Unfortunately via DailyKos, which somehow attached itself to my feeds (came bundled with the download, I assume), but confirmed via Salon
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/08/qotd/index.html
QuoteWatching Fox News' morning show, "Fox and Friends," is a little bit like watching the aftermath of a particularly nasty car crash. Yeah, it's awful, but you just have to keep looking, because, well, who knows what mangled body parts they'll pull from the wreckage next?
Even by those standards, though, host Brian Kilmeade's performance on Wednesday was just terrible.
Kilmeade and two colleagues were discussing a study that, based on research done in Finland and Sweden, showed people who stay married are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer's. Kilmeade questioned the results, though, saying, "We are -- we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other ..."
At this point, his co-host tried to -- in that jokey morning show way -- tell Kilmeade he needed to shut up, and quick, for his own sake. But he didn't get the message, adding, "See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes .... Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society."
To their credit, at least the others
tried to take him to task for sounding like he had just stumbled out of a 1933 Munich rally...
:lulz:
And sadly, some subset of Americans were probably nodding along with the 'logic'.
:horrormirth:
Its even better, here is a longer snippet of the transcript:
QuoteKILMEADE: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics.
CARLSON: Are you sure you're not suffering from some of the causes of dementia now?
KILMEADE: You see, the problem with, uh. The Swedes have pure genes because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland, Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.
In America, we marry everybody, Italians, Irish.
MORRIS: So the study does not apply to us?
KILMEADE: The study does not apply to us.
That second line, from Carlson, just kills me every time.
But rat!
Surely the Superman could be considered a different species to us mere humans
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2009, 05:56:03 PM
Its even better, here is a longer snippet of the transcript:
QuoteKILMEADE: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics.
CARLSON: Are you sure you're not suffering from some of the causes of dementia now?
KILMEADE: You see, the problem with, uh. The Swedes have pure genes because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland, Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.
In America, we marry everybody, Italians, Irish.
MORRIS: So the study does not apply to us?
KILMEADE: The study does not apply to us.
That second line, from Carlson, just kills me every time.
That would be Tucker Carlson?
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2009, 05:56:03 PM
Its even better, here is a longer snippet of the transcript:
QuoteKILMEADE: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics.
CARLSON: Are you sure you're not suffering from some of the causes of dementia now?
KILMEADE: You see, the problem with, uh. The Swedes have pure genes because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland, Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.
In America, we marry everybody, Italians, Irish.
MORRIS: So the study does not apply to us?
KILMEADE: The study does not apply to us.
That second line, from Carlson, just kills me every time.
As an irish person I am proud of my Irish species.
Quote from: Faust on July 10, 2009, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2009, 05:56:03 PM
Its even better, here is a longer snippet of the transcript:
QuoteKILMEADE: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics.
CARLSON: Are you sure you're not suffering from some of the causes of dementia now?
KILMEADE: You see, the problem with, uh. The Swedes have pure genes because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland, Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.
In America, we marry everybody, Italians, Irish.
MORRIS: So the study does not apply to us?
KILMEADE: The study does not apply to us.
That second line, from Carlson, just kills me every time.
As an irish person I am proud of my Irish species.
KEEP YOUR ETHNICS OUT OF OUR SPECIES!
Quote from: Faust on July 10, 2009, 05:56:32 PM
But rat!
Surely the Superman could be considered a different species to us mere humans
:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth:
No, Gretchen Carlson, Kilmeade's co-host.
Words fail me. I must resort to emoticons.
:walken: :jihaad: :cramstipated: :cramstipated: :cramstipated: :cramstipated: :facepalm: :spag2: :ohnotache: :suu: :clint: :piss: :spittake:
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2009, 05:59:59 PM
No, Gretchen Carlson, Kilmeade's co-host.
I like the fact that the person who said Ted Kennedy should be viewed as a hostile enemy cause he was critic of the war attempted to be the voice of reason
:lulz:
By the way if you do some research you will find that her ancestors are of the Swedish Species..
Homo swedepian
so obviously she can not be trusted
:tinfoilhat:
Did he really say "species"? WTF?
:facepalm:
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! :lulz: Oh fuck, the look on Carlson's face as he's spluttering his babble out is priceless.
PROTIP: Do nevar listen to his radio show "Brian and The Judge", it will make you want to swerve into oncoming traffic.
Not to mention this was about people who stay married are less likely to get Alzheimer's, having nothing at all to do with "species or ethnics".
Which means the idiot, thinking he had an opening for his idiocy, took his completely unrelated bigotry and spewed it out in this "picture unrelated" conversation. Even his like minded co-hosts were stunned at his stupid audacity.
Did he get fired?
It's nice to see racists talking about European countries as "ethnically pure" while on this side of the lake the racist rhetoric argues the opposite. Each in their own little demented world with its own little demented problems.
So wait...according to this logic, I was already fucked because of the fact I'm a Greco-Italian-Anglo-Irish-Japanese-Czech-American, but then I married a Puerto Rican, and then divorced a Puerto Rican, therefore, I probably already HAVE Alzheimers. Nice. Thank's Fox News for the prognosis!
My mother's family is of the "never forget NINA" strain of Irish American. Both my parents are FOX fans. I can't WAIT to tell her about this. :lulz:
NINA?
No Income, No Asset? National Iraqi News Agency?
Yeah, I know, its No Irish Need Apply.
Across varying cultures that are "afraid" of losing their "ethnic identities," this is a common theme. The Afghan "wedding" I was at (more of a reception, really, but Afghans have no real "ceremony," just one big damned party), a speech was made by the groom's father which basically translated into:
DAMN I'M GLAD MY SON MARRIED A FELLOW AFGHAN AND NOT SOME DAMNED AUSTRALIAN CHICK LIKE HE WAS TEMPTED TO DO!
Luckily, it was said 1) in Farsi, so there wasn't a hope of me understanding it until someone translated it to me and 2) was a good 10 mins after I had left the party to put my kids in the car since it was after 2 for fucks sake.
...and that man was sooo nice and gracious asking if I enjoyed myself. And now everytime I look at him should I see him in the near future before we leave here, I will think, "And you think *I'm* a mistake, and therefore my KIDS are a mistake...well fuck you!"
Sad.
And yes, the "white, Anglo-Saxon" male of the US has been feeling this sort of "they're gonna getcha" from immigrants from a long, long time ago. That it can persist in today's mass media is well...an unspeakable horrormirth of epic proportions, but like I said above...it's everywhere.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 14, 2009, 05:07:17 AM
NINA?
Sorry. No Irish Need Apply, as Cain said.
My dad's said crap like that, Jenne. Except, it was masked as "we're going to loose our diversity if we keep marrying out!" Riiiight. :roll:
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on July 21, 2009, 03:49:28 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 14, 2009, 05:07:17 AM
NINA?
Sorry. No Irish Need Apply, as Cain said.
My dad's said crap like that, Jenne. Except, it was masked as "we're going to loose our diversity if we keep marrying out!" Riiiight. :roll:
It's another one of those statements that, while literally true, is total bullshit.
I've never really understood the whole idea of "heritage." I'm half-Irish (and apparently technically a member of the Fitzpatrick clan) - both of my grandmothers were Irish, neither of my grandfathers - and... as far as I can tell the total sum of cultural heritage I've gotten from that is that my mom occasionally cooks dublin cottle, some kind of potatoe stew. (but she's more likely to cook lasagna.) I know a some Irish folk legends and fairy tales, but that's only because I like reading about mythology in general (heck, I know more Egyptian mythology than Irish mythology.)
From one of my grandfathers my family tree goes far back enough for some of my ancestors (or maybe just blood relatives? dunno, not big on geneology) to have fought in the American Civil War. I discovered while eating dinner with one of my moms cousins last year. HE was big on geneology and Heritage and was trying to fill me in on everything that's been done by a relative in the past two hundred years. Apparently his grandmother or somebody was labouring under the impression that the guy in question was a Confederate scumbag, and they just recently uncovered that the soldier was in fact a Union soldier, and therefore brave and honorable. Everybody in that cluster of the family was now able to take pride in this - that because they shared a miniscule amount of DNA (on top of the stuff that everybody shares) with one soldier more than with the soldiers on the other (losing) end of the musket. I asked him why it mattered, and he told me that it meant I was therefore going to be a brave, patriotic citizen (and probably the same for himself, I think.) His identity was partially based on the deeds of an ancient relative
and was changed when he learned which side of the war said relative fought on.I'm all for cultural diversity and cultural mixing (I'm living in the same dorm as all the foreign exchange students next term) but the concept of Heritage, that you have a claim to a chunk of history and culture just by virtue of having been born to someone with the same claim, doesn't make any sense to me.
There might be a little more to your Irish culture than you think, actually, aside from food. That's more or less what I thought until I was reading up on Irish speaking habits (for lack of a better term). There are no words that translate directly as "yes" or "no," and the way they talk reflects this. Also how you swear will tell, supposedly. Excessive use of "fuck" and use of God's (or his family) while swearing are apparently very Irish. Even if your family's been in the US for a while, those ways of talking can still show up in the way you talk, given the way the Irish tended to stick together.
Anyway, yeah, it's almost bizarre the way some people cling to heritage like that. This is something else my dad does. He clings to the idea that our ancestors are the descendants of a rather fierce tribe from Scythia--we happen to share the last name but that's it. He's convinced we are and it's apparently integral to his pride or something, since he flipped out when I corrected him.
Modern Racism: protecting homogeneity in the name of diversity.
That is one nice thing about coming from mutts--we can't claim anything but our family name. But you end up getting the same thing nevertheless.
I have to say my dad made some damned fine arguments against me marrying into my husband's family based on the fact that since we came from a completely different set of cultures, this would cause extra tension and a lot of strain on a relationship that was already going to be difficult since marriage is pretty tough no matter what for a lot of people.
Different base religions, cultural practices, different languages...that does add up.
BUT and BUT...I don't know ANY marriage that DOESN'T have these things in subsets anyway. So to say that two people from two completely different backgrounds, religions or cultures shouldn't hook up and have a life together/have kids together...it's as close-minded as you can get. There are nextdoor neighbors who get divorced all over every damned country. Hell, in Afghanistan, they marry their first cousins all the time thinking this keeps it even FURTHER into the family...and damn, you don't WANT to scratch even the surface of what's wrong in their microcultures vis a vis in-law treatment, what happens to the kids when there's too many or there's custody battles, and how many wives it takes before the guy's figuring he's got it "made in the shade."
People like having identities. It gives them a map for interactions, adds meaning to an otherwise potentially meaningless existence.
I quoted someone a while back on "Ontological Security" if you want to search for it, I think something like that often goes on in cases like this.
I'm all for picking a label--it's a nasty habit that can't be broken and we're taught to do it from early on.
What's sad and difficult for me personally is the kind of rhetoric you have to deal with when you make the conscious decision TO marry outside the confines of your own culture. Making OTHERS upset and disgruntled over it--probably affects me more than it should. I don't give a shit if they're uncomfortable at having to speak in English to me or if my relatives are scared my husband's going to hare off to parts unknown with my children (that "Not Without My Children" movie REALLY made an impact in the 80's and 90's--it's just about all anyone knew of Muslims back then till 9/11). The fact I have to put up with it is just the outside of enough.
But I don't mean to go on about it. I have no stigma, I guess, except being middle class, white and educated in America. Those are enough. Therefore I have little to cling to that I have to lose. Perhaps my understanding of this is just a little skewed in that respect.
Here is the thread in question: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21181.0
QuoteThe links between honor and identity are stressed in constructivist writings on "ontological security." The concept was developed by R. D. Laing, but given a wider audience by Anthony Giddens,who reformulated it in his theory of structuration. Drawing more on the work of Goffman and Erikson than on Laing, Giddens contends that people need to reduce anxiety by developing confidence in their understandings of the physical and social world and the patterns of responses they sustain. The largely routinized nature of social intercourse helps people structure their identities and enhance their capacity for agency, and accordingly becomes a powerful component of their security system. People suffer acute anxiety when these routines are disrupted by novel or critical situations.
The concept of ontological security has been applied to international relations on the assumption that states, like people, seek ontological security. They are said to require consistent concepts of self that are generated and sustained through foreign policy routines. These routines are embedded in biographical narratives that government officials, media and intellectuals develop and invoke to explain and justify foreign policies. Policies at odds with these narratives and the values they encode can bring shame on officials if public opinion judges their behavior incongruent with their states' identity.
Thucydides' account of the origins of the Peloponnesian War is in every way consistent with the ontological security hypothesis. The narrative of Book 1 indicates that Sparta's decision for war in 431 BCE had more to do with threats to its identity than to its security. The rise of Athenian power was sufficiently steep to threaten Sparta's standing as the leading hegemon, and with it the identities and self-esteem of its citizens. Erik Ringmar suggests that wars are not only fought to protect well-established identities but to forge new ones. In its effort to develop a national identity, Sweden declared itself to be the leading Lutheran power and the heir to the Goths and their heroic myths. This biographical narrative, not just strategic considerations, required it to intervene in the Thirty Years War to protect Lutherans from the Catholic armies of the Holy Roman Empire. Jennifer Mitzen contends that states can become dependent on security dilemmas because the routines they provide, while dangerous, help to stabilize their identities. Leaders can adhere to these routines rigidly or reflexively, which has important consequences for conflict management and resolution.
There is an obvious overlap between my project and the ontological security research program. Ontological security recognizes that identities are structured around diverse narratives and values, which once established give leaders strong incentives to act consistently with them, or at least to defend their policies with reference to them. Self-esteem, I will argue, is a critical component of identity, and is maintained through the quest for honor or standing. Understanding this relationship, how it functions at both the individual and state levels, and how they are linked, can provide insights into a largely neglected but important set of motives for state behavior.
"We all just need to keep fuckin' each other 'till we're all the same color."
/
(http://media.sbs.com.au/films/upload_media/site_28_rand_1504322362_bulworth_maxed.jpg)
I'm not arguing (and I don't think GA or Jenne is, either) that heritage is not a valid part of someone's identity. Cultural heritage is different than Heritage as GA is using it, I think. Who your ancestors are means relatively little, but especially if you haven't done anything with your own life. It's fun to know, sure, but really? You can be x ethnicity without having the fact that you're related to y person who is a x be super important.
It's an easily manipulatable thing because it does have such a visceral appeal to most people. I've watched it happen in immigrants as loosely rooted as my own husband. The pull of that tie between you and your homeland, culture, upbringing, etc. has on your emotions, behaviors and decisions is amazingly scary and strong.
So when the media decides to blast this study or that study, or a mob of people take up the proverbial pitchforks and cudgels against another group or family of so-called outsiders...it's just more of the us vs. them mentality that does nothing but stir shit and destroys.
You can build unity through other means, but this one is so ready to hand, and it works very well most of the time. And yeah, the fallacies it perpetuates have their own ripple effects, the historical evidence of which can be seen in works like death camps and mushroom clouds.
Again, I don't mean to go on about it...but somehow one day I have to sit my children down and probably explain why following lockstep in either direction their parents have taken wouldn't do them any good. Forging their own road is fine--and I'm not always sure my husband will agree...mostly because he sees both sides and can go either way depending on the nature of the particular conversation and who he's conversing WITH.
We Americans keep-a marryin outside our SPECIES!!
\
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/arguy1973-89923-albums-redneck-dogs-pic6098-hillbilly-dogs.jpg)
It's a Kind of Magic!!
\
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/arguy1973-89923-albums-redneck-dogs-pic6098-hillbilly-dogs.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 05:13:19 PM
"We all just need to keep fuckin' each other 'till we're all the same color."
/
(http://media.sbs.com.au/films/upload_media/site_28_rand_1504322362_bulworth_maxed.jpg)
. . . :?
but those two guys are the same colour . . . and I don't mean red, white and blue
Movie = "Bullworth".
See it.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2009, 07:15:57 PM
Movie = "Bullworth".
See it.
Cheers for the rec I just iMDB'd it & it looks interesting - I'd never heard of it. If I watch it will it clarify the point or is it just a cool movie . . ?
Both.
Quote from: Squid on July 23, 2009, 05:08:11 PM
We Americans keep-a marryin outside our SPECIES!!
\
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/arguy1973-89923-albums-redneck-dogs-pic6098-hillbilly-dogs.jpg)
ZOMG...that's an instant classic if I never saw one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z2mLOTe6Lo
oh and he pretty much LOOKS like those dogs when you watch him speak.
plus the added "Huh." at the very end. = :lulz: