Glenden BrownInitiation, Self Justification and Hardship
In Mistakes were made (but not by me) , Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson discuss the psychological process of self justification as it relates to initiation.
In particular, they cite a study in which students, to join a conversation, had to go through an initiation process; for one group it was relatively easy, for the second it was deliberately designed to be difficult. Both groups of students then listened to the same taped conversation which was deliberately boring and poorly done. One participant in the conversation admitted not having read the material, others stammered, stuttered, made off topic or inane remarks and took long pauses before speaking. At the end, the test subjects were then debriefed. Those who had the easy initiation were annoyed at the conversation, and noted for instance the student who hadn’t even done the basic reading. By contrast, those who had the difficult initiation were impressed by the conversation; they saw the admission of not having done the reading as an admirable level of honesty, the long pauses as thoughtful pauses, the stammering and stuttering as signs of students trying to work out their ideas.
Self justification is the process of saying, “I went through this difficult thing, it must be worth it.” As human beings, we want to believe that the things we do are worth the effort and energy we give to them; the harder the effort (and the higher the cost) the more likely we are to justify that effort as worthwhile. It’s a cliche that a convert is always more devout than the person born into a faith; that makes perfect sense since very often converts have to sacrifce family, friends, old ways of being and thinking. Those actions would make them want justify the worth of their new beliefs.
Self-justification is a way of reducing cognitive disonance. We, in essence, tell and retell events until they square with our self image.
Tavris and Aronson use an interesting example: the war in Iraq. For non-Republicans, changing positions on the war has been relatively easy - Bush lied, we believed the lie, now we know it was a lie and our support was predicated on a lie we can oppose the war. Tavris, for instance, cites polls showing that some Republicans believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, that proof exists that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and so on. Constant calls to “tell the good news” coming out of Iraq are all about cognitive dissonance - the desire to believe we did the right thing by going in and so seeking proof of good outcomes. The belief that the bad news is being exaggerated is connected to that dynamic - the constant bad news, the seemingly endless violence, death and destruction, the ruin of the nation’s infrastructure, all attack the self image of Americans who want to see our nation as a force of good in the world. (We’re the good guys, so our actions could not possibly have resulted in such horrific outcomes therefore we must not be getting the true story.)
I wonder, however, about the less talked about examples. How many conservatives and Bush supporters accused people opposed to the Iraq War of being unAmerican and traitors? Now that’s beyond painfully obvious that support for the invasion was disastrously wrong and it has become undeniable that the war was begun under false pretenses, such accusations were obviously false. How do the people who made those accusations resolve the cognitive dissonance they must feel? How do they now justify such statements and beliefs while at the same time acknowledging that support for the war was a bad idea?
Attorney General Mukasey’s unbelievably offensive reason for not prosecuting the misdeeds of the Bush DoJ falls into this category - that even some things that are against the law aren’t crimes? Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson offered blatantly self-justifying reasons for their criminal actions seemingly without shame or remorse (as Olbermann said something you do 50 times isn’t an accidents, it’s a practice). Yet they’re likely to get off with no punishment for blatant crimes because . . . well, they were just misguided underlings. It’s all about Mukasey telling a story he wants to believe because it serves his boss.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I guess that the cognitive dissonance goes both ways?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Nice try JD.
I think the point of the post is that YOU were deceived. Though it is obvious from your “both ways” statement, you are looking for someone else to blame.
Many people were not deceived. Don’t try to shove us in your shoes.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
There’s another factor at work. Some people try to base their opinions on information and others don’t really think about it that much. The latter category may never experience cognitive dissonance, since they skipped cognition entirely.
The Gallup Poll ran an interesting experiment in 2003, just before the United States launched the invasion of Iraq. David Moore wrote:
August 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Richard - that’s a depressing study.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Yeah, it sure is. A plurality of Americans were like, “war, peace, whatever.”
August 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Whatever that study says Richard, looking back, I can remember everywhere I went where there were protests, those opposing the war in front of Federal buildings, were well outnumbered by those in support of it across the street.
This before the war.
Amongst people that cared enough to show up at the protests, it looked about 60-40 for the war. Which is why it has been going on so long, there is no real opposition from any quarters that matter, or influence the power making decisions.
