none / 0)

If this

 Also, the fact that not all members of the group might not share all of the characteristics that comprise the stereotype does not make the stereotype less useful as long as we recognize that caveat.

Happened at a reasonable rate.

I don't think anyone is arguing there aren't a lot of racists in the South.  What I am annoyed by is the assumption that if you are Southern you are a hillbilly, yokel racist and racism is a significantly smaller factor in other regions among similar demographics (poor, rural, etc.).

Again, explain how me saying black guys are criminals is not ok under your rationalization.  Black guys are overwhelming more likely to be incarcerated than any other segment of our population.  So does this mean the "black guys are criminals" stereotype is a good thing?

Can I assume all black men are probably criminals until I learn otherwise?

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 03:58:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's easy. (none / 0)
"...explain how me saying black guys are criminals is not ok under your rationalization."

C'mon.  Give me a hard one!  Not all "black guys" have committed crimes.  In addition, even people who have committed crimes in the past are no longer criminals if they have paid their debt to society and are living responsibly today.  To say generally that black guys are criminals is simply false and, for anyone with more than a second-grade education, a lie.

And what makes the imposition of that label doubly difficult is the fact that we have racially discriminatory laws and laws that may simply disappear from the books in the near future.  For instance, possession of crack is punished more harshly than possession of cocaine.  Is there anyone left who tries to make the argument that this does not have an unequal effect on blacks as compared to whites, that there is a good reason for it, and that it is not racially discriminatory?   Some judges are simply ignoring the guidelines regarding minimum sentences for crack crimes on the grounds that they are unconstitutionally racially discriminatory.

However, if we do what we should do and decriminalize drug possession and start treating the problem as a health issue rather than a criminal issue, then we end up with millions of people whose criminal histories no longer have any meaning.

Are most of those people black?  I don't know the statistics.  But I do believe than any set of laws that punishes one race more often and more intensely than another is inherently racially discriminatory and must be reformed or abandoned.

Clearly, we have such an unfair, racially discriminatory system.  Note only are blacks more likely to be incarcerated than whites, blacks make up a proportion of our prison population that is greater than their proportion of the general population.

Therefore, since the system which defines people as criminals is unfair, it is unfair to label many individuals as criminals even though they may have been convicted of a crime.  What's more, we're not even sure who those people might be, and therefore it may be unfair and illogical to label any person who has been convicted of drug possession as a criminal.

The stereotype you described ("black guys are criminals") is false on its face, since not all black guys are ciminals, and criminality is the only criterion for the stereotype.  In addition, since the definition of who is a criminal is invalid, as I think I've just proven, any stereotype based on criminality also may be invalid.  In this case, it is.

Q.E.D.

I probably made the proof more complicated than it needs to be, but I wanted to be thorough.  Also, I think a similar case can be made for many street-level drug dealers, too, although that argument has a large economics component.

by EveningStarNM on 10/13/2008 07:39:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0)

The inference here is that all Southerners are racist.

You realize that, right?

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 11:06:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lord, help me, no. (none / 0)

I don't see that inference at all.  Will you demonstrate it for me?

by EveningStarNM on 10/14/2008 12:06:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, to be fair (none / 0)
Doesn't the "extreme bigoted view of southerners" stem from the fact that many (didn't say most, but did say "many") Southerners have, well, extreme bigoted views?

Large pockets of historic racism going back to slavery and low levels of income and education do tend to foster bigoted views, right?

Maybe many of us Northerners go too far with it because we go by stereotypes and assumptions, but to be fair maybe you don't go far enough with it *because* (compliment alert) you're very intelligent, thoughtful and articulate, i.e. out of the norm.

Out of the norm in life in general, not especially in the South. Point being that you feel compelled to defend the south as it was your home and and home to your family and friends (friends who are probably as thoughtful and non-bigoted as you giving you a skewed sense that there are less bigots than we think).

And hey, maybe I'm the same as you in that respect...after all, those McCain/Palin rallies in PA and OH have sure produced some disgusting bigots.

by ihavenobias on 10/13/2008 12:18:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tit for tat (none / 0)
The city folk look down on the hicks, the hicks accuse the city folk of being elitists.

Northeners have a negative view of Southerners and vice versa.

Look the whole Republican Party has basically called Democrats aka city folk UNAMERICAN

BTW is Texas considered the be part of the South or not, I always thought so, but then someone told me it isn't, Florida neither.

by callisto on 10/13/2008 12:30:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The South (none / 0)

Texas is both Southern and Southwestern.  Its a BIG place.

But in the traditional definition (part of the Confederacy) it is Southern.

But the point isn't to defend my home (no one mocks Austin this way!), the point is its a silly and unproductive way to talk about America.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 01:40:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

This is the problem.  America is a country with a terrible history of racism ALL OVER.

At some point we conveniently decided to blame it all on the eleven states that left the Union and write everyone else a free pass.

This is a ridiculous view of history, but it is the predominant one.

Let's see, everyone remembers and reviles the South for slavery but no one seems to talk about:

The initial wars against the natives in the Northeast

The further wars in the Midwest

The gangs of whites in New York City who stalked and murdered blacks in public during the Civil War

The persecution and violence directed towards the Irish-Americans in the Northeast

The election of Klansmen governors in Ohio and Indiana (they campaigned in their robes) in the 1920s!

The extreme repression of the Chinese in California and the other West Coast states.

Segregationist laws and violence towards Americans of Mexican descent in the Southwest.

The brutal, horrific and inhuman seizing of the lands of the Native Americans in the west (the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado (where they smashed the babies heads in to save bullets))

The obscene exploitation of immigrant workers by corporations and factory owners from around 1840 through the 1920s by mostly Northerners

The truly disgusting treatment of the Irish and Chinese railroad workers

My point is not that the South has no blood on its hands, my point is that we have been forced to acknowledge who we are and where we come from while the rest of the country has gotten away with Lindy Englunding us and pretending they are the moral ones.

Its bullshit.  Come on down into the shame swamp, there's plenty to go around.

Hypocrites.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 01:38:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But you know (none / 0)
there is more *overt* racism and bigotry in the South. At the very least it's more hidden in much of the North, relatively speaking.

That Confederate flag is a huge symbol, and I don't buy the explanation given by many who promote it. And wasn't the KKK pretty much contained to the South?

PS---I'm from IL, Land Of Lincoln (your personal favorite president who was the ultimate anti-racist who cured slavery and racism ;)

by ihavenobias on 10/13/2008 01:48:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Arrrrggggghhh (none / 0)

So the South is bad because the North and West and Midwest and West and Southwest and West Coast were all racist too but we noticed Southern racism more?

I don't know what to say to you people.  

As for the KKK, in their first incarnation they were predominantly around the upper South but were a relatively minor factor.  The Knights of White Camilia, for example, were a much bigger factor.

The KKK would be fondly remembered by some and one of those old racists would tell stories to his grandson, D. W. Griffith.  Griffith essentially invented narrative film making and  his great masterpiece, Birth of a Nation, was an ode to the "heroic" Klan.  Then, as now, movies had a massive impact on tastes and styles of the day.  So beginning in the mid-1910s people began to revive the Klan.  This revival was strongest in the Midwest, your part of the country.

As for Illinois, MLK called Chicago the most racially divided city in the United States.  And as for Lincoln, don't make me drive up there and kick your ass.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 03:53:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I reject and denounce you (none / 0)
for writing "you people".

So you don't think there is more overt and open racism in the South compared to other parts of the US? 

That's not necessarily the same thing as quantitatively "more racism", just that it sure seems to be a lot more obvious and accepted, generically speaking.

As a black friend of mine used to argue, people hide it better in the North, etc.  If you accept that, why be angry at Northerners for having the perception (deserved or not) that the South is generally more racist/xenophobic/homophobi c?

by ihavenobias on 10/13/2008 04:12:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
racism (none / 0)
I'm always really shocked at overt racism myself, because I grew up in the Pacific Northwest and California.  Even in the 1960s, people seemed very non-racist; even my Republican father was embarrassed by any display of racism.  I would say there is very little racism in the western states compared to the rest of the country.  I'm not sure when things changed.

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 04:23:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever (none / 0)
you grew up in the most hippy, tree hugging liberal places on earth, what do you expect?

;)

by ihavenobias on 10/13/2008 04:26:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They weren't so nice to the asians (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 04:45:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"were" (none / 0)
I'm not talking so much about the past.  Just the near 50 years I have been alive up until now.  Compare that to the stuff you see right now in other parts of the country.  

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 04:59:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
qualification (none / 0)
OK, I need to qualify my statement.  In the less urban areas, there is still racism.  My viewpoint is coming more from an urban vs. rural perspective rather than a regional perspective.

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 05:01:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What do you see in other parts of the country? (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 05:09:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
like I said (none / 0)
You can find overtly racist views in places like eastern Washington and Oregon too.  I just don't see people as willing to voice racist opinions in the Northwest, whether or not they have them.  But I guess this could be a view formed by prejudice against southerners.  

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 06:13:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is my point (none / 0)

You see racism where you all live (mostly among poor rural whites) and say, "Yeah, we have racism but at least we aren't like those evil southerners!"

But you have little or no experience with the South.  Just some preconceptions from watching In the Heat of the Night or something.

