Welcome to


Rage, rage
against the
Lying of the Right


~~~~~~~
The MANIFESTO
~~~~~~~
LIBERAL VALUES...
Yes.
We have them.


My Left Wing
-- The STORE --
"Rage, Rage Against the Lying of the Right" - THE T-SHIRTS: Bumper Stickers & MORE



Doug Band --
Political Insider


Niranjan Shah

Donate
via PayPal...



For One Time Donations,



blog advertising is good for you




blog advertising is good for you


Active Users
Currently 4 user(s) logged on.



blog advertising is good for you



The BLOG ROLL


IN THE SPOTLIGHT:
Angry Black Bitch

ANTI-WAR.COM

Be-Think

Black Amazon
(Having Read the Fine Print...)

Blogging for Michigan

Blue News Tribune

Cage Prisoner

Frederick Clarkson

Coffee Party USA

Cooperative Research

Could Everyone Please Stop Pissing Me Off?

Cyrano's Journal Online
Cyrano's Journal - Thomas Paine's Corner
Docudharma

The Field Negro

The Free Speech Zone

Governmentality

Hollywood, Interrupted
Independent Bloggers Alliance
Kindly P?g Mo Th?in

Margaret & Helen

The Musings of a New Millennium Nigga

New Black Woman

New Media Journal

Passive Ranting

newsroom-l.net

Presidential Watch 08

Progressive Blog Digest

Stop the Drug War

Stranahan.com

The Strange Death of Liberal America

Surf Putah (wu ming)

Too Tired to Mingle

Unite for Strength

Maryscott's
MUST
READS:


Baghdad Burning

The Blogging Curmudgeon
Culture Kitchen
Deus Ex Malcontent

The Field Negro

I Blame the Patriarchy

The Immoral Minority

Kid Oakland

Loopy News

DAVID PODVIN

RUDE PUNDIT

Who is IOZ?


(Blog Roll Continues Below)


Donate
via PayPal...

tumblr analytics





KIVA MicroFinance
~~~~~



There is another blogroll in the left column, y'know:
"Blogroll Part Deux" and "Other Interesting Sites."

BLOGS OF NOTE


2 Political Junkies

FIVE THIRTY EIGHT

13 Martyrs

10,000 Monkeys &
A Camera

Acephalous

Aftermath News

The Agonist

Air America Links

Alas, A Blog

Alliance Forums

Allies Of Evil

All Spin Zone

The Alna Erratic

Alternate Brain

American Liberalism Project

American Street

American Torture

Amor Mundi

Analog Guy in a Digital World

Angry Black Bitch

Ang's Weird Ideas

Annatopia

Annie's Annals

Anonymoses

Arabisto

are you effin' kidding me?

Argue with Everyone

An Average American Patriot

A View From A Broad

At Largely



Banality Fair

Banksy

BarBlog

Barely Political

Bark Bark Woof Woof

Bartcop

Batemania 365

Beggars Can Be Choosers

bellatrys

Berks Democrats

Be-Think

Better Bad News

Beyond Political Center

Big Brass Blog

Bigmouth Frog (conservative site)

Bildungblog

The Billboard Project

Bitch Ph.D.

Black Agenda Report

Black Amazon
(Having Read the Fine Print...)

Black Commentator
Blast Off!

Blog for America

Blog for Arizona

The Blogging Curmudgeon

Blogging Olbermann

Blogging Out Loud

BlogHer

Blondesense

The Bloviator

Blue Gal

BlueNC

Blue News Tribune

Boadicea

Bodwyn Wook

Body & Soul

The Bonddad Blog

Booman Tribune

BOP News

Brains & Eggs

Bring It On

Brown Bloggers

The Brutal Truth

Buckeye State Blog

Bulworth

Buzzflash

By Neddie Jingo!



Cafe Left

Calling All Wingnuts

Campaign Follies

Candide's Notebooks

Cantankerous Bitch

Capitol Annex

chandrasutra

Channeling Durrati

A Chinchilla of Hope

Chronic Campaign

C & J Cafe Blog

Clark Community Network:
Securing America

Clear Thinkers for Truth

Clusterfuck Nation: James Howard Kunstler

Code Pink

Coffee House Studio

Coffee Party USA

Juan Cole

Collective Interest

Comments from Left Field

Complete Control

Joe Conason

Conceptual Guerrila

Confined Space

Connecticut BLOG

Connecting.the.Dots

Consider the Boot

Cooperative Research

David Corn

Corrente Wire

Cottonmouth

Could Everyone Please Stop Pissing Me Off?

Counterpunch

Coyote Banjo

Crablaw Maryland Weekly

Crimes & Corruptions
of the
New World Order

Crimethink

The Crolian Progressive

Crooked Mile

Crooked Timber

Crooks & Liars

Cuddlefish
Culture Kitchen
Cut to the Chase

Cyrano's Journal Online



The Daily Background

The Daily Bailey

Daily Delaware
Daily Democrat
The Daily Gotham (liza)

Daily Granola

Daily Howler

Daily Mendacity

Daily Moonbat

The Daily Pulse

dameocrat

Daughters of Vietnam Veterans
Dave Topper
The DCF News

DC Media Girl

D-Day

Dean's World

Declarations of Pride

Debsweb

Deeper Left

Defense Tech

Dem Bloggers

Democratic Underground
The DemoProtestant
Demosthenes

Des Femmes

Diatribune

The Digest of Opinions

Digital Media Tree

Disciples from the Left

Discuss It

Disenchanted Idealist

Disgusted in St. Louis

Disillusioned Lefty

The Disputed Truth

The Divided States of Bushmerika

Docudharma

Dog-gone Springs

Dohiyi Mir

Donkey Dish

Donkey O.D.

Donkey Rising

Downing Street Memos

Driftglass

Dr. Laniac

Dr. Scott's Pulp Culture

Drug War Rant

Dump Bush Now

Dusty Doggie


Echidne of the Snakes
EcuProphets

Eternal Hope

Econbrowser
Ehrensteinland
Electronic Darwinism

ePluribus Media

The End of the World

European Tribune

Evangelical Right

Evil George

Evil Slutopia

Explaining Liberal Principles



Faboo Mama

Fact or Myth

Fafblog

Faithfully Liberal

Faithful Ohio

The Fat Lady Sings

Michael Fauntroy

Feminist Blogs

Feministe

Feministing

The Field Negro

Financial Armageddon

firedoglake

First Freedom First

flatearthscience dot com

folkbum's Rambles & Rants

Frameshop

Frederick Clarkson

Freedom's Fire

Freeway Blogger

The Fringe Element

FunkyPix2

Fuzzy & Blue



Leonce Gaiter

The Galloping Beaver

Geek Philosopher

George W. Bush:
The Officious Forum

* Goldfish and Clowns (*conservative site)

Goat Rope

Gordon Coale

Governmentality

Grassroots Democrats

Grassroots for Gore

Grateful Dread

Greater Democracy



Hammer of the Blogs

Happening Here?

Harold's Blog

Bob Harris

Heathbar's Crunch

The Hindsight Factor

History News Network

The HNIC

Hoffmania

The Hollywood Liberal

(U.S.) House Digest

Howard Empowered People

The Huffington Post

Hugoboy (Hugo Schwyzer)

Hullabaloo (Digby)

Humanist News Network

Hypnocrites



I Am Not Who I Think I Am

I Blame the Patriarchy

I Can't Believe It's Not A Democracy!

I Dreamed I Saw Grace P. Last Night

Illiterate Electorate

Impolitical
Independent Bloggers Alliance
IndyMedia: Portland

Information Clearinghouse

Informed Dissent

In Search of Utopia

Interesting Times

Intrepid Liberal Journal

Molly Ivins



Jack and Jill Politics

Jezebel

Joshing Politics

Journeys with Jood

Just Barking Mad (right-wing site)



Kid Oakland
CLOSED till After Elections

The Kentucky Democrat

Keyboard Revolutionary

Kiko's House

Kindly P?g Mo Th?in

Mark A. R. Kleiman

The Krile FIles



Lady Jayne's Blog

Lassiter Space

Last Left Turn
Before Hooterville

Latin Pol??tico

La Vida Locavore

lawnorder

Lawrence of Cyberia

Lawyers, Guns & Money

Left Coast Breakdown

Left of Center

Left Word

The Lefty Directory

Le Speakeasy

Less People Less Idiots

Levity in Action

The Liberal Avenger

Liberal Common Sense

Liberal Catnip

A Liberal Dose

The Liberal Girl Next Door

Liberal Kudos Corner

Liberal Pro

Liberal Oasis

A Liberal Stance
On Politics

Libertarian Common Sense

Liberty Street

Librocrats

Lindberg Web

Linkmeister

Little Wild Bouquet

Losing the War on Humor

Low & Left

Lyssa Strada



Mad Cow Morning News

Madeleine Begun Kane

Mad Melancholic Feminista

Mahablog

Maine Women Authors & Progressive Politics

Main & Central

Mainstream Baptist

Majikthise

Making Conservatives Cringe
Since 1977

Margaret & Helen

Taylor Marsh

Mary MacElveen

Matters of Spirit

Mark Maynard

MCCS1977

Kate McKinnon

Media Girl

Media Needle

Medulla Noodle

Mend It Don't End It

memeorandum

Mia Culpa

Michael Moore

Michigan Liberal

Mickey Z

MigraMatters

Mo Betta Meta

Mockingbird's Medley

Mock, Paper, Scissors

The Modern Patriot

Moon of Alabama

MotvallsBloggen

Mushtown Media Corp.
(Tony Seybert)

Musing's Musings

The Musings of a New Millennium Nigga

Muzikal Thoughts

MyDD

My Floating Worlds

My Right Wing

Mystery of the Haunted Vampire
(Carnacki)

My Three Cents



Nacogdoches County Democratic Party

Namaste

Narco News

The Narcosphere

David Neiwert

Never in Our Names

News Corpse

News Hog

News Hounds

News Rack Blog

Newseum

New Worlds Blog

Nick Ragone

Night Bird's Fountain

No Capital

No Quarter

Notes from the Underground

NYCO's Blog



The Obfuscation Report

Oh Well

The Oil Drum

Old American Century

Oliver Willis

Omir the Storyteller

Once Upon A Time...

One Flew East

Online Blog Integrity

ONLINE INTEGRITY

On the Left Tip
Open Left
Open Your Mind's Eye

Orange Gearl

The Osterley Times

Our Word

Overseas Vote



Pacific Northwest Portal

The Pacific Tribune

Pacific Views

Pages in Color

Pam's House Blend

Pandagon

Pandas Thumb

The Paper Tiger

Paperwight's Fair Shot

??Para Justicia y Libertad!

Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America

( ... parenthetically speaking)

Passive Ranting

Pastor Dan

Patriot Daily:
Economic Class Warfare
Patterns That Connect
(Paul Rosenberg)

Peace Gone Wild

peace, order & good government, eh?

Peace Takes Courage

Pen and Sword

Penndit (Newsie8200)

The Pennsylvania Progressive

A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

The Petrellis FIles

Philobiblon

phronesisaical

The Pioneer Exchange

Planet of the Feminist Supervixens

Planet Hilker

Plunderbund

DAVID PODVIN

POLITICAL CORTEX

Political Physics

Political Sapphire
(shanikka)

Political Strategy

Political Theatre Blog

Politics, Sex, Humor, Complete Dysfunction & Assorted Other Musings

politizine

Politology
(Tunesmith)

The Poor Man

Possumworld (lupin)

The Prairie Wrangler (Canada)

Press Is Sedated

Progressive Blog Digest

Progressive Blue

Progressive Gold

Progressive Historians

Progressive Islam.org

Progressive Lyceum

Progressive Pols

Progressive Puritan

Progressive Society

Progressive Wave

Progress, Youth

The Psychotic Patriot

PTSD Combat (ilona)

Public Resistance

Pursuing Tzedek



Quizlaw



Radical Left

random_speak

Ranger Against War

Rational Disturbance

Raw Story

The Reaction Blog

The Real Religious Left

ReBelle Nation

Red Jenny

Red State (conservative Republican site)

refinish69

Rent-A-Negro

Rhode Island Law Journal

Right Wing Snarkle

Rigorous Intuition

Robwire

Rochester Turning

Rook's Rant

Stephen C. Rose

Rosee's Rest Stop

Rox Populi

RUDE PUNDIT

The Ruth Group



Sadly, No!

Sargasso
Sasha Undercover
The Satirical Political Report

Satiric Mutt

SAUDI JEANS

Science & Politics

Schmoo On the Run

Scrutiny Hooligans

Seeing the Forest

See No Evil:
The Blinding of America

Sepia Mutiny

Serious Kidding

Shakespeare's Sister

Sic Semper Tyrannis

The Sideshow

siclik

The Side Track

Sideways Mencken

The Silence of Our Friends

Simply Left Behind

Sisyphus Shrugged

skippy the bush kangaroo

The Sleeper Cell

The Smack Dog Chronicles

Smashed Frog

The Smirking Chimp

Snafu Principle

Spiiderweb

Spot-On

State of the Qusan

Station Charon
Steven Berlin Johnson
Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Stop the Drug War

Straight Not Narrow

Stranahan.com

The Strange Death of Liberal America

Street Prophets

Andrew Sullivan

Swing State Project

Suburban Guerilla

Survivor: Left Blogistan

Swerve Left

Talking Points Memo
Talk to Action

The Tempest

Tennessee Guerilla Women

Thomas Paine's Corner

Thong Speed

Thought Theater

Three Cents

Tikun Olam

A Tiny Revolution

Tom Dispatch

Tomorrow Happens

Too Tired to Mingle

Town Called Dobson

TPM Cafe

The Tradesports Political Maven

Truespeak

The Truffle

Truth, Justice & Peace

Twisted Chick

Two Babes & a Brain



Uggabugga

Unclaimed Territory
(Glenn Greenwald)

Uncorked / Medley

Unheard No More

Under the Lobsterscope

United States of Jamerica

The Unrepentant Individual

Unscrewing the Inscrutable



Velvel on National Affairs

Virtual Citizens

Vituperation Toxicity

The Voter's Bitch



Waiting for Dorothy

Waiting for Vizzini

War and Piece

Washblog

The Washington Note

Washington Woman

Wash Park Prophet

Watching America

Watching Politics

Wayne Madsen Report

Wee Hours

The Well-Armed Lamb

Woody Guthrie's Guitar

West Virginia Blue

The What Do I Know Grit

What She Said!

White Noise Insanity

Who is IOZ?

The Whole American Hog

Wiz Bang
James Wolcott

Women's Autonomy...

Wonkosphere

Working Life

World O' Crap

Worldwide Sawdust
>
Writer Ross

Writing On the Wal

WTF Is It Now?

Wulfgar



Yikes!

You Forgot Poland!

Your Three Cents



Zen of Eller



IRAQ & MILITARY BLOGGERS

CENTCOM - U.S. Central Command

Cigars in the Sand

Common Cause:
Eye On Iraq

A Family
In Baghdad

IAVA: Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans

IAVA Blog

Iraq Casualty List

Iraq Occupation Watch

I Should Have
Stayed Home

Lieutenant C

Major K

One Pissed Off Veteran

Range Against War

The Sergeant Major's
Thoughts On That

Soldiers for Truth

SOLDIERS PARADISE II

This Fucking War

Thunder 6

Winter Soldier

THE
SOAPBLOX
NETWORK


SoapBlox:
The Software Blog
MLW is a SoapBlox Blog!

- American Liberalism
- AZNetroots (AZ)
- Below Boston
- Be Think
- Bleeding Heartland (IA)
- Blogging for Michigan
- Blogs United
- Blue Forests (WA)
- Blue Hampshire (NH)
- Blue House Diaries
- Blue Indiana
- Blue Jersey
- Blue Mass. Group

Blue News Tribune
- Blue Oklahoma
- BlueSunBelt.com
- Burnt Orange Report
- Calitics (CA)
- Cheap Round Trip
- Cobalt 6
- East Michigan Blue
- Encourage Education
- Colorado Pols
- CT Smart Growth
- Daily Kingfish (LA)
- Draft Rick Noriega
- Democratic Central
- Educator Roundtable
- Felicifia
- Fireside 14
- Florida Politics
- Florida Workforce Housing
- Free State Politics (MD)
- FluWiki Community
- Great Education
- GreenMountainDaily (VT)
- Howling Hex
- In A League of Her Own
- Interestingness.org
- Invest Every Month
- Left in Alabama (AL)
- Left in the West (MT)
- nmfbihop (NM)
- MassRevolutionNow
- Michigan Liberal
- MN Campaign Report
- myDedham
- My Left Wing
- Muckraking Mom
- Never in our Names
- Open Left
- Organic American
- Organic Canadian
- Pacific Progress
- Pacific Voices
- Pam's House Blend
- Peace is Active
- Peak Soil
- People's Republic of Florida
- Prairie State Blue (IL)
- Progressive Connection
- Progressive Historians
- Radical Russ
- Raising Kaine (VA)
- Red Mass Group
- Reform Fairfax
- Re-media.org
- South Carolina '08
- SquareState (CO)
- Swing State Project
- Talking Stoneham
- Texas Kaos
- Texans For Obama
- The Albany Project (NY)
- Tondee's Tavern (GA)
- Truth & Progress
- Turn Maine Blue (ME)
- USAbroad.org
- VT Impeach
- Wasatch Watcher (UT)
- Worldwide Sawdust
- WVa Blue (WV)

Newer SoapBloxen
- Cure This
- Loaded Orygun (OR)
- Maat's Feather
- My Silver State (NV)
- Native American Netroots
- New Nebraska Network (NE)
- Plant's Review of Books
- RI Future (RI)
- Show Me Progress (MO)
- Stand for John
- BlueGrassRoots (KY)
- Docudharma
- SFKossacks
- Daily Delaware (DE)
- Bad Lands Blue (SD)

Special SoapBloxes
- Colorado Confidential
- Iowa Independent
- Minnesota Monitor

The SandBlox:
Test Drive SoapBlox,
Vanguard of Blogging






POLITICIANS & Supporters

Barack Obama 2008


CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS GPO ACCESS




Al Gore


NJ for Russ Feingold


Ted Kennedy
MA-Sen


John Edwards
Campaign to Change America





Neither MLW nor its proprietor, Maryscott O'Connor, are a registered charity: NO donations made to MLW or MSOC are tax deductible.

blog advertising is good for you


HOME


Halliburton Watch

Bush Regime Countdown Clock






Lee Surrenders To Grant, Obama Retains Slavery

by: fake consultant

Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 00:32:24 AM PDT



WASHINGTON, DC, April 10, 1865 (FNS)-The Civil War ended yesterday with the surrender of General Lee's Confederate Forces to Ulysses S. Grant, the Union Commander, at Appomattox.

Although most observers are generally happy with the surrender, many of President Obama's most loyal supporters are livid with the Commander-in-Chief because of the concessions he made in order to obtain the future support of the Southern Senators who will rejoin the body when the next Session begins.

At a media event this morning, Press Secretary Dick Timoneous expressed the President's hope that the formerly Confederate Members of Congress are looking forward to changing the political culture and steering the Nation in a better direction:

"It's time for the opposition to realize that what really matters is putting America first. The President is certain that by offering some concessions now, Southern Senators will look beyond their own parochial interests and do their part to move this process forward."


fake consultant :: Lee Surrenders To Grant, Obama Retains Slavery

Ohio Congressman Zebidiah Kucinich summed up the anger from the left: "We won the war, for God's sakes, which is a mandate if I ever saw one, and yet the first thing the President orders when putting together surrender terms is to take the issue of ending slavery off the table.

It makes no sense, especially when we know that these former Confederates will never support the President's agenda. To make it even worse, we know the President will make more concessions later on down the road in order to try and get any opposition votes he can."

Reached in Charleston by telegraph, former Confederate Senator Beauregard DeMint told this reporter that: "Appomattox will be Obama's Waterloo! He can never be allowed to destroy the foundation of our Southern economy-and if he tries, we'll use the 10th Amendment to protect the interests of our States...and Freedom."

Disaffected leftist voters, who were already upset over Obama's failure to close the Union detention facility at Andersonville, as he had promised he would during his Presidential campaign, have become even more vocal recently as the Union Army has appeared to block Administration efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that has caused thousands of urgently-needed Black soldiers to be discharged during the War.

All of this, combined with the President's recent actions in failing to end slavery, have led to an "enthusiasm gap" between voters in the President's Party and those on the other side, emboldening his opponents in the upcoming midterm elections.  

Southern voters, who have seen the end coming for some time, have been organizing into "Coffee Parties" in an effort to protect their economic interests-but they chafe at the notion that there is a racial component to their concerns.

In a recent speech to an enthusiastic Kentucky crowd, Senate candidate Roger Weightman ("Old Flintlock") Paul was heard to say: "Our only interests are in protecting the agricultural economy of the South, and the Constitutional values that were handed down to us from our God; that requires us to keep slaves in places like Mississippi, but it has nothing to do with racism."

Members of the crowd, sporting the robes and hoods that have recently begun to take over as the preferred uniform of the "Coffee Party", echoed Paul's comments, including a large, florid, gentleman who appeared to be using laudanum at the time of our interview; he chose to remain nameless, but told me this about the slaves he had met: "Slaves are uppity, but not as blacks. They're elitist. They think they're smarter and better than everybody else. That's what they were taught. It's like they're Harvard men."

Political strategists, including Senator Sumner of Massachusetts, have urged the President to become more bold in his negotiating tactics, and to take more control over the weekly media cycle: "The President is enormously popular when he gives speeches, he clearly has a mandate, and now that the telegraph can quickly spread his message there is no reason why the Coffee Party, who, after all, represent a minority of the Nation, should be allowed to drive every single element of the political conversation-especially if all the President ends up doing is watering down the abolition of slavery to the point where nothing is accomplished at all."

In a related story, pressure continues to mount on the Administration after the unprovoked firing of an Agriculture Department official who was "framed" by Confederate media interests; the official, who gave us an exclusive interview in Washington yesterday, reports that she has already been told that she could make enough money suing for wrongful discharge to purchase her own "Seward's Folly" if she wanted-in fact, the act of suing for wrongful discharge, currently a novel legal concept, may become known as a "Sherrod Suit" if the former official chooses to move forward with this new form of litigation.


Poll
the tea party?
innocent victims of sensationalist media
misunderstood, with a few bad apples
"it's mostly about taxes..."
"don't you know the president is black?"

Results

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
i'm sorry if people have a hard time with this... (0.00 / 0)
...but sometimes you have to ask your friends tough questions.

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama

fc (6.00 / 1)
Yep, I'm having a real hard time with this.  IMO, not up to your usual ethical standards.

Worse, i have no idea what questions you want to ask "your friends."  (Maybe just because they weren't meant for me.)

The problem is with, again, IMO, inapt analogies.  Comparing the winning of an election to the winning of war, while common, fails here (IMP), because an election does not guarantee the right or ability to do whatever you want without consultation with political opponents or the people.

And putting pro-slavery words into the mouth of Rand Paul, or just about amyone's, is simply evil.

Perhaps you should have analogized, if you wanted to go war, on our victory in WWII, and made the issue the Marshall Plan, whereby we saved those countries that attacked us.  (We spent millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to defeat them, and now we are spending millions to undo our handiwork!)

Personally, I don't see Obama betraying anyone.  The real issue is that some people have their shorts up their butts because he hasn't done what they think he should have, hasn't fulfilled their agendae.

The fact is that no President X can fulfill the promises made by Candidate X.  Reality intervenes, for one thing.

Has the President accomplished anything you wanted him to, even if imperfectly to your mind?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
so here's the question: (11.00 / 1)
would this administration, given how difficult it was for lincoln to move from defending the missouri compromise to emancipation, do the same thing under the same political pressures?

given the behavior we've seen from this administration (specifically, the willingness to cave to republicans on every front, from throwing away the public option before negotiations even began, to acorn, to basically giving away the store on "too big to fail" and controlling "betting with the taxpayer's money", to closing guantanamo and the terrorist trials in new york and fisa and warrantless wiretapping and the patriot act and the fact that bagram is the new guantanamo...not to mention doma and don't ask, don't tell...and really, i could go on and on and on and it could end with how the sherrod situation was handled just yesterday and today), i'm not sure they would have pushed forward to full emancipation, and i think that's a comment worth making.

i don't think it's such a stretch to suggest an 1865 rand paul could have found a 10th amendment explanation for why citizens of southern states were allowed to keep slaves--and just as rand paul says today, his concerns about the 1964 civil rights act aren't based on racism, but instead, on concerns regarding the proper application of the 10th.

have we made progress with obama?

absolutely: the ledbetter act, (many here will hate me for this) the movement out of iraq and into afghanistan, killing the f-22, the new interest in a mideast policy that isn't "100% israel, all the time", and bringing a whole lot of professionals into federal service immediately come to mind.

and there's a lot that i support, but that i wish had been done smarter: start with the stimulus, which we either need to do again or we should have doubled the first time or we should have moved as a stimulus bill and a tax cut bill, making about $400 billion more available for something other than those cuts.

but here's the real rub: how is it possible that this president, who had figured out by the fall of "08 how to play "political judo" with his opponents, can't figure out how to drive the narrative today?

why, instead, is the default play to run in fear when confronted with the nutty right, and to compromise first and negotiate later?

there is no way this administration should be this far behind in dealing with the far right, and there is no way this administration will win the civil rights part of this argument unless and until they grab the high ground--and so far, this administration has been far too reluctant, fat too often, to take the political risks that would be required to drag such an agenda through an unwilling senate.  

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama


[ Parent ]
fc (8.00 / 2)
Quickly, I hope.

would this administration, given how difficult it was for lincoln to move from defending the missouri compromise to emancipation, do the same thing under the same political pressures?

I duuno.  Can God make a weight so heavy that he can't lift it?

One of the problems here is that Lincoln did not emancipate slaves except in territory he did not control.  That emancipation was accomplished by Constitutional Amendment.  Emancipation in the USA proper was (and is) beyond the scope of the powers of the president.

Unfortunately, the things you seem most unhappy about are legislative functions, and also beyond the scope of the president's power.  And remember, this president is a practical community organizer, not a wily politician like LBJ.  And it seems to me you want him to be more a flailing ideologue like Goldwater than someone trying to get something done, and willing to accept the reality of the possible.  After all, politics is the art of the possible, not the realm where one's dreams come true just because you say you won't accept anything less.

the willingness to cave to republicans on every front, from throwing away the public option before negotiations even began, to acorn, to basically giving away the store on "too big to fail" and controlling "betting with the taxpayer's money", to closing guantanamo and the terrorist trials in new york and fisa and warrantless wiretapping and the patriot act and the fact that bagram is the new guantanamo...not to mention doma and don't ask, don't tell...and really, i could go on and on and on and it could end with how the sherrod situation was handled just yesterday and today)

You can blame anything you wi8sh on those evil Republicans, but none of these have anything to do with the Republicans.  The Republicans don't have the votes to stop the Democrats.  What he is caving into is called reality.

Every president goes through this.  they campaign on changing what the previous administration did, then wehn they get into the position and get the facts, they often end up saying, "So, that's the problem."  Gitmo is a good example.  Bush wanted to close it.  So did Obama.  He still does.  Why do you think he hasn't done what he wants to do?  Certainly you don't think it has anything to do with the Republicans, do you?

Here's the thing you ought to consider:  there is more than one view.  Republicans, looking at the exact same facts, see it as the Democrats ramming through just about everything that they, the Democrats, wanted without even a nod to Republicans.  And to tell you the truth, fc, I think the truth is much closer to that view than to yours.

Here's the problem, I think.  You are looking only at the distance etween how far the Democratic agenda has gone, ignoring the advance, and weeping because it ain't perfect.  Obama, the community organizer, wants to get what he can to help those he thinks need help.  So, he knew, as i know, and you know, that if the Democratic leadership insisted on a single payer health plan, there would be no health plan.  YOu want him to go down in flames screaming his "narrative" in such cases.  But being a practical man, he held out for what he could get.  And to you, that makes him some kind of criminal.

i don't think it's such a stretch to suggest an 1865 rand paul could have found a 10th amendment explanation for why citizens of southern states were allowed to keep slaves--and just as rand paul says today, his concerns about the 1964 civil rights act aren't based on racism, but instead, on concerns regarding the proper application of the 10th.

Evil.  None of us knows how we would have come down on issues in 1865 having lived at that time.  It reminds me that Lincoln once refused to condemn southern slave owners saying that we cannot know what we would think if we had lived in their circumstances, nor can we know what they would think if they had lived in ours.

Given that we can't possibly know what somebody from today would think, there can be no honest reason to name anybody.  Besides that, we DO know that if someone made an argument in 1865 that the south should be able to continue slavery, he would have been a Democrat.

So, if you wanted to say, "someone would have made an argument that the south should continue slavery," that would make your point.  In fact, some did. Since the point can be made without the speculation of naming someone from today, there must be another reason to actually name someone other than making your point.  After all, you could put anyone's name in there, even yours.

So I suggest that the reason you named Ron Paul was merely to denigrate, defile, and dismiss him.  Something that is far below what I thought was your level of ethics.

After all, to make your point, YOU have to equate slavery with being denied service in a restaurant.  Ron Paul wouldn't make that mistake.  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
so let's walk through a bit of this. (4.00 / 1)
it is a fact that politics is the art of the possible--but it is also true that the possible is changeable, when pressure is properly applied.

all those issues, from guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping to the patriot act, are unpopular with voters...especially centrist voters...but there appears to be a calculation that republicans, once again, will demagogue the "democrats are weak on national security" fiddle-faddle, and it's for that reason that i do blame the republicans, indirectly--but more directly i blame this president's fear of the republicans, which seems to have limited his vision of what can be possible.

and that leads us to single-payer.

even bernie sanders acknowledges that single-payer would not be likely to pass--but instead of giving it away before negotiations even began, why not send rahm to grab nelson and grassley and basically threaten a big, stinky, pile of trouble for certain insurance interests over that single-payer proposal (lots of studies, threats to propose the removal of antitrust protections, that kind of thing)...or the public option gets out of senate finance intact, and single-payer goes away?

that's probaly not unlike the "lbj way"...and it's what emmanuel is supposed to be able to know how to do--or at least that's what was implied when he was chosen for chief of staff.

did i treat rand paul unfairly in this story?

i don't think so--as i said, his curent view on civil rights and the 10th is self-acknowledged, and all i did was extend the same argument to 1865--and it's also fair to point out that the 14th would not have been informing paul's worldview, had he been living at the time.

if i had said "rand paul is a racist who supports slavery" as a factual statement, i think you'd have a much better point; to speculate as to what an 1865 rand paul might think, in a story clearly identified as satire, using his own thinking from this time as a guide, is a different matter altogether...and it's something i would neither characterize as evil nor unethical.

why did i name him, particularly?

because he's running for senate, in kentucky (i added a subtle hint: he was speaking to a kentucky crowd, not a texas crowd...), and he's doing it while defending that same civil rights record, and that makes him a fair target, in my estimation.

(you'll note i never referred to paul as a racist. i simply used his own explanation that his defense of the application of the 10th to the civil rights act analysis he has offered was not based on racial animus, but, instead, on notions of constitutional purity.)

it's the same reason i put the rush limbaugh "near-quote" in there: if you're defending a history of hatred, as libmaugh does unapologetically, then you are going to have to take some shots from people like me, whether you like it or not.

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama


[ Parent ]
Yeah (11.00 / 1)
but the use of Rand Paul in this argument is political narrative.  It's like the NAACP deciding, in July, to gin up a news cycle about the "racism" of the Tea Party.  

What Tea Party?  There hasn't been a major "Tea Party" event in months.  The "Tea Party" is a straw man.  

Using race as a cudgel to move independent voters for a midterm election isn't exactly novel.  Both sides do it.  The problem is, when you create an atmosphere like this, it can bite you in the ass.  MSNBC et al. have spent 18 months trying to equate opposition to President Obama with "racism."  It's failed miserably.

I think I warned against this tactic after he won.  There's an adage in radio.  You don't make fun of fat people because everyone thinks they're slightly overweight.  It's a turn off.  

The tactic is to assign "racism" to:  The Republican Party, the "Tea Party" and "Fox News."  MSNBC produced and promoted a documentary to this tactic, endless segments of Keith and Chris and the "confederacy" no nuance..."teabagging rednecks" etc.......the problem is....people don't like to be called "racists." The truth is most people are going to disagree with some part of the Obama Adminstration's agena...and when you marry "opposition" to "racism" you've fucked yourself. It's the when did you stop beating your wife...deal.  It's the fat thing.  It's dumb.



[ Parent ]
Well, there's a Tea Party Caucus (0.00 / 0)


Michelle Bachmann and 7 other Republican House members have declared themselves to BE that caucus. Officially.

So...

Go, Team Crazy.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.


[ Parent ]
Hey (4.00 / 1)
MSOC.  It's actually a toss up if this Caucus thing was a smart idea...politically.

If you want to bait the left to continue calling Tea Party people racists (which is what you want for the reasons I cited before)....create this caucus and front it with Bachmann (who the left can't stand) and you're off to the races.

On the other hand, you then own the crazy fringe stuff that the networks run on b-roll, directly in your party.  

Not sure any of this will matter.  People are just scared about the economy.  

If the American People think the Republicans are doing anything or cheering on anything that prevents this economy from getting better...if it's obvious...they'll be toast long term.

That's the line of attack.  Not racism.  I see what he's trying to do but everytime he goes on the line of attack that works, he says "Green Energy Future."  Sorry, people don't understand that or buy it.

He should be standing next to a bridge that's being built or new building or new road or a school or new small business. The news should have been filled with stories of shovel ready projects starting.

Instead, they used way too much of that money to bail out municipal workers and state coffers.  You can't "see" that or cover that.

Plus (and this is not a talking point, it's real) businesses of all sizes really are sitting on the sidelines trying to figure out how all of this new regulatory and tax stuff is going to affect their bottom line.

I hear it directly from them everyday.

Let's hope they do it figure it out and start moving forward soon.


[ Parent ]
not just regulations and taxes (6.00 / 2)
Businesses are sitting on capital waiting to see if the economy is going to recover or if we're in for a double-dip recession.

Insert witty quote here.

[ Parent ]
This is just not how businesses make decisions (5.00 / 2)
Plus (and this is not a talking point, it's real) businesses of all sizes really are sitting on the sidelines trying to figure out how all of this new regulatory and tax stuff is going to affect their bottom line

I spent a good part of the first 25 years of my working career advising small businesses. Still do a bit of it. Taxes and regulations are an annoyance. It's not that they're not a factor, they are. But they're almost never the dominant factor in decision making. They will affect timing sometimes, but very rarely whether to go ahead with a project or scrap it. (Pre early 80's, that wasn't necessarily the case. In case you're wondering, that is a compliment to some of the tax changes that came about during the Reagan administration.)

Business make decisions based on economic outlook. Forecasting. Return on investment. Comparing alternatives. Regulations sometimes will prohibit some things, but taxes are just a fact of life. Make no profit, pay no taxes. Make profit, pay taxes. Tax rates go up, pay a little more in taxes. But it can't wipe out the profit.

Puzzled is right. Smart businesses are siting on the sidelines solely based on uncertainty about the economic outlook. Not whether tax rates are going to go up a few points.

And I'm not dismissing your claim that you hear it every day. I have no doubt the claims are made. There are business owners who are still convinced that economy thrives if top tax rates go down, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. If madscientist wasn't watching what I wrote, I'd call those people morons.  

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington


[ Parent ]
exactly (4.00 / 1)
I'm part owner of a very heavily regulated small business (hazardous chemicals), and advise an even more heavily regulated large business (hospital).

Our business isn't hiring because we've lost customers in the economic downturn, and there isn't a need for more bodies to do the work we've got.  If business picks up, we'll hire, and when demand increases, so will our ability to raise prices to deal with any tax increases that might come our way, though I don't see anything significant on our horizon.

The hospital doesn't have much pricing power.  Some charges are negotiated with payors, but half are dictated to us by various governmental entities, and supply and demand doesn't affect our ability to increase prices.

When health care reform was being debated, we had a big discussion on how to account for its possible effects going forward.  The final decision was "fuck it,we'll budget without it, and deal with the consequences if and when they arise."

So far, it's been a good decision.  

Insert witty quote here.


[ Parent ]
I overstated the case here (0.00 / 0)
on this statement:

There are business owners who are still convinced that economy thrives if top tax rates go down, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

What I should have said is "despite no empirical evidence it is so". (There is some conflicting evidence, but the balance of evidence is on the side of it not working.)

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington


[ Parent ]
Well, Kane (10.00 / 1)
I wasn't really paying much attention to this tax and business stuff- it's sort of like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin- but since you insisted.....

Note that i did see your disclaimer below.....

There are business owners who are still convinced that economy thrives if top tax rates go down, [despite no empirical evidence it is so].

Now, Kane, I'm interested in conversation here, not debate.  That is, I will draw some conclusions from my interpretation of what you said to give you an opportunity to clarify your point.  The accuracy of my interpretations of what you said are not guaranteed, and, indeed, neither necessary nor expected.  They are presented for you to correct so that WE come to a better understanding.

So, let's grant, for the time, that what you say is true.  The next question would be as to whether the economy thrives if taxes are raised.  And then, does the economy thrive if taxes are left alone?  It would seem to me that we have the same lack of evidence in all these cases.

So, isn't the conclusion that taxes have nothing to do with the economy?  Somehow that seems to be counterintuitive, and certainly one could make an argument against that in the abstract, but it wouldn't be the first time that reality overthrew a good theory or what was intuitive.  Spend a day out watching the sun and you will see that what you believe about the relationship between sun and earth seems so anti- common sense.

On the other hand, and this is a new thought, isn't it true that taxes are a cost of doing business?  And isn't it true that keeping down these expenses makes a business more likely to be profitable?

Of course, much depends on the relative ability of a business to pass on its costs to the consumer of its products.  So some businesses may be untouched by a raise in taxes or other expenses, while others might be pushed into receivership.

But let's postulate, for sake of argument, that there is some cost to a business when it's costs rise, including taxes, and that this causes some average harm to profitability.  Now, if we integrate this average harm over all businesses, we would get a net harm to all businesses in, say, the US.  If we now make a facile equation, or at least claim proportionality, between the overall health of businesses and the economy, wouldn't this argue that increasing taxes on businesses do damage the economy, all else being equal?

So there you have it:  an argument for, and another against, the notion that taxes have nothing to do with the economy.  I like things this way.  I don't think agreement on issues like these can be achieved, nor do I think that such agreement would be a good thing.

It's the argument, the quest, that matters I claim.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
I also said "regulatory."  I'm sure you do a good business but I'm talking about people who call the Financial Reforms, "Sarbanes Oxley on Steroids" and are trying to figure out how to navigate HC Reform.  "A Few points"?  Go look at the Bush Tax cuts again.  It's a lot more than bracket increases for the workin' man.  It's an atmosphere that's been crated amidst chronic unemployment and housing catastrophe.

Not sure everyone is keeping their powder dry to see how the Dow or GDP numbers shake out.


[ Parent ]
I don't think the "Tea Party," per se, is racist. (9.33 / 3)

Let's just get this out of the way -- MY stance, though I cannot speak for ALL liverals/Democrats/The Left...

If, as it seems to be, the "Tea Party" is actually going to coalesce into an actual PARTY, then its platform and caucus isn't racist. Obviously. And the majority of its membership -- being ex- and current Republicans and declared "independents" (who almost ALWAYS vote Republican when it comes right down to it, but whatever) -- are not RACIST in the hood-wearing, let's lynch 'im, all blacks suck (or even MOST blacks suck), or cross-the-street-when-a-black-man-heads-your-way kind of racist... They're racist the way EVERYONE is racist, sure... "Everyone's a little bit racist," as the Avennue Q song goes. But the majority of those Tea Partiers out there are likely no more racist than the average Republican (for what that's worth).

Now, there does seem to be a rather large MINORITY in the Tea Party Coalition that IS racist -- virulently so. But the same can be said of their forefathers, the Republican Party. And, frankly, let's be honest -- there's a pretty damnned big segment of the Democratic Party we'd rather keep hidden in the attic thaat's got its OWN issues with blacks, Jews, Hispanics, gays -- hell, ANYONE who's not a white Christian straight. So the high and mighty judgemental superior position is pretty delusional, even though the left's minority of bigots IS a lot SMALLER than the right's. "Yeah, well, OUR bigot faction has FEWER people in it than YOURS. And THEY don't drag people to their deaths behind trucks, they just get jobs as cops and abuse their authority ruthlessly." (Which is a pretty big difference, actually, but still...

I've lost track of where I was going with this...

What really matters -- and you and I are in agreement, sort of, is that the Tea Partiers are just Republicans, but stupider. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. And this "Taxed Enogh Already" slogan is so fucking WRONG... God, just get me into a DEBATE with one of these troglodytes.

Taxed Enough? REALLY? How are those potholes in your neighbourhood? Because man, I just mmoved out of a state where cars are losing their goddamned undercarriages because the state couldn't afford to fix the roaads -- because the assholes in the legislature were too paralysed to raise taxes BADLY NEEDED TO FIX THE FUCKING ROADS. It takes TAX MONEY to fix the roads, idiots. We ALL use the roads. We ALL have to ante up.

Christ.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.


[ Parent ]
OK (4.50 / 2)
As I noted before, I actually don't think there is much of a "Tea Party."  I think both sides conflate whatever it is to their own ends.  

Tea Party could equal......frequent talk radio listener.  In talk radio, the vast, vast majority of P1 (frequent) listeners never call into a show.  (or if this were Diane's Show, all of the listeners call in...anyway)

So, the people who show up at these events, are probably the same percentage of the people who call a show.  Which means, a small fraction.  On the other hand, there's a big majority out there that agree with parts of what the "Tea Party" believes (which is stuff regurgitated from Talk Show Hosts.)

I ask again, when the last time you saw a "Tea Party" event of any size?  Olbermann went from making fun at the lame turn-out at events to conflating them into some blood sucking racist army.  Remember when Rachel did two days on the "Gun Nut" event that was going to held in DC 6 months ago?  500 People showed up.  It's the fringe.

I'm not on board with the who is more racist thing.  The most racist people I've ever met in my life were Union Democrats I served booze to in Boston, while I went to college or the hacks I sat next to on Rush Street in Chicago drinking booze.  

I turn to Europe again.  I think this country is enlightened racially in comparison to most of the rest of the world.


[ Parent ]
putting rand paul in this story... (0.00 / 0)
...was absolutely a political comment.

he's self-identified himself as "the tea party candidate" (i believe that's the exact quote from primary night, or awfully close), and i reported his views on the civil rights act because that's something kentucky voters should know about.

so who is conflating racism and the tea party?

well...when racist iconography shows up at your events, and you don't do anything about it, and it happens over and over again, that creates an association.

when tom tancredo is the kickoff speaker at this february's tea party convention, and he proposes literacy tests for voters...to the enthusiastic support of the assembled crowd...that will also help to cement the association.

"take back our country!" seems to be...well, it seems to be a bit of a racist rallying cry, doesn't it?

and when the membership of the tea party community seems to be about 99% white, that really isn't helping.

the arizona dustup just makes it worse.

it also appears that groups who are overtly racist see the tea party as a productive place to try recruiting, which makes it's own comment.

dale robertson, who leads teaparty.org, got himself in trouble for bringing a sign that read "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar." to a february 2009 tea party event....which was actually the exact time the tea party made its first public appearance.

if the leader of a tea party group is doing that...it creates a bit of an association, i'd suggest.

did msnbc, or the democrats...or i...gin up this association, so as to have a handy cudgel?

you don't have to, when there's a record such as this to report upon.

is the fact that attendance at these rallies is falling off a commentary on the lack of support for what the tea party is perceived to have become?

it could be--but it could also be a commentary on how the tea party and the "mainstream" republican party are "remerging" into one party; the theory being that there's less need for a splinter group out to the far right when the center of that party has already moved sharply to the right.

and with all that said, you'll again note that i very specifically did not call rand paul a racist--in fact, i took pains to note that his objection to the civil rights act being enforced upon private parties is based on his vision of constitutional purity, not racial animus.

i'm also not suggesting that all members of the tea party movement are somehow racists...but it is an undeniable fact that lots of people who do seek to turn back the racial clock are associating with the tea party movement...and if i'm trying to influence an electorate as to why voting for me would be a better idea than voting for them, you bet this will be a topic of discussion--and based on this record, that seems entirely justified.

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama


[ Parent ]
fc- let's walk some more (6.00 / 1)
I think you made all my points!

all those issues, from guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping to the patriot act, are unpopular with voters...especially centrist voters...but there appears to be a calculation that republicans, once again, will demagogue the "democrats are weak on national security" fiddle-faddle, and it's for that reason that i do blame the republicans, indirectly--

Key, to me, is "appears to be."  You are blaming people, the Republicans and the administration, not on evidence, but on "appears to be.  Haven't we learned from the Sherrod thing?

And it seems to me that blaming the Republicans is just gratuitous.  You are blaming them because the Democrats are doing something.  Does tyhat mean that if the Democrats did something more to your liking, the Republicans would somehow be blameless?  My bet is that no matter what, you will blame the Republicans for anything.  Am I right?  (See, I made an assumption here on partial evidence, so i am asking you to think about it, and then tell me what you actually think about that.  After all, it is your mind.)

which seems to have limited his vision of what can be possible.

I think he is realistic.  First, he was able to do all these things without having to consider the Republicans at all.  If he cold get the Democratic votes, he could have everything and anything, up until Massachusetts.

why not send rahm to grab nelson and grassley and basically threaten a big, stinky, pile of trouble for certain insurance interests over that single-payer proposal (lots of studies, threats to propose the removal of antitrust protections, that kind of thing).....that's probaly not unlike the "lbj way".

Actually, it is completely unlike the lbj way.  Neither Rahm nor Barack have what it takes to do the lbj way.  The key to the lbj way was a thorough knowledge of and a long working relatio9nship with everyone in the legislature.  The lbj way is to treat each individual in the way that individual needs to be treated.  For instance, in working for the 1964 civil rights act, there is a description of his putting down the phone with, i think, Dirksen, whyere he urges him to try to get more Republican votes, and discusses the arguments in almost professorial terms.  then he calls up his mentor, Lousiana Senator Russell Long and says, approximately,  "Russell, i want to talk to you about that nigger bill."  He then went on to argue for Long's vote in terms that we would find offensive.

Somehow, I can't see either Barack or Rahm calling someone up on gays in the military, and saying, "Jack, I want to talk to you about that fag bill."  You see, Rahm's problem is that he only knows the hammer, and bothy have the problem that they were not long in the legislature, and neither built working relationships with all the people in it.  You might remember that when lbj worked his butt off to get the 1957 bill into law, it was Eisenhower's bill.  The result was a very weak bill, and lbj had to make huge compromises to get it passed.  He felt, and history agrees, that passing almost anything was better than nothing, because it would pave the way for stronger legislation.  Which it did.  (Lest we underestimate the challenge in 1957, although JFK voted for the bill as finally constructed, he refused to support it as it was coming up!)

I almnost think that vision and realistic politics are mutually exclusive.  they call for different kinds of thinking.  lbj hasd a natural talent for people, and a natural talent for the mud-wrestling of politics.  Barack has neither talent, and Rahm is a punisher only. Punishment is always a losing strategy in the long run.

did i treat rand paul unfairly in this story?

Obviously, i think you did, and I think anyone you named in this context would have been treated unfairly.  Heck, why don't you just us the head of the House Democrats, who was most likely making the arguments you cite in 1965.

Consider this:  there is no question that both sides thought the constitutional argument was valid in 1965.  that's why Lincoln felt he could not legally and constitutionally free the slaves in the union states.  And that was why those constitutional amendments were passed.

And there is no doubt in my mind that the constitutional argument was and is an argument with merit in the public accommodations situation.  And i have no doubt that Goldwater and Rand Paul would have supported and worked for a constitutional amendment to settle the consitutional question.  Kids then and kids today don't have the patience for such political campaigns.  thy want it, and want it now.

Now so far, this is just inapt and a bit offensive.  But this is what i found inexplicable and indefensible.

"Our only interests are in protecting the agricultural economy of the South, and the Constitutional values that were handed down to us from our God; that requires us to keep slaves in places like Mississippi, but it has nothing to do with racism."

Rand Paul has never made any argument like this one.  He has not cited economic concerns, but ONLY constitutional concerns.  And he did not argue that his concerns demand that discrimination maintained institutionally.  In fact, libertarians are opposed to discrimination.  In fact, you did make him out to be a racist.  So let me ask you straight:  why did you include Paul?  Seems like a cheap shot to me.

So...

to speculate as to what an 1865 rand paul might think, in a story clearly identified as satire, using his own thinking from this time as a guide, is a different matter altogether.

To my mind you didn't do even that.  You embellished.  My argument that speculating about what someone would have thought in 1965, no mattyer what they think now, is foolish and can serve no honest purpose, even satire.  And i certainly include those who say, "Had I been alive then, i would have opposed slavery."  This is barroom talk, like, "If I had been in there with Ali, I'd have had him on the floor by the third round."

if you're defending a history of hatred, as libmaugh does unapologetically, then you are going to have to take some shots from people like me, whether you like it or not.

1)  I'll admit that i don't listen to Limbaugh.  So please tell me what "history of hatred" he is defending.  He writes.  Maybe you can point me to such a defense.

2)  In making this defense of your treatment of Paul, you make the implication that Paul is "defending a history of hatred."  Show me that one, please.

3)  Shots are fine.  But they have to be honest and well within the facts.  And I really like ...well, let's let the Vice President say it:

BIDEN: I learned that lesson as a very young senator. I got here in '73. And one of the people, along with Danny and others on this floor who kept me here, were -- was Mike Mansfield, the majority leader.

And he used to once a week have me report to his office, which is where the leader's office is on the other side. And he really was doing it, I know, in retrospect now, to take my pulse, see how I was doing.

And I walked in one day through those doors on the Republican side, and a man who had became my friend, Jesse Helms, and his wife, Dot, who's still my close friend and I keep in contact with. And I walked through those doors and Jesse Helms, who came in '72 with me, was standing in the back excoriating Bob Dole for the Americans with Disability Act.

And I walked through the floor on my way to my meeting with Senator Mansfield. And I walked in and sat down on the other side of his desk. And, some of you remember, he smoked a pipe a lot of times when he was in his office.

And he had the pipe in his mouth, and he looked at me. He said, "Joe, it looks like something's bothering you."

I said, "Mr. Leader," I said, "I can't believe what I just heard on the floor of the Senate. I can't believe anyone could be so heartless and care so little about people with disabilities. I tell you, it makes me angry, Mr. Leader."

He said, "Joe, what would you say if I told you that four years ago, maybe five, Dot Helms and Jesse Helms were reading -- I think it's the Charlotte Observer, the local newspaper -- and they saw an ad in the paper or a piece in the paper about a young man in braces who was handicapped at an orphanage, who was in his early teens.

"And all the caption said was the young man wanted nothing more for Christmas than to be part of a family."

He said, "What would you say if I told you Dot Helms and Jesse Helms adopted that young man as their own child?"

BIDEN: I said, "I'd feel like a fool, an absolute fool." He said, "Well, they did." He said, "Joe, every man and woman sent here is sent here because their state recognizes something decent about them. It's easy to find the parts you don't like. I think you job, Joe, is to find out that part that caused him to be sent here."

He said, "Joe, never question another man's motive. Question his judgment but never his motive."

[My emphasis.]

Thank you for tolerating all this, fc!


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
Sigh. Madscientist... (6.00 / 3)

You know... I am absolutely SURE that you make excellent points in almost ALL of your comments...

But most of the time,, I CANNOT read them. You write a damned TERM PAPER almost every time. I

cannot read the long ones. I just can't. I scroll down one ... and down... and down... and I am exhausted just CONTEMPLATING THE IDEA of slogging through it. (ESPECIALLY when I also know that there is a HUGE possibility that somewhere in there you will antagonise someone with a thinly veiled insult.)

So I just pass it by.

I am telling you this in the hope that you will take it in the spirit of helpfulness with which it is TRULY and HONESTLY intended: please, please TRY to take William Faulkner's writing advice, and "Slay your darlings." And I think you know that by that he meant, ruthlessly edit yourself.

Your comments are ESSAYS in and of themselves. It is SO MUCH WORK reading them... even people who DON'T feel antagonised by every other comment you make are exhausted just CONSIDERING reading them.

PITHY is your FRIEND.

And when this comes from the likes of a verbose motherfucker like ME, you MUST know it's true.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.


[ Parent ]
I'm a big fan of pith (7.00 / 3)
Some might opine that my writing is a bucket of warm pith.  And to them, I say, "pith on it."

Insert witty quote here.

[ Parent ]
I know, I know (6.00 / 1)
Somebody had to do it!

Never let a sleeping straight line lie!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
damn right (0.00 / 0)
It's like a toothache you can't help but explore with your tongue...you know it's going to hurt, but the impulse is sooo strong.  The good news is this time I'm hurting my readers more than myself.

Insert witty quote here.

[ Parent ]
You're right, Maryscott (0.00 / 0)
I can tell from your comments that you don't read my comments.  And i know they get long when the person i am responding to makes several good points worth answering.

In fact-- you should have seen it-- I've been on boards where most everyone was the same way, and since the answer is always longer than the point answered, each post in a thread would get larger.  And these threads would sometimes go on for months!

Certainly not for the ADD types.  Although, i know from experience that one can learn to handle it.  Heck, I read Gibbon.  And E.O. Wilson's (you like him) Sociobiology in just a few sittings.  I just couldn't put it down.

For the above post, just read the block quote at the end.  that's the most important thing in it.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
Someone in an Alanon meeting recently (0.00 / 0)


said something I thought rather brilliant about erecting boundaries versus walls with people who drive me insane... only he didn't use the term "drive me insane." He called it "inflict mental violence on me."

He said something to the effect that if those people do not eventually GET it, if they never acknowledge the boundaries (or the problem), then eventually you HAVE to erect a wall. And then you have a decision to make: will you every once in a while make incursions over the wall to see if they're still "mentally violent?" Or if perhaps they're willling to change the behaviour that was detrimental to your well-being.

I guess what I'm saying is, quite a while ago, I decided that I had to erect a wall. And all these times that I've broken my silence and RESPONDED to you -- that was me, making an incursion over the wall.

But it really seems as if you simply have NO interest in acknowledging that the way you behave here is detrimental to -- well, at the very least, those people who have repeatedly SAID so, including me.

So, I'm going back over my wall now. I do not wish to ARGUE any longer. I have resigned from the debating society, you see -- particularly when it is a debate with someone who wishes only to continue debating ad infinitum. I CONCEDE DEFEAT. All the points, I CONCEDE.  

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.


[ Parent ]
You see, Maryscott (0.00 / 0)
I'm not debating.  I can see how if one thought beforehand that i was, i would be maddening.  But I'm not.

I appreciate your story, and i appreciate your need to protect yourself from dangers real and imagined.

Here, though, you not only debated, you spoke as if you had the absolute truth.  Of course, you do for you.  But not for me.

I'm going to write an essay sometime on the difference between debating and conversation.  I try to do the latter.  Much of the time, people respond by trying to debate me.

Anyway, when you go over the wall again, if you do, leave your preconceptions behind.  Here's a hint:  if you can't tell that i am having fun and am not being oh so serious, you've completely misunderstood what i'm saying.

Thank you for considering me at least worth the occasional foray over the wall.  i appreciate that.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
Oh, and Maryscott (0.00 / 0)
Great advice coming from Faulkner, who could run a sentence on for pages, and wasn't known for writing dainty books himself.

I think he mnight have meant to keep slaying them until you get to what is worth publishing.  I don't think we can or need to do that here.

JMO.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
let's start with... (0.00 / 0)
..."appears to be".

the administration is backpedaling on lots of issues...especially issues with national security implications...and they do it, invariably, in the face of any republican opposition.

sherrod herself reports that she was told, on the phone, that she had to resign right that minute because her story would be on glenn beck that night--and i see no reason to believe she's lying about what she was told.

another example? are you going to see "terror trials" in nyc? nope. too much risk of "national security" backlash--and yet, there's no actual increase in security risk compared to all the other prior trials carried out in nyc under similar circumstances.

so, yeah, that appears to be fear of the republicans, and what they will do in the campaign, and it does appear to be limiting obama's willingness to push the politics...and since we can't set the causality with 100% certainty, we're saying that's what "appears" to be happening.

now i'm not so sure that i blame the republicans for all this, as much as i would blame the obama folks for being needlessly vulnerable to the tactic and for failing to see the political advantage these attacks offer to the smart politician.

put it this way...what if obama stood up and said: "i'm having those trials in new york, and i'm doing it because we've done it over and over again, safely, and i'm not going to be intimidated by these baseless republican attacks, so if they don't like it, they'll have to just work it out for themselves"?

that's a better political outcome than "sorry, we were gonna do that, but we don't want republicans to be saying bad things about our security policy...", which is pretty much how things came out on that deal.

(this particular debate, by the way, is not a legislative debate--but winning this fight would help the legislative effort: win one, build momentum to win more...)

multiply that by a lot, and the possible is less that it was before you took those hits.

i agree with a lot of what you said about lbj--and rahm besides--but it's hard for me to believe that obama is lacking in people skills, and i would commend to you either the 2010 white house correspondents' dinner video or the 2008 al smith dinner video for an opposing viewpoint.

so let's talk about rand paul and public accommodations: paul's position is that the market should decide if racial discrimination should be a permitted thing for a private business to do.

his feeling is that the market will treat businesses that make the decision to racially discriminate poorly, and that this will limit racial discrimination by private business to an acceptable level of discrimination.

and that's not me just making that up. that is an accurate description of what i saw him say, with my own two eyes, that memorable night on "the rachel maddow show".

while that argument may have constitutional validity in paul's world (and i would suggest the 14th trumps the 10th on this one), the reality is that there are communities in places like kentucky that will decide it is in their best economic interest to discriminate against racial groups (hispanics, perhaps?)--and if you own the local grocery store, you get to discriminate, in paul's view--and i'm happy to bring that to the attention of kentucky voters, every single time i can.

as for this:

Our only interests are in protecting the agricultural economy of the South, and the Constitutional values that were handed down to us from our God; that requires us to keep slaves in places like Mississippi, but it has nothing to do with racism.

paul would have defended mississippi's slavery, i presume, because he would have believed the 10th and the missiouri compromise allows mississippi to make their own decision about slavery. i suspect he would have defended that position based on constitutional grounds, and i actually believe him when he suggests it's not about some personal racism of his own.

since the civil war, from the southern side, was ostensibly fought to protect southern agricultural interests, i saw no harm in adding that to his "utterance", and i still don't.

limbaugh? there are lots of top ten lists that record his history; googling "documenting limbaugh racist quotes" gets you, literally, about a million more links to peruse.

and, finally, let's address the "history of hatred."

the history of how the 10th has figured into the "state's rights" narrative is a story that takes us right through jim crow and backwards to reconstruction, and to the missouri compromise--and paul's defense of the 10th, today, as applied to the civil rights act, even though it is not necessarily racially motivated, is still a defense of some of the same arguments--and, by his own acknowledgement, probably some of the same kinds of outcomes...and that represents defending a history of hatred, even if that defense is not an expression of his dislike of some other race.

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama


[ Parent ]
fc- looky here! (#1) (0.00 / 0)
Since you agree that i am long winded, I'll break this up.  sort of the red flag principle.

I almost wish you hadn't made this comment.  I was happy t eave it with whatever disagreements we had.  Disagreement is never bad.

But you said some things that demand comment, and so I will comment.

Just one generalization, if you'll forgive me, there seems to be a tendency to leap to conclusion on your part, and i think it might be due to what i call "the second sin against reason."  That is, looking for evidence to support one's hypothesis.  it is because this method leads to errors and erroneous conclusions that we blind and double-blind studies.

Here, the hypothesis is that Obama is giving in to the Republicans, or, looked at the other way, the Republicans are scaring Obama into giving up the ship to them.

Let's look at your purported examples....

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
fc- looky here!- (#2) (0.00 / 0)
the administration is backpedaling on lots of issues.

Sounds pretty normal for a young administration.  They always find out that they cannot deliver on their campaign promises.  this always riles many in their party, of course.

.especially issues with national security implications...and they do it, invariably, in the face of any republican opposition.

So, the facts are, i guess, that Obama changed his position on some security issues, and, secondly, that the Republicans opposed his former position.  Now, you want to put in the "ergo," and claim a causal connection.  I see no reason to make that connection.  In fact, this would be the last place I'd look for the cause.  At any rate, I think you'd have to have some actual evidence to back this one up.  "Seems," post hoc, ergo propter hoc, just won't do it.

sherrod herself reports that she was told, on the phone, that she had to resign right that minute because her story would be on glenn beck that night--and i see no reason to believe she's lying about what she was told.

I don't either.  She also gave the name of the person who said this.  it wasn't, iirc, Obama.

I wanted to spend a minute on this one, because i remember it another way.  There is no doubt that when Obama actually proposed through his administration having trials in NYC, that he knew he would have Republican opposition.  After all, many of them opposed having these trials anywhere in the United States.  But he did it anyway.

Why did he "back down?"  Certainly the Republican opposition didn't change, so that can't be it.  And it wasn't.  Right here is an account from the time by CBS news.  I'll just quote a bit:

Today, the administration is confirming reports that they now are rethinking plans to hold the trials in Lower Manhattan. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, even the state's Democratic senators, all have raised serious concerns about the hundreds of millions of dollars a trial would cost and the extraordinary disruptions a trial requiring that kind of security would bring to the city. ....

Holder flew to New York last month to tour the courtroom and the Metropolitan Correctional Complex that would hold the terror suspects. He met with Kelly and other security officials, who were identifying serious issues with the tight security measures, which would wreak havoc on the city. There would be checkpoints and snipers and roadblocks lasting a year or more. Bridges, landmarks and city transit would require constant police patrol.

With skepticism building, Mayor Bloomberg, hearing it from the city's residents, began raising concerns about cost, as did Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Did the state and local officials fail to anticipate the outrage of city residents? The severe economic concerns raised by businesses around the area? Did the administration fail to anticipate that and identify potential problems when it sought to get New York senators and city leaders on board?

Please tell me if  am wrong, but aren't Bloomberg, Schumer, and Gillebrand all Democrats?  And aren't the people of NYC, who opposed the trial, overwhelmingly Democratic?

At any rate, this is hardly support for the notion that Obama backpedald because of Republican opposition.  

In fact, I think it was Democrats who constrained Obama on almost everything.  when he said he knew that single payer wouldn't fly, he wasn't sayng that because of Republican opposition.  He was saying it because the people opposed it, and so did some Democrats.

The piece ends with this delicious bit:

Regardless of how it happened, the announcement today is yet another lesson in governing and on national security. This is no longer a campaign.

The days of fire, ready, aim are over. It's time to ready and aim first. Then fire.

This is precisely what you are describing.  Instead of readying and aiming, he has fired.  And then, when it has become clear that he can't get that, he has to appear to backpedal.  You don't think that LBJ would ever make that mistake, do you?

One writer I ran into said that Obama had a chance to take charge when the first supplemental spending bill came out.  If you remember, he chastized the Congress up one side and down the other for earmarks, overspending, and so on.  Then he signed it.

The writer noted that this could have been a Reagan moment.  When Reagan fired the flight controllers despite great opposition, he announced that there was a new sheriff in town.  Obama announced that there was a new complainer in town.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
fc-looky here-(#3) (0.00 / 0)
it's hard for me to believe that obama is lacking in people skills

I didn't say that now, did I?  He doesn't have LBJ's skills, and he is somewhat aloof.  He is a child of loneliness.

so let's talk about rand paul and public accommodations: paul's position is that the market should decide if racial discrimination should be a permitted thing for a private business to do.

I don't think that Rand would put it that way, and I am wondering why you would put this in his mouth.

Remember, a while ago, when i said that ideologues make naive-looking candidates?  This is an example.  Rand believes that the free market will cure anything.  Part of why he believes this is because he believes that government should not interfere in the free market.  Compare him to those who believe that single payer will cure health care woes.  They don't believe this based on evidence, they believe it because it is part of their belief system.

Besides, as is the case for most theoretical thinkers in politics, Rand is a "thermodynamics" style thinker, as opposed to "kinetics" style thinkers.  Thermodynamic thinkers are impressed that all diamonds will eventually crumble into graphite.  Kinetic thinkers are impressed that there is a high energy hill to the transition state, so the crumbling to graphite will happen at a very slow pace.

Rand's argument is a thermodynamic one.  Given that most people are not prejudiced, eventually, those businesses which discriminate will be at a disadvantage and cease to exist.  And as with all theoretical thinkers, he makes the assumption of transparency and full knowledge in the market.

Another example is in the minimum wage debate, where thermodynamic thinkers say that raising (or establishing) a minimum raise will cost the loss of jobs.  This it certainly will, all things being equal.  But evidence shows that on a kinetics level, it doesn't.  At least not in the relatively short run.

So I'd put Rand's thoughts this way:  we don't need the law because eventually the market will eliminate discrimination.  This may be and is counterfactual on the kinetic scale, but it shows that Rand is not in favour of discrimination, as your version seems to.

So, my larger point is that when ideologues get tied up with their ideology, it often leads them to make claims that are false or unproven.

while that argument may have constitutional validity in paul's world (and i would suggest the 14th trumps the 10th on this one), the reality is that there are communities in places like kentucky that will decide it is in their best economic interest to discriminate against racial groups (hispanics, perhaps?)--and if you own the local grocery store, you get to discriminate, in paul's view

here's the thing.  When you make principlesd arguments, here gbased on the constitution, you don't get to throw them overl, or the constitution, just because it is convenient to do so.  In fact, that's what you are taking Obama to task for!

I don't think it's a matter of the 14th trumping the 10th.  The 14th wasn't at issue.  The issue was whether the commerce clause gave the federal government the power to make the public accommodations law in spite of the tenth amendment.

paul would have defended mississippi's slavery, i presume, because he would have believed the 10th and the missiouri compromise allows mississippi to make their own decision about slavery.

And this, it seems to me, shows your prejudice.  Rand was not "defending discrimination."  And the slavery issue was moot.  No one doubted that the tenth amendment applied.  There could have been no movement to make slavery the law of the land, forcing Massachusetts to legalize it.  For if the 10th amendment does not apply, then that is a possibility as well.  Instead, the people who were against slavery at the time proposed, supported, and voted in a constitutional amendment.  The knew this was necessary because of the 10th amendment.

Why not assume that Paul would support an amendment on public accommodations?  I just think it is evil to assume, as you clearly did, that Paul would "support Mississippi's slavery."  I would support his lawsuit against you, although, because he is a public figure, he wouldn't have a chance.

Likewise, when Wyoming extended the vote to women, the federal government could not have made a law forcing them to fall in line with all other states in denying women the vote.  10th amendment.

What I find pernicious is the ignoring of something in the constitution because one sees it as inconvenient.  Rather than doing the political work to get one's views adopted, one wishes to simply ignore the Constitution. I really object to reasoning from the fact that some have been able to maintain racial discrimination by hiding behind the 10th amendment, that anyone who supports the tenth amendment is thereby a racist, or is at least willing to allow racism.

It would be like saying that because some people have hidden behind the first amendment to do terrible things, we should thereby ignore the first amendment.  In fact, that argument has commonly been made!  And of course we know that anyone who is a first amendment fundamentalist is a child pornographer, don't we?

Here's the fact:  the 10th amendment is still in the constitution, hanging by a thread, after being assaulted and ignored for decades.  If people don't like it, they should work to change it.  It's a perfectly honourable position and action.  I'll even provide the amendment that would be offered:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are not reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, but lie fully within the powers of the federl government of the United States of America.

That's right.  In your world, the states and the people would have only those rights and powers delegated to them by the federal government.  Back to the divine right of the government that the liberals who founded our country fought against.

Here's what you want to ignore and overthrow:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Still want to overthrow the 10th amendment?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
fc-looky here-(#4) (0.00 / 0)
limbaugh...

My point was more that i don't pay any attention to limbaugh, and i'm always surprised that others here seem to listen to him every day, taking a little time away from FoxNews.  I rarely hear references to the wisdom dispensed on left wing radio on this site.

Here's what i want to know, if you think it is important:  Is Limbaugh actually a racist?  That is, does he harbor a "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," or does he espouse "racial prejudice or discrimination?"  

I looked quickly through some of the material, and could not find any quotes that would show me that this is true.  I also googled "Obama racist quotes" and got 6 million hits.  So, does that mean, since you offered this as proof, that you think that Obama and Limbaugh are both racists?

I looked at the first pages of each search.  On the Limbaugh page, so far as I could tell, the sources were far left wing or part of the left wing noise machine.  On the Obama page, so far as I could tell, the sources were far right wing or part of the right wing noise machine.

Interestingly, both pages had a hit from snopes.  I checked out the Limbaugh page, which contained a "top ten" list of purported Limbaugh racist quotes.  snopes debunked or found groundless many of them.  Two were 40 years old.  And while many were politically incorrect and/or insensitive, i didn't find any of them racist.

Let' look at one example.  this one is famous:

"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."

This is, of course, absolutely correct in the first clause.  the last is debatable, but certainly not racist.  Personally, i hope the media is interested in Black players and coaches doing well.  I am.  Of course, it was called racist.  And that itself was racist.  I remember when it was said that Blacks didn't have the leadership capability to play QB, and they were routinely switched to WR or DB.  I wanted Joe Gilliam to do well when he got the chance, even though the Steelers had another pretty good QB.  And I was saddened when his  career went down the drain due to off the field problems.

If someone said that he wouldn't hire jack to coach because he was Black, but hired someone with the same resume who wasn't Black, he would be a racist.

Let's take another example.  On the night Obama won the South Carolina primary, he was almost giddy with happiness.  His wife had a little advise for him:  "Barack, don't get too high.  Just because you won the South Carolina primary doesn't mean you've won the nomination.  Remember, Jessie Jackson TWO South Carolina primaries, but didn't win the nomination."  Is Michelle a racist?  Why??

And why would Bill Clinton be a racist for saying the same true thing?  Would Bill Clinton have been a racist if he had said this to John Edwards, after Edwards won the 2004 South Carolina primary?  Would Bill Clinton have been a racist if he had substituted Edwards for Jackson in the example?  Would Michelle Obama have been a racist if she substituted Edwards in her example to Obama.  Would Michelle be a racist if she used Edwards as an example to an upcoming winner of the South Carolina primary?

What are the rules here?

To me, if you change what you would say because of the race of someone, then you are a racist.  If you would call Bill Clinton a racist, but not Michelle, the only difference being that Clinton was white, then you are a racist.  If you call Clinton a racist because both Jackson and Obama are Black, but you wouldn't if he had used Edwards to make the same point, you are a racist.  and so on.

I think we are all too eager to throw this term around when we should be saying that something is "racially insensitive" or "politically incorrect."  Often, it is just a political maneuver anyway.

Just so we're clear:  I don't know whether Limbaugh is a racist in his heart, and I really don't care enough to dig into it.

Finally...ahhhh

paul's defense of the 10th, today, as applied to the civil rights act, even though it is not necessarily racially motivated, is still a defense of some of the same arguments--and, by his own acknowledgment, probably some of the same kinds of outcomes

Complete non sequitur.  Paul's or anyone's defense of the 10th is just that, a defense of the 10th.  If you want to show that it is a defense of the same arguments on race or the same outcomes- not just an acknowledgment that they may occur- you have to make that case on other evidence.  You can defend the first amendment without defending flag burning.

Let's take an analogous case.  Suppose that a man rapes a young girl.  It's pretty clear he is guilty, and he is arrested and charged.  he goes to trial, but because the young girl couldn't testify, and there was little evidence, he walks.

Soon, another rape occurs, and again, it's pretty clear that the same man did it.  The man is arrested and charged, and about to be brought to trial.  but the townspeople come to lynch him.  the sheriff and the DA try to intervene, arguing that it's his constitutional right to a fair trial.

Of course the townspeople argue that they don't care what the Constitution says.  After all, they point out, he had a trial before and walke3d, and that resulted in another rape.    So, they argue, having read what you said, the defense of the constitution here when it was used to get him out before, is a defense of the arguments that got him out before, and a defense of some of the same outcomes, like the second rape.  Better, they argue, to ignore the constitution and get rid of him now, which everyone agrees is right.  further, they say, there's a good chance that if you insist on constitutional measures for this man, you are in favour of rape, probably as a form of subjugation of women.



"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
fc-looky here-(#5) short (0.00 / 0)
I hope you can take the time to read this stuff and enjoy it.  I've had fun writing it.

While i don't hope to change anything you believe, I hope at least something sticks in your mind and gives you something interesting to think about.  

I just wanted to offer another point of view, another perspective.

With love....

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.


[ Parent ]
I get what you're going for, but... (6.00 / 1)


I think it's massively hyperbolic, and not in the realm of accurate, for its purposes. What Obama has done and not done cannot, in any way, be compared to refusing to abolish slavery, had Lincoln done that. Which, let us note, he did not.

There isn't anything remotely similar on the table that Obama has done. Nothing. Gay marriage and DADT are not comparable to human enslavement. Nope. No way. They are rights dennied, but they are not the inability of human beings to determine what they can do with their bodies and souls to every single extent.

I feel you, I do, and it's good stuff -- but I also think the hyperbole goes over a line and loses its audience.

Speaking strictly critically.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.


i've been away for a couple of days... (4.00 / 1)
...and things went all nuts around here.

so let's walk through some of this.

i'm not suggesting that, in this context, obama would have made this compromise because he supports slavery, or anything close.

but...

we are going nuts on this side because this president seems to capitulate first and negotiate second.

lincoln, as he entered the civil war, only intended to reunite the country, and he saw the missouri compromise as remaining in place after the war.

but during the incredibly difficult political cycle that led to the 1864 presidential, lincoln not only moved from the missouri compromise to the emancipation proclamation, but he also came to support suffrage for blacks, and military service as well.

this president is facing tough political times, but nothing as tough as what lincoln faced: things like doma and dadt and wiretapping and all the things that we have all been talking about are all things obama was elected to change...but doesn't, and i'm starting to think that's because he's more likely to stay safely in the center than he is to lead from the front.

with all that in mind, this fake news story is a bit over the top--but not necessarily that unrealistic an outcome.

so...should i have written this story this way, or just done the basic "wtf?" story that we've all seen before?

it's a tough call, for me: there sure were a lot of folks who never saw past the title, and i did write some things too subtly, like the rush limbaugh joke--but at the same time i did get back some comments from readers who saw exactly where this was going...so while i may have taken this too far for some, and it's not the kind of story i'd like to do daily, i don't feel like i really have to back away from it, either.

i'm out again today, but i'll be back to respond to more comments tonight.

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama


[ Parent ]
Glad you checked back in, 'consultant' (9.00 / 1)
You don't know me, but I play one on TV. I took a break from having fun to check in here (I played hooky today), and I came upon your essay, wherein I'm sucked into reading through the entire thread & wasting precious goof-off time... or am I??

Like you, I'll be back here in a few centons or so and provide valuable critical insight from a fresh and unique perspective that I imagine is being much anticipated by the other commenters as they read this.

Beware, however: my own lack of brevity can be equally as formidable as MadScientist or fake consultant - not necessarily better, mind you, but merely inclusive of much more pontification and usage of highly unnecessary, sibilious and pusillanimous words that have no relation to the topic at hand 'kbye

"It is much easier to be critical than correct."
Disraeli


we look forward to that... (0.00 / 0)
...with bated breath.

"The world as it is just won't do"- Michelle Obama

[ Parent ]


One Time Donations:




H O M E



PING


Menu

Create a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forgot your username or password?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WELCOME
READ this, please!
COMMUNITY
INFORMATION

(FAQ)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE DAILY RANT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OPEN THREADS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How to Create an Account
&
Change Your Password

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About MSOC
(Maryscott O'Connor,
Fairy Blogmother
of My Left Wing)


MSOC's Essays

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



FACEBOOK BLOG NETWORK


Search




Advanced Search


Holiday Cards!

Research the facts about Bellaplex


My Left Wing
-- The STORE --
Bumper Stickers & MORE


blog advertising is good for you




blog advertising is good for you





blog advertising is good for you


BLOG ROLL, Part Deux


BlogSheroes
Feminist Ad Network


WEBER BLUE:





MEDIA SITES

* Air America Radio
* BBC
* Bloggermann
* Chicago Tribune
* HeroicStories
* L.A. Times
* N.Y. Times

* NewsHounds

* OpEdNews

* War Times
* Washington Post * Washington Times

OTHER INTERESTING SITES:

MSOC's Favourite Non-Political Sites
(My Favourite Guilty Pleasures...)

* Brian William Tie Report Archives *

* ~ Go Fug Yourself ~ *

* ~ PAJIBA ~ *


* Awful Plastic Surgery

* Chronic Babe

* Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

* Department of Nance
* Deus Ex Malcontent

* DListed

* Egotastic

* Go Fug Yourself

* Goop
* The Grammar Vandal
* I Don't Like You In That Way

* In Case You Didn't Know

* The Leaky Cauldron

* Mancub

* Manolo's Shoe Blog

* Kate McKinnon

* The Modern Gal
* Mollygood

* Rotten Tomatoes

* Rusty's Ventures

* The Sartorialist

* A Socialite's Life


blog advertising is good for you

The Best of the Rest

* Afrobella

* Air America Radio

* Alcoholics Anonymous

* All Things Democrat

* All Things Motocross

* Aquarius Papers -- Astrology
* ArloNet
* Art Crit

* The Art of Elysium

* The Art Experience

* Auld Manhattoe

* Bane of Monotheism

* Burning Man
* Burning Violin

* Buy Blue

* Causes Rats in Laboratory Cancer

* Church Sign Generator

* Colbert Nation

* Comedy Central

* Creek Running North

* Current TV Blog

* Daily Kitten

* The Daily Show

* despair.com

*Disgrasian

* Downing Street Memos

* Dynamics of Cats

* Roger Ebert's Journal

* The Far Manor

* The Film Experience
* Flying Squid Studios

* Gallery of the Absurd

* Give Me My Remote

* Glossed Over

* Grendel's Kitchen

* Joe Hill Fiction

Hollywood, Interrupted

* Hooked on Drums

* Eddie Izzard

* Jazz Cooking

* Jack E. Jett

* Kate's Kitchen

* Kate's Studio - Kate Kretz

* Stephen King

Las Vegas Links

* Lobal Warming

* Lupus Support Group: MD Junction.com

*BILLMAHER

* Manolo Men

* Taylor Marsh

* Maxi the Marvelous Make-Up Artist

* Moby

* Michael Moore

* My Net Biz

* My Own Private I Dunno

* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

The Onion

* Parvum Opus

* Pink is the New Blog

* Pink Tea

* Pop Sugar

* Posthumous Democrazy

* Pretty on the Outside

Public Secrets...

Radenko Fanuka

* Rhonda Records -- Wales

* Rod Online

* Rosie O'Donnell

* Safe Now

* Secular Sobriety

Silicon India

* The Simon

* Slowly Going Bald

* Soulforce

* Starry Starry Night

* Television Without Pity

* Temple of Bush

* Theology & Geometry

* This Isn't Writing, It's Typing

* Unitarian Universalist

* Vermilion Brain

* Weber Blue

* White Trash Mom

* Wil Wheaton

* Zod for President 2008


* MSOC's
Amazon Wish List


Progressive Women's
Blog Ring

Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next

My Left Wing
-- The STORE --
Bumper Stickers & MORE

MLW is Listed @
High Class Blogs!

cars, law, pets, songs,
pop, rap, psp, dating, &
more
cool, fun stuff

Blog Directory & Search engine


Neither MLW nor its proprietor, Maryscott O'Connor, are a registered charity: NO donations made to MLW or MSOC are tax deductible.


blog advertising is good for you









ARE YOU A BLOGGER? JOIN One Million Blogs for Peace To End the Iraq War!




blog advertising is good for you



blog advertising is good for you



blog advertising is good for you



Podcasts & Broadcasts We Like


* Air America Radio

* Blog Talk Radio /ePluribus Radio
"Don't Hijack My Thread"

* Doing My Part for the Left
(refinish69, MLW member)

* KPCC
(Southern California Public Radio)

* Pariah Island

* A Prairie Home Companion

* Velvel on Media




To Donate to
My Left Wing
via Amazon:



OR, to Donate
via PayPal...>

One Time Donations:





blog advertising is good for you



weblogUpdates.ping My Left Wing http://www.myleftwing.com/

Powered by: SoapBlox