The Roots of Obama's Rage - Dinesh D'Souza

[tbieter]

In The Roots of Obama's Rage, Dinesh D'Souza, the president of the King's College in New York City, presents a theory describing President Obama's worldview.
http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage ... 348&sr=1-1#_

The author contends that Obama's thought and actions are constrained by an anti-colonial mentality which he got from his father. Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., was an anti-colonialist in Kenya.

D'Souza describes some tenets of anti-colonialism:

1. Empires are produced by murderous conquest and sustained by unceasing terror and violence.
2. Colonial regimes are racist - they systematically produce the dehumanization of the colonized.
3. Colonialism is a system of piracy in which the wealth of the colonized countries is systematically stolen by the colonizers.
4. The colonial powers have a new leader: the United States.
5. There is no end to this system of injustice without getting the colonizers out.

Further,

"For Obama, the task ahead is simple: he must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. First, he must rein in the military so that it does not conduct wars of occupation against other countries. Then he must use American leverage to restrict military adventurism on the part of America's allies, especially the former colonial powers in Europe. Even symbolic measures of humiliation are helpful in showing the former European colonists that their day is now gone. In addition, Obama seeks to check American and Western consumption of global resources so that the former colonial (and now neocolonial) powers do not consume what belongs to others. Another objective for Obama is to bring the powerful sectors of American industry, such as the investment banks and health care, under government supervision and control. Obama seeks a large custodial state as a protection against the dangers of concentrated corporate power. Finally, Obama seeks to castigate and expose the rich, who are viewed as a neocolonial force within American society, so that they cease to be exploiters of the rest of the population." pp. 34-35.

"...Obama's anti-colonialism is deeply felt, and it suffuses his writings and speeches. In fact, it is the moral and intellectual foundation of his ideology. p. 35

I highly recommend this book. The reader will have the theory to use as a standard when he or she tries to understand and evaluate President Obama's future words and deeds.

[tbieter]

Having read THE ROOTS OF OBAMA’S RAGE by Dinesh D”Souza http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage ... 459&sr=1-1 , I decided to read a book by an author who admittedly admired the President. I enjoy reading intellectual history so READING OBAMA by James T. Kloppenberg was the obvious choice. I have just started reading the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Obama-Ame ... 816&sr=1-1

There is a difference between ROOTS and READING that is perplexing to me. ROOTS contains endnotes. READING lacks either footnotes or endnotes. It seems to me that READING should contain some notes. http://history.nasa.gov/footnoteguide.html

Without some notes in both books, how can the reader accurately and efficiently compare and evaluate the arguments and evidence offered by both authors in support of their respective theories?

And why would a scholar in American intellectual history fail to include any notes in his book which purports to describe the intellectual history and worldview of the current President?

[chaz wyman]

It seems to me that there is so much negative and false propaganda concerning Obama at the moment that we can hardly take any of this stuff seriously.
Dinesh D'Souza in particular is well located on the right and is likely to be motivated by his personal political agenda.
When coupled with the nature of the thesis he is presenting which flies far beyond matters of fact we could safely consign this one to the dustbin with much of his other work.
But even if we set aside the accusations of conspiracy and hermetic intentions of Dinesh D'Souza, against Obama, and take him at face value; I say so what? If Obama believes the facts that Dinesh D'Souza says lie beneath his sinister agenda then that would represent a breath of fresh air and truth for the world.

As for the presence of endnotes or footnotes, I don't see that this necessarily qualifies Dinesh D'Souza's book as more authoritative, and certainly not more convincing or believable. His wild claims are not the sort of matters of fact you can simply verify by cross referencing; it is a political attack from the opposite side of the political fence, not a sober and balanced analysis.

[chaz wyman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boH_tJ0mCrU

not the sharpest tool in the box

apropos of D'Souza

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1FT3iG1 ... re=related

[tbieter]

It seems to me that there is so much negative and false propaganda concerning Obama at the moment that we can hardly take any of this stuff seriously.
Dinesh D'Souza in particular is well located on the right and is likely to be motivated by his personal political agenda.
When coupled with the nature of the thesis he is presenting which flies far beyond matters of fact we could safely consign this one to the dustbin with much of his other work.
But even if we set aside the accusations of conspiracy and hermetic intentions of Dinesh D'Souza, against Obama, and take him at face value; I say so what? If Obama believes the facts that Dinesh D'Souza says lie beneath his sinister agenda then that would represent a breath of fresh air and truth for the world.

As for the presence of endnotes or footnotes, I don't see that this necessarily qualifies Dinesh D'Souza's book as more authoritative, and certainly not more convincing or believable. His wild claims are not the sort of matters of fact you can simply verify by cross referencing; it is a political attack from the opposite side of the political fence, not a sober and balanced analysis.

Have you read the book? If not, how can you comment on the book? Have you read any of D'Souza's books? If not, how can you criticize his work? If your answers are negative, then it is obvious that your response is rooted in ignorance and malice toward the author.

Why don't you read the book, its short, and then post your criticism here. We'll argue about the merits of the theory.

D'Souza presents an array of circumstantial evidence in support of his theory. Why don't you consider the evidence and then decide which standard, if any, the author has met.
____________________________
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

Standards of Proof:

Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 1990) provides the definitions of each in order of importance:

• Preponderance of the Evidence: the greater weight of evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

• Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or probably certain. This is a greater burden than preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the normal in criminal trials.

• Reasonable doubt: The doubt that prevents one from being firmly convinced of a defendant’s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the standard used by a jury to determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty. In determining whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must begin with the presumption that the defendant is innocent.

[chaz wyman]

It seems to me that there is so much negative and false propaganda concerning Obama at the moment that we can hardly take any of this stuff seriously.
Dinesh D'Souza in particular is well located on the right and is likely to be motivated by his personal political agenda.
When coupled with the nature of the thesis he is presenting which flies far beyond matters of fact we could safely consign this one to the dustbin with much of his other work.
But even if we set aside the accusations of conspiracy and hermetic intentions of Dinesh D'Souza, against Obama, and take him at face value; I say so what? If Obama believes the facts that Dinesh D'Souza says lie beneath his sinister agenda then that would represent a breath of fresh air and truth for the world.

As for the presence of endnotes or footnotes, I don't see that this necessarily qualifies Dinesh D'Souza's book as more authoritative, and certainly not more convincing or believable. His wild claims are not the sort of matters of fact you can simply verify by cross referencing; it is a political attack from the opposite side of the political fence, not a sober and balanced analysis.

Have you read the book? If not, how can you comment on the book? Have you read any of D'Souza's books? If not, how can you criticize his work? If your answers are negative, then it is obvious that your response is rooted in ignorance and malice toward the author.

I have no malice to him, That would lend him credibility. I'm just surprised that anyone would bother quoting from this right-wing fundamentalist christian polemicist.

Why don't you read the book, its short, and then post your criticism here. We'll argue about the merits of the theory.


I won't waste my time reading D'Souza for the same reason I won't read the bible anymore, or L Ron Hubbard.
Name one reference where his wild claims are supported form the words of B Obama rather than his father.
Does Dinesh quots from his favourite book which talks about the 'sins of the father', by any chance??




D'Souza presents an array of circumstantial evidence in support of his theory. Why don't you consider the evidence and then decide which standard, if any, the author has met.

Circumstantial evidence is not reliable. Having a guilty father is not circumstantial evidence, but guilt by association. You Americans are good at that. How many did McCarthy have put away? The views of Obama snr. are not the views of Obama jnr. It's not even as if they had much contact with each other.
Obama is not great, but he is the best president you've had since Roosevelt. You should learn to live with him for the next couple of years and not spread this childish propaganda.

The main problem with all this is that Obama would have to be a master at concealing the 'truth'. As far as Presidents go, his record has been somewhat better than average.


____________________________
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

Standards of Proof:

Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 1990) provides the definitions of each in order of importance:

• Preponderance of the Evidence: the greater weight of evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

• Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or probably certain. This is a greater burden than preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the normal in criminal trials.

• Reasonable doubt: The doubt that prevents one from being firmly convinced of a defendant’s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the standard used by a jury to determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty. In determining whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must begin with the presumption that the defendant is innocent.

[Arising_uk]

The title itself appears to give a clue to the authors view of Obama, as who says he's angry in the first place? Let alone in a 'rage'.

D'Souza describes some tenets of anti-colonialism:

1. Empires are produced by murderous conquest and sustained by unceasing terror and violence.
2. Colonial regimes are racist - they systematically produce the dehumanization of the colonized.
3. Colonialism is a system of piracy in which the wealth of the colonized countries is systematically stolen by the colonizers.
4. The colonial powers have a new leader: the United States.
5. There is no end to this system of injustice without getting the colonizers out.

1. Agree, although don't think that its necessarily sustained by "unceasing terror and violence" as thats generally counter-productive for an Empire.
2. Agree, but again not necessarily the behaviour of all Empires but colonists do appear to act in a 'racist' manner to those they've dispossesed.
3. Agree.
4. Doubtful as the Yanks don't actually colonise but I agree that they are acting as an Empire with respect to resources and what they understand as their national interest.
5. Well, it'll at least end this type of injustice.

If these are this D'Souza's thoughts then I think he's mixing Empire by colonisation with Empire by conquest to suit whatever case he has against Obama.

For Obama, the task ahead is simple: he must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. First, he must rein in the military so that it does not conduct wars of occupation against other countries. ...

See how he's equating 'neocolonialism ' with 'wars of occupation '? Still, this should be an easy one for Obama to achieve as its not the military but the govt that goes to war, although it is the military who has to conduct it and since America is not colonising the 'neocolonialism' also does not appear to be a problem either.

...Then he must use American leverage to restrict military adventurism on the part of America's allies, especially the former colonial powers in Europe. ...

He doesn't pay much attention does he! What "military adventurism"? Most of the former colonial powers in Europe wanted nothing to do with Americas latest ventures, although the newer Eastern Europeons seem keen.

...Even symbolic measures of humiliation are helpful in showing the former European colonists that their day is now gone. ...

We need him to tell us this? But what does he mean by "symbolic measures of humiliation"?
But I'm beginning to think he's worried about a possible future Europeon Military, if the Euro survives that is.

...In addition, Obama seeks to check American and Western consumption of global resources so that the former colonial (and now neocolonial) powers do not consume what belongs to others. ...

??!! Where has he said he'll be changing Americas 'national interest'? Although he might be more capitalist than Bush and think that 'we' should pay rather than bribe to get the resources.

... Another objective for Obama is to bring the powerful sectors of American industry, such as the investment banks and health care, under government supervision and control. Obama seeks a large custodial state as a protection against the dangers of concentrated corporate power. Finally, Obama seeks to castigate and expose the rich, who are viewed as a neocolonial force within American society, so that they cease to be exploiters of the rest of the population. ...

Given that the investment banks have just brought the economy to its knees I'm not surprised that he's considering stronger oversight, as are many western nations.

I have no idea why a nation does not have a national health service for its citizens so I'll take his word about the health-care.

The last bit just appears to be made-up from somewhere, as given the number of rich people who must have supported him for him to become president I can only assume they don't think he belives this.

Still, I'm amazed that people are writing books about him already!? Just has to be politically motivated so not much point reading I'd guess.

[Wootah]

It seems to me that there is so much negative and false propaganda concerning Obama at the moment that we can hardly take any of this stuff seriously.
Dinesh D'Souza in particular is well located on the right and is likely to be motivated by his personal political agenda.
When coupled with the nature of the thesis he is presenting which flies far beyond matters of fact we could safely consign this one to the dustbin with much of his other work.
But even if we set aside the accusations of conspiracy and hermetic intentions of Dinesh D'Souza, against Obama, and take him at face value; I say so what? If Obama believes the facts that Dinesh D'Souza says lie beneath his sinister agenda then that would represent a breath of fresh air and truth for the world.

As for the presence of endnotes or footnotes, I don't see that this necessarily qualifies Dinesh D'Souza's book as more authoritative, and certainly not more convincing or believable. His wild claims are not the sort of matters of fact you can simply verify by cross referencing; it is a political attack from the opposite side of the political fence, not a sober and balanced analysis.

Or you didn't read it, don't want to read it and just posted ad hominems.

[chaz wyman]

It seems to me that there is so much negative and false propaganda concerning Obama at the moment that we can hardly take any of this stuff seriously.
Dinesh D'Souza in particular is well located on the right and is likely to be motivated by his personal political agenda.
When coupled with the nature of the thesis he is presenting which flies far beyond matters of fact we could safely consign this one to the dustbin with much of his other work.
But even if we set aside the accusations of conspiracy and hermetic intentions of Dinesh D'Souza, against Obama, and take him at face value; I say so what? If Obama believes the facts that Dinesh D'Souza says lie beneath his sinister agenda then that would represent a breath of fresh air and truth for the world.

As for the presence of endnotes or footnotes, I don't see that this necessarily qualifies Dinesh D'Souza's book as more authoritative, and certainly not more convincing or believable. His wild claims are not the sort of matters of fact you can simply verify by cross referencing; it is a political attack from the opposite side of the political fence, not a sober and balanced analysis.

Or you didn't read it, don't want to read it and just posted ad hominems.

Have you read the Comminist Manifesto?
No??? And yet you talk as if you know something about socialism all the time.
Have you read anything by D'Souza? No?? Then how do you know my comments are not accurate?

[Wootah]

Or you didn't read it, don't want to read it and just posted ad hominems.

Have you read the Comminist Manifesto?
No??? And yet you talk as if you know something about socialism all the time.
Have you read anything by D'Souza? No?? Then how do you know my comments are not accurate?

No I haven't read it word for word.
I have read D'Souza's, What's so great about Christianity.

Everything you typed was a character attack and I called you on it.

[chaz wyman]

Or you didn't read it, don't want to read it and just posted ad hominems.

Have you read the Comminist Manifesto?
No??? And yet you talk as if you know something about socialism all the time.
Have you read anything by D'Souza? No?? Then how do you know my comments are not accurate?

No I haven't read it word for word.
I have read D'Souza's, What's so great about Christianity.

Everything you typed was a character attack and I called you on it.

Part of it was a character attack. But then I trend to think people who believe they have an invisible friend that has lived since before the beginning of the start of the Universe, and who cares about what you eat, drink and who you sleep with are generally not to be immediately trusted when they do academic stuff. And I was reacting to a childish attack by D'Souza on Obama that is not only stupid but unjustifiable.

As for the main thrust of the critique - it was based on a rejection of the idea that the sins of the father ought to be visited upon the son.
B H Obama is not the same as his father, and his father's views are clearly and obviously not his own. Further, it is highly unlikely that BHO would share his father's views due to the simple fact that they had a minimal time together.
If BHO was the radical Communist anti-imperialist, anti-american, then he would have had a great deal of trouble keeping that such a secret and getting to the position in power that he now enjoys.

[Wootah]

Part of it was a character attack. But then I trend to think people who believe they have an invisible friend that has lived since before the beginning of the start of the Universe, and who cares about what you eat, drink and who you sleep with are generally not to be immediately trusted when they do academic stuff. And I was reacting to a childish attack by D'Souza on Obama that is not only stupid but unjustifiable.

And yet I find, that having an invisible friend or sky fairy as I like to call it, no hindrance to logical debate. In fact I think I am so good at debating I even take on something that absurd to make it even when talking to you

Of course I joke but isn't it interesting/intriguing to you? Imagine what you could do with an invisible sky fairy on your side or even a dead Jewish zombie?

Partly (and here is the nail in the cross) I do suspect your rage and left wing rage does come from the source you mentioned. You are frustrated and angry to even have to contend in reality with such a belief.

As for the main thrust of the critique - it was based on a rejection of the idea that the sins of the father ought to be visited upon the son. B H Obama is not the same as his father, and his father's views are clearly and obviously not his own. Further, it is highly unlikely that BHO would share his father's views due to the simple fact that they had a minimal time together.
If BHO was the radical Communist anti-imperialist, anti-american, then he would have had a great deal of trouble keeping that such a secret and getting to the position in power that he now enjoys.

Well I can't comment because I haven't the read book.

[chaz wyman]

Part of it was a character attack. But then I trend to think people who believe they have an invisible friend that has lived since before the beginning of the start of the Universe, and who cares about what you eat, drink and who you sleep with are generally not to be immediately trusted when they do academic stuff. And I was reacting to a childish attack by D'Souza on Obama that is not only stupid but unjustifiable.

And yet I find, that having an invisible friend or sky fairy as I like to call it, no hindrance to logical debate. In fact I think I am so good at debating I even take on something that absurd to make it even when talking to you

ROTFLMFHO!!! Yeah!! Oh yeah. I've read you shit!!


Of course I joke but isn't it interesting/intriguing to you? Imagine what you could do with an invisible sky fairy on your side or even a dead Jewish zombie?

Been there, done that, grew up!

Partly (and here is the nail in the cross) I do suspect your rage and left wing rage does come from the source you mentioned. You are frustrated and angry to even have to contend in reality with such a belief.

Jesus was the first socialist. I have no problem with him as a human.

As for the main thrust of the critique - it was based on a rejection of the idea that the sins of the father ought to be visited upon the son. B H Obama is not the same as his father, and his father's views are clearly and obviously not his own. Further, it is highly unlikely that BHO would share his father's views due to the simple fact that they had a minimal time together.
If BHO was the radical Communist anti-imperialist, anti-american, then he would have had a great deal of trouble keeping that such a secret and getting to the position in power that he now enjoys.

Well I can't comment because I haven't the read book.

Then may I suggest you shut the fuck up??

[Wootah]

Don't rage Chaz.

[chaz wyman]

Don't rage Chaz.

~WHo? Me?