The study does point out that a plurality trusted the leaders, or more succinctly, didn’t care perhaps?
August 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Note that Gallup discovered that opponents of invading Iraq were a lot more committed than people who said they were in favor. So the protests seem to reflect that.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
..and the media, who carefully concealed our protests — all protest — conveniently provided the war mongers their red carpet.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
As Norman Mailer put it, we have become a nation infected by “stupid and susceptible people.”
August 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
that comment goes both ways, too, Albert.
Or at least the left is so stupid and susceptible that it thinks that it can throw candidates in front of folks with labels like “war hero” and folks will just buy it. Remember the buzz around Wes Clark? Finally someone with military gravitas to challenge Bush. Then you guys discovered he was a psycho that almost started WWIII over an airfield and you switched to Herman Munster. Because he was a war hero.
Right….
And you thought America would buy it….
August 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
in other news, it appears that another person close to the Clintons has been killed….
If I was Larry (or Richard), I might start wondering aloud about conspiracies…..
August 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Sorry jd, but a lot of us around here wonder why Richard isn’t MORE of a conspiracy theorist. When Vince Foster got killed, was it the liberals that were the conspiracy theorists? No, it was people on your side. Just yesterday I posted about conspiracy FACT involving Hillary, whom I am very skeptical about.
What exactly is your point?
August 13th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Vince Foster “got killed”? Now, Larry? Who’s the conspiracy theorist here?
Vince was a suicide. Doncha know?
August 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Um…
You are jd.
Carefully read the last three posts and get back to me when you figure it out. OK.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:05 am
JD - there is cognitive dissonance in being right about Iraq but not, I suspect, as you mean it. The dissonance occurs in being proven right in such an awful way - thousands dead, thousands more wounded and injured, our national security damaged, international relations badly badly strained, United States’ image abroad greatly damaged and the loss of our moral authority on so many front. To be proven right but at such cost causes a profound sense of dissonance - a disconnect because being right is usually a good thing and in this case it’s not.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I’ve never seen it that way, Glenden. In my view, the dead and wounded are a necessary price that has to be paid for a remade Middle East. Until it became fashionable, most Democrats in power agreed (we won’t count Obama here because he was neither in position to vote on the war, nor in the position to have to bear the political consequences of his vote). Edwards, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al all beat the drums of war.
No one EVER said it would be easy. It has always been the “Long War”.
What “moral authority” have we “lost”? People who dislike or envy us do so despite our motives.
Our “image abroad” is badly strained? When wasn’t it? The mantra of the Left is “American Imperialist Aggressors”. We blew off the Czechs, they Hungarians, tried to invade Cuba, destabilized South America, financed proxy wars in the Third World, threatened the peaceful states of the Middle East, replaced heads of State with our own puppets, usurped the primacy of French Bordeaux, exported the Big Mac, gangsta rap and Baywatch, melted the Ice Caps, exploited the workers, ruined the beaches and brought plaid back into fashion. By God! We even beat the French in the Tour de France.
Is there any crime we didn’t commit? Any neighbor we haven’t offended? Any truly American trait that we shouldn’t be ashamed of?
It’s not cognitive dissonance - it’s a fundamental difference in how the Left and the Right look at the world and how they treat their unique American perspective. One side is embarassed by it. The other acknowledges that we aren’t perfect, that we make errors. That we’re sometimes a bit overzealous - but that we mean well. And for all of our faults, we help to make the world a better place for everyone.
I was watching CNN the other day, and a French “intellectual” was being interviewed about European “Obamamania”. He made the observation that as excited as the French were over Obama, that he couldn’t get elected in France because he’s black…..
Different ways of seeing things….
(sorry about the disjointed post)
August 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
jd, Randy Newman expressed your worldview in a song…
A majority of us don’t want to re-make the Middle East. We know it’s not possible, because Britain and France tried it and failed. We’re not willing to pay the price ($2-3 trillion) and we’re appalled as more and more of our fellow Americans die in a futile attempt to occupy foreign countries. Sooner or later we’ll make the politicians see reality.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
What makes you think that’s my worldview.
I’m very happy knowing that when I visit Peru, there will be Peruvians there. But I don’t take it personally when they complain about America. I realize that many French are horrified by EuroDisney. I also realize that it turns a tidy profit.
Recently, a friend was watching “Crash” with a woman from Jordan. At the end, she commented on how racist a country the United States was. He acknowledged that we had our problems and were working to fix them. Part of that process was embodied by introspective films like “Crash”. Then he asked her how many synagogues there were in her hometown of Amman…..
August 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
You basically said, “they all hate us anyhow.” That’s a worldview– not a realistic one, but it’s a worldview.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
JD - you are completely wrong about the way liberals and progressives view America. We aren’t embarrassed by it but we believe we can and must do better - we must live up to our ideals and the great American ideals do not and cannot flow from the barrel of a gun. Our military might has never been our real strength. The great vision of America is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society living in domestic peace. Our great strength has always been our living out the ideals of liberal democracy - being a nation that is reluctant to go to war, that prefers talk talk talk to war war war. Our leadership has always been moral leadership - whether it was visioning the League of Nations or the United Nations.
With Bush and his cronies, though, we reached the nadir of American leadership - a cabal of narrow minded morally stunted strutting bullies who believed we could use main force to remake the world. And their bellicosity and bravado, arrogance and ignorance, have utterly failed in the real world. War mongering, invading nations that posed us no threat are destructive policies, policies that Bush and Co sold to the country using faked information.
There was a time - not so long ago - that the US was respected by other nations; they may not always have liked us but they respected our ideals and our efforts and were willing to trust our leaders. For 50 years after WWII, the US was able to lead because we were respected. No more. The Iraq fiasco has destroyed that - it is so blatantly wrong, and we mistreated so many of our allies in the lead up to the war that it could only have cost us respect. The right, since Reagan, has tried to pursue a “go it alone” attitude believing we can use main force to remake the world; well you got it Bush and look what happened. A pointless, futile war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons - and for no reason at all.
When liberals love American we love it like an adult loves another adult - not afraid to see the faults and knowing that love isn’t enough and that loving criticism means honestly admitting the mistakes of the past and honestly owning the successes of the past to make a better future.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Depends on what you view the goal as Glendon, from a geo-political perspective the Iraq war has been a great success.
If the goal was to create instability and chaos, its working. The oil majors are making a fortune.
The game is on, the oil is closest to China, the chaos slows the event in China down, they face fuel scarcity…., Iraq, and Iran, are the closest markets for oil they need. 4 dollar gas hardly slows a real American down. Pedal to the metal.
Right now it is taking 2 weeks to buy enough diesel to run a semi for 1 day in China. We even have clear skies for the Olympics over Peking. The Iraq war has been a tremendous success for the power elite. Support your leaders, they have fuel to burn, and there is no point in letting the little people overseas have it.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
JD, you said, In my view,
Is THAT your world view? What YOU said?
Do you have any idea how sick and naive that is?
What I think everyone is trying to help you with, is to see that, not redefine it.
And certainly, some of us have trouble wrapping our brains around how anyone could be so loyal to some tribe…so invested emotionally, as to be unable to see how very wrong it is.
I keep reminding people, this is exactly the same authoritarian archetype that allowed the holocaust to happen. Authoritarian followers never start out bad, they just let it get bad, because of a kind of blindness.
I’ spent years in Germany in the eighties. Never met an ex-Nazi I didn’t like. Just never met a really happy one either.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“And certainly, some of us have trouble wrapping our brains around how anyone could be so loyal to some tribe…so invested emotionally, as to be unable to see how very wrong it is”.
Does a no questions ask policy carry over to Israel I pre-suppose? It is all making sense now. They are the people that taught us our current variety of torture after all. Islamic humiliation torture. Good stuff, lets send the Israeli trainers to the Hague as well.
Authoritarian racist assholes get a leg up when their surrounding populace is unarmed and thereby untrained in militant martial training. Nothing like a gun in the hands of those who know how to use it, to keep a racist trap shut.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Laughter at our expense is probably what keeps the maimed Iraqi people going.
Just not the same without Randy singing it:
Imagine that, written in 1972!
August 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Larry, 36 years ago that song was funnier than now because we didn’t really think the U.S. government would go over to the Dark Side.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Yes, Cliff. That’s my worldview. Sometimes violence is necessary.
Glen’s right, talk is better than war. Sometimes, though, the options are limited. Sometimes you have to fight. And sometimes you have to strike first.
Glen, your worldview is probably the complete opposite of mine, at least in how you expressed it above. Granted, the world is complex, and like a Pollock painting, what you see is influenced by many factors.
Where you see a “morally stunted strutting bully” I see someone who was willing to sacrifice himself politically for the greater good. War is rarely popular after it drags on - especially boys start coming home in metal boxes. GWB knew that opinion would turn sour - he stayed the course. Apparently, his Democratic critics came to the same conclusion - actual power and it’s attendent responsibility forcing them to be more responsible.
Iraq was a threat, to us, to it’s neighbors. Saddam was as bellicose as it gets. Had he an opportunity to do us harm, he would have. He’d already proved a threat to his neighbors.
And please, if your going to play RealPolitik, play it consistently.
No - it was because in a “Two Party System” we were the better option.
I don’t think Liberals love America as another adult. I think they consider America to be a child, constantly corrected, indoctrinated, shown the errors of it’s ways. I don’t see respect - I see a sense of superiority - Father Knows Best.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
jd, I believe in Real-politik, but lets be honest, dealing with Saddam was like like tossing an analog TV these days. We perceived him to no longer be of any use. He was thrown out like a pizza box we had eaten out of. Special order of course.
He was however an extreme danger to our current adversary Iran, having the good grace to kill about 1 million of their demon seed peoples with our help in the 80’s. Ah yes, the good old days, full of love for our man saddam. Terrible what a fickle lover can do to a man.
Boy, that looks like a decision that was pre-maturely made. Here we are 8 years post saddam, trying to re-invent the wheel.
The Shiite Republic in Iraq near complete, they just praying lip service until we vacate our asses from their real estate. Who was that said that time heals all wounds? Or is that wounds all fools?
and the beat goes on, la de da de da…
August 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Sometimes you have to strike first? Against any nation that might, at some future time, attempt to harm the USA?
Please consider what the world would be like if every country adopted your paranoid principles.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
JD - Nothing in Bush’s actions - from his relentless politicizing of the war itself to his Mission Accomplished stunt to his constant references to himself as a “war president” - shows any indications of someone willing to sacrifice himself politically. No, he rode the wave as far as it would carry him and once it subsided he has been left flummoxed and strangely irrelevant to the national debate.
Iraq had been a threat but no more. Ten years of containment was working - it’s military was incapable of striking its neighbhors. It’s economy was on life support. It was a toothless dragon. I’m not saying Iraq and Hussein’s Ba’athist regime wouldn’t have needed to be dealt with at some point, but 2003 wasn’t the time (and chances are good it would have died of its own accord and the outcome would have been far less damaging). We attacked the wrong enemy at the wrong time for the wrong reasons - and in the wrong way. It has crippled our ability to react to changing circumstances effectively. Iraq was contained and the international community supported that containment. We screwed up and screwed up big.
The idea that we have to strike first is false. It’s ideology dressed up as hard-headed realism and it’s a misleading and dangerous idea. It suggests we can shoot our way out of trouble. Reluctance to use force is one of the primary characteristics of civilization. Look at it this way: Al Qaeda’s actions are reprehensible but within their worldview are logical. We may not like them, we may not agree with them, but we can still talk to them, we can try to understand their grievances and goals. For instance, they object to the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and believe we should withdraw; that’s a point which can be explored, understood. Negotiation doesn’t guarantee you’ll reach an agreement but without it I can guarantee you won’t. Attacking first - a preemptive strike - is nothing more than naked aggression - a show of brute force. It’s an old saying but a true one “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.”
I disagree with your analysis of why the US was respected. After World War Two the US demonstrated extraordinary leadership we backed up our espoused ideals with actions - we put the Marshall Plan in place, we rebuilt Japan. It wasn’t just about creating good will, it was about taking very real, practical steps to improve people’s lives. It worked. That, more than anything else, was the core of a liberal vision of foreign policy, one that has too long been ignored by our government.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Here is Ike’s opinion on the concept of “First Strike” from pre-Korean war days. He summarizes Machiavelli. No first strike until it becomes obvious that the enemy is planning your destruction. The goal posts move continually.
There isn’t an enemy America has had since the days of inception that have not considered a first strike to blunt its ambitions, domestically and internationally.
Part of the Great Games’ considerations.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
jd:
Nice to see you still trying to rationalize the decisions of the worst president in history.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The respect gained from Nagasaki, Falugia and the like is certainly there. I continuously wonder if that is really the what we want to be respected for. Real politics aside, it is most disturbing to admit that there are so many of us that get off on killing others in distant parts of the world, but there are.
The other strain of ‘what makes america great’, would focus on our ingenuity, teamwork, and attempts at maintaining some sense of highground. Often that ingenuity and teamwork are directed in maintaining the military upper-hand. We’re stuck with it.
It may very well be an evolutionary dead-end. The cockroaches will tell.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:02 am
JD,
George Lakoff wrote a book that describes you exactly and even characterizes your syndrome as the “Strict Father”.
It is corrupt, shallow, and leads to terrible things.
You are so very wrong JD. People like you are the reason so many suffer needlessly in this world.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
You’re kidding me, right?
Awww, Cliff. You hurts my feelings. :(
Make me feel better. Tell me again how you’re changing the world for good! That always perks me up. Then toss out some of them time-honored obscenities! Whee!
August 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
jd - no I’m not kidding you. Even the most committed religious fanatic has a consistent worldview - it may seem completely insane and unhinged, but understand that worldview and you can understand his actions, you can make sense of what he does and says. Al Qaeda’s leadership is far from stupid (as they’ve demonstrated repeatedly) - we may never reach an agreement with them but how is there any harm in talking with them?
Why wouldn’t we try to talk with them? Why wouldn’t we say, “We want to understand you and why you do the things you do?”
What’s the downside?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hi JD,
I wasn’t kidding you. If that comes as a shocker to you, sorry (not really). I can only imagine, I am one of the few willing to tell you the truth. Most people just walk away from highly opinionated, closed-minded people, or just tolerate you.
I figure, I’m doing you and the world a favor to the extent that I might budge you in the direction of personal humility.
And, yes, I do include you in,
August 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Why Cliff, thank you. I was going to say the exact same thing to you. I fear that you sometimes live in this little OneUtahgeewouldn’teverythingbewonderfulif Bushwasgone “progressive” groupthink circle-jerk. Exposure to outside thought might help you open your mind and tone down your hostility.
Interesting that you still think I’m a white man. - but now I’m “old” too!
Glendon - pipe dreams. We’re too globally interconnected to allow a large segment of the world to slip back to the 7th Century. Guinea, maybe. Not the Middle East.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I get to decide exactly who you are until you prove to be anything but the way you represent yourself on this blog.
Thats how it works.
Contrasted to…My life, address, phone number, resume and professional activities are all available to anyone to see through Google. I choose not to hide.
The word ‘coward’ comes to mind when I compare your persona on this blog vs my transparency.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
But Cliff, I’ve never represented myself as an old white man. In fact, I’ve made pains to disabuse you of that notion.
But if it makes you feel better, and if you feel that your point is more poignant when directed towards an old white man, fire away.
And Cliff, you’re not transparent - you’re opaque.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
JD,
You’ve represented yourself as a firearm owner so, of course you must be an old white male….after all everyone knows those are the only ones who own or use firearms, right?
August 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Well, the other option is stupid, so bravely press forward.
It must be very agreeable to possess such an automatic mechanism for satisfying ones ego, as you seem to be able.
I see that in your judgments you share a number of similarities with our other “decider”.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
JD, I would bet a million bucks you are white and another million you are old.
Unfortunately, you cannot or will not prove me wrong.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I see Jd as a rubbery, flesh-colored dude, in his middle years. His only gun is one that gange-bangers threw out the window after a crime. It landed at his feet. He picked it up, cleaned it and now he is the master of it. It has a pet name, he won’t reveal except to those close to him. He will likely die in a country other than that in which he was born. Gold is his favorite color.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
You have liquid assets of $2 million, Cliff? And you’re willing to pay me $2 million in cash (or cash equivalent) if I can prove to you that I’m not white and/or I’m not old?
The way I see it, Cliff, this is an offer to a contract. You might want to run this by Albert real quick. Maybe we’ll define some terms such as “white” and “old”.
I’d have to say that I’m game, though. Would you like to set up an escrow account for the money now?
August 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Nope. Not a contract.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:26 am
JD,
Before I liquidate for escrow, I do need proof you are a man. You’ve never challenged that assumption, but now I’m wondering.
You’ll need to certify at your own cost that you have a set of balls attached in the right place.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:31 am
How could this be true if the surge worked?
Iraqi Government Cracks Down On US-Backed Sunni Fighters
I thought the surge was supposed to allow political reconciliation, not insure further divisiveness.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I’ve challenged all of your assumptions about me, Cliff.
Albert can write up a decent enforceable contract for you. I’ll have my attorney look it over. Then you can provide a letter of escrow and we’ll dance, Cliffy.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Ow, a million bucks finally gets jd to come out of his hidey-hole and maybe even tell us his race. I’m going to be real disappointed if you turn out to be one of those traitors to his race like Clarence Thomas or Armstrong Williams.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:38 am
WTF does that mean, Larry? Traitor to his race?
I’ll thank you very much to not pigeon-hole people because of the color of their skin. Sharpton was right, the Democrats feel ENTITLED to the minority vote - and what have they done for folks in inner cities beyond forcing them to be dependent upon their “betters”.
God forbid a black man like Thomas, Williams, Sowell etc. get “uppity” and bite the hands that feed it, huh, Larry?
Go back to huffing your jenkum.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Oh, come on jd. Stop being so enigmatic and just tell us who you are.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:12 am
It won’t happen Larry.
JD clearly lives an an unremarkable life as a white middle-aged, gun toting male. His best friend is an AK something. He never rises to a real challenge unless he has nothing to lose. He is conservative.
He uninteresting, humorless and without ’soul’. All personal choices for which he blames us.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:38 am
No apologies, Larry?
I’ve noticed that both you and Cliff are quick with the racial epithets. Why is that? Why do you and Cliff feel that you can get away with such disgusting behavior?
Surely, Cliff, you can’t think that the good deeds of your ancestors inoculate you from racism, can you? And this isn’t the first time you’ve been called out for being a bigot, is it?
Larry, I expected more from you. Shame on you.
Finally, it is none of your business who I am. You have no right to know my identity. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make my opinions weightier if I’m a Tongan transsexual does it?
If your answer is “yes”, you need to do some serious soul searching as to why it’s so important.
Finally, I’ve a great sense of humor, Cliff. You just don’t appreciate it because you are so often the butt of the joke.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I guess Harry Belafonte was being racist when he called Colin Powell a house negro, but he hit the nail on the head. Clarence Thomas has a much better status as the court negro under Scalia.
Cliff was right on when he said you never rise to a real challenge unless you have nothing to lose, which is exactly the reason monkey man attacked Iraq and Reagan attacked Granada. The problem is that now they’re in so much trouble of being incarcerated or hanged that they’re getting us into a war with Russia so they can steal another election and say the Americans are so stupid, they voted for Maverick McCain.
You’re a coward jd! Does that make me racist?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Whether or not you deem me a coward has no bearing on your bigotry, Larry.
You are not absolved of being a bigot just because Harry Belafonte is a bigot.
Your assertion that blacks are race traitiors if they don’t follow the Party Line set by Whites is despicable.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
jd, you can not be stupid enough to have gotten my point exactly 180 degrees wrong. State the purpose of your last comment so I can either patronize or ignore you.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
No need, Larry. You’ve already flown your flag.
Hopefully, one day you’ll see the error of your ways. You’ll understand that minorities aren’t just the pawns of the whites in power, bowing and scraping and thankful, Massa, for your magnaminity and generosity.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Yes, you’re right jd, I must have been in a bad mood. I have to get going now. Thank you.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Glendon - I was thinking about your initial post regarding cognative dissonance when I read this…