Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Can you define prejudice?

Would this count as prejudiced?

Update: More of the same here. Of course, the author will dismiss this piece of information because of its provenance, but McKinney has a history of consiorting very closely with confirmed enemies of our long-time ally. She speaks about the U.S. being an "honest broker," but that presupposes an equivalence between Israel and those who dispatch suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians and who apparently will not be satisfied while the state of Israel still exists. She’s entitled to her opinions and her associations, and she should be held electorally responsible for them. And, unlike this vaguely sinister silliness, voters can actually do it by means that are perfectly legal and perfectly appropriate.

Discussions - 23 Comments

It’s that -berg! This is both silly and obnoxious stuff. I have a much lighter story.

When I was in college, four of us lived in town (in Ohio), in a house owned by a founding member of the local WCTU. (She and her late husband had been missionaries in Africa.) Sometimes in the afternoon, she and her buddies played bridge in one part of the parlor; we studied in the other. (There was a partition, so sometimes the ladies didn’t know we were there.)

Overheard from the bridge game, my 87 year old landlady: "Well, two of them are, maybe three. But they’re all nice boys."

I believe I was the third suspect.

Mel Gibson doesn’t like you either.

Uh . . . well . . . she’s assuming you dislike black people and women simply because you’re last name ends in "berg". So, I’m gonna go ahead and give it a "Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s prejudiced." :-D

I’d wear that sort of outrageous criticism like a badge of honor.

Does ’conventionally’ describe ’african-americans’, a very bad label by the way, or is it describing ’liberal’?

If you take out ’liberal’ and use the sentence as is, the use of conventionally makes no sense.

Anyway, C. McKinney is an idiot and a sad testament to her voters.

Not prejudiced at all.

a) You wrote a piece. I read it.
b) Jewish organizations have been after McKinney for some time.
c)So given that many Jewish Organizations have been against McKinney it would not be "unusual" for person with a surname that has "berg" in it to be against Cynthia McKinney. Pure logic son.

Don’t hate the post. Hate the facts.

Sondjata -

What are you talking about? That’s not real logic.

You assumed he was Jewish because of his last name. That’s pretty lame, first off. Secondly, you made what is called an "accident" (in most Logic textbooks). Your self-described thought process went like this:

1. Jews are normally "against McKinney".

2. Knippenberg is a Jew.

3. Knippenberg is "against McKinney".

That’s not what I would call "pure logic", especially when you don’t know that Knippenberg is a Jew or that he has any involvement in any political Jewish Organizations. But please don’t come onto this blog and write that you used wonderful logic to come to a particular conclusion when you don’t have solid premises. If it was a definite fact that A) all Jews are "against McKinney" and B) Knippenberg is a Jew, you could logically conclude that C) Knippenberg is "against McKinney". But you can’t do that. So you don’t make sense to me.


Ahhh ... a take on the ’Don’t hate the player, hate the game’ B.S.

No, this is bigotry pure and simple.

A Cohen not a Jew make.

Or, let’s put it in terms you may understand ...

A Jefferson, a Rosevelt, a Johnson, a Demetrious, a Tre, a etc, etc, etc, not a black make.

Your logic is non-logic.

Not that it matters, but I’m not Jewish. In the part of the world from which my father hails, lots of non-Jewish names end with "berg."

Cynthia McKinney has a substantial record of supporting radical opponents of Israel. You don’t have to be Jewish to object to that. And I haven’t yet said anything about the way in which she has dealt with the substantial Jewish community in her district.

The hatred and disdain that she and the aforementioned supporter display approach that displayed by someone like David Duke. I don’t have to be the precise object of the hatred and disdain to object to it and vote against the person who displays it.

Joe, more than just bigotry, it’s STOOPID. Clearly this writer has no appreciation for the fact that most German-sounding surnames are just that...German surnames. Just another sad case of cultural and historical ignorance.


Clearly, if you know the secret handshake, Hamburg is a city in Israel. And hamburgers are a Zionist plot to keep the frankfurter down. Wait...oh, nevermind.

Seriously, this is not "prejudice", which is the act of pre-judging something. But even it implies that, somewhere along the line, the faculty of judgement was exercised. This pathology-on-parade doesn’t meet that test.

Seriously, this is not "prejudice", which is the act of pre-judging something.

I think it is. An opinion about Knippenberg and the reasons for his beliefs was partially formed because of how his last name sounded. This blogger created an irrational opinion of Knippenberg based on what she assumed to be his ethnicity . . .

Sondjata makes this: ahh, Knippenberg likes "conventional" Negroes who are bought by Jewish organizations like AIPAC. Out of this: ...Majette, a conventionally liberal African-American Democrat.... She’s projecting.P>Then she goes on to say that some Jews demanded money back from Majette and that Majette said she honored her commitments. Finally, she says Jews, J-E-W-s, donated to the campaign of an Alabama candidate, thus proving there’s a vast Zionist conspiracy and, by implication the berg in Knippenberg is a part of it.

Not prejudiced at all. Racists never recognize themselves as such.

Dain got it right with a single word.

Clearly, you are part of The Conspiracy, Matt.

(To be more precise, "predjudice" is the RESULT of pre-judging something.)

Pre-judging something ...

How about pre-judging all the people whose last names end in ’berg’?

Is that good enough?

I would say that I find it odd that A) he doesn’t say where this place is and B) what he doesn’t acknowledge that Jewishness is actually supposed to be inherited from the mother.

Hehe. At least she admitted that she was probably wrong about your ethnicity . . . sort of . . .


He’s a he....

Wha-? And I’ve been referring to him as a she all this time? You just ruined my mental picture of this person . . . now I have to start over . . . grrr . . .

Thanks for the correction. :-D


Since you can’t read. You should revisit the source articles in which the fact of Majette’s financing came from certain Jewish organizations and that certain members of said organization went on record as saying that they supported her as a "friend of Israel" against McKinney to be their congressional representative. These individuals are on record for saying that they wanted thier monies returned when Majette failed to hold up her end of the deal by running for a Senate seat. Similar funding events occured in Alabama all of which are a part of the public record to which I quoted and referenced so no one can say I made it up.

Joe Knippenberg is simply another Cynthia hater who tried in the article I critiqued, to imply that McKinney was
on the take" by out-of-state contributors to whome she would have to answer to, as if the same did not apply for Majette or Hank who is now receiving money from supposed "local" organizations but who I will lay bets are in fact receiving monies from larger national organizations.

Of course, though he has had all day to directly address those points, the good provost has failed to do so. Now I was humble enough to put in print a correction and acknowledgement that I had incorrectly associated Joes’ name with his ethnic affiliation, lets’ see if Joe is a big enough man to admit his erroneous logic in the article he wrote.

Not prejudiced at all. Racists never recognize themselves as such.


Prove me wrong. Recognize yourself to be the bigot you are.

Guido: Since you can’t read.

Did I misread this?:

ahh, Knippenberg likes "conventional" Negroes who are bought by Jewish organizations like AIPAC.

Or was it this that I misread?:

...Majette, a conventionally liberal African-American Democrat....

Perhaps it was the intentional mischaracterization of Professor Knippenberg’s words, in a pathetic effort to call him that which you are, a bigot, that I misread?

I assure you sir, I can read, although it is quite apparent you cannot proof-read. Jews donated money to the campaigns of Majette, rather than her bigotted opponent, and Arthur Davis. I got that. You did not need to re-post it here. You prejudged Professor Knippenberg to be a Jew because of his name and because he supports the opponent of an idiot as do they. I got that too.

You and I simply have different perspectives. You believe there is something wrong with an ethnic group giving money to, and expecting representation from, a member of another ethnic group. I do not. You are a bigot, I am not. I believe that when a representative consistently touts and votes in favor of Islamic terrorists, the would-be victims of their terrorism should contribute to, and expect representation from, her opponent. You apparently do not.

In the first televised debate, McKinney was the one who brought up the issue of being "bought" by contributors. Johnson turned the tables by pointing out that, by her own argument, she must have been "bought" by out-of-state contributors. I simply pursued a line of inquiry as to who her out-of-state contributors were, a line suggested by past experience as a constituent--non-Jewish, but a supporter of Israel (as our most reliable ally and the oldest democracy in the Middle East, as well as the only reliable guarantor of access to places holy to all "Abrahamic" peoples).

I knew from long experience that for McKinney, even-handedness meant asserting a moral equivalence between Israel and supporters of terrorism, between those who try scrupulously to target their armed enemies and those who try scrupulously to kill civilians. I also knew that McKinney’s attitude was born not of campaign contributions, but of some combination of her hard leftism and bigotry. She’s not for sale, not even for rent. I’ll give her that much. But there is nonetheless a reason why she attracts those who would like to see Israel gone.

And as Uncle Guido pointed out, Jewish groups have routinely contributed to her opponents...for good reason. There’s another reason as well, of which Sondjata is doubtless unaware, since he seems to know little about the district in which I have lived: McKinney’s district has always included a very substantial concentration of typically moderate-to-liberal Jewish voters. (It was once represented by Elliot Levitas, most famous for being one of the principal authors of the legislative veto.) Just as Sondjata is an out-of-state friend who supports what McKinney stands for, so national Jewish groups attempted to offer assistance to fellow Jews who were, er, "represented" by Cynthia McKinney.

As for groups requesting that Majette return campaign contributions when she changed races, there’s nothing wrong with that. They supported her as long as she was holding the seat that McKinney seems to regard as her birthright, but had no reason to support her when she abandoned that seat. If I give you money in anticipation that you run for Congress, and you turn around and run for a different office (where I might actually support a different candidate), then I’m entitled to request that you return your contribution. Nothing sinister there.

Guido: You cannot be serious.

It is a fact that since at least 2002 the major press has done it’s best to point out that McKinney gets money from Arabs (from out of state). Now you want to claim (erroneously) that by pointing out the Jews (another ethnic group) largely supported those running against McKinney, that I am racist? That’s a funny joke since it has been repeatedly implied that by taking "arab" ’muslim" money that McKinney is supportive of terrorists. No, that’s not racist at all. Not at all. Of course ANYONE who has anything nice to say about Palestinians must be in support of terrorism. Yes thank you. Not racist in the least bit.

Joe: So long as you can admit that:

a) Mckinney is unbought
b) that jewish groups (among others) have in fact used money to influence elections in favor of candidates who are sympathetic to Israel.

then we have no argument at all. Mistaken ethnicity aside, you have basically agreed with my charges. Thank you.

Now you want to claim (erroneously) that by pointing out the Jews (another ethnic group) largely supported those running against McKinney, that I am racist?

No, You believe there is something wrong with an ethnic group (if the ethnic group is Jewish) giving money to, and expecting representation from, a member of another ethnic group. It is that, sir, which exposes your bigotry.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2006/08/can-you-define-prejudice.php on line 1027

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2006/08/can-you-define-prejudice.php on line 1027