Let me clue you in on a little secret.  Go to rural Texas (and most of the rest of the South).  You will find racists, you couldn't tell em apart from the East Washington or South Illinois variety, and you will find about a million white rural kids wearing Owens, Vick or VY jerseys listening to Tupac and talking like Snoop Dog.  It's strange but its true.  You will also find a LOT of half white/half black babies.

I know this because I have been there.  Have you?

My son's first game of the year was in Riesel, Tx.  You don't know where Riesel is?  It's right outside of Mart, of course.  I saw more black/white high school and young married couples than I see at my Austin high school.

Quit formulating your opinions on assumptions.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 07:08:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I give, I give! ;) (none / 0)
you are right Professor.  I was trying to say as much a couple of posts ago, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough ;)

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 09:30:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't even think that is true (none / 0)

I don't think you have a real clear picture of life in the South in the 21st century.

I knew a girl once (a beautiful, brilliant teacher of many ancestries) who grew up in Evansville, Ill and could not get over how much LESS racist the people down here were.

My whole problem is that you are assuming a stereotype you have probably gotten mostly from TV and movies and the like is true and then using its "truth" to argue your point.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 04:35:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're including (none / 0)
Alabama, Georgia, etc.?  Or just parts of Texas around Austin?

by ihavenobias on 10/13/2008 04:42:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The South in general (none / 0)
There is racism here, its just not what you think it is.  Its probably a lot like the racism you find in rural Illinois or Indiana.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 04:47:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
I always joke that if you drive 2 hours south of Chicago you're basically in "The South".

You might as well be for all the country music, pick-up trucks and chew/beer at the gas stations. Oh, and the Nascar lighters, etc.

by ihavenobias on 10/13/2008 04:50:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
let me pre-empt ken on this one professor (none / 0)
you need to move on...all those horrific things you stated, yeah, you should forget all those things because all we need to look at is the Fyoochur ...

there you go again complaining about the white man's burden...oh wait you weren't complaining about that...

what's that Professor, you weren't complaining about anything above, just pointing out that America isn't perfect?!  GASP

Say it ain't so joe

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/13/2008 02:05:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's just that... (none / 0)
I hate America for its freedoms.

by ProfRich on 10/13/2008 03:58:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WTF Cenk (none / 0)

How am I suppose to pick up on Indian women when my favorite show is a bastion of Indian hate.  Kidding aside, I'm usually very sensitive to any perceived racist comments/cultural judgments made by Cenk especially when it involves Asians, Arabs, Persians, and Indians even if Cenk is "buds" with "the Indians" and "marrying Chinese."  However, I watched all of last week's show and completely missed this one.

If I remember correctly, Cenk had the author of "Moral Relativism," Steven Lukes, on Thursday's show who offered an varied perspective to Cenk's initial view (Wednesday's post game) of the "Nepalese living goddess."  Also, if you watched the whole post game segment on Wednesday, you would see that Cenk clearly points out that he's not solely judging Indian/Hindu culture, but "when you look at other traditions you realize how WE'RE ALL coocoo for coocoo puffs!"  Cenk even surprised me by almost going as far as to embrace this tradition and surmise that "we all have a human need to believe in this kind of mythology."  Woo their buddy!

Again, I'm guilty of flying off the handle when my feathers get ruffled, but I would urge you to listen to the whole show if you haven't already.  Then again, if you're still offended and think Cenk is a racist, obviously you're free to do whatever you want, but personally I think a post like you did with some dialogue is a far better option than calling it quits.    

by rev24 on 10/13/2008 02:32:44 PM EST

Cenk: Equal Opportunity Insulter (none / 0)
Cenk loves to go off on religion.  We need him around because so few others dare to enter these dangerous waters.

I just hate Homo sapiens myself.  It's much easier.

Damn, I wish I could find Cenk's rant from December 24th? 27th? of last year.  How do you find specific episodes by date if they are no longer in the video archives on this site?  :(

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 04:16:16 PM EST

I'm Late to the Ball! (none / 0)
So I got stuck in this quagmire with Mrs. Kang and the in-laws (really looooooong story), and I haven't had a chance to post on this or many other topics.  My apologies.  If the Time Sphinx wasn't getting an oil change in the 40th century, I'd take a trip to a week ago and tell myself NOT to volunteer to babysit.

In any case, it looks like the Professor did a fairly reasonable job of defending the South.  I tip my hat to you, good sir.  My blood boils when I hear people lump the "South" into some bigot-free-for-all.  As if the rest of the country was so tolerant and enlightened!  And I say that as a not-so-typical-Southerner.& nbsp; My ancestry would have made me a target, so I am not one to defend racists.  But as a student of history, I refuse to let everyone else off the hook while the South happily burns in racist hell.

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/14/2008 03:32:15 PM EST

Cenk hates Indians / Hindus !!!! | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: