The odious Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The odious Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.

And why are they odious? Because they have the nerve to attack a free American citizen for merely disagreeing with them publicly.

“But, senator, can’t we have a disagreement about how charity is funded without calling somebody un-American?” Scarborough countered. He continued to press Schumer to answer his question. “Do you think David Koch is un-American?”

Schumer finally said, “The commercials he runs are not part of the American mainstream. No two people [David Koch and his brother Charles] should have such a huge influence on our politics. That’s not First Amendment … I think the commercials he is running are against the American grain and un-American, yes …. I think what Harry Reid was saying was the actions are un-American. And they are, and they should change.”

I wonder if people quite appreciate how disgusting this all is. Here we have two Democratic senators labeling a private citizen as being “un-American” because that citizen is vocally advocating public policies they disagree with.

Can you imagine the media (and Hollywood) firestorm if Senator Ted Cruz went to the Senate floor and repeatedly accused, say, Jeffrey Katzenberg of being “un-American”–and Mike Lee echoed the charge?

But hey, they’re Democrats, so they must mean well! In fact, they must be so correct that the proper thing to do would be for us to put together a lynch mob and get these un-American Americans. How dare David Koch, or anyone, criticize a Democrat?

Share

18 comments

  • Cotour

    Reid and Schumer are constantly painting the Democrat picture in the mind of the public. Lies and half truths are of no concern to them in the least, this is what concerns me:

    Top Republicans court Jeb Bush for 2016 run
    Philip Rucker and Robert Costa 3:54 PM ET
    Conservative leaders, seeing problems with Chris Christie and fearing a run by Rand Paul, consider the former Florida governor the GOP’s brightest hope.

    I for one will never vote for a Bush or any other dynastic politician and I suspect that there are many others who agree with me.

  • Cotour

    And on the other end of the spectrum, this guy and guys like him poison the word Republican, Conservative and Tea Party.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/karma-part-two-redneck-rage-viral-video-gets-driver-arrested/

    This guy and guys like him haunt and inhabit the dark back rooms of the American mind. Things like this are what discount anything positive that any Republican, Conservative or Tea Party member may accomplish or propose.

  • Garry

    Is there a reason people associate him with conservatism? Honest question; I’ve watched the video but didn’t pick up anything to tie him to conservatism, unless you believe in the stereotype of pickup truck drivers.

    I watched the full original video, and thought that the camerawoman was trying to provoke him (unfortunately, he took the bait). She’s driving fairly slow in the left lane for quite a long time, he tries to pass on the right at one point, and she speeds up. Using a cellphone camera while driving isn’t the smartest or safest thing either. Puling over at the end to get more film after his crash was pretty gratuitous.

    Frankly, they both come off as reckless idiots, and it never dawned on me to connect them with any party..

  • I agree with Gary. Why in the world do you assume these individuals are a “Republican, Conservative, or Tea Party.” All we know is that one driver showed extreme poor judgment, videotaping as she drove in the left lane at too slow a speed, while the other driver acted childish by reacting angrily to this poor judgment, thus resulting in a crash. None of this behavior is genetic to any political persuasion.

  • Cotour

    This is not a scientific experiment, we are talking about what people think in subjective, default mode. That guy and guys like him are overwhelmingly classified as Republican, Conservative or a member of the Tea Party. He may in fact be an Obama lovin Liberal to the max, but he is seen as being low information, machismo, Republican, Conservative, Tea Party, Rand Paul Libertarian lovin idiot. And that imagery all over the media reinforces that stereotype over and over and it does our cause no favor.

    Scientific evidence is not part of this conversation, this is not a court of law. You delude yourself if you believe otherwise. In addition, Gary analyzes the woman’s part in the event. She is invisible to the casual viewer, the only thing anyone remembers is the jackass. These are foundation problems with the image that a segment of the Republican party produces in the consciousness of the public and I do not know how to overcome that image except by an individual that is able to communicate and inspire. The Democrats biggest enemy right now is Obama himself and the Liberal wet dream, Obamacare, not competent Republican leadership.

    I will ask a question to the general reader of this site: What did you assume this jackasses political affiliation to be when you watched the video?

    (I would guesstimate that the result would be 20 to 1 would default assume that he was the stereotype that I identify him as. Ladies please contribute to this poll, that may drive the numbers to 50 to 1.)

  • You are wrong. In fact, your assumption, that the driver of the pick-up is conservative, is downright bigoted.

    For me, the thought of politics never even entered my head. I saw the video and immediately thought, the driver who was videotaping the event was acting obnoxiously, and the response of the other driver was as if not more foolish. I should also note that I first saw this video on numerous conservative websites, none of which considered the politics of the drivers at all. Instead, everyone was simply focused on their stupidity.

    Do you think conservatives are routinely this stupid? Apparently so if you immediately assume that these drivers are conservative.

  • Cotour

    I do not think that Conservatives are that stupid, my point is about how a majority of the general public would subconsciously classify the driver by his appearance and his actions.

    (keeping in mind that something like 50% of Americans voted for and empowered Mr. Obama. Twice!! )

    If I were to ask you the question: What political affiliation do you believe the driver of that truck was? And you maybe had not thought about it, would it be easier for me to convince you that he was a Conservative or a Liberal?

    He is driving a truck, he is a young white male, he has a shaved head, he is acting aggressively, he appears to be angry, he lives in Florida. Just based on those facts could I convince you that he was a Conservative Tea Partier or a Liberal? Maybe you are the bigot? Did you just put this guy in a class by his appearance and actions?

    Wrong? I think not. Bigoted? I am not a bigot. I endeavor to deal in reality as it is presented to me and weigh it based on my experience and common sense. Delusional? I really don’t believe you to be delusional but you may see things a bit narrowly and idealistically sometimes.

    PS: As an experiment I just had this conversation with a random person who saw the video and had not classified the guy as other than an ass hole, then I presented him with the observable evidence and I asked him how would he classify him, as a Liberal or a Conservative? He classified him as a red neck Tea Party guy, no hesitation. Did not even consider a Liberal. This is about what exists in the dark recesses of the American subconscious mind and how it is accessed and manipulated by those that would use such imagery to their advantage. Empowered politicians.

  • Cotour

    I had dinner with three people tonight, two ladies and one male. I asked the question based on the guys appearance, race and actions how they would classify him. The two ladies immediately identified the “a-hole” driver as a Tea Party / Conservative. No question, hands down. The male is so politically naive and unconnected to current events and politics he could not imagine classifying the guy in those terms.

    Their first impression of the guy was not that he was a Princeton Liberal. And as a matter of fact they all three voted for Obama.

  • All you are doing is proving that most liberals are bigoted against conservatives, something that is obvious to any conservative who has ever tried to have a rational discussion with a liberal. I think I have illustrated this point more times than I care to count on my webpage.

    What I find particularly objectionable here is that you make the same assumptions and come to the same conclusion. Just because they are bigoted why do you feel a need to encourage their bigotry?

    Or did you challenge them on it? Somehow I doubt it.

  • Cotour

    I asked the question in a neutral way based on what was witnessed on the video.

    Q: How would you politically characterize a young 30 something white male, with a shaved head, who drives a pickup truck, who displays angry behavior while driving and lives in Florida. You can extend the question by giving them a choice of a Liberal or a Tea Party member. Give them five choices if you like. Is the question leading? The question represents the facts.

    Those are the simple observable facts in this instance. Ask anyone that question and see what answer you get. I would confidently predict that 85% plus would stereotype / characterize them as I suggest. And I find it interesting your inability to understand that the imagery and stereo types that are projected and reinforced in our culture actually exist. Are you kidding me?

    What do you think perceptive politicians leverage in order get to where they want to get? Imagery? Stereotypes? Black against white? Rich against poor? The One percent against the ninety nine percent? “Evil” Wall Street? (they really can be evil) Lazy welfare recipients? As you read those words you created imagery of who you thought those words were referring to. Is that bigotry in your estimation? Are you a bigot?

    Have you ever heard this one ? (and many, many more) They cling to their Bibles and guns? Tell me who do you think he was referring to? How can you answer that question in I assume a politically correct manner that you seem to be suggesting it should be answered in? What kind of people is he talking about?

    I am only observing and pointing something out, I am not encouraging it as you suggest. Now that assertion is Mr. Zimmerman is a bridge too far.

    I consider this issue closed.

  • Garry

    Although I find myself cheering on most of your posts, I wish you would open your mind on this one a bit.

    I’ve seen my share of stereotyping, in many different situations and from different perspectives (as a straight white male, as a teenage, middle class farm worker where most of my peers were dirt poor, as the first in my family to go to college, as a racial minority living overseas for several years, as a graduate of a college that is considered elite by some and as producing misguided elitists by others, as half of a mixed race/mixed culture couple, as a worker in an industry where many assume that all male workers are gay, in another industry, where I’m one of a very few with no formal education beyond a bachelor’s degree. . .)

    I have found that the best way to weaken stereotypes is to challenge them. My approach has been to not tell people of my status (straight/gay, which college I graduated from, that I’m the first in my family to go to college, that I have only a bachelor’s degree). I love it when people find out something about me and express shock, and when they do, I tell them that they should never jump to conclusions. Occasionally it’ll develop into a discussion of why they made assumptions; sometimes they tell me something I hadn’t considered, but more often they’ll see how ridiculous it was to make those assumptions.

  • joe

    My take on this video which I did not see on any conservative site was, the guy in the pickup truck is apolitico, he has no party affiliation, he does not think! He only reacts to the stimulus. the women taking the video is liberal, she was inciting the whole affair.

  • Cotour

    I appreciate your story and your perspective and I regret that my observation may make you uncomfortable but the stereotype that I have identified related to this guy in the truck IMO is accurate. If asked people would associate the truck drivers actions much more with the Tea Party than any other.

    I again point out that I am identifying what lies in the default subconsciousness of the American public in general. If it is considered bigoted than so be it. Bigotry and racism does in fact exist in America, the antidote is not being outraged because it exists but understanding it and having respect for other people, whether you personally “like” them or not.

    To, IMO, deny it or ignore it and be outraged by it is not strategically prudent when trying to communicate in this political environment, that IMO is being politically correct. And as far as Mr. Zimmermans assertion that you can not turn a dyed in the wool liberal into at least someone that seriously considers their position if not someone that has a violent reaction to their previous political conclusions is a false assumption. True in many instances but not a universal rule. It is possible and I have the conversation every day with friends and others who have come to me and admitted that I had changed their point of view. The trick is to lay down agreed upon foundation logic and not participate in the confusing minutia that political conversations tend to turn into.

    I really do not understand the controversy here, ask the question yourself and see the general response you get. Prove me wrong with evidence.

    I also enjoy reading your well thought out opinions and comments, this one we will have to differ on however.

  • Cotour

    The issue here is how would you politically classify him if you were asked given what you can observe about him and his actions. If you were not asked and your mind had not gone there than so be it.

    Its funny, you define the woman as a “Liberal” and the truck driver as “A” political. Now that is interesting and you tend to prove my point. People tend to subconsciously classify people by their look and actions whether they are conscious of it or not. You have inadvertently proven my point but based on your, what I would assume anti Liberal bias.

  • Garry

    I’m not outraged, just puzzled why you seem to actively reinforce the stereotype rather than challenge people on it. I have no doubt that some people believe in the stereotype (along with many others), but I’d rather work to disabuse people of their baseless beliefs rather than reinforce them.

    The other side uses ignorance and emotions to try and manipulate; the best counter is to use logic and facts, while understanding that success will be rare. When people are made aware of their subconscious beliefs, they sometimes start to question them, often after initial denial.

  • Cotour

    Gary, observation is neither actively reinforcing or promoting something it is a purely objective activity. I change peoples reality / perspectives every day, dispelling them of what it is that they think they know and believe. You and others are misinterpreting my intent, step back and reread what I have written. You are reading it with a personal bias IMO.

    ob·jec·tive
    əbˈjektiv/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
    “historians try to be objective and impartial”

    “The other side uses ignorance and emotions to try and manipulate”

    That statement is absolutely true, however logic and facts do not effectively counter emotion (fear) and constructed facts . There is a technique where by you first learn to control a conversation by realizing when it begins to turn to confusing and distractionary minutia and dragging it back to the subject at hand. That is actually where potentially competent conversations go to hell and it ends not in communication but with two people at odds with each other. Politicians and provocateurs love this condition.

    Example: President Obama is bent on an un Constitutional trajectory and his stated intent is to fundamentally change America and the parameters of the office of the president and the Constitution.

    Reply: What about Bush and all of the illegal wars that he started!!

    Both statements reasonable and true enough, but if you can not get out of that loop your conversation is effectively over.

    We have all had that conversation and the whole thing turns into a shouting match, nothing to be agreed to or resolved. The subject is president Obama, the only way to continue is to find common ground: Both presidents have abused their power, that is their nature, we will get to Bush but lets determine what Obama is and is not.

    A difficult endeavor for sure but not an impossible one, especially given time and several conversations. So in conclusion yours and others beliefs that changing other peoples minds is an impossibility is not an absolute, IMO it is a depressing, fatalistic and dead end view.

  • Edward

    I agree, Coptour. When “the other side” realizes that it is losing an argument, it changes the subject of the argument or terms of the argument (e.g. can’t defend Obama? Attack Bush). Or they attack the person arguing with them (“you’re a racist”). The latter is what the odious Schumer and Reid are doing, as well as misrepresenting the Constitution that they swore to uphold.

    Preventing the misdirection of an argument is the right tactic to take. Direct the argument back to the topic that you are winning, press the advantage, and win the argument on your terms with the emotion that your opponent understands, but I don’t recommend personal attack (e.g. don’t call him a racist, even if he calls you one). Facts and logic are losing tactics, which is why Garry has rare success; they bore “the other side.” Don’t confuse them with the facts, except when they support the emotion, and even then, keep the facts brief.

    Emotion is why Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is so hard to argue. No one wants to hear the facts when the cute, fuzzy polar bears are dying, when half the Earth’s glaciers are disappearing leaving us to drown, or when Gore needs a scissors-lift to show how amazingly, boiling hot the planet is about to get.

    Re the article:
    Having a huge influence on our politics isn’t “not First Amendment.” It *is* First Amendment. That is precisely what the First Amendment was put there for, so that, among a couple of other things, the citizenry could influence the politics of this nation through speech, press, and petition of grievances. We the People do not have the power of the proposition, as a few states do, so speaking, writing, and petitioning our representative is all we have in order to influence those who govern. If we give that up, as Schumer and Reid want us to, then they end up with all the power, like tyrants, and We the People will have none.

    I noticed that Schumer did not complain about the press having a huge influence in his favor.

  • Cotour

    We as humans tend to see government as a “good” and paternal entity and the reality is that government is actually the peoples adversary. These lines between the two are not crisp clean defined lines they are blurred and that fact is where confusion, manipulation and abuse of power lives.

    There is the people, there is the government and there is the Constitution represented by the Supreme Court that is the fulcrum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *