44.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Saturday, November 21st, 2009CapeCodToday Blog Chowder
Welcome to CapeCodToday's Blog Chowder! This page aggregates the most recent postings from all the CapeCodToday bloggers for your convenience. Bookmark this page or see below left for RSS options.Latest comments
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Cape Destinations
Limousine Services, Corporate & Airport Transportation Weddings, Proms, Trolley Tours, Mini-buses for casinos, sports, concerts. (Harwich)
Limousine Services, Corporate & Airport Transportation Weddings, Proms, Trolley Tours, Mini-buses for casinos, sports, concerts. (Harwich)
Jason's Tavern
Conveniently located in Patriot Square near the movie theatre, Jason's Tavern offers American and international casual dining for the whole family, as well as cocktails, Keno, and early bird specials. (Dennis)
Conveniently located in Patriot Square near the movie theatre, Jason's Tavern offers American and international casual dining for the whole family, as well as cocktails, Keno, and early bird specials. (Dennis)
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hi, cru
Sure, Capuano has the credentials, and he was true to form at first when he lambasted Coakley for her opposition to the Dems health care bill based on the abortion issue. But then he flip flopped, and that's the basis of my criticism. I would have expected him to stick to his guns in criticizing Coakley's position for many reasons, including the fact that this was the single issue most important to Ted Kennedy, health care reform, not abortion rights.
Sure, Capuano has the credentials, and he was true to form at first when he lambasted Coakley for her opposition to the Dems health care bill based on the abortion issue. But then he flip flopped, and that's the basis of my criticism. I would have expected him to stick to his guns in criticizing Coakley's position for many reasons, including the fact that this was the single issue most important to Ted Kennedy, health care reform, not abortion rights.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hi, Buzz
You know this petey guy? He's really losing it with all the infantile jive. Your analysis of the voting patternsshows a lot more intellect and maturity, but still I disagree for several reasons.
First, in 2000, Bush didn't have a record to run on, but he did in '04 and he was in fact vulnerable for a lot of the independent vote. Kerry, by contrast, didn't have the Clinton baggage that Gore had to carry into the presidential race.
The statistics you cite, that more people turned out in red states in '04 than in 2000 just makes my point. Those were the religious right voters energized by the gay marriage issue, making a statement for "God" at the urging of the preachers. Take those extra votes based on the anti-gay marriage petition in Ohio out of the equation, and Kerry wins both the state and the presidency. Most of the other states where the gay marriage opponents won were not swing states so, sure, W would win them anyway, but not by as many popular votes.
You know this petey guy? He's really losing it with all the infantile jive. Your analysis of the voting patternsshows a lot more intellect and maturity, but still I disagree for several reasons.
First, in 2000, Bush didn't have a record to run on, but he did in '04 and he was in fact vulnerable for a lot of the independent vote. Kerry, by contrast, didn't have the Clinton baggage that Gore had to carry into the presidential race.
The statistics you cite, that more people turned out in red states in '04 than in 2000 just makes my point. Those were the religious right voters energized by the gay marriage issue, making a statement for "God" at the urging of the preachers. Take those extra votes based on the anti-gay marriage petition in Ohio out of the equation, and Kerry wins both the state and the presidency. Most of the other states where the gay marriage opponents won were not swing states so, sure, W would win them anyway, but not by as many popular votes.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hey, Buzz
You got it wrong. I don't object to gay marriage on an ideological basis at all. My church isn't against gay marriage and I'm o.k. with that.
My rap on gay marriage is based on technical constitutional grounds and, more importantly, national politics -not whatever the solons on Beacon Hill did or didn't do.
The Goodridge ruling was based the Mass. state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. When the issue gets to the S.C., the 5-4 conservative majority will kill it, which might not be true if Kerry had gotten the chance to appoint two liberals instead of Roberts and Alito, and thus create a 7-3 liberal majority.
That's where the political stupidity comes in, when Dems themselves raise these so-called "values" issues that detract from the really important issues like corporate control of the economy, and the GOP wins those issues by default because the bible thumping preachers get the vote out for the GOP.
My church supports gay marriage, but our pastor doesn't preach about it on Sunday before election day like they do in the SBC churches.
You got it wrong. I don't object to gay marriage on an ideological basis at all. My church isn't against gay marriage and I'm o.k. with that.
My rap on gay marriage is based on technical constitutional grounds and, more importantly, national politics -not whatever the solons on Beacon Hill did or didn't do.
The Goodridge ruling was based the Mass. state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. When the issue gets to the S.C., the 5-4 conservative majority will kill it, which might not be true if Kerry had gotten the chance to appoint two liberals instead of Roberts and Alito, and thus create a 7-3 liberal majority.
That's where the political stupidity comes in, when Dems themselves raise these so-called "values" issues that detract from the really important issues like corporate control of the economy, and the GOP wins those issues by default because the bible thumping preachers get the vote out for the GOP.
My church supports gay marriage, but our pastor doesn't preach about it on Sunday before election day like they do in the SBC churches.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hi, bitter
Yes, you're right that Coakley and Capuano didn't make abortion an issue for health care reform on the national level, but they sure have glommed onto it here in Massachusetts. Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local, and how smart would it be for one of them lose on this issue to, say, Mitt Romney who would then get to occupy Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat for the remainder of Obama's first term at least.
Obama's been trying desperately to get those so-called "values" issues out of the national political debate, and he really doesn't need -we really don't need, the likes of Stupak, Coakley or Capuano serving them up from within his own party for the corporatist GOP gluttons to feast on some more.
Yes, you're right that Coakley and Capuano didn't make abortion an issue for health care reform on the national level, but they sure have glommed onto it here in Massachusetts. Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local, and how smart would it be for one of them lose on this issue to, say, Mitt Romney who would then get to occupy Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat for the remainder of Obama's first term at least.
Obama's been trying desperately to get those so-called "values" issues out of the national political debate, and he really doesn't need -we really don't need, the likes of Stupak, Coakley or Capuano serving them up from within his own party for the corporatist GOP gluttons to feast on some more.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
I agree with Cru and Bitter that abortion is and should be a matter of choice for the individual woman, within the parameters defined in Roe v. Wade, i.e. until the foetus becomes a separately viable "person" entitled to protection as such under the Constitution. But that's an issue that really takes second place to the more fundamental right of all Americans, of all human beings for that matter, to have equal, affordable access to decent health care.
That's a right that need not and should not be subject to paying tribute to the private insurance companies. We don't need privatized health coverage any more than we need a privatized water supply. Those corporate SOBs would privatize the air supply if they could work out the technology and the politics. You know, with free air it's "socialism." Just ask guys like Maverick, possee and little petey.
That's a right that need not and should not be subject to paying tribute to the private insurance companies. We don't need privatized health coverage any more than we need a privatized water supply. Those corporate SOBs would privatize the air supply if they could work out the technology and the politics. You know, with free air it's "socialism." Just ask guys like Maverick, possee and little petey.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Petey! You clever little boy!
Yes, Bush won the electoral college 286-251, it's a fact. Here are some other facts, stubborn things that they are.
Fact: Bush's win included all of Ohio's 20 electoral votes, based on a slim 51-49 percent popular majority.
Fact: If Kerry had won, those 20 electoral votes would have been his, giving him a 271-266 electoral majority and the presidency.
Fact: There was an anti-gay marriage petition on the Ohio ballot, and bible thumping preachers all across the state were getting the vote out against gay marriage and for that "good Christian" man George W. Bush, just like they did in every other "red" state with gay marriage on the ballot.
That was my point about gay marriage in this post, petey, which was simply made as an analogy to the error made by Democrats who want to inject abortion into health care reform.
When facts are on the table it's like your mommy told you, petey, you gotta eat everything on the plate. So, you want ketchup with them facts, or what?
Yes, Bush won the electoral college 286-251, it's a fact. Here are some other facts, stubborn things that they are.
Fact: Bush's win included all of Ohio's 20 electoral votes, based on a slim 51-49 percent popular majority.
Fact: If Kerry had won, those 20 electoral votes would have been his, giving him a 271-266 electoral majority and the presidency.
Fact: There was an anti-gay marriage petition on the Ohio ballot, and bible thumping preachers all across the state were getting the vote out against gay marriage and for that "good Christian" man George W. Bush, just like they did in every other "red" state with gay marriage on the ballot.
That was my point about gay marriage in this post, petey, which was simply made as an analogy to the error made by Democrats who want to inject abortion into health care reform.
When facts are on the table it's like your mommy told you, petey, you gotta eat everything on the plate. So, you want ketchup with them facts, or what?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Senior is Tired
In response to: Senior is Tired
Hey, John
If your so tired, maybe you got some kind of wasting disease, hepatitis or something. I'd suggest you see a doctor but you'd prob'ly have to put it on Medicare, with the doctor's bill and all the biopsies, blood work, ultrasounds and other needless tests the doctor's gonna do, not because he wants to get the diagnosis right before treating you, but just because he's scared you'd sue him if he didn't.
But,of course, you don't want to do that do you -because you're such a principled guy who's against all big gummint programs, right?
If your so tired, maybe you got some kind of wasting disease, hepatitis or something. I'd suggest you see a doctor but you'd prob'ly have to put it on Medicare, with the doctor's bill and all the biopsies, blood work, ultrasounds and other needless tests the doctor's gonna do, not because he wants to get the diagnosis right before treating you, but just because he's scared you'd sue him if he didn't.
But,of course, you don't want to do that do you -because you're such a principled guy who's against all big gummint programs, right?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, Dave
How 'bout that possee? Emily Litella's got nuthin' on him, huh. He starts out about how the Dems health care bills give immunity to insurance companies from tort claims for injury and death, even cites chapter and section and claims it's what Elmendorf said. So you check them out and there's nothing in either bill that mentions immunity and you call him out on it.
Meanwhile, I check the reference in both bills to ERISA which is cited there, and there is an indirect reference to a section in ERISA which precludes state tort and contract claims against employee health plans because ERISA decisions are governed by federal law. Maybe ERISA should be amended to change that, but that's not what health care reform is about. I explain all this in addition to your comments, and what does possee do?
He changes the subject of course. Emily Littella would have said "Never mind," folded up her papers and left the podium. But these wingnuts? They don't have any shame so they don't know when they've been shamed. They just change the subject and rant off in a different direction.
How 'bout that possee? Emily Litella's got nuthin' on him, huh. He starts out about how the Dems health care bills give immunity to insurance companies from tort claims for injury and death, even cites chapter and section and claims it's what Elmendorf said. So you check them out and there's nothing in either bill that mentions immunity and you call him out on it.
Meanwhile, I check the reference in both bills to ERISA which is cited there, and there is an indirect reference to a section in ERISA which precludes state tort and contract claims against employee health plans because ERISA decisions are governed by federal law. Maybe ERISA should be amended to change that, but that's not what health care reform is about. I explain all this in addition to your comments, and what does possee do?
He changes the subject of course. Emily Littella would have said "Never mind," folded up her papers and left the podium. But these wingnuts? They don't have any shame so they don't know when they've been shamed. They just change the subject and rant off in a different direction.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hey, Possee
Read the freaking bill, if you know how to read. I don't care what Elmendorf or anyone else says, the Dems bills do not create any tort immunity for insurance companies. Both bills say only that the health care reform statute will not affect the existing ERISA statute which does protect insurance companies from state law tort claims, and contract claims as well for that matter, because it is a federal law that provides an exclusive remedy for claim denials.
You're a classic example of the maxim that it ain't what you don't know that screws things up, it's what you know that just ain't so. Give it up.
Read the freaking bill, if you know how to read. I don't care what Elmendorf or anyone else says, the Dems bills do not create any tort immunity for insurance companies. Both bills say only that the health care reform statute will not affect the existing ERISA statute which does protect insurance companies from state law tort claims, and contract claims as well for that matter, because it is a federal law that provides an exclusive remedy for claim denials.
You're a classic example of the maxim that it ain't what you don't know that screws things up, it's what you know that just ain't so. Give it up.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, Possee
Now you and I both know that neither the Democrats House Bill or Senate Bill says anything about immunity for insurance companies when benefit denials or terminations result in injury or death.
Both bills make oblique reference to ERISA Sect. 514, i.e. existing law which already provides such immunity from state law claims. Personally, I think that's a sick joke because the theory is that since ERISA is a labor law and not an insurance law it's not open to remedies under state tort law, and insurance companies are considered "fiduciaries."
I deal with that nonsense all the time in my practice and I believe it's something that should be remedied directly by future amendment of ERISA, but for political purposes of getting a workable health reform package passed it's not necessary at this time.
Your attempt here to put words into the Democrat's health reform bills that aren't there is so typical of the obstructionist innuendo and outright lying that we're getting from the right wing pols and media hacks who just want to see Obama fail -like they did.
Now you and I both know that neither the Democrats House Bill or Senate Bill says anything about immunity for insurance companies when benefit denials or terminations result in injury or death.
Both bills make oblique reference to ERISA Sect. 514, i.e. existing law which already provides such immunity from state law claims. Personally, I think that's a sick joke because the theory is that since ERISA is a labor law and not an insurance law it's not open to remedies under state tort law, and insurance companies are considered "fiduciaries."
I deal with that nonsense all the time in my practice and I believe it's something that should be remedied directly by future amendment of ERISA, but for political purposes of getting a workable health reform package passed it's not necessary at this time.
Your attempt here to put words into the Democrat's health reform bills that aren't there is so typical of the obstructionist innuendo and outright lying that we're getting from the right wing pols and media hacks who just want to see Obama fail -like they did.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hey, Buzz
You gotta read the whole Constitution, especially the part that begins "We the People," i.e. the citizens of the U.S. of A. It's the people for whom our constitutional protections and amenities exist, and it's just so much idiotic twaddle to argue as you do that the "general welfare of the United States" means anything other than the general welfare of its people.
Give it up. You guys had eight years in the White House, six of them in control of the whole government, and you failed. That's the whole story, pal, so now it's time to get back on track with a government that exists to serve the People and not the petroleum defense industries like the GOP has been doing and still wants to do.
You gotta read the whole Constitution, especially the part that begins "We the People," i.e. the citizens of the U.S. of A. It's the people for whom our constitutional protections and amenities exist, and it's just so much idiotic twaddle to argue as you do that the "general welfare of the United States" means anything other than the general welfare of its people.
Give it up. You guys had eight years in the White House, six of them in control of the whole government, and you failed. That's the whole story, pal, so now it's time to get back on track with a government that exists to serve the People and not the petroleum defense industries like the GOP has been doing and still wants to do.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-five
Actually the commerce clause and the general welfare clause have served as the constitutional basis for government to support agriculture with farm subsidies, including many broccoli growers I'm sure, and even tobacco growers in years past.
But of course those are just facts, and like Uncle Ronnie said "facts are stupid things" for guys like you who cling to the mindless "free market" ideology that caused the most devastating economic collapse since 1929 as the result of eight years of GOP deregulation and mismanagement of the economy. Again, more facts, so feel free to ignore them, which is basically to define your determinedly ignorant ideology.
Actually the commerce clause and the general welfare clause have served as the constitutional basis for government to support agriculture with farm subsidies, including many broccoli growers I'm sure, and even tobacco growers in years past.
But of course those are just facts, and like Uncle Ronnie said "facts are stupid things" for guys like you who cling to the mindless "free market" ideology that caused the most devastating economic collapse since 1929 as the result of eight years of GOP deregulation and mismanagement of the economy. Again, more facts, so feel free to ignore them, which is basically to define your determinedly ignorant ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, maverick
You're so right about something for once when you say read my posts to see why litigation is so expensive. It's right here in this post where I document the fact that med mal litigation drives up the cost of doctor's liability insurance, not because of us tort lawyers who are ready to settle obviously meritorious claims for reasonable damages, but precisely because the industry makes every med mal case go through the costly process of litigation under "reform" statutes like the one we have here in Massachusetts.
Or maybe you think it's a good idea to have a simple negligence case like a broken arm caused by a doctor's careless pushing a button to start up a treadmill that causes the patient to lose balance and fall down go through a costly med mal tribunal before the plaintiff can get her day in court.
Maybe you're one of those guys who are just fine with a doctor who schedules costly tests only because he's afraid of being sued rather than wanting to get the diagnosis right to best serve his patient.
Like I said, they're depending on folks like you.
You're so right about something for once when you say read my posts to see why litigation is so expensive. It's right here in this post where I document the fact that med mal litigation drives up the cost of doctor's liability insurance, not because of us tort lawyers who are ready to settle obviously meritorious claims for reasonable damages, but precisely because the industry makes every med mal case go through the costly process of litigation under "reform" statutes like the one we have here in Massachusetts.
Or maybe you think it's a good idea to have a simple negligence case like a broken arm caused by a doctor's careless pushing a button to start up a treadmill that causes the patient to lose balance and fall down go through a costly med mal tribunal before the plaintiff can get her day in court.
Maybe you're one of those guys who are just fine with a doctor who schedules costly tests only because he's afraid of being sued rather than wanting to get the diagnosis right to best serve his patient.
Like I said, they're depending on folks like you.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, Tom
It probably won't happen to you, but when guys like you get the wrong kidney taken out, guys like me are suddenly working in their "favorite profession."
It probably won't happen to you, but when guys like you get the wrong kidney taken out, guys like me are suddenly working in their "favorite profession."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cards for our brave military fighting overseas!
In response to: Cards for our brave military fighting overseas!
Question: Are the cards just for enlisted guys, or do the mercenaries and the contractors get cards too? Just wondering.
Richard [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Thank you Dave for saying it explicitly.
I was hoping that PeeWee could take a hint like Snakedog did, knowing when he was thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a reactionary partisan obstructionist and just quietly bow out. But then, I guess, Snakedog actually had half a brain -at least.
I do in fact take "all this shit" seriously, i.e. the nature of our precious constitutional democratic republic, and the serious threats posed by the reactionary right to its endurance, as well as the lesser threats posed by the extreme left. That's why I bother posting these comments.
PeeWee, though, thinks it's all just a joke, or even worse just some kind of schoolyard bullying game, which says a lot about where the post-Reagan right-wing GOP's head is at. To hell with the national interest, truth, justice and the American way. They just want to win for the sake of winning and, oh yes, all those corporate profits that are riding on defeating health care reform.
I was hoping that PeeWee could take a hint like Snakedog did, knowing when he was thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a reactionary partisan obstructionist and just quietly bow out. But then, I guess, Snakedog actually had half a brain -at least.
I do in fact take "all this shit" seriously, i.e. the nature of our precious constitutional democratic republic, and the serious threats posed by the reactionary right to its endurance, as well as the lesser threats posed by the extreme left. That's why I bother posting these comments.
PeeWee, though, thinks it's all just a joke, or even worse just some kind of schoolyard bullying game, which says a lot about where the post-Reagan right-wing GOP's head is at. To hell with the national interest, truth, justice and the American way. They just want to win for the sake of winning and, oh yes, all those corporate profits that are riding on defeating health care reform.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Angels channel Red Sox in falling to Yankees
In response to: Angels channel Red Sox in falling to Yankees
Yes, timely hitting is important -not massive power that leads to home runs regularly but not necessarily when you need them most -viz. Manny Ramirez and Texeira as well.
No, what wins championships is pitching, something that the Sox had when they won their two Series this century and the Yankees didn't. Meanwhile, though, it seems that Theo forgot all about that basic fact and wasted all his effort this spring chasing Texeira and letting the Yankees get a solid No. 2 pitcher like Burnett for relatively cheap money.
Fact, the Yankees started the season with 23 pitchers on the 40 man roster, while the Sox began with only 20 because, you know, they had "enough" pitching. Hah!
You never have enough pitching, and you certainly don't let a solid guy like Burnett go to your division rivals without even trying to outbid them, while wasting all your effort bidding for a guy who's basically just another power hitter. Timely hitting, remember, occurs only when the game is close enough to make a difference, which depends on your pitching. Hey, it ain't rocket science.
No, what wins championships is pitching, something that the Sox had when they won their two Series this century and the Yankees didn't. Meanwhile, though, it seems that Theo forgot all about that basic fact and wasted all his effort this spring chasing Texeira and letting the Yankees get a solid No. 2 pitcher like Burnett for relatively cheap money.
Fact, the Yankees started the season with 23 pitchers on the 40 man roster, while the Sox began with only 20 because, you know, they had "enough" pitching. Hah!
You never have enough pitching, and you certainly don't let a solid guy like Burnett go to your division rivals without even trying to outbid them, while wasting all your effort bidding for a guy who's basically just another power hitter. Timely hitting, remember, occurs only when the game is close enough to make a difference, which depends on your pitching. Hey, it ain't rocket science.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Thank you, petey
Your questions are off point, once again. I posted a series of specific talking points that I believe in and asked whether you wingnuts agree or disagree with them in substance, not whether I think I'm smarter than the "unwashed minions," your term not mine, nor whether I'm a constitutionalist within your Humpty Dumpty usage of the term.
But you did address some of my subtantive statements and you apparently equate the principles I listed as being some kind of warm-fuzzy kumbayah philosophy with which you would like to agree, but you feel you can't because it's "naive" to resolve differences without arms and we have to have more weapons than anyone else.
I say "thank you" because you prove once again my main point about how far the GOP has gone to the extreme right after the Reagan "revolution." All of the statements in this post were "plagiarized" -from Dwight David Eisenhower, a real conservative and a truly great leader who wouldn't have a place in today's GOP.
Meanwhile, Obama's policies that you assail are much closer to Ike's than were Bush's. QED
Your questions are off point, once again. I posted a series of specific talking points that I believe in and asked whether you wingnuts agree or disagree with them in substance, not whether I think I'm smarter than the "unwashed minions," your term not mine, nor whether I'm a constitutionalist within your Humpty Dumpty usage of the term.
But you did address some of my subtantive statements and you apparently equate the principles I listed as being some kind of warm-fuzzy kumbayah philosophy with which you would like to agree, but you feel you can't because it's "naive" to resolve differences without arms and we have to have more weapons than anyone else.
I say "thank you" because you prove once again my main point about how far the GOP has gone to the extreme right after the Reagan "revolution." All of the statements in this post were "plagiarized" -from Dwight David Eisenhower, a real conservative and a truly great leader who wouldn't have a place in today's GOP.
Meanwhile, Obama's policies that you assail are much closer to Ike's than were Bush's. QED
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
I'm waiting, petey
I expressly asked you about whether you disagree with the substantive principles I stated in this post, asking that you get back either to say you agree in order to find some common ground, or if you disagree to provide some well reasoned analysis as to why. That's what's called "debate," as opposed to your right wing invective.
Your apparent inability to do either clearly proves my point about you right wing reactionary bozos, you got nothin' but the same-old Ouingnut Ouija "talking points," only this time you had to reach way back off the board to come up with a lame, gay-bashing joke about Gerry Studds.
Keep it up, petey baby, 'cause every time you post here you only prove my point about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's "conservative" GOP and the people who support them.
More lame jokes about Studds, or Obama or attacks on "liberalism" in general that have nothing to do with the actual topic at hand? Fine. It just adds more weight to what I'm saying about today's GOP. Like Ann Richards said about bush, you're all hat and no cattle.
I expressly asked you about whether you disagree with the substantive principles I stated in this post, asking that you get back either to say you agree in order to find some common ground, or if you disagree to provide some well reasoned analysis as to why. That's what's called "debate," as opposed to your right wing invective.
Your apparent inability to do either clearly proves my point about you right wing reactionary bozos, you got nothin' but the same-old Ouingnut Ouija "talking points," only this time you had to reach way back off the board to come up with a lame, gay-bashing joke about Gerry Studds.
Keep it up, petey baby, 'cause every time you post here you only prove my point about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's "conservative" GOP and the people who support them.
More lame jokes about Studds, or Obama or attacks on "liberalism" in general that have nothing to do with the actual topic at hand? Fine. It just adds more weight to what I'm saying about today's GOP. Like Ann Richards said about bush, you're all hat and no cattle.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey, petey
Again, you still haven't addressed the actual substance of this post, either to agree in order to find some common ground or to disagree with any reasoned analysis as to why the principles stated are in any way open to debate.
You just keep on proving my point about today's so-called "conservatives," petey, which is that you're all nothin' but a gaggle of obstructionist, reactionary reactionaries who, when you get right down to it, you got nuthin'.
So, how 'bout it? You got any real ideas for moving forward into the 21st Century? Or just some more of that right-wing bullstuff the GOP's been selling for the past 30 years that led directly to the most massive economic failure since 1929.
That's a fact, petey, so what do you suggest -keep fighting "pre-emptive" oil wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives? Keep letting the industrial and financial sleasebags claim they "earn" million dollar bonuses while driving the economy into the tank, while hundreds of thousands of families' homes are foreclosed? Is that your vision, petey?
Again, you still haven't addressed the actual substance of this post, either to agree in order to find some common ground or to disagree with any reasoned analysis as to why the principles stated are in any way open to debate.
You just keep on proving my point about today's so-called "conservatives," petey, which is that you're all nothin' but a gaggle of obstructionist, reactionary reactionaries who, when you get right down to it, you got nuthin'.
So, how 'bout it? You got any real ideas for moving forward into the 21st Century? Or just some more of that right-wing bullstuff the GOP's been selling for the past 30 years that led directly to the most massive economic failure since 1929.
That's a fact, petey, so what do you suggest -keep fighting "pre-emptive" oil wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives? Keep letting the industrial and financial sleasebags claim they "earn" million dollar bonuses while driving the economy into the tank, while hundreds of thousands of families' homes are foreclosed? Is that your vision, petey?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey, petey
You think high interest rates on mortgages and consumer purchases when you have an income are worse than not having a job that pays enough to afford a home or a car -or, thanks to the past eight years of GOP "free market" deregulatory nonsense, having no job at all as with today's 10 percent unemployed? Get real.
By the way, what's all this got to do with the actual substance of my post? Yeah, I borrowed a bit of scriptural cliche to describe the essence of the thoughts expressed as "pearls," but you really haven't got anything to say about the truth of what the post is actually all about. Like I said, all you guys know how to do is deny, obfuscate and evade without offering any substantive alternatives. Talk about "nattering nabobs of negativism!"
You think high interest rates on mortgages and consumer purchases when you have an income are worse than not having a job that pays enough to afford a home or a car -or, thanks to the past eight years of GOP "free market" deregulatory nonsense, having no job at all as with today's 10 percent unemployed? Get real.
By the way, what's all this got to do with the actual substance of my post? Yeah, I borrowed a bit of scriptural cliche to describe the essence of the thoughts expressed as "pearls," but you really haven't got anything to say about the truth of what the post is actually all about. Like I said, all you guys know how to do is deny, obfuscate and evade without offering any substantive alternatives. Talk about "nattering nabobs of negativism!"
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Possee wrote:
The problem with the democrat worship religion, is that they vilify any belief system that even questions their belief system..
Uh, poss baby, where were you when the GOP controlled congress under the leadership of Tom Delay excluded the minority Democrats from all meaningful debate on legislation and policy?
And I suppose you believe that the hard core right wing media hacks welcome opposing views from callers on their rant radio programs.
It really used to be different, when real conservatives like W.F. Buckley would engage liberals openly on live television, without a kill button, and liberals like Susskind, for example, would do the same with conservatives.
Those days are long gone, of course, now that the corporate elite have bought up all the public broadcast licenses and allow only "fair and balanced" programming like on Fox TV with its crew of right-wing hatchet men.
The problem with the democrat worship religion, is that they vilify any belief system that even questions their belief system..
Uh, poss baby, where were you when the GOP controlled congress under the leadership of Tom Delay excluded the minority Democrats from all meaningful debate on legislation and policy?
And I suppose you believe that the hard core right wing media hacks welcome opposing views from callers on their rant radio programs.
It really used to be different, when real conservatives like W.F. Buckley would engage liberals openly on live television, without a kill button, and liberals like Susskind, for example, would do the same with conservatives.
Those days are long gone, of course, now that the corporate elite have bought up all the public broadcast licenses and allow only "fair and balanced" programming like on Fox TV with its crew of right-wing hatchet men.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Now, petey
Are you criticizing me for quoting scripture without attribution -more "plagiarism" perhaps? Well, in every Christian church I ever belonged to, including Unitarian, Episcopal and now Congregational, they taught us to spread the word of Jesus -the good news!
So what kind of "conservative" are you that criticizes someone for simply repeating Jesus' teachings. I believe most of the sentiments I expressed in this post are a lot closer to what Jesus would say than, oh, Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh -a lot closer to Obama, too, for that matter.
Are you criticizing me for quoting scripture without attribution -more "plagiarism" perhaps? Well, in every Christian church I ever belonged to, including Unitarian, Episcopal and now Congregational, they taught us to spread the word of Jesus -the good news!
So what kind of "conservative" are you that criticizes someone for simply repeating Jesus' teachings. I believe most of the sentiments I expressed in this post are a lot closer to what Jesus would say than, oh, Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh -a lot closer to Obama, too, for that matter.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey, Ned
What makes you so sure those creeps went to the Dominican Republic to go to a cat house? There's lots of places closer and cleaner, like Las Vegas where it's even legal in some counties.
I mean, when unmarried guys like that go overseas together to third world countries for sex it's usually not for sexually mature women, is it?
What makes you so sure those creeps went to the Dominican Republic to go to a cat house? There's lots of places closer and cleaner, like Las Vegas where it's even legal in some counties.
I mean, when unmarried guys like that go overseas together to third world countries for sex it's usually not for sexually mature women, is it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey Buzz
Maybe dk listens to Limbaugh, but I don't have the stomach for that. So I read about his bloviations, both quotes and analysis and then check it out on line at youtube or other video sources to get it from the horses-asses' mouth. Only in small doses though because it's really toxic shhtt.
Maybe dk listens to Limbaugh, but I don't have the stomach for that. So I read about his bloviations, both quotes and analysis and then check it out on line at youtube or other video sources to get it from the horses-asses' mouth. Only in small doses though because it's really toxic shhtt.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, Maverick
The thing is, see, that I don't come back at you or Buzz with things like "little peter" because you don't come at me with that kind of crap like peter whatshisname did right out of the blocks several posts ago with ad hominem comments about me personally.
So, I just give it back, and you can tell from the increasingly shrill retorts from little petey that it's really getting to him. He copycats what I say like a little brat on the gradeschool playground, essentially just saying "so are you, nah-nah-nah-nah-na-nah" without any cogent, substantive analysis as to the actual topic at hand -in addition to parroting the right wing crap he gets from rant radio and now on the ouingnut ouija board.
I commented about Rush never having played a down of football in his life. He came back with Kraft and I pointed out that Kraft played lightweight football at Columbia, full contact with pads against teams from Princeton, Harvard, etc. Now he's putting that honorable program down just so he can, like a little snotnosed schoolboy, think he's won all the marbles. Pathetic!
The thing is, see, that I don't come back at you or Buzz with things like "little peter" because you don't come at me with that kind of crap like peter whatshisname did right out of the blocks several posts ago with ad hominem comments about me personally.
So, I just give it back, and you can tell from the increasingly shrill retorts from little petey that it's really getting to him. He copycats what I say like a little brat on the gradeschool playground, essentially just saying "so are you, nah-nah-nah-nah-na-nah" without any cogent, substantive analysis as to the actual topic at hand -in addition to parroting the right wing crap he gets from rant radio and now on the ouingnut ouija board.
I commented about Rush never having played a down of football in his life. He came back with Kraft and I pointed out that Kraft played lightweight football at Columbia, full contact with pads against teams from Princeton, Harvard, etc. Now he's putting that honorable program down just so he can, like a little snotnosed schoolboy, think he's won all the marbles. Pathetic!
Richard [Member]
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
What the global warming deniers don't understand due to their basic ignorance of science is that the weather system is not a uniform, static phenomenon either geographically or temporally. Weather patterns and temperatures change locally all the time on short intervals of this year or that year throughout the world, sometimes getting colder and sometimes warmer, sometimes going in different directions in different localities.
What global warming is about, what the competent climatologists, oceanographers and geologists are telling us, is that we are undergoing a global warming trend that is unprecedented both in scale and rate of change and therefore unpredicted by any prior trend for either warming or cooling -except in times of global catastrophe. And that's exactly what the past 100 years of worldwide industrialization, with massive burning of coal and petroleum products, has amounted to -a global catastrophe whose effects are just beginning to be seen -including unpredictable local weather as well as the well documented effects of melting polar and glacial ice.
What global warming is about, what the competent climatologists, oceanographers and geologists are telling us, is that we are undergoing a global warming trend that is unprecedented both in scale and rate of change and therefore unpredicted by any prior trend for either warming or cooling -except in times of global catastrophe. And that's exactly what the past 100 years of worldwide industrialization, with massive burning of coal and petroleum products, has amounted to -a global catastrophe whose effects are just beginning to be seen -including unpredictable local weather as well as the well documented effects of melting polar and glacial ice.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
There's an old song by Blind Blake called "That'll never happen no more" about a fellows self-inflicted difficulties with several women. Now, Professor Gordon Ourside, in his Songs of Morning in America anthology has updated the lyrics somewhat. Here's the last verse and chorus.
Mr. Obama, you're a smart man
So get us to hell outta Afghanistan.
No more neocon crap 'bout democracy,
Just bust bin Laden's butt and call it victory.
The rich are gettin richer while we have a war.
Sellin' guns and stealin' oil, like it's always for.
Us poor folks are payin' for it with our lives
Just so their damned high-livin style survives.
Well that can't never happen no more.
No that can't never happen no more.
Blind Blake sang humorously about getting away from his calamatous relationships with women, but Dr. Ourside gives the same advice about how to deal with the truly disastrous Bush administration debacle in Afghanistan that Obama's been saddled with.
It's like what Joe Biden's been saying, Get bin Laden, declare victory and leave. Show some real political cojones for once.
Mr. Obama, you're a smart man
So get us to hell outta Afghanistan.
No more neocon crap 'bout democracy,
Just bust bin Laden's butt and call it victory.
The rich are gettin richer while we have a war.
Sellin' guns and stealin' oil, like it's always for.
Us poor folks are payin' for it with our lives
Just so their damned high-livin style survives.
Well that can't never happen no more.
No that can't never happen no more.
Blind Blake sang humorously about getting away from his calamatous relationships with women, but Dr. Ourside gives the same advice about how to deal with the truly disastrous Bush administration debacle in Afghanistan that Obama's been saddled with.
It's like what Joe Biden's been saying, Get bin Laden, declare victory and leave. Show some real political cojones for once.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Hey, r-five
You got a point there. Not the one on top of your head but about capitalism and socialism not being mentioned in the Constitution because the words hadn't been coined yet. Actually, half a point because capitalism, i.e. commmerce, was known and is mentioned in the Constitution as in Article I, Sect. 8, giving Congress the power to regulate commerce.
More to the point, however, is that the Constitution avoids specifics and deals with broad general ideals such as promoting the general welfare, mentioned in both the preamble's statement of governmental purpose and in the tax clause.
So the question becomes one of practicality based on the evidence. Which model best serves the general welfare, a system based on reckless risk taking that nearly bankrupts the country, or a genuinely conservative system that recognizes the need for government to regulate and provide for essential services like public water supply and the availability of medical care for everyone on a fair, level economic playing field.
You got a point there. Not the one on top of your head but about capitalism and socialism not being mentioned in the Constitution because the words hadn't been coined yet. Actually, half a point because capitalism, i.e. commmerce, was known and is mentioned in the Constitution as in Article I, Sect. 8, giving Congress the power to regulate commerce.
More to the point, however, is that the Constitution avoids specifics and deals with broad general ideals such as promoting the general welfare, mentioned in both the preamble's statement of governmental purpose and in the tax clause.
So the question becomes one of practicality based on the evidence. Which model best serves the general welfare, a system based on reckless risk taking that nearly bankrupts the country, or a genuinely conservative system that recognizes the need for government to regulate and provide for essential services like public water supply and the availability of medical care for everyone on a fair, level economic playing field.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, Tad
I missed it with you. You got right down to cases with Barney Frank, but I didn't predict it on the board. Oh, well, you can't win 'em all.
I missed it with you. You got right down to cases with Barney Frank, but I didn't predict it on the board. Oh, well, you can't win 'em all.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
So, little peter,
What's your point? I acknowledged the trivial mistake of confusing Holmes with Ali, and even if Holmes has a better lifetime record than Ali, that's only because Ali kept fighting long after his prime. In their day, it was no contest and anyone with any level of intelligence would rather watch Ali boxing than Holmes punching -but I guess that exludes you.
But thank you for again proving my point in this post about how you wingnuts always glom onto some trivial little factoid, having nothing to do with the subject at hand and worry it to death in a desperate attempt to discredit any center liberal commentary that challenges your a priori right wing ideology.
The point about Cobb was not whether Ali or Holmes fought him or was a better boxer, but about how he kept coming back and back, taking punch after punch after his face was bloodied by Holmes, as you correctly note, without landing a punch. It's exactly what guys like you and r-five are doing right now in response to this post.
Again, thank you, petey, for once again proving you got nuthin'.
What's your point? I acknowledged the trivial mistake of confusing Holmes with Ali, and even if Holmes has a better lifetime record than Ali, that's only because Ali kept fighting long after his prime. In their day, it was no contest and anyone with any level of intelligence would rather watch Ali boxing than Holmes punching -but I guess that exludes you.
But thank you for again proving my point in this post about how you wingnuts always glom onto some trivial little factoid, having nothing to do with the subject at hand and worry it to death in a desperate attempt to discredit any center liberal commentary that challenges your a priori right wing ideology.
The point about Cobb was not whether Ali or Holmes fought him or was a better boxer, but about how he kept coming back and back, taking punch after punch after his face was bloodied by Holmes, as you correctly note, without landing a punch. It's exactly what guys like you and r-five are doing right now in response to this post.
Again, thank you, petey, for once again proving you got nuthin'.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, r-five
You must have amazing x-ray vision, seeing all that stuff with your head lodged way up there where the sun don't shine, along with little petey and the other wingnuts who come back at this post with derivative, unoriginal copy cat games based on the very same right wing rant radio shibboleths I predicted.
At least Buzz came back with some real humor and perspective, but that's probably because his head is closer to the center and isn't in the same dark place as yours and petey's. Capiche?
You must have amazing x-ray vision, seeing all that stuff with your head lodged way up there where the sun don't shine, along with little petey and the other wingnuts who come back at this post with derivative, unoriginal copy cat games based on the very same right wing rant radio shibboleths I predicted.
At least Buzz came back with some real humor and perspective, but that's probably because his head is closer to the center and isn't in the same dark place as yours and petey's. Capiche?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Mr. Kelly
You mention the Constitution, so let's start with Article I, Sect. 8, which expressly gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, i.e. businesses like the insurance giants.
It also gives Congress the right to levy taxes to promote the general welfare on equal footing with national defense. If you don't think providing adequate health care to all Americans serves the "general welfare" what in hell does?
Nowhere does the Constitution say that capitalism is a required economic model, or that socialism is prohibited. Private property is mentioned only once, in the 5th Amendment, where it recognizes that the government can take property for public use, i.e. "socialize" it, by paying just compensation.
Article III gives the Supremes the sole right to determine all questions of federal law, which is the supreme law of the land under Article VI, binding on judges in every state anything else in the Constitution like Amendment 10 or state law "notwithstanding."
So why don't you try reading the Constitution instead of regurgitating your ignorant reactionary cant.
You mention the Constitution, so let's start with Article I, Sect. 8, which expressly gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, i.e. businesses like the insurance giants.
It also gives Congress the right to levy taxes to promote the general welfare on equal footing with national defense. If you don't think providing adequate health care to all Americans serves the "general welfare" what in hell does?
Nowhere does the Constitution say that capitalism is a required economic model, or that socialism is prohibited. Private property is mentioned only once, in the 5th Amendment, where it recognizes that the government can take property for public use, i.e. "socialize" it, by paying just compensation.
Article III gives the Supremes the sole right to determine all questions of federal law, which is the supreme law of the land under Article VI, binding on judges in every state anything else in the Constitution like Amendment 10 or state law "notwithstanding."
So why don't you try reading the Constitution instead of regurgitating your ignorant reactionary cant.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cellular Distractions!
In response to: Cellular Distractions!
The easily distracted will always be distracted no matter what they do, but we shouldn't encourage or otherwise enable them when they are trying to controll a 2000 block of steel moving at 50 or 60 m.p.h.
Even at low speeds it's maddening when I'm in a long line of traffic and see someone to the left or right waiting at a stop sign, I slow down and blink my highbeams to signal them to go ahead of me and they just sit there because they're involved a really "important" conversation on the cell phone exchanging pleasantries about the weather or whatever.
It's even more infuriating when I happen to be behind one of these easily distracted folks at the stop sign and they ignore another courteous driver who gives them the chance to move out. I've been known in that situation to rudely interrupt their convesation with my automobile horn, not polite but a lot less impolite than someone blocking traffic while they gossip with a friend. The horn is not as rude as the digital response offered by these easily distracted drivers who think the public road is their private phone booth.
Even at low speeds it's maddening when I'm in a long line of traffic and see someone to the left or right waiting at a stop sign, I slow down and blink my highbeams to signal them to go ahead of me and they just sit there because they're involved a really "important" conversation on the cell phone exchanging pleasantries about the weather or whatever.
It's even more infuriating when I happen to be behind one of these easily distracted folks at the stop sign and they ignore another courteous driver who gives them the chance to move out. I've been known in that situation to rudely interrupt their convesation with my automobile horn, not polite but a lot less impolite than someone blocking traffic while they gossip with a friend. The horn is not as rude as the digital response offered by these easily distracted drivers who think the public road is their private phone booth.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, petey
Yeah, you got me on the Ali / Holmes mixup, but it only proves my point. Not many guys could hit Ali, but Holmes was hittable and Cobb couldn't do it, just like you wingnuts trying to land a glove on me here.
About buying the Constitution for $300. It costs a lot more than that, I'm afraid, more likte trillions as with the massive debt run up by Bush's GOP until the crash in 2008. But the corporate elite, working through the GOP over the past eight years, has made a huge down payment. Right now they're negotiating with the Roberts Court conservative majority to buy the First Amendment through "corporate free speech." You think maybe Jefferson would buy that one?
About Ronnie Reagan, I know it's hard to disparage a fool, but it's necessary only because of his devastating, divisive political legacy. As for homoerotic oedipal impulses, do I detect some projection on your part here? Yes, definitely!
About the bloviating bombastic buffoon, I couldn't think of a way to fit your homoerotic ego ideal "Rush" into the Ouingnut board. Sorry, maybe next time. :-)
Yeah, you got me on the Ali / Holmes mixup, but it only proves my point. Not many guys could hit Ali, but Holmes was hittable and Cobb couldn't do it, just like you wingnuts trying to land a glove on me here.
About buying the Constitution for $300. It costs a lot more than that, I'm afraid, more likte trillions as with the massive debt run up by Bush's GOP until the crash in 2008. But the corporate elite, working through the GOP over the past eight years, has made a huge down payment. Right now they're negotiating with the Roberts Court conservative majority to buy the First Amendment through "corporate free speech." You think maybe Jefferson would buy that one?
About Ronnie Reagan, I know it's hard to disparage a fool, but it's necessary only because of his devastating, divisive political legacy. As for homoerotic oedipal impulses, do I detect some projection on your part here? Yes, definitely!
About the bloviating bombastic buffoon, I couldn't think of a way to fit your homoerotic ego ideal "Rush" into the Ouingnut board. Sorry, maybe next time. :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, Jonathan
Thanks for the verses. They reinforce what I wrote at the outset of this blog. I'm a liberal centrist who believes in our constitutional ideals and not any ideology left or right. I both admire Eisenhower and subscribe to his remark that he despised extremists on the left and right who throw rocks at those of us in the center. The main difference being that I throw rocks back from the center, both at the left as I've done with gun control, gay marriage and animal rights, and more frequently at the right.
The sad truth is that Ike wouldn't find a place under todays GOP tent. The closest thing we've seen to him is Powell and look how they used him and stabbed him in the back.
The GOP has moved so far to the right in ideological lockstep that liberal centrists like us are labelled extremists on right-wing rant radio and Fox media. We have to fight back on every front and it really isn't allthat difficult given the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's right wing GOP. In fact, it can sometimes be outright fun baiting these wingnuts, as with this post. :-)
Thanks for the verses. They reinforce what I wrote at the outset of this blog. I'm a liberal centrist who believes in our constitutional ideals and not any ideology left or right. I both admire Eisenhower and subscribe to his remark that he despised extremists on the left and right who throw rocks at those of us in the center. The main difference being that I throw rocks back from the center, both at the left as I've done with gun control, gay marriage and animal rights, and more frequently at the right.
The sad truth is that Ike wouldn't find a place under todays GOP tent. The closest thing we've seen to him is Powell and look how they used him and stabbed him in the back.
The GOP has moved so far to the right in ideological lockstep that liberal centrists like us are labelled extremists on right-wing rant radio and Fox media. We have to fight back on every front and it really isn't allthat difficult given the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's right wing GOP. In fact, it can sometimes be outright fun baiting these wingnuts, as with this post. :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, r-five
Where you been for the past eight years? It was on Bush's watch, with six years of GOP control of Congress as America became Baltic Avenue. Have you checked the mortgage foreclosure data lately? I.e. "free markets" at work.
And who was it that tore down Filene's leaving a gaping hole in the heart of Boston's downtown? You think that was Acorn, too? Try asking yourself how Macy's was allowed to become so big that it put both Filenes and Jordan's out of business -Acorn again, huh?
About being paid for who you are instead of what you do, try applying that analysis to George W. Bush, and all the trust fund babies who grew up to become "free market" Republicans.
About jail, try looking at the actual American prison population and count how many of them look like Madoff or Skilling and how many of them look more like O.J. -only those guys don't come from Brentwood but, um, Baltic Avenue.
Also, who got "all the money in the game" over the past eight years, the folks on Baltic Ave., or the sleasebags on Wall Street -including public tax money. Can you spell A.I.G.?
Where you been for the past eight years? It was on Bush's watch, with six years of GOP control of Congress as America became Baltic Avenue. Have you checked the mortgage foreclosure data lately? I.e. "free markets" at work.
And who was it that tore down Filene's leaving a gaping hole in the heart of Boston's downtown? You think that was Acorn, too? Try asking yourself how Macy's was allowed to become so big that it put both Filenes and Jordan's out of business -Acorn again, huh?
About being paid for who you are instead of what you do, try applying that analysis to George W. Bush, and all the trust fund babies who grew up to become "free market" Republicans.
About jail, try looking at the actual American prison population and count how many of them look like Madoff or Skilling and how many of them look more like O.J. -only those guys don't come from Brentwood but, um, Baltic Avenue.
Also, who got "all the money in the game" over the past eight years, the folks on Baltic Ave., or the sleasebags on Wall Street -including public tax money. Can you spell A.I.G.?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, Buzz
Thanks for the input. Once again you show yourself to be the exception that proves the rule about today's "conservatives." You're a conservative, but you have some perspective and a sense of humor, and that's truly remarkable.
Thanks for the input. Once again you show yourself to be the exception that proves the rule about today's "conservatives." You're a conservative, but you have some perspective and a sense of humor, and that's truly remarkable.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, Cru
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes, I did the board myself including caricatures, the hardest part being reductions on the copier to fit into the design. (Before I went to college and law school I flunked out of art school.)
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes, I did the board myself including caricatures, the hardest part being reductions on the copier to fit into the design. (Before I went to college and law school I flunked out of art school.)
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Hey,Buzz
Before you go around calling a liberal like me hypocritical,try looking at yourself and the people you identify with and defend publicly.
I'm not the one saying America is a "Christian nation." That would be the religious right that votes GOP throughout the Bible Belt. You know, the folks that the GOP depends on for the popular vote in national elections and those who the "fair and balanced," corporatist Fox media depends upon for the bulk of its listenership and panders to with all that phony "conservative" family values crap.
My point here wasn't that I am especially Christian, so there's no need for me to give everything I own to the poor, but if Kelly wants to dump on Obama for being "communist," he should first try rapping Jesus and the Apostles and then see how far that flies out in Fox snooze land.
Before you go around calling a liberal like me hypocritical,try looking at yourself and the people you identify with and defend publicly.
I'm not the one saying America is a "Christian nation." That would be the religious right that votes GOP throughout the Bible Belt. You know, the folks that the GOP depends on for the popular vote in national elections and those who the "fair and balanced," corporatist Fox media depends upon for the bulk of its listenership and panders to with all that phony "conservative" family values crap.
My point here wasn't that I am especially Christian, so there's no need for me to give everything I own to the poor, but if Kelly wants to dump on Obama for being "communist," he should first try rapping Jesus and the Apostles and then see how far that flies out in Fox snooze land.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Hey, Mr. Kelly
Why bash Obama on this issue? Why not Jesus? As the Good Book says:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. . . .Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Matthew,19:21-24.
Why not bash the Apostles, too, who organized the early church according to that teaching:
"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." -Acts,4:30-35
You really think Marx dreamed up the idea of collectivism all by himself in a spiritual void? Or maybe it's die hard right wing Americans like you who live in the spiritual void and would deny health care to the needy.
Why bash Obama on this issue? Why not Jesus? As the Good Book says:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. . . .Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Matthew,19:21-24.
Why not bash the Apostles, too, who organized the early church according to that teaching:
"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." -Acts,4:30-35
You really think Marx dreamed up the idea of collectivism all by himself in a spiritual void? Or maybe it's die hard right wing Americans like you who live in the spiritual void and would deny health care to the needy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, all
Thanks for joining me on this post, but I'm done with it. I'll be putting something else up in a day or so, but I won't be checking back on this one. Just letting you know that ahead of time so you won't think I'm avoiding you. Thanks.
Thanks for joining me on this post, but I'm done with it. I'll be putting something else up in a day or so, but I won't be checking back on this one. Just letting you know that ahead of time so you won't think I'm avoiding you. Thanks.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Crusader
No, I have not practiced in the area of landlord tenant law since I worked for Legal Services in 1975, and I have never practiced real estate law. Bruce Bierhans who blogs on this site as Cape Cod Barrister does a lot of work representing mortgagors in trouble, as you probably know.
My practice is focussed on general litigation, including a lot of work representing disabled people against the insurance industry weasels who are in business only to collect premiums on group ERISA policies rather than paying claims.
No, I have not practiced in the area of landlord tenant law since I worked for Legal Services in 1975, and I have never practiced real estate law. Bruce Bierhans who blogs on this site as Cape Cod Barrister does a lot of work representing mortgagors in trouble, as you probably know.
My practice is focussed on general litigation, including a lot of work representing disabled people against the insurance industry weasels who are in business only to collect premiums on group ERISA policies rather than paying claims.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey, Petey
You remind me a lot of Tex Cobb. Remember him trying to box with Ali, how he kept coming getting all bloody without even landing a punch, but he never quit. That's like you trying to lay a glove on me here.
As for Bob Kraft, he played lightweight football for Columbia. The Ivies have a lesser known league for small players and Kraft played at that level.
Also, both Kraft who I admire and Kyam who I didn't like as an owner, are both astute businessmen who know how to run an organization. Limbaugh is just a fat windbag who couldn't even run his own personal life.
BTW, you apparently know how to read a case and are familiar with the law of defamation, as in your reference to Myers. So why can't I find Peter Walker listed in Lawyer's Diary? Retired? Disbarred? Or are you just another chicken "stuff" blowhard who doesn't even have the cojones to use his real name on a site like this?
You remind me a lot of Tex Cobb. Remember him trying to box with Ali, how he kept coming getting all bloody without even landing a punch, but he never quit. That's like you trying to lay a glove on me here.
As for Bob Kraft, he played lightweight football for Columbia. The Ivies have a lesser known league for small players and Kraft played at that level.
Also, both Kraft who I admire and Kyam who I didn't like as an owner, are both astute businessmen who know how to run an organization. Limbaugh is just a fat windbag who couldn't even run his own personal life.
BTW, you apparently know how to read a case and are familiar with the law of defamation, as in your reference to Myers. So why can't I find Peter Walker listed in Lawyer's Diary? Retired? Disbarred? Or are you just another chicken "stuff" blowhard who doesn't even have the cojones to use his real name on a site like this?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Buzz
You got me on the Cardinals thing. Of course, I started following NFL football circa 1958 when I began playing for Lawrence High School in Falmouth. Played all four years and started at fullback in '61.
In those days, the New York football Giants were our team here in New England, and Charlie Connerly was the quarterback, then Y.A. Tittle. So, I slip up once in awhile on team names, like I still refer to the Colts as Baltimore every so often. Now that's a real BFD, isn't it?
Your referral to Jay Z buying into the NBA is typical right wing obfuscation. First, I was talking about the NFL, not the NBA, and second I never said anything about Jay Z because that would be wholly off-topic.
I only mentioned Limbaugh and the NFL because possee said that he spoke for many respectable Americans and the response he's gotten from NFL owners indicates otherwise.
Let's try to keep things focussed, huh?
You got me on the Cardinals thing. Of course, I started following NFL football circa 1958 when I began playing for Lawrence High School in Falmouth. Played all four years and started at fullback in '61.
In those days, the New York football Giants were our team here in New England, and Charlie Connerly was the quarterback, then Y.A. Tittle. So, I slip up once in awhile on team names, like I still refer to the Colts as Baltimore every so often. Now that's a real BFD, isn't it?
Your referral to Jay Z buying into the NBA is typical right wing obfuscation. First, I was talking about the NFL, not the NBA, and second I never said anything about Jay Z because that would be wholly off-topic.
I only mentioned Limbaugh and the NFL because possee said that he spoke for many respectable Americans and the response he's gotten from NFL owners indicates otherwise.
Let's try to keep things focussed, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Maverick
"Upstanding" is a relative term, especially in today's deregulated business climate that fosters the likes of Kenny Boy Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff, with an upper echelon of corporate executives who feel entitled to bonuses paid with taxpayer bailout money after they drove the economy into the ground which necessitated those bonuses.
By comparison to those guys, who are legion in corporate America, Irsay is a moral paragon.
"Upstanding" is a relative term, especially in today's deregulated business climate that fosters the likes of Kenny Boy Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff, with an upper echelon of corporate executives who feel entitled to bonuses paid with taxpayer bailout money after they drove the economy into the ground which necessitated those bonuses.
By comparison to those guys, who are legion in corporate America, Irsay is a moral paragon.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Peter, you ignorant twit.
If you knew anything at all about Philadelphia, Mississippi, you'd know that it wasn't simply "three negroes" being murdered.
In the first place, only Chaney was black, Goodman and Scwherner were Jewish -not quite as bad for the bigots who murdered them, only Chaney was beaten severely before being shot dead, sustaining two broken arms. Given your tolerance Reagan's pandering to that bunch of bigots I'd guess it doesn't make that much difference to you either, "Negroes" or Jews, whatever, right?
It wasn't just the Klan, though, it was a joint effort with the Neshoba County sheriffs office who first arrested the three civil rights workers on bogus charges, denied them a call to a lawyer, and then delivered them to the Klan mob who murdered them.
That was "state" action, by the way, as in the "states rights" Reagan professed to believe in so strongly. You, too, huh?
If you knew anything at all about Philadelphia, Mississippi, you'd know that it wasn't simply "three negroes" being murdered.
In the first place, only Chaney was black, Goodman and Scwherner were Jewish -not quite as bad for the bigots who murdered them, only Chaney was beaten severely before being shot dead, sustaining two broken arms. Given your tolerance Reagan's pandering to that bunch of bigots I'd guess it doesn't make that much difference to you either, "Negroes" or Jews, whatever, right?
It wasn't just the Klan, though, it was a joint effort with the Neshoba County sheriffs office who first arrested the three civil rights workers on bogus charges, denied them a call to a lawyer, and then delivered them to the Klan mob who murdered them.
That was "state" action, by the way, as in the "states rights" Reagan professed to believe in so strongly. You, too, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Um, petey
I "got nuthin'," huh? So now who's "plagiarizing" who? You can't even think up your own putdowns, so you resort to retorting with my taunts like some little brat on the school playground.
Give it a rest, please, because you're only making yourself look like a bigger fool. In case you can't remember back beyond yesterday, it was your guys, Bush, Cheney and the GOP, that nearly bankrupted America as well as got us involved in an intractable war in Afghanistan, and it's unquestionably the case that they were put into a position to do so by pandering to the religious right, all those "Red State" voters in the Bible Belt.
Now before you come back with some more ad hominem carping, try addressing the specific issues.
Did the economy collapse in 2008 on Bush's watch?
Did Bush start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone have a clear idea of how to "win" in Afghanistan? How?
What did we actually "win" in Iraq that benefits any Americans other than the defense industry? Exactly how?
I'm waiting for you to give cogent answers, but not holding my breath.
I "got nuthin'," huh? So now who's "plagiarizing" who? You can't even think up your own putdowns, so you resort to retorting with my taunts like some little brat on the school playground.
Give it a rest, please, because you're only making yourself look like a bigger fool. In case you can't remember back beyond yesterday, it was your guys, Bush, Cheney and the GOP, that nearly bankrupted America as well as got us involved in an intractable war in Afghanistan, and it's unquestionably the case that they were put into a position to do so by pandering to the religious right, all those "Red State" voters in the Bible Belt.
Now before you come back with some more ad hominem carping, try addressing the specific issues.
Did the economy collapse in 2008 on Bush's watch?
Did Bush start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone have a clear idea of how to "win" in Afghanistan? How?
What did we actually "win" in Iraq that benefits any Americans other than the defense industry? Exactly how?
I'm waiting for you to give cogent answers, but not holding my breath.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, dave
Again, I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for financial deregulation which, again, is why I was not a Hillary supporter last year. But it was Bush who systematically dismantled and undermined the entire regulatory apparatus in the name of "free markets" as ideology, as opposed to Clinton's honest but, in hindsight erroneous, trust in limited deregulation as a practical matter.
Again, I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for financial deregulation which, again, is why I was not a Hillary supporter last year. But it was Bush who systematically dismantled and undermined the entire regulatory apparatus in the name of "free markets" as ideology, as opposed to Clinton's honest but, in hindsight erroneous, trust in limited deregulation as a practical matter.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Buzz
I'll stop mentioning Reagan's states rights speech as soon as the GOP leadership acknowledges that their claims about "states rights" and the Tenth Amendment are just so much nonsense, the way an honest American conservative like Eisenhower did in 1957, sending federal troops into Little Rock to enforce court-ordered desegregation. Here's what Ike said at the time in response to those Dixiecrats who were bleating about "states rights."
"Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race-and with all deliberate speed."
So, Buzz, you really should be arguing with Ike about Reagan's "states rights" speech if you're an honest conservative, not me.
I'll stop mentioning Reagan's states rights speech as soon as the GOP leadership acknowledges that their claims about "states rights" and the Tenth Amendment are just so much nonsense, the way an honest American conservative like Eisenhower did in 1957, sending federal troops into Little Rock to enforce court-ordered desegregation. Here's what Ike said at the time in response to those Dixiecrats who were bleating about "states rights."
"Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race-and with all deliberate speed."
So, Buzz, you really should be arguing with Ike about Reagan's "states rights" speech if you're an honest conservative, not me.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey, r-five
The thing to do with the bigots and the religious extremists is simply to ignore them except when they commit criminal acts of terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roerder, and then prosecute them vigorously.
That is to say our leaders should simply marginalize them, instead of pandering to them as the GOP has been doing ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy worked in 1968.
Indeed, the way Rondald Reagan did to start the "Reagan Revolution," choosing to open his 1980 campaign by preaching states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where a white racist mob had gotten away with murdering three civil rights workers less than 15 years earlier. Why do you suppose he chose Philadelphia, Mississippi for that speech, instead of the much larger City of Philadelphia, PA?
The thing to do with the bigots and the religious extremists is simply to ignore them except when they commit criminal acts of terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roerder, and then prosecute them vigorously.
That is to say our leaders should simply marginalize them, instead of pandering to them as the GOP has been doing ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy worked in 1968.
Indeed, the way Rondald Reagan did to start the "Reagan Revolution," choosing to open his 1980 campaign by preaching states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where a white racist mob had gotten away with murdering three civil rights workers less than 15 years earlier. Why do you suppose he chose Philadelphia, Mississippi for that speech, instead of the much larger City of Philadelphia, PA?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey, possee
Like you say, Limbaugh, et al. do speak for what I refer to as the very worst and most ignorant elements in American society.
But don't just take my word for it. Bob Irsay, owner of the Colts, has gone public saying that he will not vote in favor of Limbaugh who wants to buy into the NFL with the Cardinals, and he's being backed up by the Commish, Roger Goodell.
These guys are upstanding businessmen, with a multi-million dollar operation and they don't want to go near Limbaugh for the very reason that he speaks for the very worst elements in America, specifically racism as with his little diatribe about black quarterbacks last year.
That, plus Limbaugh is a world class phony, a loser who never played a down of football in his life, and he thinks he can operate an NFL football franchise just because he gets paid millions of dollars for pandering to the very worst elements of American society.
Like you say, Limbaugh, et al. do speak for what I refer to as the very worst and most ignorant elements in American society.
But don't just take my word for it. Bob Irsay, owner of the Colts, has gone public saying that he will not vote in favor of Limbaugh who wants to buy into the NFL with the Cardinals, and he's being backed up by the Commish, Roger Goodell.
These guys are upstanding businessmen, with a multi-million dollar operation and they don't want to go near Limbaugh for the very reason that he speaks for the very worst elements in America, specifically racism as with his little diatribe about black quarterbacks last year.
That, plus Limbaugh is a world class phony, a loser who never played a down of football in his life, and he thinks he can operate an NFL football franchise just because he gets paid millions of dollars for pandering to the very worst elements of American society.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Dave
You and Michael Moore are right about Clinton and his economic policies, which is why I was an Obama supporter against Hillary from the git go.
But Clinton did leave America in the black, Clinton did not start oil wars in the mid-East, Clinton did not bankrupt the middle class, the working class and the poor. Bush Cheney with GOP majorities in Congress did all those things.
No, Clinton just spunked Monica's blue dress so, of course, he must be blamed for everything else as well. I mean let's really be fair and balanced and blame Clinton for what he did, then compare it to what Bush did -4000 American lives lost for nothing, plus a trillion dollars in debt. C'mon, Dave, let's try a little perspective here.
You and Michael Moore are right about Clinton and his economic policies, which is why I was an Obama supporter against Hillary from the git go.
But Clinton did leave America in the black, Clinton did not start oil wars in the mid-East, Clinton did not bankrupt the middle class, the working class and the poor. Bush Cheney with GOP majorities in Congress did all those things.
No, Clinton just spunked Monica's blue dress so, of course, he must be blamed for everything else as well. I mean let's really be fair and balanced and blame Clinton for what he did, then compare it to what Bush did -4000 American lives lost for nothing, plus a trillion dollars in debt. C'mon, Dave, let's try a little perspective here.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Oh, Peter, little peter. (Yes, I know about capitalization so it's not a typo). I only resort to ad hominem attacks against those who post here in response to same. Now, this last one of yours is truly pathetic.
You apparently have a problem with small town lawyers -perhaps you've been sued a few times, whatever.
Yes, Reagan did address the Urban League after preaching Jim Crow states rights in Mississippi. Like I said, petey, you aren't very strong on critical analysis. In this post I said that Reagan was advancing a "phony" conservatism, he was just a freaking actor reading lines to advance the corporatist agenda and would say anything to anyone to get votes.
Reagan was a phony who pandered to the racists and the religious right, which is the whole point of my criticism of the corporatist GOP today.
As for Maureen Dowd, I usually read her column and a lot of others as well. Her remarks were not the source of my comments, though brilliant minds do often think alike. This is a blog post, not a scholarly paper, and if I attributed every source it would be unreadably long.
You apparently have a problem with small town lawyers -perhaps you've been sued a few times, whatever.
Yes, Reagan did address the Urban League after preaching Jim Crow states rights in Mississippi. Like I said, petey, you aren't very strong on critical analysis. In this post I said that Reagan was advancing a "phony" conservatism, he was just a freaking actor reading lines to advance the corporatist agenda and would say anything to anyone to get votes.
Reagan was a phony who pandered to the racists and the religious right, which is the whole point of my criticism of the corporatist GOP today.
As for Maureen Dowd, I usually read her column and a lot of others as well. Her remarks were not the source of my comments, though brilliant minds do often think alike. This is a blog post, not a scholarly paper, and if I attributed every source it would be unreadably long.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Is it Flat or Round?
In response to: Is it Flat or Round?
It's like Geraldine used to say: "What you see is what you get." Walk outside and the Earth looks flat, so. . . .
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey,Possee, Buzz, Little Peter, nice of you to drop in. I do wish you'd try once in awhile to actually deal with specific issues based on fact, instead of going off on tangents and parroting the slogans you hear on the right wing rant media.
Now, Buzz, I know you do try to be both relevant and coherent at times, and I give you an A for effort there, even though your work really never shows much in the way of factual accuracy or critical analysis. But this time, you bring up the right wing rant radio shibboleth of tort reform, totally off topic and without any attempt to make sense in context -definitely an F this time.
And Peter, Little Peter, of course you haven't heard about Reagan's Jim Crow states rights speech in a couple of wseeks. You get all your talking points listening to the hacks in the right wing media and they don't like to mention such inconvenient truths as Reagan's phony conservatism based on his blatant appeal to the very worst elements of American society.
Now, Buzz, I know you do try to be both relevant and coherent at times, and I give you an A for effort there, even though your work really never shows much in the way of factual accuracy or critical analysis. But this time, you bring up the right wing rant radio shibboleth of tort reform, totally off topic and without any attempt to make sense in context -definitely an F this time.
And Peter, Little Peter, of course you haven't heard about Reagan's Jim Crow states rights speech in a couple of wseeks. You get all your talking points listening to the hacks in the right wing media and they don't like to mention such inconvenient truths as Reagan's phony conservatism based on his blatant appeal to the very worst elements of American society.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Jeezus, Jack
A "liberal loser?" Can't you respond to anything that challenges your right wing ideology without descending to direct ad hominem attacks?
I have two all black shelter cats, Muggs and Tillie, but I don't get my political ideas from them as you seem to do from Mittens -at least judging by the quality of your comments here which really amount to nothing more than "Bad Kitty!"
Rich
A "liberal loser?" Can't you respond to anything that challenges your right wing ideology without descending to direct ad hominem attacks?
I have two all black shelter cats, Muggs and Tillie, but I don't get my political ideas from them as you seem to do from Mittens -at least judging by the quality of your comments here which really amount to nothing more than "Bad Kitty!"
Rich
Richard [Member]
In response to: Haaaaaaaaaaar 'Mateys'!!
In response to: Haaaaaaaaaaar 'Mateys'!!
So, is Rup's new cookie a ten -or just a nine? Can't tell from the picture 'cause it's only a headshot.
It's like when little Johnny Potts got the U in the vocabulary lesson and the teacher cringed when he said "urinate." Then she asked him to use it in a sentence and he said "Urinate, but if you had bigger tits you'd be a nine."
O-ops! Now I'm really gonna get it from all the feministas.
It's like when little Johnny Potts got the U in the vocabulary lesson and the teacher cringed when he said "urinate." Then she asked him to use it in a sentence and he said "Urinate, but if you had bigger tits you'd be a nine."
O-ops! Now I'm really gonna get it from all the feministas.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Oh,my Gawd,as they say Down East. I left town for a few days to visit my son at his college homecoming, and look what happened to this site. I'm not even gonna try to respond to any specific post, but I do want to thank DK for stepping up as he did.
Anyway, it should be enlightening for anyone interested in the issue to review two prior posts on this site dealing with the health insurance "debate." The first, on 8/12, entitled "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," dealt with the issue in political and ideological terms and generated a 41 post thread because everyone has an opinion.
The second one, however, on 8/15, entitled "Just Follow The Money" was strictly factual. It compares what happens to your tax dollar for public health insurance vs. your premium dollar for private coverage -no BS, just undeniable fact that a lot more of the tax dollar actually gets to the doctor while the premium dollar is stepped on repeatedly for advertising, CEO perks, investment, profits, lawyers, lobbyist, etc., before the doctor sees even a penny. How many responses? Zero. That says a lot.
Anyway, it should be enlightening for anyone interested in the issue to review two prior posts on this site dealing with the health insurance "debate." The first, on 8/12, entitled "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," dealt with the issue in political and ideological terms and generated a 41 post thread because everyone has an opinion.
The second one, however, on 8/15, entitled "Just Follow The Money" was strictly factual. It compares what happens to your tax dollar for public health insurance vs. your premium dollar for private coverage -no BS, just undeniable fact that a lot more of the tax dollar actually gets to the doctor while the premium dollar is stepped on repeatedly for advertising, CEO perks, investment, profits, lawyers, lobbyist, etc., before the doctor sees even a penny. How many responses? Zero. That says a lot.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
Why do so many people think that two economic models, capitalism and socialism, must be mutually exclusive? There is no constitutional provision that requires that the U.S. must always operate on a capitalist basis in every sector, nor is there a provision that says no sector of the economy may be socialized. It just isn't in there, folks.
What is in there, in Article II, is Congress' power to regulate commerce and to raise taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States which clearly must include providing for the health of everyone if it means anything.
The corporate elite, however, has a vested interest in sustaining a political and ideological schism between capitalism and socialism and thereby sustaining their stranglehold on the economy. It isn't really a case of socialism being antithetical to capitalism as economic models. It is rather, a case of socialism being antithetical to the corporatist mentality that informed the Bush administration and led to the crash of 2008.
BTW, the Supremes are now thinking of expanding "corporate free speech." So watch out.
What is in there, in Article II, is Congress' power to regulate commerce and to raise taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States which clearly must include providing for the health of everyone if it means anything.
The corporate elite, however, has a vested interest in sustaining a political and ideological schism between capitalism and socialism and thereby sustaining their stranglehold on the economy. It isn't really a case of socialism being antithetical to capitalism as economic models. It is rather, a case of socialism being antithetical to the corporatist mentality that informed the Bush administration and led to the crash of 2008.
BTW, the Supremes are now thinking of expanding "corporate free speech." So watch out.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Perry pushes Tort Reform on Beacon Hill
In response to: Perry pushes Tort Reform on Beacon Hill
We actually have limited tort "reform" in Massachusetts for medical malpractice. We don't have an arbitrary cap on damages, but there are limits on contingency fees which, theoretically, will prevent those "greedy" trial lawyers from overreaching. Bad, bad trial lawyers!
There is also the tribunal, a panel of physicians that must review every medical malpractice case that is filed and if that panel of doctors judging doctors finds that the case has no merit the plaintiff must post a cash bond in order to proceed.
Still, our medical costs and malpractice insurance costs have not declined. Nor have such costs declined in Texas where they have an arbitrary cap on pain and suffering damages.
"Tort reform" is nothing more than another corporatist right-wing shibboleth designed to boondoggle the ignorant and uninformed who make up a significant part of the GOP's electoral base.
There is also the tribunal, a panel of physicians that must review every medical malpractice case that is filed and if that panel of doctors judging doctors finds that the case has no merit the plaintiff must post a cash bond in order to proceed.
Still, our medical costs and malpractice insurance costs have not declined. Nor have such costs declined in Texas where they have an arbitrary cap on pain and suffering damages.
"Tort reform" is nothing more than another corporatist right-wing shibboleth designed to boondoggle the ignorant and uninformed who make up a significant part of the GOP's electoral base.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Oh, Buzz
So nice to hear from you. Now why don't you try to explain why the "general Welfare of the United States" does not include using tax money to protect the health of all Americans. While you're at it, please explain how using tax money for corporate welfare, starting a resource war overseas to secure oil leases for oil companies is somehow connected with defending the United States.
So nice to hear from you. Now why don't you try to explain why the "general Welfare of the United States" does not include using tax money to protect the health of all Americans. While you're at it, please explain how using tax money for corporate welfare, starting a resource war overseas to secure oil leases for oil companies is somehow connected with defending the United States.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Ned
See what I mean about little Peter? Now he says, twice even, that he doesn't believe the Kenyan birth conspiracy theory. But he avoids answering my pertinent follow up question.
If he doesn't believe that nonsense what was his point in claiming that he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? To make a statement like that in reply to my critique of that conspircy theory can only have one of two explanations.
1. He believes the theory and is defending it. O.k., he denies that, so the other must be true and he's proving my basic point about today's conservative know-nothings.
2. Just like all the GOP Congressional stooges are doing on health care reform, little Peter puts garbage like that into the discussion, cynically knowing it is garbage, to simply obstruct reasonable discussion of the issues because, just like the GOP stooges in Washington, he's got nuthin.'
See what I mean about little Peter? Now he says, twice even, that he doesn't believe the Kenyan birth conspiracy theory. But he avoids answering my pertinent follow up question.
If he doesn't believe that nonsense what was his point in claiming that he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? To make a statement like that in reply to my critique of that conspircy theory can only have one of two explanations.
1. He believes the theory and is defending it. O.k., he denies that, so the other must be true and he's proving my basic point about today's conservative know-nothings.
2. Just like all the GOP Congressional stooges are doing on health care reform, little Peter puts garbage like that into the discussion, cynically knowing it is garbage, to simply obstruct reasonable discussion of the issues because, just like the GOP stooges in Washington, he's got nuthin.'
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Ned
Didja notice how Petey totally ignored my specific question about his belief or disbelief in the birther conspiracy theory and instead kept up with a barrage of trivial, off-topic right wing talking points?
That's what those guys always do. I put the question to little Peter directly. If he doesn't believe the birther theory, why did he defend it by saying he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? No response there -wonder why?
Is it because he really is an Elmer who believes that crap, or is it because he's a typical right wing obstructionist who's got nuthin' but irrelevant, trivial disinformation, stuff even he doesn't really believe, and he uses it to derail intelligent, serious discussion of the issues at hand when it might threaten his precious know-nothing right wing ideology?
It's got to be one or the other, Ned, and little Peter just doesn't want to talk about it because, either way, he's got nuthin' -and he knows it.
Didja notice how Petey totally ignored my specific question about his belief or disbelief in the birther conspiracy theory and instead kept up with a barrage of trivial, off-topic right wing talking points?
That's what those guys always do. I put the question to little Peter directly. If he doesn't believe the birther theory, why did he defend it by saying he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? No response there -wonder why?
Is it because he really is an Elmer who believes that crap, or is it because he's a typical right wing obstructionist who's got nuthin' but irrelevant, trivial disinformation, stuff even he doesn't really believe, and he uses it to derail intelligent, serious discussion of the issues at hand when it might threaten his precious know-nothing right wing ideology?
It's got to be one or the other, Ned, and little Peter just doesn't want to talk about it because, either way, he's got nuthin' -and he knows it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Maverick:
I was worried about going off topic, too. That's why I mentioned the fact that most religious art, what we see in the European cathedrals, was commisisoned by artists who got paid or were otherwise supported in high style.
That was a way of expressing the idea of God during the Middle Ages, albeit a highly structured, formal expression, that was intended to convey scriptural messages pictorially to the masses who were largely illiterate.
I was worried about going off topic, too. That's why I mentioned the fact that most religious art, what we see in the European cathedrals, was commisisoned by artists who got paid or were otherwise supported in high style.
That was a way of expressing the idea of God during the Middle Ages, albeit a highly structured, formal expression, that was intended to convey scriptural messages pictorially to the masses who were largely illiterate.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Fox25 Boston Runs Anti-Spanking Story?!
In response to: Fox25 Boston Runs Anti-Spanking Story?!
Yeah, yeah, sure. But what about a smack upside the head?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
To understand the social and economic dynamics that bear on the question whether our democracy is in its final days, read Kevin Phillips' 2004 book "American Theocracy." Phillips, author of The Emerging Rebublican Majority in 1969, has a good track record as a political analyst/prognosticator.
In American Theocracy, he draws parallels between the decline of the Dutch and British empires with the present decline of the American empire, based on three fundamental elements: (1) the political entrenchment of a single energy resource; (2) financialization of the economy; and (3) the ascendancy of religion in politics.
Holland had perfected wind and wood as it's economic energy base, England had coal, and the U.S. now clings doggedly to petroleum, while China is stepping ahead with renewable energy technologies. We've seen excess financialization ruin the US economy, putting us deeply in debt to the Chinese and others who now have the edge over us in trade based on superior manufacturing capacity, and we've seen what the religious right has done to tear our society apart.
In American Theocracy, he draws parallels between the decline of the Dutch and British empires with the present decline of the American empire, based on three fundamental elements: (1) the political entrenchment of a single energy resource; (2) financialization of the economy; and (3) the ascendancy of religion in politics.
Holland had perfected wind and wood as it's economic energy base, England had coal, and the U.S. now clings doggedly to petroleum, while China is stepping ahead with renewable energy technologies. We've seen excess financialization ruin the US economy, putting us deeply in debt to the Chinese and others who now have the edge over us in trade based on superior manufacturing capacity, and we've seen what the religious right has done to tear our society apart.
Richard [Member]
In response to: HOUSE REPUBLICANS QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY
In response to: HOUSE REPUBLICANS QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY
Let's think this through, people, something totally unfamiliar to today's GOP.
Either the appointment will be held constitutionally valid or it will not be. I make no claim either way, but I do know this.
We have no voice in the Senate right now and won't until January 2010 unless the seat is filled by a benchwarmer who is not a candidate to complete Kennedy's term, someone like Paul Kirk.
If Kirk's appointment is valid, we will have a strong voice over the next four months, and one close to those of the man we elected to fill the seat last time around.
If the appointment is found to be invalid, then we won't have a vote in the Senate for the next four months. So, how are we any worse off? Public officials are elected to serve the intersts of the public, not their party -a principle also very unfamiliar to today's GOP.
Either the appointment will be held constitutionally valid or it will not be. I make no claim either way, but I do know this.
We have no voice in the Senate right now and won't until January 2010 unless the seat is filled by a benchwarmer who is not a candidate to complete Kennedy's term, someone like Paul Kirk.
If Kirk's appointment is valid, we will have a strong voice over the next four months, and one close to those of the man we elected to fill the seat last time around.
If the appointment is found to be invalid, then we won't have a vote in the Senate for the next four months. So, how are we any worse off? Public officials are elected to serve the intersts of the public, not their party -a principle also very unfamiliar to today's GOP.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Question for Petey:
You say you don't believe the birthers, so why do you post to support the credibility of their cause by claiming to have seen a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? If it isn't because you dont' belive it is competent, credible evidcence, what's your point?
My point, the main point of this thread was that unlike the birther nonsense, both the 9/11 conspiracy theory and the Pearl Harbor theory have an element of plausibility but cannot be proven. So it is a fair question, Petey, do you believe the Kenyan birth theory is plausible or not based on the purported birth certificate you have "seen?"
Either way, you got nuthin.' If you believe it's plausible, then you really are living in Alice's Wonderland like Judge Land said in dismissing the Rhodes case - and you should change your name to Elmer.
You wrote that you "never said" you believed it, but you never said you disbelieved it. So, if you're not an Elmer, then you're simply an obstructionist raising all kinds of unfounded scary objections to anything Obama does, a typical Republican like Wilson.
You say you don't believe the birthers, so why do you post to support the credibility of their cause by claiming to have seen a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? If it isn't because you dont' belive it is competent, credible evidcence, what's your point?
My point, the main point of this thread was that unlike the birther nonsense, both the 9/11 conspiracy theory and the Pearl Harbor theory have an element of plausibility but cannot be proven. So it is a fair question, Petey, do you believe the Kenyan birth theory is plausible or not based on the purported birth certificate you have "seen?"
Either way, you got nuthin.' If you believe it's plausible, then you really are living in Alice's Wonderland like Judge Land said in dismissing the Rhodes case - and you should change your name to Elmer.
You wrote that you "never said" you believed it, but you never said you disbelieved it. So, if you're not an Elmer, then you're simply an obstructionist raising all kinds of unfounded scary objections to anything Obama does, a typical Republican like Wilson.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Give it up, Petey, 'cause you got nuthin'.
We know Carter changed, as did former KKK members Hugo Black and, yes, Robert Byrd, because of what they did affirmatively over several decades. Carter's most recent remarks about racist opposition to Obama is an example. Black's vote for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. in '54 is another, as is Byrd's change in '68 to support civil rights legislation. What has Wilson ever done to support civil rights?
Meanwhile, Byrd remained a Democrat, supporting civil rights after '68, as Wilson's old boss Thurmond left the Dems over that issue with all the other Dixiecrats and became staunch Republicans. That says volumes about why Wilson called our first black President a liar.
This isn't court, Petey, remember. It's politics, and I don't have to produce a smoking gun here, as you should know from listening to all the right-wing media bloviators whose stuff you parrot.
Petey, you got nuthin' but your paranoid hatred of anyone you think wants to make you share your toys with others. There's a name for people like that, too. They're called Republicans.
We know Carter changed, as did former KKK members Hugo Black and, yes, Robert Byrd, because of what they did affirmatively over several decades. Carter's most recent remarks about racist opposition to Obama is an example. Black's vote for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. in '54 is another, as is Byrd's change in '68 to support civil rights legislation. What has Wilson ever done to support civil rights?
Meanwhile, Byrd remained a Democrat, supporting civil rights after '68, as Wilson's old boss Thurmond left the Dems over that issue with all the other Dixiecrats and became staunch Republicans. That says volumes about why Wilson called our first black President a liar.
This isn't court, Petey, remember. It's politics, and I don't have to produce a smoking gun here, as you should know from listening to all the right-wing media bloviators whose stuff you parrot.
Petey, you got nuthin' but your paranoid hatred of anyone you think wants to make you share your toys with others. There's a name for people like that, too. They're called Republicans.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
To Peter, YT and all you other Elmers who defend the birther conspiracy theory.
There's a huge difference between a courtroom, where facts must be proven with real, competent evidence so the BIG LIE gets swept into the trash where it belongs, after the whacko plaintiffs have their day in court, and the kind of unscrutinized drivel you get from the internet. Judge Land was being too kind when he called it Alice in Wonderland.
BTW, why do you think the GOP hacks are always squealing for "tort reform?" It's only because they know that juries given a fair presentation of real, competent evidence, unlike you Elmers who glom onto to right-wing media ruminations, can see right through the crap and get at the truth after a fair trial.
BTW are you sure you have your "real" original birth certificates? It's very unlikely because the record is entered on municipal books and then the clerk issues a "certificate" on request of what is entered there. That's how it works, Elmer.
So why can't I sue you as ETs posing
as human beings unless you produce your "real" birth certificates?
There's a huge difference between a courtroom, where facts must be proven with real, competent evidence so the BIG LIE gets swept into the trash where it belongs, after the whacko plaintiffs have their day in court, and the kind of unscrutinized drivel you get from the internet. Judge Land was being too kind when he called it Alice in Wonderland.
BTW, why do you think the GOP hacks are always squealing for "tort reform?" It's only because they know that juries given a fair presentation of real, competent evidence, unlike you Elmers who glom onto to right-wing media ruminations, can see right through the crap and get at the truth after a fair trial.
BTW are you sure you have your "real" original birth certificates? It's very unlikely because the record is entered on municipal books and then the clerk issues a "certificate" on request of what is entered there. That's how it works, Elmer.
So why can't I sue you as ETs posing
as human beings unless you produce your "real" birth certificates?
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
balongnsam:
Leaving aside the death penalty issue, the conviction was upheld because there was sufficient evidence, both from the snitch's eyewitness testimony and the corroborating circumstantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Leaving aside the death penalty issue, the conviction was upheld because there was sufficient evidence, both from the snitch's eyewitness testimony and the corroborating circumstantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
YT
Prediction: The California case will be dismissed after the hearing, just as all the other BS birther cases have been. That's your tax dollars at work, too.
Prediction: The California case will be dismissed after the hearing, just as all the other BS birther cases have been. That's your tax dollars at work, too.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Shame On A Blogga
In response to: Shame On A Blogga
I saw the game Sunday. The Pats got beat but not "embarassed" as one Jet predicted. Here's a prediction, though.
The Jets will be embarassed big time when they visit Foxboro later this fall.
The Jets will be embarassed big time when they visit Foxboro later this fall.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Adrift at Buttermilk Bay
In response to: Adrift at Buttermilk Bay
Singin' flotsam and jetsam, alive-alive-o!
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Peter, Peter, Peter
As a member of the bar I am well aware that when evidence is accepted in court, unlike what you see on the internet, it has been proven to be relevant, material and competent. Competent evidence includes authentic records as opposed to something anyone can fiddle with and put on the internet like your supposed Kenyan birth certificate.
Now, several birther lawsuits have been was thrown out of court precisely because the competent evidence, including Obama's birth certificate and the 47 year old newspaper microfilm of his birth announcement. Your Kenyan "birth certificate" was specifically rejected by Judge Land of the U.S. District Court in Georgia in the case of Rhodes v. MacDonald. Land called the entire case "Alice in Wonderland," and he's a Bush appointment.
So, if you question Judge Land or the integrity of the federal judiciary generally, why don't you give us some paranoid wingnut ruminations about why the Rosenberg's were wrongly convicted by those "liberal" federal judges in New York? I'd love to read it!
As a member of the bar I am well aware that when evidence is accepted in court, unlike what you see on the internet, it has been proven to be relevant, material and competent. Competent evidence includes authentic records as opposed to something anyone can fiddle with and put on the internet like your supposed Kenyan birth certificate.
Now, several birther lawsuits have been was thrown out of court precisely because the competent evidence, including Obama's birth certificate and the 47 year old newspaper microfilm of his birth announcement. Your Kenyan "birth certificate" was specifically rejected by Judge Land of the U.S. District Court in Georgia in the case of Rhodes v. MacDonald. Land called the entire case "Alice in Wonderland," and he's a Bush appointment.
So, if you question Judge Land or the integrity of the federal judiciary generally, why don't you give us some paranoid wingnut ruminations about why the Rosenberg's were wrongly convicted by those "liberal" federal judges in New York? I'd love to read it!
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Peter, Peter, Peter
Right wing idiocy is clearly the modern day equivalent of TB in the 19th Century. Virulent and incurable only because of ignorance.
Yes, Jimmy Carter as a young local politician in the deep South took positions consistent with the southern racist mentality, even two years after Brown v. Bd. of Education. But he grew out of that, clearly.
Meanwhile, Joe Jim Crow Wilson, began his political career working for non other than Strom Dixiecrat Thurmond, and there is no clear evidnece that he ever grew out of the virulent racism that drove the Dixiecrats to break with Truman over integration of the military, then to oppose all civil rights initiatives when they were still Democrats and then to defect to the GOP when Reagan pandered to their "states rights" mantra -which is exactly what folks like Thurmond, Faubus, Wallace et al. shouted in opposing integration.
Joe Jim has never given any clear indication that he has changed, and his outburst against Obama is a clear indication he has not -along with his vote to keep the Stars and Bars flying.
Right wing idiocy is clearly the modern day equivalent of TB in the 19th Century. Virulent and incurable only because of ignorance.
Yes, Jimmy Carter as a young local politician in the deep South took positions consistent with the southern racist mentality, even two years after Brown v. Bd. of Education. But he grew out of that, clearly.
Meanwhile, Joe Jim Crow Wilson, began his political career working for non other than Strom Dixiecrat Thurmond, and there is no clear evidnece that he ever grew out of the virulent racism that drove the Dixiecrats to break with Truman over integration of the military, then to oppose all civil rights initiatives when they were still Democrats and then to defect to the GOP when Reagan pandered to their "states rights" mantra -which is exactly what folks like Thurmond, Faubus, Wallace et al. shouted in opposing integration.
Joe Jim has never given any clear indication that he has changed, and his outburst against Obama is a clear indication he has not -along with his vote to keep the Stars and Bars flying.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Possee
If you want to discuss my positions, please get it right. I did not say that I wanted to chase down the Bush 9/11 conspiracy theory any further. What I said very clearly was that it is both credible and plausible, but unprovable, and therefore it would be futile to investigate any further.
I said that in context of comparing it to the very similar right-wing conspiracy theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor, which I said was also plausible but unprovable.
My point was that the circumstantial evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is stronger, which it is, but it is still not conclusive.
Now, if you want to debate that point, as to the strength of the circumstantial evidence in each case, fine. But please do not suggest that I'm arguing for further investigation of 9/11, because I'm not.
If some insider came forward with a tell-all, or if a smoking gun memorandum emerged, then I surely would and in that event the circumstantial evidence as to the Bush administration's motive would be compelling corroborative evidence. But that's a big if, isn't it?
If you want to discuss my positions, please get it right. I did not say that I wanted to chase down the Bush 9/11 conspiracy theory any further. What I said very clearly was that it is both credible and plausible, but unprovable, and therefore it would be futile to investigate any further.
I said that in context of comparing it to the very similar right-wing conspiracy theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor, which I said was also plausible but unprovable.
My point was that the circumstantial evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is stronger, which it is, but it is still not conclusive.
Now, if you want to debate that point, as to the strength of the circumstantial evidence in each case, fine. But please do not suggest that I'm arguing for further investigation of 9/11, because I'm not.
If some insider came forward with a tell-all, or if a smoking gun memorandum emerged, then I surely would and in that event the circumstantial evidence as to the Bush administration's motive would be compelling corroborative evidence. But that's a big if, isn't it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Ned: What's the difference between commercial art and fine art?
Is it money? Despite the "starving artist" cliche, all true artists have practiced their art as a means of making a living. Those who haven't are called dilletantes. But even Van Gogh, the quintessential starving artist tried desperately to make a living by selling his work.
Is it quality? Not really, there's lots of junk that's called "fine art" and there's lots of "commercial" stuff that's very good. Andy Warhol, a commercial artist, presented commercial stuff as fine art and it was very good. Lautrec's posters, too, were commercial as were the ephemeral posters for '60s rock bands at places like the Filmore in S.F. Meanwhile, IMHOP, Jackson Pollock's stuff is crap.
Is it intent or the message being presented? The "fine" artist is expressing his own ideas/feelings while the commercial artist is selling someone else's stuff. So what? The people who carved the steles for Pharoah were doing the exact same thing.
Ditto for most commisisoned religious art.
So what do you think the difference is?
Is it money? Despite the "starving artist" cliche, all true artists have practiced their art as a means of making a living. Those who haven't are called dilletantes. But even Van Gogh, the quintessential starving artist tried desperately to make a living by selling his work.
Is it quality? Not really, there's lots of junk that's called "fine art" and there's lots of "commercial" stuff that's very good. Andy Warhol, a commercial artist, presented commercial stuff as fine art and it was very good. Lautrec's posters, too, were commercial as were the ephemeral posters for '60s rock bands at places like the Filmore in S.F. Meanwhile, IMHOP, Jackson Pollock's stuff is crap.
Is it intent or the message being presented? The "fine" artist is expressing his own ideas/feelings while the commercial artist is selling someone else's stuff. So what? The people who carved the steles for Pharoah were doing the exact same thing.
Ditto for most commisisoned religious art.
So what do you think the difference is?
Richard [Member]
In response to: CCTimes Owner Punk'd in NYC by 'The Yes Men'...
In response to: CCTimes Owner Punk'd in NYC by 'The Yes Men'...
This reflects the true genius of the post-Reagan ultra-right wing GOP. It's been discussed in detail before by better writers than me, including Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansas.
Two or three generations ago, that's the kind of muckraking front page you'd expect to see on working class rags like the Post. But ever since Reagan perfected the Southern Strategy of duping the "Red State" bible thumpers into supporting the GOP's corporate agenda -voting consistently against their own economic interests based on socially divisive "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, gay marriage et cetera, papers like the Post only attack "liberals" on "values" issues like that and give the corporate weasels who also happen to own the papers a free ride.
Two or three generations ago, that's the kind of muckraking front page you'd expect to see on working class rags like the Post. But ever since Reagan perfected the Southern Strategy of duping the "Red State" bible thumpers into supporting the GOP's corporate agenda -voting consistently against their own economic interests based on socially divisive "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, gay marriage et cetera, papers like the Post only attack "liberals" on "values" issues like that and give the corporate weasels who also happen to own the papers a free ride.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Maverick
The Rosenberg case was decided well before the Warren Court's landmark rulings on the constitutional rights of the accused, including not only Miranda which everyone who watches cop shows on tv knows about, but Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois, Gideon v. Wainwright, Katz v. U.S. and Terry v. Ohio.
As a result of that line of cases, laws governing criminal procedure have been tightened generally, including the requirements for corroborating the testimony of accomplices who testify against an accused after a plea bargain, and it is stricter today than when the Rosenbergs were convicted. They still might be convicted under today's standards, I make no argument on that either way, but the standards for corroboration are stricter today than then.
The Rosenberg case was decided well before the Warren Court's landmark rulings on the constitutional rights of the accused, including not only Miranda which everyone who watches cop shows on tv knows about, but Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois, Gideon v. Wainwright, Katz v. U.S. and Terry v. Ohio.
As a result of that line of cases, laws governing criminal procedure have been tightened generally, including the requirements for corroborating the testimony of accomplices who testify against an accused after a plea bargain, and it is stricter today than when the Rosenbergs were convicted. They still might be convicted under today's standards, I make no argument on that either way, but the standards for corroboration are stricter today than then.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Peter, Peter, Peter, there you go again as Ronnie Reagan might say.
Membership in a crypto racist organization like Sons of the Confederacy is prima facie evidence of racist beliefs. Wilson was one of the 8 South Carolina state senators to vote in favor of keeping the Stars and Bars flying over the state house as a direct affront to black citizens. When Essie May Washigton Williams revealed she was the illegitimate multi-racial child of a union between Strom Thurmond and his Afro-American maid, it was Wilson who labeled that a "smear," even though Thurmond acknowledged his paternity.
BTW, when were you in Nairobi to see Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? Did you also see the 47 year old microfilm of the East Africa Standard's announcement of Obama's birth there?
Admit it, Peter, you got nuthin.' Never have and never will as long as you cling to that idiotic right wing garbage you seem to cherish.
Membership in a crypto racist organization like Sons of the Confederacy is prima facie evidence of racist beliefs. Wilson was one of the 8 South Carolina state senators to vote in favor of keeping the Stars and Bars flying over the state house as a direct affront to black citizens. When Essie May Washigton Williams revealed she was the illegitimate multi-racial child of a union between Strom Thurmond and his Afro-American maid, it was Wilson who labeled that a "smear," even though Thurmond acknowledged his paternity.
BTW, when were you in Nairobi to see Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? Did you also see the 47 year old microfilm of the East Africa Standard's announcement of Obama's birth there?
Admit it, Peter, you got nuthin.' Never have and never will as long as you cling to that idiotic right wing garbage you seem to cherish.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Rojay Srs.' two Shabbat questions remind me of a passage in Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time. Hawking lucidly writes about the theoretical construct of the singularity, the infinitessimal point from which the known universe we can see and measure has emerged, i.e. what is colloquially referred to as the "Big Bang." Hawking says he has the mathematics to prove that's how it happened, and I certainly cannot question his math.
But then he remarks that it is "meaningless" to ask about any prior context for the singularity, which is where a person of faith can say "Aha!"
When Hawking and other rationalists say that question is "meaningless," what they are saying is their math can't answer it. Math can only tell us how, not why. But as Mr. Rojay Sr. would tell them, that has been the most meaningful question of all for most of mankind throughout all history and prehistory.
We can't answer it with certainty, though, as Hawking's math can describe the known universe, and it's important to understand that fact. Still, it's just as important that we keep asking the question.
But then he remarks that it is "meaningless" to ask about any prior context for the singularity, which is where a person of faith can say "Aha!"
When Hawking and other rationalists say that question is "meaningless," what they are saying is their math can't answer it. Math can only tell us how, not why. But as Mr. Rojay Sr. would tell them, that has been the most meaningful question of all for most of mankind throughout all history and prehistory.
We can't answer it with certainty, though, as Hawking's math can describe the known universe, and it's important to understand that fact. Still, it's just as important that we keep asking the question.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
It's not the idea of God that causes trouble, it's the notion by some people that they own the copyright and therefore their idea of God is both exclusive and infallible.
That's what leads us into absurdities like the "holy war" many self-described American "Christians" believe we are fighting in the middle East. That same thing is also evidenced by the corruption of faith in pursuit of geopolitical ends everywhere.
The most absurd of these, again, occurs in the middle east based on the legend that Abraham's wife Sarah had been barren so he sired the male child Ishmael by the servant girl Hagar. Then Sarah bore him Isaac so Hagar and Ishmael were expelled. Isaac then begat the lineage of the Jews and Ishmael the lineage of the Arabs, and they've been fighting basically territorial wars for about three millenia because of it, always claiming it's because of their belief in the one "true" God.
The idea of God isn't insane, but it surely leads us to mass insanity. That's the whole history of modern western "civilization," too, from the Crusades to "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
That's what leads us into absurdities like the "holy war" many self-described American "Christians" believe we are fighting in the middle East. That same thing is also evidenced by the corruption of faith in pursuit of geopolitical ends everywhere.
The most absurd of these, again, occurs in the middle east based on the legend that Abraham's wife Sarah had been barren so he sired the male child Ishmael by the servant girl Hagar. Then Sarah bore him Isaac so Hagar and Ishmael were expelled. Isaac then begat the lineage of the Jews and Ishmael the lineage of the Arabs, and they've been fighting basically territorial wars for about three millenia because of it, always claiming it's because of their belief in the one "true" God.
The idea of God isn't insane, but it surely leads us to mass insanity. That's the whole history of modern western "civilization," too, from the Crusades to "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Ned
I would add that when someone like Peter resorts to purely ad hominem retorts about Lawrence Velvet and Sybil Edmonds, with nothing more by the way of proven facts or reasoned analysis, he not only loses the debate but also betrays the abject desperation of all right-wing "true believers" today.
Hey, they didn't get what they really wanted in Iraq, long term oil leases and permanent military bases, because the pretext of Iraqi self determination was actually realized. Then the economy crashed, and even Alan Greenspan recanted on their idiotic "free market" ideology. So, what's left for them except personal attacks on liberals with nothing to back them up?
We saw it in Congress a week ago with Joe Jim Crow Wilson, a card carrying member of Sons of the Confederacy, shouting "You lie," to our first black president.
An old saying of trial lawyers: When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you got nuthin', pound the table, and that's exactly what true believers like Peter and all other Rush Limbaugh wannabes are doing today.
I would add that when someone like Peter resorts to purely ad hominem retorts about Lawrence Velvet and Sybil Edmonds, with nothing more by the way of proven facts or reasoned analysis, he not only loses the debate but also betrays the abject desperation of all right-wing "true believers" today.
Hey, they didn't get what they really wanted in Iraq, long term oil leases and permanent military bases, because the pretext of Iraqi self determination was actually realized. Then the economy crashed, and even Alan Greenspan recanted on their idiotic "free market" ideology. So, what's left for them except personal attacks on liberals with nothing to back them up?
We saw it in Congress a week ago with Joe Jim Crow Wilson, a card carrying member of Sons of the Confederacy, shouting "You lie," to our first black president.
An old saying of trial lawyers: When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you got nuthin', pound the table, and that's exactly what true believers like Peter and all other Rush Limbaugh wannabes are doing today.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi,dk
A couple of flaws in your argument here.
First, as to "thousands of memos," one supposes that memoranda are written to be read by those responsible for setting the agenda and making decisions. One also supposes that in an honest and competent organization those responsible set priorities and those reviewing memoranda make sure that high priority information is acted upon promptly.
Now I'm sure there were dozens of memos about trade with India, or cutting corporate taxes, or bailing out of environmental lawsuits,et cetera. But how many memos were there saying explicitly that al Qaeda is planning an imminent attack on the U.S.? As I said, those clowns in the White House either wanted it to happen, or they were grossly negligent for ignoring that one memo. As I said, also, anything more than such astounding incompetence cannot be proven without either hard evidence like an explicit memo or credible insider testimony. But that kind of evidence would then be supported by a strong circumstantial case as to motive.
Second, Clarke also served ably under Reagan and Bush I.
A couple of flaws in your argument here.
First, as to "thousands of memos," one supposes that memoranda are written to be read by those responsible for setting the agenda and making decisions. One also supposes that in an honest and competent organization those responsible set priorities and those reviewing memoranda make sure that high priority information is acted upon promptly.
Now I'm sure there were dozens of memos about trade with India, or cutting corporate taxes, or bailing out of environmental lawsuits,et cetera. But how many memos were there saying explicitly that al Qaeda is planning an imminent attack on the U.S.? As I said, those clowns in the White House either wanted it to happen, or they were grossly negligent for ignoring that one memo. As I said, also, anything more than such astounding incompetence cannot be proven without either hard evidence like an explicit memo or credible insider testimony. But that kind of evidence would then be supported by a strong circumstantial case as to motive.
Second, Clarke also served ably under Reagan and Bush I.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, bitter
The only way that could ever be proven without a "smoking gun" like a secret memo or e-mail printout, is if someone on the inside of the Bush White House came forward in a pique of conscience and testified under oath. With that kind of testimony, as in the Rosenberg case, then the circumstantial evidence would be strongly probative. Even stronger than in the Rosenberg case, given Clarke's clear warning and the administration's undeniable motive, opportunity and exploitation of the situation.
Otherwise, the principle of deniability obtains and will remain unproven.
The only way that could ever be proven without a "smoking gun" like a secret memo or e-mail printout, is if someone on the inside of the Bush White House came forward in a pique of conscience and testified under oath. With that kind of testimony, as in the Rosenberg case, then the circumstantial evidence would be strongly probative. Even stronger than in the Rosenberg case, given Clarke's clear warning and the administration's undeniable motive, opportunity and exploitation of the situation.
Otherwise, the principle of deniability obtains and will remain unproven.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Heed the Will of the Voters
In response to: Heed the Will of the Voters
Those complaints about the law's unenforceability are almost entirely from the district attorneys and the police, including our very own Harry Anslinger wannabe Michael O'Keefe.
Those selectively zealous public servants are clearly worried about the continued health of their federal grants in the forty year "war on drugs" which depends on the size of the local criminal drug "problem" and their effort to curb it. Take away a criminal drug law like marijuana possession, there's gonna be fewer busts, fewer prosecutions and fewer convictions. That translates directly into fewer bucks going to the local drug abuse "task force."
My reply to them, as my old tort law professor Willis Reese used to say, is "too bad, so sad." Maybe they can get the feds to give them more money to fight real crimes like murder, rape, robbery etc. instead of maintaining a system of criminal drug laws that only fuels such crime -like the Barnstable High student who was murdered last year over $2,000 in drug money.
Those selectively zealous public servants are clearly worried about the continued health of their federal grants in the forty year "war on drugs" which depends on the size of the local criminal drug "problem" and their effort to curb it. Take away a criminal drug law like marijuana possession, there's gonna be fewer busts, fewer prosecutions and fewer convictions. That translates directly into fewer bucks going to the local drug abuse "task force."
My reply to them, as my old tort law professor Willis Reese used to say, is "too bad, so sad." Maybe they can get the feds to give them more money to fight real crimes like murder, rape, robbery etc. instead of maintaining a system of criminal drug laws that only fuels such crime -like the Barnstable High student who was murdered last year over $2,000 in drug money.
Richard [Member]
In response to: We aren't that Gull-ible
In response to: We aren't that Gull-ible
Hi, Dick
You should have said we aren't all that gullible. The other two replies here show that some of us clearly are.
You should have said we aren't all that gullible. The other two replies here show that some of us clearly are.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Who is this tax-evader -- and how stupid can he be?
In response to: Who is this tax-evader -- and how stupid can he be?
I recall a generation or so ago when there was a mass emigration from Massachusetts into "tax-free" New Hampshire.
It significantly elevated the average IQ in both states.
It significantly elevated the average IQ in both states.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hey, possee
It is doubtless true that both the Dems and the GOP have pursued cynical geopolitical agendas in the name of overseas corporate welfare. As the old saying goes, the flag follows the trade.
One difference is that in recent times, it's been more of a case that a Democratic president inherits the mess created by overzealous GOP administrations. Thus it was that Kennedy inherited the plans designed by Dulles to assist in the invasion of Cuba and to thwart the Geneva accords for a unifying election in Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu.
Similarly, Obama has inherited the atrocities initiated by Bush/Cheney in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem with the Dems has been more that they fear being seen as "soft" on the enemy du jour, commies or "jihadists," as opposed to cynically starting wars.
Yes, I know about Clinton and Kosovo, but with his belief in economic globalization he's the exception that proves the rule. In domestic policy, however, it's always the GOP that pushes ideological paranoia in service of the corporate elite.
It is doubtless true that both the Dems and the GOP have pursued cynical geopolitical agendas in the name of overseas corporate welfare. As the old saying goes, the flag follows the trade.
One difference is that in recent times, it's been more of a case that a Democratic president inherits the mess created by overzealous GOP administrations. Thus it was that Kennedy inherited the plans designed by Dulles to assist in the invasion of Cuba and to thwart the Geneva accords for a unifying election in Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu.
Similarly, Obama has inherited the atrocities initiated by Bush/Cheney in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem with the Dems has been more that they fear being seen as "soft" on the enemy du jour, commies or "jihadists," as opposed to cynically starting wars.
Yes, I know about Clinton and Kosovo, but with his belief in economic globalization he's the exception that proves the rule. In domestic policy, however, it's always the GOP that pushes ideological paranoia in service of the corporate elite.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, jmadden
I'll take the comparison with Pete Seeger as a compliment as I've always admired his integrity as well as enjoyed his musicianship.
The most striking thing about Seeger is the way he maintained his principles during the right-wing paranoia of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. It cost him careerwise for awhile, but he came out whole both in terms of his integrity and his career.
What a contrast with the chicken "stuff" weasel Ronnie Reagan who just went along while those red-baiting "conservatives" ruined lives and smeared even real American heroes like J. Robert Oppenheimer.
I'll take the comparison with Pete Seeger as a compliment as I've always admired his integrity as well as enjoyed his musicianship.
The most striking thing about Seeger is the way he maintained his principles during the right-wing paranoia of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. It cost him careerwise for awhile, but he came out whole both in terms of his integrity and his career.
What a contrast with the chicken "stuff" weasel Ronnie Reagan who just went along while those red-baiting "conservatives" ruined lives and smeared even real American heroes like J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
To answer your question Ana, I don't know for sure but I believe it will not happen unless and until the economy really does crash again like in 1929, or maybe when gasoline hits five dollars or so a gallon with unemployment up around 10 or ll percent.
There's nothing like real economic hardship to sweep away ideological myths like the magic invisible hand of free markets and get people moving for political and economic change.
There's nothing like real economic hardship to sweep away ideological myths like the magic invisible hand of free markets and get people moving for political and economic change.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
Hi, JM
I'd just love to see Ted try to stand in there when Dice K throws a high heater to the plate. Then we'd see just how much of a big American guy Ted really is.
I'd just love to see Ted try to stand in there when Dice K throws a high heater to the plate. Then we'd see just how much of a big American guy Ted really is.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
I was at the game Tuesday night, seventh row at home plate, and Dice K was bringing the real stuff for five solid innings. It was good to see, and from the way he was pitching don't be surprised to see more like it through the end of the season and through the playoffs.
The real highlight, though, was to see Papi's record setting home run as DH. You can always tell from behind the plate when a shot is going to leave the park from the moment it leaves the bat, and there was no doubt about this one.
A bit of caution, though. Lackey is a horse and except for a surprise bit of NL style small ball that got two runs, the Sox really couldn't touch him through seven solid innings.
The real highlight, though, was to see Papi's record setting home run as DH. You can always tell from behind the plate when a shot is going to leave the park from the moment it leaves the bat, and there was no doubt about this one.
A bit of caution, though. Lackey is a horse and except for a surprise bit of NL style small ball that got two runs, the Sox really couldn't touch him through seven solid innings.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Dingbat wrote: "If it seems reasonable and believable, there you go, I don't need to check any more facts!"
But that's just the point with Van Jones signing the petition for further inquiry, i.e. he wanted some further development of the facts, because the theory was in fact reasonable, i.e. it was plausible from a neutral realpolitik point of view that disregards any ideological favoritism.
Not the absurd claim that the Bush people were actually involved in 9/11, but simply the possibility that they deliberately turned their heads away when Clarke warned of an impending attack, with no idea that it would be as dramatic as it turned out to be, because they needed something to happen as a catalyst for invading Iraq.
But, as I said, that can never be proven. The other scenario, that 9/11 was simply the result of official incompetence in the White House, is equally plausible. So nothing would ever come of any further investigation other than the Scotch verdict "not proven."
But that's just the point with Van Jones signing the petition for further inquiry, i.e. he wanted some further development of the facts, because the theory was in fact reasonable, i.e. it was plausible from a neutral realpolitik point of view that disregards any ideological favoritism.
Not the absurd claim that the Bush people were actually involved in 9/11, but simply the possibility that they deliberately turned their heads away when Clarke warned of an impending attack, with no idea that it would be as dramatic as it turned out to be, because they needed something to happen as a catalyst for invading Iraq.
But, as I said, that can never be proven. The other scenario, that 9/11 was simply the result of official incompetence in the White House, is equally plausible. So nothing would ever come of any further investigation other than the Scotch verdict "not proven."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
Um, Maverick
Have you considered the possibility that the bill was amended because Obama said very clearly that he would not sign a bill that provided benefits for illegal aliens or abortion, i.e. because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise?
Have you considered the fact that what Obama said when Wilson said "you lie" has actually come to pass because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise, i.e. that he meant exactly what he was saying?
No, of course you haven't, because that wouldn't fit as neatly with your simplistic ideological preconceptions which permit of no flexibility or compromise even in the most complex political and economic negotiations.
Your comments would fit far better in a forum like Rush Limbaugh, instead of a site like this one written and edited by a rational and knowledgable individual speaking to people with the same attributes.
Have you considered the possibility that the bill was amended because Obama said very clearly that he would not sign a bill that provided benefits for illegal aliens or abortion, i.e. because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise?
Have you considered the fact that what Obama said when Wilson said "you lie" has actually come to pass because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise, i.e. that he meant exactly what he was saying?
No, of course you haven't, because that wouldn't fit as neatly with your simplistic ideological preconceptions which permit of no flexibility or compromise even in the most complex political and economic negotiations.
Your comments would fit far better in a forum like Rush Limbaugh, instead of a site like this one written and edited by a rational and knowledgable individual speaking to people with the same attributes.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
This is an interesting discussion among us all who favor reform and want to see better health care delivery for more people. That isn't really an ideological issue, but corporate profiteering is. What we're seeing today is a defeated GOP clinging to its infantile belief system as to the magical power of corporate enterprise, i.e. "privatization," as against "big government," and this in the face of the second major failure of unrestrained free enterprise in 80 years of driving us over a bumpy economic road with periods of inflation and recession, controlled by regulation until the GOP took over in 2000.
Such a system of risk and profit is fine when we're talking about selling cars, jewelry, electronics, applicances, et cetera, but we should not let private corporations play games with our money for basics like health care.
What Obama has done by floating the idea of co-ops instead of a public option is to lay bare the GOP's abject commitment to corporate profiteering, hoping enough Americans will finally wake up to that fact so he can push through real reform next year.
Such a system of risk and profit is fine when we're talking about selling cars, jewelry, electronics, applicances, et cetera, but we should not let private corporations play games with our money for basics like health care.
What Obama has done by floating the idea of co-ops instead of a public option is to lay bare the GOP's abject commitment to corporate profiteering, hoping enough Americans will finally wake up to that fact so he can push through real reform next year.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform Part I/ General Comments
In response to: Tort Reform Part I/ General Comments
Bruce
The single best example of what so-called "tort reform" is all about is the 1972 Ford Pinto case where people were killed due to a faulty gas tank design. This is something that everyone should understand and keep in mind whenever caps on damages are "debated."
Ford could have made the Pinto safer by relocating the gas tank or providing better protection for it, but that would have cost X million dollars. So their actuaries, using statistics as to frequency of collisions and average jury verdicts, calculated the cost in damages with the safer design as opposed to keeping it as it was. Because it would have cost more, as against predicted damage payouts to make it safer, they chose not to do so knowing that more people would be killed and badly burned in accidents because of it.
The "runaway" verdict in 1972 caught them by surprise. The question we all should be asking is whether we really want to make it easier for corporate managers to compromise our health and safety based on more certain predictions, or do we want to keep them guessing in favor of safer practices.
The single best example of what so-called "tort reform" is all about is the 1972 Ford Pinto case where people were killed due to a faulty gas tank design. This is something that everyone should understand and keep in mind whenever caps on damages are "debated."
Ford could have made the Pinto safer by relocating the gas tank or providing better protection for it, but that would have cost X million dollars. So their actuaries, using statistics as to frequency of collisions and average jury verdicts, calculated the cost in damages with the safer design as opposed to keeping it as it was. Because it would have cost more, as against predicted damage payouts to make it safer, they chose not to do so knowing that more people would be killed and badly burned in accidents because of it.
The "runaway" verdict in 1972 caught them by surprise. The question we all should be asking is whether we really want to make it easier for corporate managers to compromise our health and safety based on more certain predictions, or do we want to keep them guessing in favor of safer practices.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
The most significant political/legal issue facing America today was just argued in the Supreme Court last week concerning the scope of corporate free speech. All the parties seem to agree that the plaintiffs who produced "Hillary the Movie" will likely win on the merits of that specific case, but the larger issue is whether it will be a narrow ruling confined to those facts or a "broad ruling" that greatly expands corporate control over the public media.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Possee wrote:
"I previously stated I do NOT trust corps either, just trust the feds LESS..
given their discpicable track record for everything they run.. . ."
So, tell me, Poss, does that include the Bush administration's war for corporate opportunity in Iraq? I mean you got both of them in play there, big government and big business, playing footsie actually. I don't recall you ever saying how much you distrusted the Bush folks when they told us those scary stories to start an oil war against Saddam. Did you trust Cheney meeting with oil industry execs to discuss national energy policy? Did it ever occur to you that Cheney's energy policy task force might just have something to do with getting our soldiers into Iraq in an attempt to seize Saddam's oil reserves? If so, when did you speak out against all that big federal government starting wars to benefit the big oil industry? Or maybe you trusted both of them on that one, huh? Just wondering.
"I previously stated I do NOT trust corps either, just trust the feds LESS..
given their discpicable track record for everything they run.. . ."
So, tell me, Poss, does that include the Bush administration's war for corporate opportunity in Iraq? I mean you got both of them in play there, big government and big business, playing footsie actually. I don't recall you ever saying how much you distrusted the Bush folks when they told us those scary stories to start an oil war against Saddam. Did you trust Cheney meeting with oil industry execs to discuss national energy policy? Did it ever occur to you that Cheney's energy policy task force might just have something to do with getting our soldiers into Iraq in an attempt to seize Saddam's oil reserves? If so, when did you speak out against all that big federal government starting wars to benefit the big oil industry? Or maybe you trusted both of them on that one, huh? Just wondering.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Hi, Possee
We agree on one thing at least. It is indeed most unfortunate that you place so much trust in the corporate weasels that run private insurance companies that you cannot see the obvious fact that any program, governmental or private, that does not take profits, investment costs, huge executive compensation payments, advertising, lobbying, real estate development, will have more of you health care dollar left to pay your doctor than the private insurers do today because they do use your money for all those purposes having nothing to do with health care.
We agree on one thing at least. It is indeed most unfortunate that you place so much trust in the corporate weasels that run private insurance companies that you cannot see the obvious fact that any program, governmental or private, that does not take profits, investment costs, huge executive compensation payments, advertising, lobbying, real estate development, will have more of you health care dollar left to pay your doctor than the private insurers do today because they do use your money for all those purposes having nothing to do with health care.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Hi, Possee
As I indicated earlier, and as Obama expressly stated last night, we are already paying for those 50 million uninsured when they go to a hospital ER and the bill has to get written off because they cannot pay.
Obama's plan, if you were listening, does not involve a significant tax incrase for the middle class and the working class. Instead, it reallocates existing health care moneys by forcing private insurersn to be more competitive in the market, and improves the private insurance "product" through regulations which prohibit exclusions for pre-existing illness and arbitrary caps on benefits and/or terms of coverage.
You don't trust governmental bureaucrats. Fine. But right now we've entrusted our health care money to profit driven corporate bureaucrats. As the old saying goes, "you pays your money and you makes your choice." But only a fool would choose to pay for corporate excesses in terms of premiums, only to have to pay with tax mnoney to bail them out as we did this past year.
It is broke, figuratively and literally, so let's fix it.
As I indicated earlier, and as Obama expressly stated last night, we are already paying for those 50 million uninsured when they go to a hospital ER and the bill has to get written off because they cannot pay.
Obama's plan, if you were listening, does not involve a significant tax incrase for the middle class and the working class. Instead, it reallocates existing health care moneys by forcing private insurersn to be more competitive in the market, and improves the private insurance "product" through regulations which prohibit exclusions for pre-existing illness and arbitrary caps on benefits and/or terms of coverage.
You don't trust governmental bureaucrats. Fine. But right now we've entrusted our health care money to profit driven corporate bureaucrats. As the old saying goes, "you pays your money and you makes your choice." But only a fool would choose to pay for corporate excesses in terms of premiums, only to have to pay with tax mnoney to bail them out as we did this past year.
It is broke, figuratively and literally, so let's fix it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Possee
So you read Camille Paglia, good for you. I like reading Paglia too, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything she says.
I mean it's not "foolish" to blame GOP obstructionism for the stalemate in the health care "debate," in light of the documented fact that a major GOP player, Sen. Jim DeMint, is on tape saying exactly that -they want to defeat Obama on the issue of health care simply for political gain, to make it his "Waterloo."
For those of us who have short historical memories, Waterloo was the decisive battle in which Wellington defeated Napoleon. That DeMint chose that metaphor clearly demonstrates that GOP opposition to health care reform is not concerned with the substantive specifics of any plan, but solely with inflicting political defeat on Obama as decisive as Wellington's defeat of Napoleon.
What would be foolish now, is for Obama or the Democrats to continue the effort at bipartisanship, an effort that requires good faith -where that quality is totally foreign to today's ideologically driven GOP.
So you read Camille Paglia, good for you. I like reading Paglia too, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything she says.
I mean it's not "foolish" to blame GOP obstructionism for the stalemate in the health care "debate," in light of the documented fact that a major GOP player, Sen. Jim DeMint, is on tape saying exactly that -they want to defeat Obama on the issue of health care simply for political gain, to make it his "Waterloo."
For those of us who have short historical memories, Waterloo was the decisive battle in which Wellington defeated Napoleon. That DeMint chose that metaphor clearly demonstrates that GOP opposition to health care reform is not concerned with the substantive specifics of any plan, but solely with inflicting political defeat on Obama as decisive as Wellington's defeat of Napoleon.
What would be foolish now, is for Obama or the Democrats to continue the effort at bipartisanship, an effort that requires good faith -where that quality is totally foreign to today's ideologically driven GOP.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Buzz, baby, how quickly we forget.
California's problems really began with Enron, i.e. with the lack of government oversight over corporate miscreants like W's buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay. And that lack of oversight and resulting lack of corporate accountability was the misshapen Caliban birthed from the Reagan "revolution" of governmental corporate indulgence enabled by the GOP's cynical exploitation of so-called "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, jingoism, et cetera.
The problem with pension funding today is that California, like many private companies, invested in the same Wall Street scams that brought down AIG and other large investors. I mean, tell us all how it was "unions" that caused AIG to fail, or Morgan Stanley or Lehman Brothers.
They were all playing with Ponzi money on Wall Street, largely because of GOP deregulatory indulgence over the past 8 years, and California got caught up just like everyone else in America.
Happy Labor Day, indeed!
California's problems really began with Enron, i.e. with the lack of government oversight over corporate miscreants like W's buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay. And that lack of oversight and resulting lack of corporate accountability was the misshapen Caliban birthed from the Reagan "revolution" of governmental corporate indulgence enabled by the GOP's cynical exploitation of so-called "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, jingoism, et cetera.
The problem with pension funding today is that California, like many private companies, invested in the same Wall Street scams that brought down AIG and other large investors. I mean, tell us all how it was "unions" that caused AIG to fail, or Morgan Stanley or Lehman Brothers.
They were all playing with Ponzi money on Wall Street, largely because of GOP deregulatory indulgence over the past 8 years, and California got caught up just like everyone else in America.
Happy Labor Day, indeed!
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Possee, as Ronnie Reagan might say, "there you go again."
It was Reagan, by the way, who began his political career railing against Medicare and through his false "values" driven populism poisoned the political climate in America by creating schisms among the working and middle classes over non-economic issues.
Responsible Republicans, including even Richard Nixon, supported Medicare. But after the "Reagan Revolution" and during the past 30 years, it has been GOP obstructionism in the form of dishonest demagoguery, like we're seeing today, that has prevented real reform. No GOP president since Nixon has tried it, and Clinton's effort failed largely to COP congressional obstruction combined, as yet today, with a chicken-hearted lack of resolve among the so-called Blue Dog Democrats.
That's a fact. I know it's "beyond belief" for you because you people, i.e. "conservatives," don't believe in anything anyway -certainly not genuine Christian values like caring for each other. Killing others in overseas oil wars o.k., but God forbid we should use taxes to help those in need.
It was Reagan, by the way, who began his political career railing against Medicare and through his false "values" driven populism poisoned the political climate in America by creating schisms among the working and middle classes over non-economic issues.
Responsible Republicans, including even Richard Nixon, supported Medicare. But after the "Reagan Revolution" and during the past 30 years, it has been GOP obstructionism in the form of dishonest demagoguery, like we're seeing today, that has prevented real reform. No GOP president since Nixon has tried it, and Clinton's effort failed largely to COP congressional obstruction combined, as yet today, with a chicken-hearted lack of resolve among the so-called Blue Dog Democrats.
That's a fact. I know it's "beyond belief" for you because you people, i.e. "conservatives," don't believe in anything anyway -certainly not genuine Christian values like caring for each other. Killing others in overseas oil wars o.k., but God forbid we should use taxes to help those in need.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Um, Possee
You seem to be pretty good at numbers, so why not think about how much it really costs each of us, not just in premium dollars for those of us fortunate enough to have health coverage, but also in terms of insurance driven increases in medical costs, and the burden on ERs from uninsured people who need treatment, and uninsured and therefore untreated persons spreading disease among the general population, and uninsured and untreated persons becoming disabled by progressive illness and going onto SSDI or welfare, and the burden on the judicial system when we have to sue to get denied claims paid,and the damage to our financial stability caused by private insurers gambling with our premium dollars and, lest we forget, the billions of tax dollars we just ponied up to bail out those private insurers.
I'm sure it's more than 3 grand a pop, not even counting the needless human suffering involved. But you're right to question mandatory purchase of private insurance, when single payer or the public option would do the job better and cost us a lot less across the board.
You seem to be pretty good at numbers, so why not think about how much it really costs each of us, not just in premium dollars for those of us fortunate enough to have health coverage, but also in terms of insurance driven increases in medical costs, and the burden on ERs from uninsured people who need treatment, and uninsured and therefore untreated persons spreading disease among the general population, and uninsured and untreated persons becoming disabled by progressive illness and going onto SSDI or welfare, and the burden on the judicial system when we have to sue to get denied claims paid,and the damage to our financial stability caused by private insurers gambling with our premium dollars and, lest we forget, the billions of tax dollars we just ponied up to bail out those private insurers.
I'm sure it's more than 3 grand a pop, not even counting the needless human suffering involved. But you're right to question mandatory purchase of private insurance, when single payer or the public option would do the job better and cost us a lot less across the board.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Don't Stifle Them With Plenty
In response to: Don't Stifle Them With Plenty
I grew up in a small town neighborhood, with relatives nearby and many other children whose parents looked out for everyone. But demographics have changed all that.
I lived on a public street then, not far from the downtown area -within an easy walk. But what we've seen on Cape Cod over the past fifty years, with rampant subdivision of once open land or agricultural land, often miles away from downtown areas, schools, playgrounds, et cetera, has had a significant impact on how we have to parent our kids.
My folks could let me roam on my bike and go to the nearby ballfield, because we had that kind of neighborhood. When my kid was growing up, though, we were several miles from the nearest ballfield, and with all the retirees buying up the building lots our subdivision didn't have enough families with kids to allow eight or ten of them to get together for a pickup game, even if there had been an open field on which to play nearby.
Each section of town once had it's own Little League team and field, but now that's centralized around one facility, with a townwide draft.
I lived on a public street then, not far from the downtown area -within an easy walk. But what we've seen on Cape Cod over the past fifty years, with rampant subdivision of once open land or agricultural land, often miles away from downtown areas, schools, playgrounds, et cetera, has had a significant impact on how we have to parent our kids.
My folks could let me roam on my bike and go to the nearby ballfield, because we had that kind of neighborhood. When my kid was growing up, though, we were several miles from the nearest ballfield, and with all the retirees buying up the building lots our subdivision didn't have enough families with kids to allow eight or ten of them to get together for a pickup game, even if there had been an open field on which to play nearby.
Each section of town once had it's own Little League team and field, but now that's centralized around one facility, with a townwide draft.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
Unreal, maybe, but I've always preferred surreality myself.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
Hi, Jonathan
Religion and politics, politics and religion -where to draw the line? Here in the U.S.A., the line is clearly drawn in the First Amendment, where there can be no establishment of religion under our Constitution, nor any restriction on religious observance. But within families it's a different matter, as shown by your family history.
Freemasonry, by the way, and its youth group offshoot DeMolay, is not anti-Catholic. It is a secular organization which welcomes members from all segments of our democratic society. Ben Franklin was a Mason, as was my father. It's the Church that has always forbade Catholics from joining the Masons, and that's obviously political.
Religion and politics, politics and religion -where to draw the line? Here in the U.S.A., the line is clearly drawn in the First Amendment, where there can be no establishment of religion under our Constitution, nor any restriction on religious observance. But within families it's a different matter, as shown by your family history.
Freemasonry, by the way, and its youth group offshoot DeMolay, is not anti-Catholic. It is a secular organization which welcomes members from all segments of our democratic society. Ben Franklin was a Mason, as was my father. It's the Church that has always forbade Catholics from joining the Masons, and that's obviously political.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Happy Labor Day!
In response to: Happy Labor Day!
Hi, Ana
Please go easy on bartender. After all, he didn't rant about how the publicly funded municipal fire department that replaced the private fire insurance companies in the 19th Century is "socialist."
Sorry if that sounds like propaganda, but like Fox News this site needs to be "fair and balanced." :-)
Please go easy on bartender. After all, he didn't rant about how the publicly funded municipal fire department that replaced the private fire insurance companies in the 19th Century is "socialist."
Sorry if that sounds like propaganda, but like Fox News this site needs to be "fair and balanced." :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Hi, Ana. As they say:
The farmer is the man, the farmer is the man,
Lives on credit 'til the fall.
Then they take him by the hand, and they lead him through the land,
And the middle man's the man who gets it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxs01nUAE3g
Sorry I couldn't find Ry Cooder's original on-line, but these guys get the idea across.
Only difference is today it's the money man who gets it all.
The farmer is the man, the farmer is the man,
Lives on credit 'til the fall.
Then they take him by the hand, and they lead him through the land,
And the middle man's the man who gets it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxs01nUAE3g
Sorry I couldn't find Ry Cooder's original on-line, but these guys get the idea across.
Only difference is today it's the money man who gets it all.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Possee
I don't disparage people who disagree with me simply because of different opinions. I respect those on the right who demonstrate both factual accuracy and intelligence in their commentary, even though their values are different from mine.
The cretins I refer to are those 49 percent of American voters who apparently believed Sarah Palin was qualified to be a weak John McCain heartbeat away from the Oval Office. This is a woman who proved on prime time television she knows zip about how our constitutional government is structured, and even less about our history and world geography.
Cretin is, perhaps, to good a word though, because a cretin is someone whos mental deficiencies render him incapable of making intelligent choices, while many of the 49 percent who voted for Palin did so out of simplistic ideological zeal when they could have and should have known better -putting party affiliation ahead of the national interest just as the GOP obstuctionist demagogues are doing with healthcare today.
That, to me, is worse than a cretin.
I don't disparage people who disagree with me simply because of different opinions. I respect those on the right who demonstrate both factual accuracy and intelligence in their commentary, even though their values are different from mine.
The cretins I refer to are those 49 percent of American voters who apparently believed Sarah Palin was qualified to be a weak John McCain heartbeat away from the Oval Office. This is a woman who proved on prime time television she knows zip about how our constitutional government is structured, and even less about our history and world geography.
Cretin is, perhaps, to good a word though, because a cretin is someone whos mental deficiencies render him incapable of making intelligent choices, while many of the 49 percent who voted for Palin did so out of simplistic ideological zeal when they could have and should have known better -putting party affiliation ahead of the national interest just as the GOP obstuctionist demagogues are doing with healthcare today.
That, to me, is worse than a cretin.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Buzz
It's well and good to worry about health care costs, whether privately or publicly financed. But why aren't you concerned about the exorbitant costs of the private health insurance model we have today?
Theyr'e real costs, not speculative ruminations about what a public plan might cost. This is an industry that went from 2% of GNP in 1970 to around 15% today. Some of that is due to the economy itself tanking, with growth primarily in the financial sector while losing manufacturing and technology jobs to our creditors, the Japanese and "socialist" Chinese. The reckless investment practices of the insurance industry is a major factor driving that "growth."
So, please explain with facts why a publicly financed system that does not use your health care dollar to reward investors, or pay million dollar executive salaries, bonuses and perks, or make foolish investments, or build office towers, or pay corporate lawyers and lobbyists to maintain the status quo would cost more than the present system that does all that and still requires a taxpayer bailout.
It's well and good to worry about health care costs, whether privately or publicly financed. But why aren't you concerned about the exorbitant costs of the private health insurance model we have today?
Theyr'e real costs, not speculative ruminations about what a public plan might cost. This is an industry that went from 2% of GNP in 1970 to around 15% today. Some of that is due to the economy itself tanking, with growth primarily in the financial sector while losing manufacturing and technology jobs to our creditors, the Japanese and "socialist" Chinese. The reckless investment practices of the insurance industry is a major factor driving that "growth."
So, please explain with facts why a publicly financed system that does not use your health care dollar to reward investors, or pay million dollar executive salaries, bonuses and perks, or make foolish investments, or build office towers, or pay corporate lawyers and lobbyists to maintain the status quo would cost more than the present system that does all that and still requires a taxpayer bailout.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Born in Boston
In response to: Born in Boston
Did you ever hear that coffin sound?
Did you ever hear that coffin sound?
Did you ever hear -that coffin sound?
Another po' boy is in the ground.
-"Please See That My Grave Is Kept Clean"
Blind Lemon Jefferson, Dallas, 1927
Did you ever hear that coffin sound?
Did you ever hear -that coffin sound?
Another po' boy is in the ground.
-"Please See That My Grave Is Kept Clean"
Blind Lemon Jefferson, Dallas, 1927
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Ned
Maybe you didn't know, but I'm a long time Aries myself. Ever since my birth.
Maybe you didn't know, but I'm a long time Aries myself. Ever since my birth.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Well, John
You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to express it here. So don't take offense when I say that almost half the American electorate are cretins, the ones who apparently believe that an ingnorant cipher like Sarah Palin, someone who doesn't have the first clue about what is written in the Constitution and how our government is designed to work thereunder, is qualified to be a heart-beat away from our highest Constitutional office.
As for Obama's health care bill, the most important thing it proposes is to get the insurance industry leeches out of the loop, and that of course is what the GOP hacks are really concerned about, not grandma's hospital bill. That's why they won't even work with Obama to refine the legislation and resolve specific points of contention on a bipartisan basis.
Anyone who believes that the GOP hacks are really concerned about the general welfare, consistent with their Constitutional oath and not just industry profits, is truly a cretin. Listen to DeMint's boast about Obama's "Waterloo" to see what the obstructionism is really about.
You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to express it here. So don't take offense when I say that almost half the American electorate are cretins, the ones who apparently believe that an ingnorant cipher like Sarah Palin, someone who doesn't have the first clue about what is written in the Constitution and how our government is designed to work thereunder, is qualified to be a heart-beat away from our highest Constitutional office.
As for Obama's health care bill, the most important thing it proposes is to get the insurance industry leeches out of the loop, and that of course is what the GOP hacks are really concerned about, not grandma's hospital bill. That's why they won't even work with Obama to refine the legislation and resolve specific points of contention on a bipartisan basis.
Anyone who believes that the GOP hacks are really concerned about the general welfare, consistent with their Constitutional oath and not just industry profits, is truly a cretin. Listen to DeMint's boast about Obama's "Waterloo" to see what the obstructionism is really about.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi Crusader
I said it back in January. Obama had just taken office, and people were expecting him to magically undo eight years of Republican malfeasance and corruption overnight. It takes time to make changes.
It's now been just eight months. Obama has made a good faith effort to work with the GOP, and has given them every opportunity to show some good faith,too, and they have failed. So now is the time, when Congress reconvenes, to start pushing things. He's given the Republican obstructionists enough rope to hang themselves, as it should be obvious to anyone but a cretin that their main interest is protecting insurance company profits. So let's just wait and see what happens this fall.
I said it back in January. Obama had just taken office, and people were expecting him to magically undo eight years of Republican malfeasance and corruption overnight. It takes time to make changes.
It's now been just eight months. Obama has made a good faith effort to work with the GOP, and has given them every opportunity to show some good faith,too, and they have failed. So now is the time, when Congress reconvenes, to start pushing things. He's given the Republican obstructionists enough rope to hang themselves, as it should be obvious to anyone but a cretin that their main interest is protecting insurance company profits. So let's just wait and see what happens this fall.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
Hi, Ned
Don't you just love it when these opponents of public option health care say what we really need is "tort reform," and then you just know that if the guy with the finger off finds the other guy the first thing he'll do is go find a good tort lawyer?
I've handled a few finger off cases over the years. One of them was a from a poorly designed logsplitter. A year or so after we settled the case, my expert was at a trade show and he saw the same machine on display, but they altered it to incorporate the changes he testified were needed to make it safe. I told him to bill the manufacturer for his consultation and design services.
BTW, you know the manufacturer's liability insurer is the one who told them to change the design, and this was after paying some defense lawyer and a defense expert to say those changes weren't necessary. Now that's what I call real "tort reform," reforming the tortfeasors without penalizing their victims.
Don't you just love it when these opponents of public option health care say what we really need is "tort reform," and then you just know that if the guy with the finger off finds the other guy the first thing he'll do is go find a good tort lawyer?
I've handled a few finger off cases over the years. One of them was a from a poorly designed logsplitter. A year or so after we settled the case, my expert was at a trade show and he saw the same machine on display, but they altered it to incorporate the changes he testified were needed to make it safe. I told him to bill the manufacturer for his consultation and design services.
BTW, you know the manufacturer's liability insurer is the one who told them to change the design, and this was after paying some defense lawyer and a defense expert to say those changes weren't necessary. Now that's what I call real "tort reform," reforming the tortfeasors without penalizing their victims.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
Hey buster555
Cool it. You're gonna give morons a bad name if you keep it up.
Cool it. You're gonna give morons a bad name if you keep it up.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Angelic Existence
In response to: Angelic Existence
"I had to cut back some of his hours."
Hi, Ana. I bet you did that like Walmart does so you don't have to pay for his ERISA health and disability coverage, right?
Hi, Ana. I bet you did that like Walmart does so you don't have to pay for his ERISA health and disability coverage, right?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Knuckleheads of Genesis
In response to: Knuckleheads of Genesis
They left the garden just in time
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.
One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.
And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.
Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.
The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!
How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a sense they didn't
live on cakes and jam.
Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.
From "Origin of Species" by Chris Smither
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/06/05/chris-smithers-origin-of-species/
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.
One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.
And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.
Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.
The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!
How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a sense they didn't
live on cakes and jam.
Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.
From "Origin of Species" by Chris Smither
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/06/05/chris-smithers-origin-of-species/
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Peter
No beating this time because you make a valid point. Leeches, the species,annelida Hirudinea, do indeed stop sucking your blood once you are dead, just as you say.
But the metaphorical leeches, of the species homo Insureparasitica, don't ever stop sucking your blood. They'll stiff you on health care and disability when you're alive, and they'll try to stiff you on life insurance and wrongful death claims after you're dead.
Maybe we don't have eternal life through Jesus, and maybe we do, nobody really knows despite what the extremists on either side say. We do know, however, that the insurance companies believe we have to provide them with eternal profits whether we're dead or alive, and you could take that to the bank if you had any money left after paying all your insurance premiums.
No beating this time because you make a valid point. Leeches, the species,annelida Hirudinea, do indeed stop sucking your blood once you are dead, just as you say.
But the metaphorical leeches, of the species homo Insureparasitica, don't ever stop sucking your blood. They'll stiff you on health care and disability when you're alive, and they'll try to stiff you on life insurance and wrongful death claims after you're dead.
Maybe we don't have eternal life through Jesus, and maybe we do, nobody really knows despite what the extremists on either side say. We do know, however, that the insurance companies believe we have to provide them with eternal profits whether we're dead or alive, and you could take that to the bank if you had any money left after paying all your insurance premiums.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Monponsett
I've read about using leeches in modern medicine to treat some conditions. The difference today is that the practitioners know which species are posionous and which ones are safe to use, and it's a very specialized technique used in limited circumstances.
I've read about using leeches in modern medicine to treat some conditions. The difference today is that the practitioners know which species are posionous and which ones are safe to use, and it's a very specialized technique used in limited circumstances.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, all
Not surprising that some of you shift focus from insurance executives to us lawyers, for the simple reason that you cannot refute anything I said about how the insurance industry abuses our premium dollar for its own purposes and only grudgingly uses it to pay for our health insurance bills.
It's funny, too, that a lot of my clients are people who used to share the negative opinion you have of lawyers until they got stiffed on a disability or health insurance claim, with the deck stacked in favor of the insurance companies, and then they come running to someone like me who understands the law and the fine print gobbledygook the insurance companies use to deny claims and is willing to take the insurers on. I get paid a fee for this, usually just a percentage of past due benefits if successful, which believe me is only a tiny fraction of what the insurance executives pay themselves per claim denial and what they pay out in legal fees to corporate lawyers to defend their predations on the consumer -including some of you whether you know it yet or not.
Not surprising that some of you shift focus from insurance executives to us lawyers, for the simple reason that you cannot refute anything I said about how the insurance industry abuses our premium dollar for its own purposes and only grudgingly uses it to pay for our health insurance bills.
It's funny, too, that a lot of my clients are people who used to share the negative opinion you have of lawyers until they got stiffed on a disability or health insurance claim, with the deck stacked in favor of the insurance companies, and then they come running to someone like me who understands the law and the fine print gobbledygook the insurance companies use to deny claims and is willing to take the insurers on. I get paid a fee for this, usually just a percentage of past due benefits if successful, which believe me is only a tiny fraction of what the insurance executives pay themselves per claim denial and what they pay out in legal fees to corporate lawyers to defend their predations on the consumer -including some of you whether you know it yet or not.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
So Buzz
You're mad as hell that Obama is trying to get a trillion dollars or so in federal tax money allocated to providing basic health care for everyone, but at the same time you are somehow "not O.K." with the undeniable fact that millions of your fellow American citizens today don't have basic health coverage.
Meanwhile, our former President spent almost a trillion dollars, borrowed from people like the Chinese and Japanese, for fighting wars of corporate opportunity in Iraq and Afghanistan, designed solely to promote the interests of the petroleum industry by trying to steal Iraqi oil and protecting pipeline routes -all the while stiffing proposals for renewable energy development to wean us away from reliance on fossil fuels for basic consumer needs like transportation, home heating and electricity.
But that's okay with you, huh? Hey, at least it's not "socialism," right?
Get real!
You're mad as hell that Obama is trying to get a trillion dollars or so in federal tax money allocated to providing basic health care for everyone, but at the same time you are somehow "not O.K." with the undeniable fact that millions of your fellow American citizens today don't have basic health coverage.
Meanwhile, our former President spent almost a trillion dollars, borrowed from people like the Chinese and Japanese, for fighting wars of corporate opportunity in Iraq and Afghanistan, designed solely to promote the interests of the petroleum industry by trying to steal Iraqi oil and protecting pipeline routes -all the while stiffing proposals for renewable energy development to wean us away from reliance on fossil fuels for basic consumer needs like transportation, home heating and electricity.
But that's okay with you, huh? Hey, at least it's not "socialism," right?
Get real!
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz! There you go again -as Ronnie Reagan might say.
You are living proof of the old adage that figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.
The key words in your analysis of our tax burden is "wage earners" who pay a disporportionately huge share of taxes. That's because the corporate elite, those people whose incomes are in the top echelon and own the vast majority of America's capital assets don't work for wages. Their exorbitant income is received through a variety "perfectly legal" financial schemes designed primarily to minimize and eliminate their tax liability. That includes hiding massive gobs of cash in offshore accounts so they don't have to declare interest like the wage earning schlumps have to.
Surely, being the bright fellow you are and all, you knew that didn't you?
Like I said, figures don't lie, but . . . .
You are living proof of the old adage that figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.
The key words in your analysis of our tax burden is "wage earners" who pay a disporportionately huge share of taxes. That's because the corporate elite, those people whose incomes are in the top echelon and own the vast majority of America's capital assets don't work for wages. Their exorbitant income is received through a variety "perfectly legal" financial schemes designed primarily to minimize and eliminate their tax liability. That includes hiding massive gobs of cash in offshore accounts so they don't have to declare interest like the wage earning schlumps have to.
Surely, being the bright fellow you are and all, you knew that didn't you?
Like I said, figures don't lie, but . . . .
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Buzz, again
I got a lot of help in my life from others, including socialized services in my town and at our state university, U.Mass.'62, fully supported by our tax dollars. In law school, I had a partial scholarship which was paid out of the University's endowment which, in turn came from wealthy folks who had a sense of public obligation -totally lacking in today's neocon corporate elite, and a significant portion came from publicly financed low income loan programs.
So, my answer to you for my modest success in life is certainly not "free will" but like the Beatles said I got by with a little help from my friends, including the state and federal government through tax-supported programs for higher education.
Now, that was nice, but I'm not so selfish as to believe that paying for my education was more important than paying for other peoples' health care.
How about you, Buzz? You okay with millions of Americans going withou basic health coverage? Hell, paying for that might require taking a few trillion away from the military industrial complex for oil wars, huh?
I got a lot of help in my life from others, including socialized services in my town and at our state university, U.Mass.'62, fully supported by our tax dollars. In law school, I had a partial scholarship which was paid out of the University's endowment which, in turn came from wealthy folks who had a sense of public obligation -totally lacking in today's neocon corporate elite, and a significant portion came from publicly financed low income loan programs.
So, my answer to you for my modest success in life is certainly not "free will" but like the Beatles said I got by with a little help from my friends, including the state and federal government through tax-supported programs for higher education.
Now, that was nice, but I'm not so selfish as to believe that paying for my education was more important than paying for other peoples' health care.
How about you, Buzz? You okay with millions of Americans going withou basic health coverage? Hell, paying for that might require taking a few trillion away from the military industrial complex for oil wars, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Buzz
Yes, let's talk about facts, indeed.
Fact No. 1. All health care costs money. Disagree?
Fact No. 2. If you receive health care, someone has to pay for it. Disagree?
Fact No. 3. Private insurers charge you a fee called a premium to pay your medical bills when you are sick or injured. Disagree?
Fact No. 4. When you pay an insurance company $1,000 as a premium for health coverage, that money does a lot of things before paying your doctor, like advertizing, sales commissions, lobbying against public health care, paying enormous executive salaries, bonuses and perks like $50 million corporate jets manufactured in France, playing the financial markets with risky investments like bundled mortgage securities, then administering claims and maybe paying your doctor, mabybe not, and then paying lawyers to fight you in court after denying your claim. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Fact No. 5. Your extra $1,000 in taxes for a public option pays for admnistration and benefits only. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Yes, let's talk about facts, indeed.
Fact No. 1. All health care costs money. Disagree?
Fact No. 2. If you receive health care, someone has to pay for it. Disagree?
Fact No. 3. Private insurers charge you a fee called a premium to pay your medical bills when you are sick or injured. Disagree?
Fact No. 4. When you pay an insurance company $1,000 as a premium for health coverage, that money does a lot of things before paying your doctor, like advertizing, sales commissions, lobbying against public health care, paying enormous executive salaries, bonuses and perks like $50 million corporate jets manufactured in France, playing the financial markets with risky investments like bundled mortgage securities, then administering claims and maybe paying your doctor, mabybe not, and then paying lawyers to fight you in court after denying your claim. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Fact No. 5. Your extra $1,000 in taxes for a public option pays for admnistration and benefits only. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Possee
It's funny you mention about the alleged near bankruptcy of Medicare. We hear the antis complain that Medicare spends too much money on end care for the elderly and terminally ill. But then when Obama wants to provide for end-of-life counselling for them, all of a sudden the antis are up in arms about forced euthanasia.
See, what I mean. With that kind of mentality coming from the neocon right, nothing will ever get done to change the economic balance here in the U.S., to provide basic necessities for everyone, and that's just what the GOP obsructionists want, isn't it? I mean they don't even have an alternate plan, never mind a better one, do they?
BTW, a lot of that "trillion dollar" debt you mention isn't based on providing medical benefits for all Americans, and is instead based on cynical overseas oil wars started by the Republicans as in Iraq for its oil fields and Afghanistan for control of pipeline routes -instead of spending our tax money over the past 8 years on developing new technologies for clean, renewable energy.
It's funny you mention about the alleged near bankruptcy of Medicare. We hear the antis complain that Medicare spends too much money on end care for the elderly and terminally ill. But then when Obama wants to provide for end-of-life counselling for them, all of a sudden the antis are up in arms about forced euthanasia.
See, what I mean. With that kind of mentality coming from the neocon right, nothing will ever get done to change the economic balance here in the U.S., to provide basic necessities for everyone, and that's just what the GOP obsructionists want, isn't it? I mean they don't even have an alternate plan, never mind a better one, do they?
BTW, a lot of that "trillion dollar" debt you mention isn't based on providing medical benefits for all Americans, and is instead based on cynical overseas oil wars started by the Republicans as in Iraq for its oil fields and Afghanistan for control of pipeline routes -instead of spending our tax money over the past 8 years on developing new technologies for clean, renewable energy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, crusader
You hit the nail on the head about "globalization," and Clinton was as bad as the GOP on that. The real problem with globalization is, as you say, production of goods is farmed out to slave labor overseas instead of keeping good manufacturing jobs in America at a fair wage, in balance with what the corporations charge for the cheaply produced goods they sell back here, largely to service workers who both work and shop at places like Walmart.
You hit the nail on the head about "globalization," and Clinton was as bad as the GOP on that. The real problem with globalization is, as you say, production of goods is farmed out to slave labor overseas instead of keeping good manufacturing jobs in America at a fair wage, in balance with what the corporations charge for the cheaply produced goods they sell back here, largely to service workers who both work and shop at places like Walmart.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Voiceofreason
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Voiceofreason
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Possee -you too, dingbat
What I think is funny is how you and a lot of other folks had comments about my post "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," and now you're commenting on this one too -both of them stating strong opinions and you chime in with contrary opinions.
But my last post? Follow the money which was basically comparing how your insurance premium dollar gets stepped on so many times before even a penny is spent for paying your doctor? Not a peep. That's typical, too, because those who pss and moan about "socialism" are ideologues who can't really come back at a matter of fact argument based on dollars and cents.
Fact is, our private insurance system doesn't do a very good job of delivering health care to a large number of Americans while it serves as an excellent vehicle for creating corporate profits that benefit only a few. Disagree? Fine, but then tell me in dollars and cents just how this system, with myriad costs having nothing to do with providing health care does more with your premium dollar than a public health system would do with your tax dollar.
What I think is funny is how you and a lot of other folks had comments about my post "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," and now you're commenting on this one too -both of them stating strong opinions and you chime in with contrary opinions.
But my last post? Follow the money which was basically comparing how your insurance premium dollar gets stepped on so many times before even a penny is spent for paying your doctor? Not a peep. That's typical, too, because those who pss and moan about "socialism" are ideologues who can't really come back at a matter of fact argument based on dollars and cents.
Fact is, our private insurance system doesn't do a very good job of delivering health care to a large number of Americans while it serves as an excellent vehicle for creating corporate profits that benefit only a few. Disagree? Fine, but then tell me in dollars and cents just how this system, with myriad costs having nothing to do with providing health care does more with your premium dollar than a public health system would do with your tax dollar.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Red Sox stomping by Yankees seals loss of division
In response to: Red Sox stomping by Yankees seals loss of division
It was a N.Y. Yankee, I believe, who made the astute observation that "It ain't over 'til it's over."
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, petercohen
You really hit the nail on the head here about the nature of the problem. All of these competing interests about providing public health care should be debated in legislative committees and negotiated there, the way Congress is supposed to work and the only truly effective way it can work.
But this kind of right wing guerilla theater, orchestrated by industry flaks, is just SOP for the GOP's post-Reagan "values" agenda in service of maintaining the corporate stranglehold on every aspect of American life, including energy and healthcare.
You really hit the nail on the head here about the nature of the problem. All of these competing interests about providing public health care should be debated in legislative committees and negotiated there, the way Congress is supposed to work and the only truly effective way it can work.
But this kind of right wing guerilla theater, orchestrated by industry flaks, is just SOP for the GOP's post-Reagan "values" agenda in service of maintaining the corporate stranglehold on every aspect of American life, including energy and healthcare.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Possee
It seems I misquoted you. Oops! So I guess that means you agree with me that public option healthcare is no more "socialist" than public funding of other basic services like police and fire protection, huh?
You must also agree that a lot of the opposition to Obama's healthcare initiative is based on disinformation and lies, as the incident with Hawking and Investors Business Daily clearly shows.
That one was a beaut, because the editorial said if Hawking had grown up in the UK he wouldn't have gotten the medical care he need. Problem is that Hawking did grow up in the UK, he's a Brit after all, and he did get the health care he needed. That's just a tip of the GOP Big Lie iceberg.
I misquoted you about socialism and shortcomings, you didn't complain about those things, so you must agree with me -right?
It seems I misquoted you. Oops! So I guess that means you agree with me that public option healthcare is no more "socialist" than public funding of other basic services like police and fire protection, huh?
You must also agree that a lot of the opposition to Obama's healthcare initiative is based on disinformation and lies, as the incident with Hawking and Investors Business Daily clearly shows.
That one was a beaut, because the editorial said if Hawking had grown up in the UK he wouldn't have gotten the medical care he need. Problem is that Hawking did grow up in the UK, he's a Brit after all, and he did get the health care he needed. That's just a tip of the GOP Big Lie iceberg.
I misquoted you about socialism and shortcomings, you didn't complain about those things, so you must agree with me -right?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Cheify
No, you didn't mention senators in your reply to my post which did mention GOP senators like DeMint whose aim is to win a political victory at the public's expense by defeating Obama's health care bill. So when you came back with your vague allusion to "dummy hacks" who wanted Bush's invasion of Iraq to fail, I asked you to name, specifically, which Senators put politics ahead of the policy in that context as DeMint has clearly done with healthcare. If you can't do that, as you apparently cannot, then your arguing rotten apples against my fresh oranges.
All you can come up with is one fringe liberal "commentator," a person who hasn't taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as DeMint and the other GOP obstructionists have. Gimme a break, chiefy.
You've been to Iraq and all you've seen is untold thousands of Iraqis killed and uprooted, Christians driven from their homes, and one Islamic faction displacing another. The Bush clowns didn't even get the sweetheart oil deal they wanted.
As for your worry about money in the health care debate, stay tuned.
No, you didn't mention senators in your reply to my post which did mention GOP senators like DeMint whose aim is to win a political victory at the public's expense by defeating Obama's health care bill. So when you came back with your vague allusion to "dummy hacks" who wanted Bush's invasion of Iraq to fail, I asked you to name, specifically, which Senators put politics ahead of the policy in that context as DeMint has clearly done with healthcare. If you can't do that, as you apparently cannot, then your arguing rotten apples against my fresh oranges.
All you can come up with is one fringe liberal "commentator," a person who hasn't taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as DeMint and the other GOP obstructionists have. Gimme a break, chiefy.
You've been to Iraq and all you've seen is untold thousands of Iraqis killed and uprooted, Christians driven from their homes, and one Islamic faction displacing another. The Bush clowns didn't even get the sweetheart oil deal they wanted.
As for your worry about money in the health care debate, stay tuned.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Buzz
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Buzz
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, John
In case you didn't know, all of your doctor's bills are reviewed by doctors employed by your HMO or insurance company who make decisions whether the bill will be covered. The difference here is that those in-house insurance doctors are concerned with earning their keep by keeping the insurer's costs down and profits up. The public agency's medical consultants are concerned with keeping your tax burden down while providing the fairest and most effective coverage possible.
Like they say, John, you pays your money and you make your choice. You want to give most of your health care dollar to private insurance executives, fine. But I don't.
In case you didn't know, all of your doctor's bills are reviewed by doctors employed by your HMO or insurance company who make decisions whether the bill will be covered. The difference here is that those in-house insurance doctors are concerned with earning their keep by keeping the insurer's costs down and profits up. The public agency's medical consultants are concerned with keeping your tax burden down while providing the fairest and most effective coverage possible.
Like they say, John, you pays your money and you make your choice. You want to give most of your health care dollar to private insurance executives, fine. But I don't.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Ana
Yes, thankyou. You are both correct and succinct. However, with Buzz you have to be a bit more specific because, being a conservative GOPsymp, he needs to have things spelled out as I have done.
Yes, thankyou. You are both correct and succinct. However, with Buzz you have to be a bit more specific because, being a conservative GOPsymp, he needs to have things spelled out as I have done.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
No, Buzz
Individuals within police departments, white individuals, apply certain racist assumptions to profile all black males as perpetrators, frequently based on nothing more than suspicion of breathing while black. There are a sufficient number of them within police departments nationwide, to make racial profiling a systematic problem, but it is not the organizing principle of the departments themselves.
Meanwhile the organizing principle of a municipal police department is socialist, and under the 14th Amendment racially neutral. It is a publicly funded entity that provides a public service, i.e. police protection, without charging a fee for service and without seeking a profit. That is in sharp contrast with private health insurers, and is how our health care system should be organized if our fellow Americans had even half the sanity of the English and other civilized countries with national health care.
Your mind supple enough to see the distinction here, Buzz, or do I have to try to explain it in even simpler terms?
Individuals within police departments, white individuals, apply certain racist assumptions to profile all black males as perpetrators, frequently based on nothing more than suspicion of breathing while black. There are a sufficient number of them within police departments nationwide, to make racial profiling a systematic problem, but it is not the organizing principle of the departments themselves.
Meanwhile the organizing principle of a municipal police department is socialist, and under the 14th Amendment racially neutral. It is a publicly funded entity that provides a public service, i.e. police protection, without charging a fee for service and without seeking a profit. That is in sharp contrast with private health insurers, and is how our health care system should be organized if our fellow Americans had even half the sanity of the English and other civilized countries with national health care.
Your mind supple enough to see the distinction here, Buzz, or do I have to try to explain it in even simpler terms?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
No, petercohen
The Big Lie is the basis of the corporate weasel/GOP hack conspiracy to tap all our incomes and bank accounts dry to enhance their own, as opposed to using our money to provide decent health care for everyone as Obama's public option will do.
The Big Lie is the basis of the corporate weasel/GOP hack conspiracy to tap all our incomes and bank accounts dry to enhance their own, as opposed to using our money to provide decent health care for everyone as Obama's public option will do.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hey possee
One of those "shortcomings" in
Obama's "socialist" health care bill is that it won't cover everything, among other the GOP hacks have dreamt up.
As for it being socialist, yes, it is socialist in exactly the same way your fire department, your police department, your public water supply and many other basic servies we take for granted are "socialist." Health care is at least as important as those other services.
As for the alleged "shortcomings" have you read about the British Health Care system's rebuttal to the GOP assault on Obama's proposal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/13/stephen-hawking-nhs-twitter-welovethenhs
A hack writing for the corporate rag Investor's Business Daily claimed that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been covered with a "socialist" plan like Obama's. Problem is he has been covered by BHC all his life, and he's spoken up to say so in support of Obama.
Investor's Business Daily is a small part of the GOP's Big Lie machine. It's just so much Kudzu but the GOP faithful eat it up like it's cabbage.
One of those "shortcomings" in
Obama's "socialist" health care bill is that it won't cover everything, among other the GOP hacks have dreamt up.
As for it being socialist, yes, it is socialist in exactly the same way your fire department, your police department, your public water supply and many other basic servies we take for granted are "socialist." Health care is at least as important as those other services.
As for the alleged "shortcomings" have you read about the British Health Care system's rebuttal to the GOP assault on Obama's proposal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/13/stephen-hawking-nhs-twitter-welovethenhs
A hack writing for the corporate rag Investor's Business Daily claimed that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been covered with a "socialist" plan like Obama's. Problem is he has been covered by BHC all his life, and he's spoken up to say so in support of Obama.
Investor's Business Daily is a small part of the GOP's Big Lie machine. It's just so much Kudzu but the GOP faithful eat it up like it's cabbage.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hey, chiefy baby-
Three questions:
1. Name some names here. Exactly which Democratic Senators are on record as saying they hoped the Bush invasion of Iraq would fail as DeMint is with Obama's health care bill?
2. Exactly which liberal pundits or Democratic politicians are on record as saying they hoped Bush's invasion of Iraq would fail simply because they wanted to see him defeated politically across the board without regard to the specifics of the mission, as DeMint is on record as saying about Obama's health care initiative, as opposed to saying as some did that they wanted the misison to fail on the merits because they believed it was a corrupt mission based on lies.
3. Exactly what pretexts has Obama advanced to support his public option for health care, as Bush did for his invasion of Iraq, i.e. WMDs, ties to al Qaeda, democracy for the Iraqi people while denying the obvious, overriding objective to secure access to Iraqi oil reserves for American and British oil companies?
I'm waiting for your answers with bated breath.
Three questions:
1. Name some names here. Exactly which Democratic Senators are on record as saying they hoped the Bush invasion of Iraq would fail as DeMint is with Obama's health care bill?
2. Exactly which liberal pundits or Democratic politicians are on record as saying they hoped Bush's invasion of Iraq would fail simply because they wanted to see him defeated politically across the board without regard to the specifics of the mission, as DeMint is on record as saying about Obama's health care initiative, as opposed to saying as some did that they wanted the misison to fail on the merits because they believed it was a corrupt mission based on lies.
3. Exactly what pretexts has Obama advanced to support his public option for health care, as Bush did for his invasion of Iraq, i.e. WMDs, ties to al Qaeda, democracy for the Iraqi people while denying the obvious, overriding objective to secure access to Iraqi oil reserves for American and British oil companies?
I'm waiting for your answers with bated breath.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi,Snoopy
Unfortunately the current "debate" driven by GOP hacks and insurance flaks in essence has nothing to do with what is or isn't in the specific bill, which is subject like any other legislation to give and take in committee and then between both houses of Congress.
Instead, it has everything to do with the insurance industry's understandable desire to keep milking the teat of health care costs at the expense of everyone else, and the GOP's even more despicable desire to see Obama fail, as GOP Senate hack Jim DeMint has expressly stated.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-will-be-obamas-waterloo/
DeMint speaks for the entire GOP right wing when he acknowledges that he wants this issue to be Obama's "Waterloo," not because of any real issue pertaining to health coverage, but simply for GOP political gain.
At least the insurance industry isn't betraying any oath to uphold the Constitution as are the GOP Congressional hacks opposing Obama's health care bill solely for political gain.
Unfortunately the current "debate" driven by GOP hacks and insurance flaks in essence has nothing to do with what is or isn't in the specific bill, which is subject like any other legislation to give and take in committee and then between both houses of Congress.
Instead, it has everything to do with the insurance industry's understandable desire to keep milking the teat of health care costs at the expense of everyone else, and the GOP's even more despicable desire to see Obama fail, as GOP Senate hack Jim DeMint has expressly stated.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-will-be-obamas-waterloo/
DeMint speaks for the entire GOP right wing when he acknowledges that he wants this issue to be Obama's "Waterloo," not because of any real issue pertaining to health coverage, but simply for GOP political gain.
At least the insurance industry isn't betraying any oath to uphold the Constitution as are the GOP Congressional hacks opposing Obama's health care bill solely for political gain.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
No VR, those angry people are demonstrating because they have let themselves be manipulated by the lies, innuendos and half-truths being generated by the right wing Media, GOP political hacks and insurance industry flaks -lies about assisted suicide, and innuendo about "socialism."
And those who carry signs and shout angrily about a "Tea Party" are willing dupes because the industry propaganda dovetails so nicely with their simplistic knee-jerk anti-tax mantra.
That, plus many of them are obviously people who need to vent their anger because after 8 years of GOP mismanagement of our government they've been royally screwed but they can't admit to themselves that it's their own sorry fault for putting those GOP clowns into office in the first place.
And those who carry signs and shout angrily about a "Tea Party" are willing dupes because the industry propaganda dovetails so nicely with their simplistic knee-jerk anti-tax mantra.
That, plus many of them are obviously people who need to vent their anger because after 8 years of GOP mismanagement of our government they've been royally screwed but they can't admit to themselves that it's their own sorry fault for putting those GOP clowns into office in the first place.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Ned
It's not just the tacky steel and cement edifices to corporate greed, but it's the laissez faire attitude that let Macy's monopolize Boston's downtown department store business, and then proceed to turn downton crossing into a mini-Baghdad by half-demolishing an iconic building like Filene's leaving a huge, gaping eyesore.
Like Ana Paulina says, what about accountability for more than just the corporate bottom line?
It's not just the tacky steel and cement edifices to corporate greed, but it's the laissez faire attitude that let Macy's monopolize Boston's downtown department store business, and then proceed to turn downton crossing into a mini-Baghdad by half-demolishing an iconic building like Filene's leaving a huge, gaping eyesore.
Like Ana Paulina says, what about accountability for more than just the corporate bottom line?
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hi, Buzz
Words are defined both on the pages of lexicons and in the behavior of those who use them. The English neologism "profiling" refers to the actual practice used, historically and still at present, by police departments on all levels and in all parts of the country, to focus on black males as suspects, whether or not there is any objective evidence to support a suspicion, and as in Gonsalves' case and Gates' case, in the face of objective evidence to the contrary.
You define "system" tautologically as "referring to a system." There are several definitions of "system" in my dictionary, one of which is "an established way of doing something; method; procedure. . . . ", which fits racial profiling in police departments exactly.
As far as questioning whether racism is inherent among many segments of the American population, what planet have you been living on for the past 235 years?
As I've said before, a huge part of the problem is denial -and you seem to have a bad dose of it.
Words are defined both on the pages of lexicons and in the behavior of those who use them. The English neologism "profiling" refers to the actual practice used, historically and still at present, by police departments on all levels and in all parts of the country, to focus on black males as suspects, whether or not there is any objective evidence to support a suspicion, and as in Gonsalves' case and Gates' case, in the face of objective evidence to the contrary.
You define "system" tautologically as "referring to a system." There are several definitions of "system" in my dictionary, one of which is "an established way of doing something; method; procedure. . . . ", which fits racial profiling in police departments exactly.
As far as questioning whether racism is inherent among many segments of the American population, what planet have you been living on for the past 235 years?
As I've said before, a huge part of the problem is denial -and you seem to have a bad dose of it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Post:: Buster's!!!
In response to: Post:: Buster's!!!
I like it. I see shades of R. Crumb in it, but with a bit more restraint. No beads of sweat flying off the lettuce.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi,john34
As I wrote in a prior post:
The use of the criminal law for dealing with drug abuse, throwing billions of dollars at the problem with increasingly draconian penalties, was intensified by Nixon’s declared “War on Drugs” some thirty-five years ago. But it is actually a war that began almost eighty years ago, with the repeal of prohibition and the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Former Asst. Commissioner of the Prohibition Bureau Harry Anslinger was appointed in 1930 as the Commissioner of the FBN, and he clearly set the ideological, moralistic tone of the “war on drugs” that continues to this day:
"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death –the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Only difference is Anslinger didn't even have enough shame to hide his racism.
As I wrote in a prior post:
The use of the criminal law for dealing with drug abuse, throwing billions of dollars at the problem with increasingly draconian penalties, was intensified by Nixon’s declared “War on Drugs” some thirty-five years ago. But it is actually a war that began almost eighty years ago, with the repeal of prohibition and the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Former Asst. Commissioner of the Prohibition Bureau Harry Anslinger was appointed in 1930 as the Commissioner of the FBN, and he clearly set the ideological, moralistic tone of the “war on drugs” that continues to this day:
"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death –the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Only difference is Anslinger didn't even have enough shame to hide his racism.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Buzz
You fall asleep or something? I was sure you were gonna get all over me for going way off topic here, going from racial profilers to tax haters.
You fall asleep or something? I was sure you were gonna get all over me for going way off topic here, going from racial profilers to tax haters.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, tad
What makes me think the government would do a better job with health insurance than private insurers? Hm-m-m. Lemme see. Oh, yeah, there's Medicare, working just fine for it's clientele right now because its claim denials are based on saving tax monies instead of profit, while the insurers with all their "best minds" as Reagan put it went in the tank last year and had to be bailed out by "big government."
You know, the guys who love collecting premiums just to deny claims had to ask for a handout from Uncle Sam. It's called socialized cost with privatized benefits.
Most "corruption" in government, BTW, comes from corporations that support and then trick out politicians. The way to stop that is not cutting taxes but getting tougher on corporations and their agents on K Street. Ever hear of regulation and enforcement? You know, through tax funded federal agencies with teeth staffed with bureaucrats who, unlike Bush's wrecking crew over the past 8 years of deregulation and corporate tax welfare, actually want to do the job of regulating.
What makes me think the government would do a better job with health insurance than private insurers? Hm-m-m. Lemme see. Oh, yeah, there's Medicare, working just fine for it's clientele right now because its claim denials are based on saving tax monies instead of profit, while the insurers with all their "best minds" as Reagan put it went in the tank last year and had to be bailed out by "big government."
You know, the guys who love collecting premiums just to deny claims had to ask for a handout from Uncle Sam. It's called socialized cost with privatized benefits.
Most "corruption" in government, BTW, comes from corporations that support and then trick out politicians. The way to stop that is not cutting taxes but getting tougher on corporations and their agents on K Street. Ever hear of regulation and enforcement? You know, through tax funded federal agencies with teeth staffed with bureaucrats who, unlike Bush's wrecking crew over the past 8 years of deregulation and corporate tax welfare, actually want to do the job of regulating.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hey, Buzz
Did you miss something? Yeah, you missed the whole point.
Now, take a deep breath and think about your answer. Take as much time as you want and then give us a direct, well-reasoned explanation.
Assuming that Whalen is truthful saying she did not speak with Crowley as he wrote in his report, where did he get the information about "two black males" breaking in from her 911 report of a possibly Hispanic and another man only possibly breaking in? Pick one.
A. Did he just make it up -i.e. lying to cover himself as Mary suggests? Possibly.
B. Or did he, more likely, write that he heard it from Whalen because he actually heard it from the dispatcher who profiled, translating possibly "Hispanic" maybe just pushing on a stuck door into "two black males" breaking in.
It's an undeniable fact that racial profiling exists in police departments, think Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett for example, and Crowley himself teaches rookie cops about it, so it's logical that racial profiling by the police led to Gates' arrest, unless you think Whalen lied. But, then, why?
Did you miss something? Yeah, you missed the whole point.
Now, take a deep breath and think about your answer. Take as much time as you want and then give us a direct, well-reasoned explanation.
Assuming that Whalen is truthful saying she did not speak with Crowley as he wrote in his report, where did he get the information about "two black males" breaking in from her 911 report of a possibly Hispanic and another man only possibly breaking in? Pick one.
A. Did he just make it up -i.e. lying to cover himself as Mary suggests? Possibly.
B. Or did he, more likely, write that he heard it from Whalen because he actually heard it from the dispatcher who profiled, translating possibly "Hispanic" maybe just pushing on a stuck door into "two black males" breaking in.
It's an undeniable fact that racial profiling exists in police departments, think Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett for example, and Crowley himself teaches rookie cops about it, so it's logical that racial profiling by the police led to Gates' arrest, unless you think Whalen lied. But, then, why?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, possee
Most tax-haters, so-called "conservatives" today, are apparently selfish and have no capacity for empathy, genuine Christian compassion or any other kind of social responsibility. Now I don't know about you personally, but I've never heard you express any idea on this site to indicate otherwise.
Fortunately, however, the framers of our Constitution saw fit to provide expressly, in Article I, Sect. 8, that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and the general welfare. . ," with welfare put on equal footing with defense.
The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1913, makes it explicit that Congress has power to collect taxes on personal and corporate income.
I've repeatedly asked "conservatives" who post on this site exactly where the Constitution says essential services like health care cannot be socialized, why providing basic health care doesn't promote the general welfare and where it provides for "insurance company welfare." Got any specific, informed answers -or just more mindless slogans?
Most tax-haters, so-called "conservatives" today, are apparently selfish and have no capacity for empathy, genuine Christian compassion or any other kind of social responsibility. Now I don't know about you personally, but I've never heard you express any idea on this site to indicate otherwise.
Fortunately, however, the framers of our Constitution saw fit to provide expressly, in Article I, Sect. 8, that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and the general welfare. . ," with welfare put on equal footing with defense.
The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1913, makes it explicit that Congress has power to collect taxes on personal and corporate income.
I've repeatedly asked "conservatives" who post on this site exactly where the Constitution says essential services like health care cannot be socialized, why providing basic health care doesn't promote the general welfare and where it provides for "insurance company welfare." Got any specific, informed answers -or just more mindless slogans?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Buzz
A far better idea would be for all Americans, police profilers included,to realize that were all the same race, the human race, and act accordingly.
A far better idea would be for all Americans, police profilers included,to realize that were all the same race, the human race, and act accordingly.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Mary
Your observation about closing ranks is right on the mark. For that reason, I have felt that Crowley himself may not be racist in any personal sense, as he claims, but he is still loyal to the systematic racism that is inherent in the profiling that goes on within the Department.
Crowley says Whalen described two black men, she denies ever saying that to him, and her 911 call only mentions a Hispanic. So, it may not have originated with Crowley, but somewhere in the chain racial profiling took over. That's an objective, logical conclusion where there is no other sensible explanation.
Maybe Crowley's report about two black males, attributing it falsely to Whalen, was just his way of covering for the dispatcher who profiled. I could accept that if the police admitted it and then apologized, not just to Gates but to the public as well.
Whatever the case, Obama was correct in his assessment that the police acted stupidly in this matter, even though he probably shouldn't have gotten himself drawn into the debate in the first place as a matter of politics.
Your observation about closing ranks is right on the mark. For that reason, I have felt that Crowley himself may not be racist in any personal sense, as he claims, but he is still loyal to the systematic racism that is inherent in the profiling that goes on within the Department.
Crowley says Whalen described two black men, she denies ever saying that to him, and her 911 call only mentions a Hispanic. So, it may not have originated with Crowley, but somewhere in the chain racial profiling took over. That's an objective, logical conclusion where there is no other sensible explanation.
Maybe Crowley's report about two black males, attributing it falsely to Whalen, was just his way of covering for the dispatcher who profiled. I could accept that if the police admitted it and then apologized, not just to Gates but to the public as well.
Whatever the case, Obama was correct in his assessment that the police acted stupidly in this matter, even though he probably shouldn't have gotten himself drawn into the debate in the first place as a matter of politics.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Peter, Peter, Peter, there you go again!
Have you noticed that you're the only one on this thread and the prior one who has made overtly ad hominem comments about me?
And have you noticed that you're the only one to whom I have made overtly ad hominem comments as well?
Do ya there may be a connection there? Nah, you clearly don't have the capacity for such complex critical analysis.
It began on the last thread with you calling me a "hopelessly partisan race baiter," then a "socialist" who hates cops. Then you accused me of profiling about Ms. Whalen, after I admitted being wrong about her, so I responded in kind by saying you seem incapable of either critical thinking or intellectual honesty.
It continued on this thread, first with the extended yawn and then the imbecilic doggerel. So I continued to come back at you in kind, as I intend to do as long as you persist with name-calling.
The difference, Peter, is that my ad hominem counter attacks are sharper, and they're all my own as opposed to being the regurgitated infantile crap you get from right wing rant radio.
Have you noticed that you're the only one on this thread and the prior one who has made overtly ad hominem comments about me?
And have you noticed that you're the only one to whom I have made overtly ad hominem comments as well?
Do ya there may be a connection there? Nah, you clearly don't have the capacity for such complex critical analysis.
It began on the last thread with you calling me a "hopelessly partisan race baiter," then a "socialist" who hates cops. Then you accused me of profiling about Ms. Whalen, after I admitted being wrong about her, so I responded in kind by saying you seem incapable of either critical thinking or intellectual honesty.
It continued on this thread, first with the extended yawn and then the imbecilic doggerel. So I continued to come back at you in kind, as I intend to do as long as you persist with name-calling.
The difference, Peter, is that my ad hominem counter attacks are sharper, and they're all my own as opposed to being the regurgitated infantile crap you get from right wing rant radio.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Oh, Peter
Now I've really abused you, haven't I? I not only woke you up from your blissful, ignorant slumber but now you've taken to writing pitiful doggerel to fight off your insomnia.
I know better than to assume it's the result of anything like a conscience, though. It's just the arrogant belligerence that typifies post-Reagan GOP true believers that has roused you.
Now I've really abused you, haven't I? I not only woke you up from your blissful, ignorant slumber but now you've taken to writing pitiful doggerel to fight off your insomnia.
I know better than to assume it's the result of anything like a conscience, though. It's just the arrogant belligerence that typifies post-Reagan GOP true believers that has roused you.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hi, Tapirfoot
The City of Cambridge, as a public employer, cannot be held liable under the Mass. Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c.258, for Crowley's misconduct insofar as it involved false imprisonment, false arrest, infliction of mental distress, malicious prosecution, etc., as provided in Sect. 10(a).
Crowley can, however, be sued civilly for his "obviously unconstitutional" violation of Gates' civil rights under both state and federal law by entering his home without a warrant, probable cause or invitation, by then wrongfully demanding that he produce an ID in his own home and by then by inviting him outside to arrest him on a bogus charge of disorderly conduct.
This is recognized in the Mass. Tort Claims Act, at c.258, Sect.9A, which requires that the Commonwealth defend and indemnify the errant police officer in such a case.
If Crowley's misconduct were then found to have been wilful, wanton or malicious, however, then the state would not have to indemnify him and he would be solely responsible for any damages awarded -which could result in Gates' levying on Crowley's home.
The City of Cambridge, as a public employer, cannot be held liable under the Mass. Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c.258, for Crowley's misconduct insofar as it involved false imprisonment, false arrest, infliction of mental distress, malicious prosecution, etc., as provided in Sect. 10(a).
Crowley can, however, be sued civilly for his "obviously unconstitutional" violation of Gates' civil rights under both state and federal law by entering his home without a warrant, probable cause or invitation, by then wrongfully demanding that he produce an ID in his own home and by then by inviting him outside to arrest him on a bogus charge of disorderly conduct.
This is recognized in the Mass. Tort Claims Act, at c.258, Sect.9A, which requires that the Commonwealth defend and indemnify the errant police officer in such a case.
If Crowley's misconduct were then found to have been wilful, wanton or malicious, however, then the state would not have to indemnify him and he would be solely responsible for any damages awarded -which could result in Gates' levying on Crowley's home.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hi, Mainiac
This is an excellent summary of what went down at Prof. Gate's home, but you haven't really addressed the core issue of racial profiling.
Yes, Gates' civil rights were being violated in several respects, Crowley entering the home without permission, asking Gates for an ID inside his own home, getting him to step outside so he could arrest him for "disorderly conduct," a trumped up charge so bogus the DA had it voluntarily dismissed as soon as it came before the Court. Those would all be serious incidents of police misconduct irrespective of race.
But it all began with, and was in furtherance of racial profiling within the Cambridge P.D. How else do you get from Whalen's very tentative description of a Hispanic and another man of uncertain race who may have just been pushing on a sticky door, to Crowley's more specific and erroneous written note that "two black men" were reported to be breaking in?
And that's the problem with racial profiling -it too often leads to violation of an innocent minority "suspect's" civil rights.
This is an excellent summary of what went down at Prof. Gate's home, but you haven't really addressed the core issue of racial profiling.
Yes, Gates' civil rights were being violated in several respects, Crowley entering the home without permission, asking Gates for an ID inside his own home, getting him to step outside so he could arrest him for "disorderly conduct," a trumped up charge so bogus the DA had it voluntarily dismissed as soon as it came before the Court. Those would all be serious incidents of police misconduct irrespective of race.
But it all began with, and was in furtherance of racial profiling within the Cambridge P.D. How else do you get from Whalen's very tentative description of a Hispanic and another man of uncertain race who may have just been pushing on a sticky door, to Crowley's more specific and erroneous written note that "two black men" were reported to be breaking in?
And that's the problem with racial profiling -it too often leads to violation of an innocent minority "suspect's" civil rights.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Peter
Where are your manners? Didn't your mother tell you it's impolite to yawn in public?
Sorry I woke you up from that comfy little dreamworld of right wing ideology you cling to, though. So just roll over, think about all those nice fantasies you cherish about Ronnie Reagan, and I'm sure you'll go right back to sleep again.
Where are your manners? Didn't your mother tell you it's impolite to yawn in public?
Sorry I woke you up from that comfy little dreamworld of right wing ideology you cling to, though. So just roll over, think about all those nice fantasies you cherish about Ronnie Reagan, and I'm sure you'll go right back to sleep again.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, jee
I think it has to begin with everyone being honest about their feelings, not only with each other but with themselves. That's only a start, but it's a necessary precondition to resolving the issue of race relations in America.
The issues cannot be resolved when people of either race take hard and fast positions of accusation or denial. I was guilty of that in my prior post which simply assumed that Ms. Whalen's 911 call was based on racial profiling when that was not the case.
I acknowledged that mistake, but then that means that the police had to do some racial profiling to get from her very tentative report of a Hispanic man maybe trying to break in to Sgt. Crowley's written note that he got a report of "two black males" breaking in. I mean how else do you get from Whalen's Point A to Crowley's Point B without racial profiling somewhere along the line within the Cambridge P.D.?
Instead of an honest self-evaluation here, all we've gotten from Crowley and the Cambridge police is denial and the same old CYA BS. This isn't white "guilt" speaking, just basic logic.
I think it has to begin with everyone being honest about their feelings, not only with each other but with themselves. That's only a start, but it's a necessary precondition to resolving the issue of race relations in America.
The issues cannot be resolved when people of either race take hard and fast positions of accusation or denial. I was guilty of that in my prior post which simply assumed that Ms. Whalen's 911 call was based on racial profiling when that was not the case.
I acknowledged that mistake, but then that means that the police had to do some racial profiling to get from her very tentative report of a Hispanic man maybe trying to break in to Sgt. Crowley's written note that he got a report of "two black males" breaking in. I mean how else do you get from Whalen's Point A to Crowley's Point B without racial profiling somewhere along the line within the Cambridge P.D.?
Instead of an honest self-evaluation here, all we've gotten from Crowley and the Cambridge police is denial and the same old CYA BS. This isn't white "guilt" speaking, just basic logic.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Ned
I confess that I don't recall much about Nixon's outreach program, except that it was some kind of appeal to neo-Nazis and other fascists to get them to vote Republican, and I guess it worked.
As for Opus Dei, I think Dan Brown did a pretty good job in explaining things in the Da Vinci Code. The louder the protests from conservative Catholic groups, the more valid his perspective seems.
As far as putting these two things together, I just look at Supreme Court Justice Scalia and say "aha"!
I confess that I don't recall much about Nixon's outreach program, except that it was some kind of appeal to neo-Nazis and other fascists to get them to vote Republican, and I guess it worked.
As for Opus Dei, I think Dan Brown did a pretty good job in explaining things in the Da Vinci Code. The louder the protests from conservative Catholic groups, the more valid his perspective seems.
As far as putting these two things together, I just look at Supreme Court Justice Scalia and say "aha"!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Peter Cohen
Like I said, I don't feel guilty about what I did to identify that young black man. In fact, I still feel fairly smug about it, not just because he was in fact guilty of a crime, but because I was right in my assessment based on knowledge of the local street layout that the cop, a white cop BTW, did not possess.
So, it's not guilt but it is a broader perspective, based on my much greater awareness now of the racial issues that still divide America. That perspective has been gained not just by following the media reports about incidents like Gates, Gonsalves, Re. Williams, Charles Stuart, et al., but by working as an attorney for criminal defendants whose constitutional rights have been deprived based on racial considerations by the Commonwealth, such as the Soares case that tossed out murder convictions based on the prosecutor's racially prejudiced use of peremptory challenges, as well as civil cases involving racial job discrimination.
I do agree, however, that the larger problem is official disregard of our Constitutional rights generally.
Like I said, I don't feel guilty about what I did to identify that young black man. In fact, I still feel fairly smug about it, not just because he was in fact guilty of a crime, but because I was right in my assessment based on knowledge of the local street layout that the cop, a white cop BTW, did not possess.
So, it's not guilt but it is a broader perspective, based on my much greater awareness now of the racial issues that still divide America. That perspective has been gained not just by following the media reports about incidents like Gates, Gonsalves, Re. Williams, Charles Stuart, et al., but by working as an attorney for criminal defendants whose constitutional rights have been deprived based on racial considerations by the Commonwealth, such as the Soares case that tossed out murder convictions based on the prosecutor's racially prejudiced use of peremptory challenges, as well as civil cases involving racial job discrimination.
I do agree, however, that the larger problem is official disregard of our Constitutional rights generally.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Crusader
I appreciate your disdain for academic arrogance and hubris. But I have my own direct experiences with how racial profiling by the police works on the streets, as well as awareness of several high-profile cases involving profiling.
See the following post on profiling as based on probable cause for suspicion of breathing while black.
I appreciate your disdain for academic arrogance and hubris. But I have my own direct experiences with how racial profiling by the police works on the streets, as well as awareness of several high-profile cases involving profiling.
See the following post on profiling as based on probable cause for suspicion of breathing while black.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Buzz
As I asked crusader, please explain how Whalen's "possibly" Hispanic male with another man of uncertain race, who only may have been breaking into a house but could as likely have been pushing on a stuck door, became transformed, as written on Crowley's official report, into "two black males with backpacks" breaking into the house.
Please explain how that happened without someone, either the dispatcher or Crowley himself, making the assumption that Whalen's ambiguous and tentative report as to both race and what was happening actually meant that two black men were breaking into the house. That assumption, as clearly documented on Crowley's report and contrary to what Whalen said,was racial profiling.
How else do you explain it, both in light of logic and the fact that racial profiling is a common enough phenomenon that Crowley himself instructs rookie cops on the subject?
Give Crowley a break? O.k, then it was the dispatcher who profiled. Still, Crowley acted stupidly to arrest Gates as he did, as both Obama and the Middlesex D.A. clearly recognized.
As I asked crusader, please explain how Whalen's "possibly" Hispanic male with another man of uncertain race, who only may have been breaking into a house but could as likely have been pushing on a stuck door, became transformed, as written on Crowley's official report, into "two black males with backpacks" breaking into the house.
Please explain how that happened without someone, either the dispatcher or Crowley himself, making the assumption that Whalen's ambiguous and tentative report as to both race and what was happening actually meant that two black men were breaking into the house. That assumption, as clearly documented on Crowley's report and contrary to what Whalen said,was racial profiling.
How else do you explain it, both in light of logic and the fact that racial profiling is a common enough phenomenon that Crowley himself instructs rookie cops on the subject?
Give Crowley a break? O.k, then it was the dispatcher who profiled. Still, Crowley acted stupidly to arrest Gates as he did, as both Obama and the Middlesex D.A. clearly recognized.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Possee
I confess. I'm guilty of speaking while white about race relations. What are you gonna do -arrest me for disorderly comment?
I confess. I'm guilty of speaking while white about race relations. What are you gonna do -arrest me for disorderly comment?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Buzz
The issue in the Gates incident really isn't whether the police properly asked for a description, but how the police got from Whalen's description of one "possibly Hispanic male" who might have been breaking in but also might just have been pushing on a sticky door, all the way to "two black males" who were seen breaking in?
Now, I'm not talking over you to prevent you from getting your question out like "Cindy" did to me a few weeks ago, so don't go storming out on me. Just answer the question, directly please, how do you get from a "Hispanic" who wasn't definitely breaking in to two black males who were breaking in, as Crowley says was reported to him, without racial profiling?
This isn't subjective on my part, because I'm white. It's entirely objective, as well as both logical and intellectually honest.
I wrongly prejudged Ms. Whalen as part of the profiling chain, but the 911 tapes show that the profiling actually began within the Cambridge PD. How else do you explain it?
The issue in the Gates incident really isn't whether the police properly asked for a description, but how the police got from Whalen's description of one "possibly Hispanic male" who might have been breaking in but also might just have been pushing on a sticky door, all the way to "two black males" who were seen breaking in?
Now, I'm not talking over you to prevent you from getting your question out like "Cindy" did to me a few weeks ago, so don't go storming out on me. Just answer the question, directly please, how do you get from a "Hispanic" who wasn't definitely breaking in to two black males who were breaking in, as Crowley says was reported to him, without racial profiling?
This isn't subjective on my part, because I'm white. It's entirely objective, as well as both logical and intellectually honest.
I wrongly prejudged Ms. Whalen as part of the profiling chain, but the 911 tapes show that the profiling actually began within the Cambridge PD. How else do you explain it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
So, awayfromthebay
I realize that my comment about Whalen's profiling was wrong, based on prejudgment, and I admit it. That doesn't alter the validity of my larger point about racial profiling within the Cambridge PD, however, and it in fact serves as proof as you must agree.
Whalen, to her credit didn't offer anything about race, didn't say black but only Hispanic and didn't say that the men she saw were in fact breaking in, only that they might have been doing so but they could have just been pushing on a sticky door. That's what the 911 tape says.
So how did Crowley get "two black males" breaking in on his police report, if it wasn't racial profiling somewhere within the Cambridge PD, either by the dispatcher or by himself, or both? Whalen denies telling him that.
Please explain.
While you're at it, try explaining why Crowley arresting Gates for anything wasn't very stupid after he knew that Gates lived in the house. Sure, Gates was being obstreperous, but that's not a crime, and the charges were in fact so stupid the D.A. had them voluntarily dismissed.
I realize that my comment about Whalen's profiling was wrong, based on prejudgment, and I admit it. That doesn't alter the validity of my larger point about racial profiling within the Cambridge PD, however, and it in fact serves as proof as you must agree.
Whalen, to her credit didn't offer anything about race, didn't say black but only Hispanic and didn't say that the men she saw were in fact breaking in, only that they might have been doing so but they could have just been pushing on a sticky door. That's what the 911 tape says.
So how did Crowley get "two black males" breaking in on his police report, if it wasn't racial profiling somewhere within the Cambridge PD, either by the dispatcher or by himself, or both? Whalen denies telling him that.
Please explain.
While you're at it, try explaining why Crowley arresting Gates for anything wasn't very stupid after he knew that Gates lived in the house. Sure, Gates was being obstreperous, but that's not a crime, and the charges were in fact so stupid the D.A. had them voluntarily dismissed.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Crusader
I agree with you, except I won't put most of the blame on Gates -just an equal share with Crowley. Both men acted stupidly, as Obama correctly but stupidly opined.
Gates and Crowley acted out of Macho stupidity, as Joan Vennochi commented. Obama acted upon political stupidity.
But let's have some sympathy for Gates here. After all, this whole thing in the press will blow over soon, but his wife has been on his case about why he didn't fix the damned door when she told him to before he went on the trip, and she's not gonna let up on him anytime soon.
I agree with you, except I won't put most of the blame on Gates -just an equal share with Crowley. Both men acted stupidly, as Obama correctly but stupidly opined.
Gates and Crowley acted out of Macho stupidity, as Joan Vennochi commented. Obama acted upon political stupidity.
But let's have some sympathy for Gates here. After all, this whole thing in the press will blow over soon, but his wife has been on his case about why he didn't fix the damned door when she told him to before he went on the trip, and she's not gonna let up on him anytime soon.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Peter
I guess critical thinking wasn't on the curriculum up there in Hanover. How do you get profiling from my statement that "many Americans" equate Hispanic with black when:
(a) I did not say that all white Americans equate Hispanic with black;
(b) Despite the DOT, the majority of people who are descibed as Hispanic in the US are not European Spanish but are from Mexico or South America where they are racially mixed and therefore non-white; and
(c) As a matter of fact, not opinion, Whalen's description of two Hispanic men who only might have been breaking in, or were maybe just pushing on a sticky door, was equated within the Cambridge PD with "two black males" breaking in, as stated on Crowley's written report.
C'mon Peter, get a few brain cells working together for a change, plus some intellectual honesty for once, and admit you can't explain how "Hispanic" got translated as "two black males" without racial profiling somewhere along the line, specifically within the Cambridge PD, as it appears from the 911 tape it did not come from Whalen.
I guess critical thinking wasn't on the curriculum up there in Hanover. How do you get profiling from my statement that "many Americans" equate Hispanic with black when:
(a) I did not say that all white Americans equate Hispanic with black;
(b) Despite the DOT, the majority of people who are descibed as Hispanic in the US are not European Spanish but are from Mexico or South America where they are racially mixed and therefore non-white; and
(c) As a matter of fact, not opinion, Whalen's description of two Hispanic men who only might have been breaking in, or were maybe just pushing on a sticky door, was equated within the Cambridge PD with "two black males" breaking in, as stated on Crowley's written report.
C'mon Peter, get a few brain cells working together for a change, plus some intellectual honesty for once, and admit you can't explain how "Hispanic" got translated as "two black males" without racial profiling somewhere along the line, specifically within the Cambridge PD, as it appears from the 911 tape it did not come from Whalen.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi,awtb
What's your point? I said I backtracked on my comment as to Ms. Whalen after I listened to the 911 tape. I was wrong about her and I said so, which is something all the right-wing ideologues who comment here are incapable of doing, either intellectually or morally.
Where the profiling occurred is when the dispatcher took that "Hispanic" reference, sent a report out, and somehow it was translated by Sgt. Crowley as "two black men." Now, despite what intelligent people like you know about the DOT, to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent. How else did Crowley get that idea? Ms. Whalen denies she told him, and I said I give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. As you say, AFTB, "try getting your facts right next time" and open your eyes and your mind so you will recognize reality in all its forms, including racial profiling, when it's staring you in the face.
The main point of this post was not Whalen. It was Obama's absolutely correct statement that the cops were stupid -and so was he for discussing it.
What's your point? I said I backtracked on my comment as to Ms. Whalen after I listened to the 911 tape. I was wrong about her and I said so, which is something all the right-wing ideologues who comment here are incapable of doing, either intellectually or morally.
Where the profiling occurred is when the dispatcher took that "Hispanic" reference, sent a report out, and somehow it was translated by Sgt. Crowley as "two black men." Now, despite what intelligent people like you know about the DOT, to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent. How else did Crowley get that idea? Ms. Whalen denies she told him, and I said I give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. As you say, AFTB, "try getting your facts right next time" and open your eyes and your mind so you will recognize reality in all its forms, including racial profiling, when it's staring you in the face.
The main point of this post was not Whalen. It was Obama's absolutely correct statement that the cops were stupid -and so was he for discussing it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, awayfromthebay
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. she saw them as not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report, however. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the benefit of doubt to Whalen, but there's still some doubt on the issue.
It's possible Crowley saw the driver leave which is how he knew he was black and his report is just one big CYA job.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. she saw them as not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report, however. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the benefit of doubt to Whalen, but there's still some doubt on the issue.
It's possible Crowley saw the driver leave which is how he knew he was black and his report is just one big CYA job.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi Buzz
Fact. Whalen described the two men she saw as "Hispanic."
Fact. Crowley understood before he entered Gates house that it was "two black men with backpacks" attempting to break into the house.
Fact. Crowley says he got that information about the "suspects" race from Whalen.
Fact. Whalen denies she told Crowley about the two men's race.
Fact. Whalen expessly told the dispatcher she could not tell whether the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Fact. The only way Whalen could have known the "suspects" were black is if she waited around and saw the driver leave.
Fact. Crowley doesn't say that Whalen saw one of the "suspects" leave.
Fact. If she told Crowley she saw the driver leave, he wouldn't have claimed to have "fear" when he saw only one "suspect" in the house.
There's only one thing certain here, and it is racial profiling by the Cambridge police, if not Whalen too.
Fact. Whalen described the two men she saw as "Hispanic."
Fact. Crowley understood before he entered Gates house that it was "two black men with backpacks" attempting to break into the house.
Fact. Crowley says he got that information about the "suspects" race from Whalen.
Fact. Whalen denies she told Crowley about the two men's race.
Fact. Whalen expessly told the dispatcher she could not tell whether the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Fact. The only way Whalen could have known the "suspects" were black is if she waited around and saw the driver leave.
Fact. Crowley doesn't say that Whalen saw one of the "suspects" leave.
Fact. If she told Crowley she saw the driver leave, he wouldn't have claimed to have "fear" when he saw only one "suspect" in the house.
There's only one thing certain here, and it is racial profiling by the Cambridge police, if not Whalen too.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Peter
Tell me where an unconfirmed 911 call creates probable cause to enter -especially where the 911 caller expressly said she couldn't tell if the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Tell me where an unconfirmed 911 call creates probable cause to enter -especially where the 911 caller expressly said she couldn't tell if the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, capecon
There's a difference between an alarm that the property owner deliberately installs as an invitation for the police to investigate, and seeing the police show up based on nothing more than an ambiguous report like the one Ms. Whalen gave.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the doubt to Whalen.
There's a difference between an alarm that the property owner deliberately installs as an invitation for the police to investigate, and seeing the police show up based on nothing more than an ambiguous report like the one Ms. Whalen gave.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the doubt to Whalen.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Constables and Fences
In response to: Of Constables and Fences
Hi, Troy
Perhaps you're to young to remember, but there was a time when two Planning Board members fought over a chair at the start of a meeting -physically fought over the chair.
At least Brent is fighting over an issue that means something, and that's only verbally. I shudder to think of what might have happened if those two long ago PB members had been packing as Monponsett would have it.
Perhaps you're to young to remember, but there was a time when two Planning Board members fought over a chair at the start of a meeting -physically fought over the chair.
At least Brent is fighting over an issue that means something, and that's only verbally. I shudder to think of what might have happened if those two long ago PB members had been packing as Monponsett would have it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Buzz
What you're not supposed to do is enter someone's house without a warrant like Crowley did. And if Gates were a frail, elderly white man backtalking him, Crowley would have acted more cautiously because he wouldn't have felt the alleged "fear" about the second black man Whalen told him about, the one she saw after she couldn't tell the race of the people on the porch breaking in. Possibly Hispanic, as if they aren't profiled by the cops too.
I will have more to say in a future post about the issue of profiling. The main point of this one, as the heading indicates, is Obama's lapse of judgment in even commenting on the incident, and comparing that with goofs by other presidents.
I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident, as opposed to the main thrust of my comment by coming to Ronald Reagan's defense, or Bush's defense. That's because my main point was correct. Those two "leaders" made repeated idiotic statements, while Obama made a single sensible statement when he should have kept his mouth shut.
What you're not supposed to do is enter someone's house without a warrant like Crowley did. And if Gates were a frail, elderly white man backtalking him, Crowley would have acted more cautiously because he wouldn't have felt the alleged "fear" about the second black man Whalen told him about, the one she saw after she couldn't tell the race of the people on the porch breaking in. Possibly Hispanic, as if they aren't profiled by the cops too.
I will have more to say in a future post about the issue of profiling. The main point of this one, as the heading indicates, is Obama's lapse of judgment in even commenting on the incident, and comparing that with goofs by other presidents.
I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident, as opposed to the main thrust of my comment by coming to Ronald Reagan's defense, or Bush's defense. That's because my main point was correct. Those two "leaders" made repeated idiotic statements, while Obama made a single sensible statement when he should have kept his mouth shut.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
So, Peter, as you say, Whalen's account of her 911 call and Crowley's account of her statement to him are mutually inconsistent. So somebody's lying here.
Whalen has said she couldn't even tell the race of the two men who were "breaking in" to the house, yet Crowley says she told them they were two black men with backpacks. How did her perception improve over the few minutes it took Crowley to get there?
It's possible she waited around and therefore would have seen the big black driver get into the car and drive off. And then she might have assumed that the other "perp" was also black. But, if so, why didn't she tell Crowley that the other black guy left?
That way Crowley would have known that the only one inside the house was the frail elderly owner, Mr. Gates. But Crowley said he was experiencing "fear" because there was another suspect inside the house.
You don't have to be a mindreader, Snoopy, to read between the lines. At least one of these people is lying about what transpired after the 911 call, if not both of them, and I stand by my statement about profiling.
Whalen has said she couldn't even tell the race of the two men who were "breaking in" to the house, yet Crowley says she told them they were two black men with backpacks. How did her perception improve over the few minutes it took Crowley to get there?
It's possible she waited around and therefore would have seen the big black driver get into the car and drive off. And then she might have assumed that the other "perp" was also black. But, if so, why didn't she tell Crowley that the other black guy left?
That way Crowley would have known that the only one inside the house was the frail elderly owner, Mr. Gates. But Crowley said he was experiencing "fear" because there was another suspect inside the house.
You don't have to be a mindreader, Snoopy, to read between the lines. At least one of these people is lying about what transpired after the 911 call, if not both of them, and I stand by my statement about profiling.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
No apology needed FTB because whether or not she mentioned two black males, the only reason she called 911 was because they were two black males and she therefore assumed they were breaking into the house, i.e. profiling.
Don't try to pretent that if were an elderly white man, with a younger white companion pushing on a stuck door on a humid day she would have thought there was a crime being committed. And don't try to pretend that Crowley, based on the report he received, wasn't expecting to find one or two black perps.
Don't try to pretent that if were an elderly white man, with a younger white companion pushing on a stuck door on a humid day she would have thought there was a crime being committed. And don't try to pretend that Crowley, based on the report he received, wasn't expecting to find one or two black perps.
Richard [Member]
In response to: I'm Buying a House: Do I Need a Lawyer??
In response to: I'm Buying a House: Do I Need a Lawyer??
My former partner, the late Marcel Kistin, had a cartoon on his office wall with a grinning fellow saying that he didn't need a lawyer and he negotiated a home purchase by himself and the other party threw in two liens and several encumbrances for free.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Employee Manuals Can be "Implied Contracts"
In response to: Employee Manuals Can be "Implied Contracts"
Would a simple disclaimer suffice? Language could appear in a prominent place stating "This manual is advisory only as to the employer's voluntary personnel policies. It is not a contract, and it does not imply the existence of an employment contract. Policy is subject to change at the employer's sole discretion, and employees remain at all time subject to dismissal at will as provided by the laws of the Commonwealth."
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
Richard [Member]
In response to: BLACK, WHITE AND GRAY AND THE GOLDEN ASS CAFE....OBAMA'S DILEMMA
In response to: BLACK, WHITE AND GRAY AND THE GOLDEN ASS CAFE....OBAMA'S DILEMMA
To answer your question you make a lot of sense for the most part. But you avoid dealing with the crux of the dilemma.
Yes, Woodie's people should be Obama supporters, and surely would be if economics were all that drove politics today as it did in the 1930s and 40s.
But after 30 some years of divisive Reaganista politics, based on the GOP's so-called "family values" agenda, the important issues in middle America today are sschool prayer, creationism, abortion and gay marriage.
Just look at the 2004 presidential race where Bush was on the ropes with the economy, but he was saved by the bell of anti-gay marriage petitions in so many of the states in middle America.
It's not an easy problem to resolve. Obama was given a good opening with the failure of GOP economics in 2008, but he must capitalize on that, rather than abandon constitutional prinicple on the "values" issues. To do that, as Ana Paulina suggests, he must start to show real competence on the economic issues, as well as foreign policy, to get middle America's head screwed back on straight.
Yes, Woodie's people should be Obama supporters, and surely would be if economics were all that drove politics today as it did in the 1930s and 40s.
But after 30 some years of divisive Reaganista politics, based on the GOP's so-called "family values" agenda, the important issues in middle America today are sschool prayer, creationism, abortion and gay marriage.
Just look at the 2004 presidential race where Bush was on the ropes with the economy, but he was saved by the bell of anti-gay marriage petitions in so many of the states in middle America.
It's not an easy problem to resolve. Obama was given a good opening with the failure of GOP economics in 2008, but he must capitalize on that, rather than abandon constitutional prinicple on the "values" issues. To do that, as Ana Paulina suggests, he must start to show real competence on the economic issues, as well as foreign policy, to get middle America's head screwed back on straight.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
Hi, dingbat
See my comment to Buzz about a judge's record. The difference between Carville and Bork on the one hand, and Roberts and Alito as well as Sotomayor on the other, is how extreme their prior decisions have been, how well reasoned within the range of rational constitutional debate on the facts under established principles of law, and not simply whether they had been overturned on appeal.
See my comment to Buzz about a judge's record. The difference between Carville and Bork on the one hand, and Roberts and Alito as well as Sotomayor on the other, is how extreme their prior decisions have been, how well reasoned within the range of rational constitutional debate on the facts under established principles of law, and not simply whether they had been overturned on appeal.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
Hi, Karen
I'll say it again about Scalia. He's a smooth sophist, skillful with words, but his culturally conservative prejudices, against gays, against individusal sexual freedom, come through loud and clear.
The difference here between Sotomayor and Scalia is indeed the "empathy" that comes out of bias and the antipathy -or bigotry that comes out of prejudice.
Empathy tends to enlarge the rights of everyone to basic freedoms, albeit imperfectly, while bigotry always and perfectly leads to constrictiong our freedoms.
My own comments critical of gay marriage, for example, have not been based on any prejudice against gays, but on a basically political analysis that sees that issue, coming up as it did just before the 2004 election, having disastrous impact on the cause of civil rights generally, not the least of which was the fact that Bush got to appoint Roberts and Alito to join the other culturally conservative activists Thomas and Scalia.
Prejudicde, whether it's based on race, gender or sexual orientation, unlike bias, restricts freedom and opportunity.
I'll say it again about Scalia. He's a smooth sophist, skillful with words, but his culturally conservative prejudices, against gays, against individusal sexual freedom, come through loud and clear.
The difference here between Sotomayor and Scalia is indeed the "empathy" that comes out of bias and the antipathy -or bigotry that comes out of prejudice.
Empathy tends to enlarge the rights of everyone to basic freedoms, albeit imperfectly, while bigotry always and perfectly leads to constrictiong our freedoms.
My own comments critical of gay marriage, for example, have not been based on any prejudice against gays, but on a basically political analysis that sees that issue, coming up as it did just before the 2004 election, having disastrous impact on the cause of civil rights generally, not the least of which was the fact that Bush got to appoint Roberts and Alito to join the other culturally conservative activists Thomas and Scalia.
Prejudicde, whether it's based on race, gender or sexual orientation, unlike bias, restricts freedom and opportunity.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
Hi, Buzz
Good to hear from you again. It is indeed relevant to look at any judicial nominee's record on important issues that may come before the Court. That's why white males like Carville, Bork et al. were rejected by Senatorial majorities that did not agree with their stated position on the issues.
Whether a judge's rulings are reversed or not, however, isn't really the key because the Supremes are nominated based on a president's politics and they are confirmed based on the Senate's politics which will change from time to time.
That's the reality of it, where Solomonic neutrality is really a myth, never more so than with the present four culturally conservative activists Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.
Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment did nothing more than honestly acknowledge this fact, and I don't just "hope" but am certain that her wise Latina perspective will lead her to much better decisions in defense of our constitutional rights than those four black robed, white male clowns.
Good to hear from you again. It is indeed relevant to look at any judicial nominee's record on important issues that may come before the Court. That's why white males like Carville, Bork et al. were rejected by Senatorial majorities that did not agree with their stated position on the issues.
Whether a judge's rulings are reversed or not, however, isn't really the key because the Supremes are nominated based on a president's politics and they are confirmed based on the Senate's politics which will change from time to time.
That's the reality of it, where Solomonic neutrality is really a myth, never more so than with the present four culturally conservative activists Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.
Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment did nothing more than honestly acknowledge this fact, and I don't just "hope" but am certain that her wise Latina perspective will lead her to much better decisions in defense of our constitutional rights than those four black robed, white male clowns.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Animating Cause
In response to: Animating Cause
There's good reason for some optimism, now that we have a President who understands that difficult issues require critical thinking and reason aimed at developing fair and honest policies. They cannot be resolved with "patriotic" bluster combined with hypocritical actions as the former administration seemed to believe.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Addiction: Is it an illness or personal choice?
In response to: Addiction: Is it an illness or personal choice?
As someone who has kicked a heavy tobacco habit and stronger stuff as well, it would be easy for me to say anyone can do it because I did and therefore users are weak willed and immoral people.
That would be easy except for the fact that as someone who has developed a serious habit of critical thinking, I know better. I believe that I am probably fortunate in my genetic makeup and I know many equally intelligent people who have not been able to give up serious addictions.
I view this as a sound rationale for decriminalizing all addictive substances, controlling and taxing production and sales, and plowing all the money back into serious and effective programs aimed at both preventive education and rehabilitation. I see no role for the police in what is essentially a public health problem and not a crime problem per se.
That would be easy except for the fact that as someone who has developed a serious habit of critical thinking, I know better. I believe that I am probably fortunate in my genetic makeup and I know many equally intelligent people who have not been able to give up serious addictions.
I view this as a sound rationale for decriminalizing all addictive substances, controlling and taxing production and sales, and plowing all the money back into serious and effective programs aimed at both preventive education and rehabilitation. I see no role for the police in what is essentially a public health problem and not a crime problem per se.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Some Reflections On Patriotism, July 4, 2009
In response to: Some Reflections On Patriotism, July 4, 2009
Hi, peter
You probably haven't read very many of my posts on this site if you think my remarks in this post are in some way "hypocritical" because I make a partisan criticism of today's GOP.
You also seem to be confusing partisanship, which is necessary to a truly democratic republic, with ideological extremism which is my target on this site, on both the right and the left as well. Just read my lenghthy critiques of gay marriage, of animal rights and, recently, Cindy Sheehan.
Eisenhower said he despised people on the extreme right and left who throw rocks at us in the center. On this site, I throw them back from the center.
This post was not directed at Republicanism per se as I have known it in my lifetime. Indeed, I expressly quoted Repulican leaders like Schurz and Ike. Instead, my target here is the extreme right wing ideology that has taken over today's GOP with its "free market" nonsense and phony "values" agenda -an ideology that shrilly resists any attempt to change from within, as with Cheney and Limbaugh recently shouting down Colin Powell.
You probably haven't read very many of my posts on this site if you think my remarks in this post are in some way "hypocritical" because I make a partisan criticism of today's GOP.
You also seem to be confusing partisanship, which is necessary to a truly democratic republic, with ideological extremism which is my target on this site, on both the right and the left as well. Just read my lenghthy critiques of gay marriage, of animal rights and, recently, Cindy Sheehan.
Eisenhower said he despised people on the extreme right and left who throw rocks at us in the center. On this site, I throw them back from the center.
This post was not directed at Republicanism per se as I have known it in my lifetime. Indeed, I expressly quoted Repulican leaders like Schurz and Ike. Instead, my target here is the extreme right wing ideology that has taken over today's GOP with its "free market" nonsense and phony "values" agenda -an ideology that shrilly resists any attempt to change from within, as with Cheney and Limbaugh recently shouting down Colin Powell.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, jm
I fully agree with you, which is why I began this post by saying that I respect both Ms. Sheehan's efforts in the cause of peace and the fact that she lost a son in Iraq. My disappointment was solely based on her inability and refusal to answer a simple question about whether Gore would have made a difference in the 2000 election. I think he would have made a big difference, and I was disappointed that she did not address the question but tried to deflect it instead.
As for walking out, I was the the last or next to last person allowed to ask a question, and I had to be really insistent to get the question out because she immediately began to talk over me when she got the drift of where I was going. That's just demagoguery, not reasoned dialogue, and I just didn't want to hear any more of it that night.
I fully agree with you, which is why I began this post by saying that I respect both Ms. Sheehan's efforts in the cause of peace and the fact that she lost a son in Iraq. My disappointment was solely based on her inability and refusal to answer a simple question about whether Gore would have made a difference in the 2000 election. I think he would have made a big difference, and I was disappointed that she did not address the question but tried to deflect it instead.
As for walking out, I was the the last or next to last person allowed to ask a question, and I had to be really insistent to get the question out because she immediately began to talk over me when she got the drift of where I was going. That's just demagoguery, not reasoned dialogue, and I just didn't want to hear any more of it that night.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi,dk
I went to the meeting, not knowing very much about Ms. Sheehan's position on larger issues than the war in Iraq and with a completely open mind.
I think anyone who has fought in a war or who has lost a loved one in a war, has sufficient "credentials" to speak about war in general. I think the rest of us who, as taxpayers, are paying for costly overseas wars also have sufficient credentials to speak out.
As for larger political issues, we are all equal under the First Amendment, but clearly we are not equal in terms of our ability to think clearly when we speak -and that's what I was trying to get Ms. Sheehan to do when I asked the question about whether Gore would have made a difference in 2000. I was disappointed that she could not -or would not do so.
I went to the meeting, not knowing very much about Ms. Sheehan's position on larger issues than the war in Iraq and with a completely open mind.
I think anyone who has fought in a war or who has lost a loved one in a war, has sufficient "credentials" to speak about war in general. I think the rest of us who, as taxpayers, are paying for costly overseas wars also have sufficient credentials to speak out.
As for larger political issues, we are all equal under the First Amendment, but clearly we are not equal in terms of our ability to think clearly when we speak -and that's what I was trying to get Ms. Sheehan to do when I asked the question about whether Gore would have made a difference in 2000. I was disappointed that she could not -or would not do so.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
capewatch.
BTW, do you think my question about wehther President Gore would have started an oil war in Iraq as Bush did was somehow unfair in light of Ms. Sheehan's claims that elections don't matter and there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP?
If so, please give me the explanation that Ms. Sheehan did not give me as to why that might be so.
If you think it was a fair question, as I do, then please explain how her deflection of the question about Gore by referring to an irrelevant association with Armand Hammer, was anything other than an attempt to evade the question.
BTW, do you think my question about wehther President Gore would have started an oil war in Iraq as Bush did was somehow unfair in light of Ms. Sheehan's claims that elections don't matter and there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP?
If so, please give me the explanation that Ms. Sheehan did not give me as to why that might be so.
If you think it was a fair question, as I do, then please explain how her deflection of the question about Gore by referring to an irrelevant association with Armand Hammer, was anything other than an attempt to evade the question.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi capewatch
As I stated in the post, I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan's claim that the American corporte elite, through its GOP political wing, has been successful in perpetrating several myths on the American people, including:
The myth that America itself,is somehow special as a nation and different from the rest of the world. It is a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism as a people, while what has has always made us different from other nations is our secular constitution which is indeed special when it is not corrupted by political ideologies from the right or the left.
Another myth is that America is a classless society, when the reality is that we have a very real class system based solely on wealth.
And another myth in today's climate of mass media being monopolized by corporate interests is that we still have a free press.
Those are all points on which I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan as being major problems in America today.
However, her belief that there's no difference between the GOP and the Dems so elections don't matter is itself a myth.
As I stated in the post, I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan's claim that the American corporte elite, through its GOP political wing, has been successful in perpetrating several myths on the American people, including:
The myth that America itself,is somehow special as a nation and different from the rest of the world. It is a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism as a people, while what has has always made us different from other nations is our secular constitution which is indeed special when it is not corrupted by political ideologies from the right or the left.
Another myth is that America is a classless society, when the reality is that we have a very real class system based solely on wealth.
And another myth in today's climate of mass media being monopolized by corporate interests is that we still have a free press.
Those are all points on which I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan as being major problems in America today.
However, her belief that there's no difference between the GOP and the Dems so elections don't matter is itself a myth.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, demos
I agree, but the way to build that unified party is not to demonize those successful politicians who you would need in order to become a unified majority on the issues that matter. Rather than build a "new party" from scratch, people like Ms. Sheehan should be trying to rebuild the Democratic Party from within, as Colin Powell is trying to do with the GOP.
Nor, as we agree, is it helpful to preach that "elections don't matter," simply because the differences between the major parties are not as great as some of us might like to see. If we are ever to have a unified majority on the issues that matter, peace, prosperity for all, equality, liberty, the way the GOP has managed to gain majorities on divisive "values" issues, then elections certainly do matter.
I agree, but the way to build that unified party is not to demonize those successful politicians who you would need in order to become a unified majority on the issues that matter. Rather than build a "new party" from scratch, people like Ms. Sheehan should be trying to rebuild the Democratic Party from within, as Colin Powell is trying to do with the GOP.
Nor, as we agree, is it helpful to preach that "elections don't matter," simply because the differences between the major parties are not as great as some of us might like to see. If we are ever to have a unified majority on the issues that matter, peace, prosperity for all, equality, liberty, the way the GOP has managed to gain majorities on divisive "values" issues, then elections certainly do matter.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, greenferret
The idea of a runoff is interesting, but in the end it would be both needlessly costly and unworkable given our constitutional system of separation of powers. Third parties work very well under a parliamentary system where the chief executive is a prime minister and his election depends on a parliamentary majority.
But that's not our constitutional model. So, instead, what happens is that a third party simply serves to divide the electorate which might not be bad except for the fact that the GOP corporatists have been more skilfull at doing that with their phony "values" agenda ever since Reagan won in 1980.
In this context, third party demonization of Democrats from the left only serves to empower the GOP by adding to the crippling divisiveness among those who are, or should be voting against the corporate elite based on their common economic interests.
Read Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas," for example, or Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" to see how well this has actually worked to empower the GOP over the past 30 years.
The idea of a runoff is interesting, but in the end it would be both needlessly costly and unworkable given our constitutional system of separation of powers. Third parties work very well under a parliamentary system where the chief executive is a prime minister and his election depends on a parliamentary majority.
But that's not our constitutional model. So, instead, what happens is that a third party simply serves to divide the electorate which might not be bad except for the fact that the GOP corporatists have been more skilfull at doing that with their phony "values" agenda ever since Reagan won in 1980.
In this context, third party demonization of Democrats from the left only serves to empower the GOP by adding to the crippling divisiveness among those who are, or should be voting against the corporate elite based on their common economic interests.
Read Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas," for example, or Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" to see how well this has actually worked to empower the GOP over the past 30 years.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, paul
As you can see from the responses to this post, not everyone agrees with your take on Ms. Sheehan, nor mine for that matter. And while many at Morse Pond may have been happy when I left last Saturday, I got several smiles and thumbs up on my way out.
I don't doubt Ms. Sheehan's courage, or her basic intelligence which I have in fact defended against some negative comment here. But that doesn't mean I have to close my mind to her flaws as well as some at the Morse Pond meeting apparently do.
As for wanting to hear oneself above all others, look around paul, and really think about the way Ms. Sheehan responded to my simple question about what Gore's policy would have been. Instead of actually focusing on my difficult question and giving an honest answer, she deflected the question with an irrelevant reference to Armand Hammer, in order to maintain her own
voice "above all others" about how "elections don't matter."
That's hardly speaking "truth to power," is it?
As you can see from the responses to this post, not everyone agrees with your take on Ms. Sheehan, nor mine for that matter. And while many at Morse Pond may have been happy when I left last Saturday, I got several smiles and thumbs up on my way out.
I don't doubt Ms. Sheehan's courage, or her basic intelligence which I have in fact defended against some negative comment here. But that doesn't mean I have to close my mind to her flaws as well as some at the Morse Pond meeting apparently do.
As for wanting to hear oneself above all others, look around paul, and really think about the way Ms. Sheehan responded to my simple question about what Gore's policy would have been. Instead of actually focusing on my difficult question and giving an honest answer, she deflected the question with an irrelevant reference to Armand Hammer, in order to maintain her own
voice "above all others" about how "elections don't matter."
That's hardly speaking "truth to power," is it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, Ned
It's like FDR supposedly said about Somoza being our SOB. The difference is, though, that repressive right wing dictators back then could be relied on to oppose the "enemy" dou jour.
My take on Ms. Sheehan's attack on Democrats has quite the opposite effect, inasmuch as it only serves to augment the divisiveness among people who should be voting for Democrats on economic issues, to complement the GOP's effort to create divisiveness based on the so-called "values" issues.
Just look at "gary's" rant about Palin to see what the problem is. He says she's a lock to be next president, and he could be right if the GOP's natural constituency on economic issues remains divided against itself. Think about that a moment, and if you ain't scared, you ain't right.
Now, that the GOP's regulatory incompetence has led to the total collapse of our "free market" economy, is not the time to give them another boost by demonizing the Democrats or pretending they don't offer a real alternative to GOP policies. And that's my point about Ms. Sheehan.
It's like FDR supposedly said about Somoza being our SOB. The difference is, though, that repressive right wing dictators back then could be relied on to oppose the "enemy" dou jour.
My take on Ms. Sheehan's attack on Democrats has quite the opposite effect, inasmuch as it only serves to augment the divisiveness among people who should be voting for Democrats on economic issues, to complement the GOP's effort to create divisiveness based on the so-called "values" issues.
Just look at "gary's" rant about Palin to see what the problem is. He says she's a lock to be next president, and he could be right if the GOP's natural constituency on economic issues remains divided against itself. Think about that a moment, and if you ain't scared, you ain't right.
Now, that the GOP's regulatory incompetence has led to the total collapse of our "free market" economy, is not the time to give them another boost by demonizing the Democrats or pretending they don't offer a real alternative to GOP policies. And that's my point about Ms. Sheehan.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, dingbat
I, too, miss William Buckley as a sane conservative voice. But after Reagan's 2000 "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Miss., the GOP has gone almost entirely over to the truly wingnut "values" agenda of the religious right. The corporate capitalists put up the money for GOP candidates to pander to the "values" voters in the south and the heartland, expecting to reap the benefits of small government in the form of deregulation and "free market" economics but, as the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."
Now, with the failure of small government economic deregulation, all of Reagan's "best minds" in industry and Wall Street are going to big government asking for welfare, i.e. "socialism," while the GOP has been taken over by the gun nuts, the school prayer nuts and the sexual puritans.
Even as a Democrat, I've been rooting for Colin Powell in his effort to get the GOP back on track and out of the grasp of nut cases like Cheney, Limbaugh and Palin.
I, too, miss William Buckley as a sane conservative voice. But after Reagan's 2000 "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Miss., the GOP has gone almost entirely over to the truly wingnut "values" agenda of the religious right. The corporate capitalists put up the money for GOP candidates to pander to the "values" voters in the south and the heartland, expecting to reap the benefits of small government in the form of deregulation and "free market" economics but, as the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."
Now, with the failure of small government economic deregulation, all of Reagan's "best minds" in industry and Wall Street are going to big government asking for welfare, i.e. "socialism," while the GOP has been taken over by the gun nuts, the school prayer nuts and the sexual puritans.
Even as a Democrat, I've been rooting for Colin Powell in his effort to get the GOP back on track and out of the grasp of nut cases like Cheney, Limbaugh and Palin.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hello, mbrad!
I could tell that Ms. Sheehan had a much better grasp on the issues, and was significantly more intelligent than Palin just based on what she said and how she said it, comparing what I've heard from Palin in similar public fora.
If you think someone needs to know relative IQ scores in order to judge the intelligence of others, that only calls your own intelligence into question as well as display an ignorance of the limited validity of IQ testing itself in areas outside of academics.
But I'll give you the benefit of doubt and allow that you're probably a fairly intelligent fellow but, like most defenders of Palin who should know better, you sound like just another dishonest GOP cynic.
I could tell that Ms. Sheehan had a much better grasp on the issues, and was significantly more intelligent than Palin just based on what she said and how she said it, comparing what I've heard from Palin in similar public fora.
If you think someone needs to know relative IQ scores in order to judge the intelligence of others, that only calls your own intelligence into question as well as display an ignorance of the limited validity of IQ testing itself in areas outside of academics.
But I'll give you the benefit of doubt and allow that you're probably a fairly intelligent fellow but, like most defenders of Palin who should know better, you sound like just another dishonest GOP cynic.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Getting Rid of God
In response to: Getting Rid of God
Hi, Danny:
A dog will drink beer, and even get drunk, but I've never been able to get a cat to go anywhere near a glass of beer or wine -not that I've really tried to get them to drink. Still, when a cat sniffs at a glass of beer or wine it just recoils like it was poison.
A dog will drink beer, and even get drunk, but I've never been able to get a cat to go anywhere near a glass of beer or wine -not that I've really tried to get them to drink. Still, when a cat sniffs at a glass of beer or wine it just recoils like it was poison.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Peter:
Surely you must know that TP refers to talking point. And that's all you get with the Herald, printed talking points, factoids without any substance, analysis or validity.
By the way, before the recent "news" about Jon and Kate breaking up, did you even know who they were or that they were together? Tell the truth, now.
Surely you must know that TP refers to talking point. And that's all you get with the Herald, printed talking points, factoids without any substance, analysis or validity.
By the way, before the recent "news" about Jon and Kate breaking up, did you even know who they were or that they were together? Tell the truth, now.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Peter, try some basic logic, something totally unfamiliar with Herald editors and it's core readership:
Hypothesis 1: I criticized the Herald for having no "left" content.
Hypothesis 2: You countered my criticism by clear implication that Marjorie Eagan is a left biased columnist in the Herald.
Conclusion: You defended the Herald against my criticism that it has no left biased content, by contradiction.
I recognize that your statement could, literally, be taken to state only that Eagan was a centrist without any left or right bias, but then what was your point?
Hypothesis 1: I criticized the Herald for having no "left" content.
Hypothesis 2: You countered my criticism by clear implication that Marjorie Eagan is a left biased columnist in the Herald.
Conclusion: You defended the Herald against my criticism that it has no left biased content, by contradiction.
I recognize that your statement could, literally, be taken to state only that Eagan was a centrist without any left or right bias, but then what was your point?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Check out today's Globe and Herald. As usual, the Globe's front page is filled with a variety of actual news stories, including local, regional and national, with no apparent political slant.
Meanwhile, the Herald's front page has one side devoted to a story, again, about Dice K of the Red Sox, a large purely sensationalist item taking up half the page about the Craigslist murderer which is really old news, a smmall box at the top about Ted
Kennedy's son selling access, which is newsworthy but is also evidence of a political slant as it is the only newsworthy item on the front page, and then a larger box about Jon and Kate breaking up. Gasp!
Now that is really a newsworth item, but only to those with the intellectual limitations of the core Herald readership who actually know who Jon and Kate are and have such a minimal grasp on issues of public importance to think that the breakup has some actual significance in the real world.
Core Globe readers, like me, don't even know who Jon and Kate are, never mind having even the slightest concern whether they stay together or not.
Meanwhile, the Herald's front page has one side devoted to a story, again, about Dice K of the Red Sox, a large purely sensationalist item taking up half the page about the Craigslist murderer which is really old news, a smmall box at the top about Ted
Kennedy's son selling access, which is newsworthy but is also evidence of a political slant as it is the only newsworthy item on the front page, and then a larger box about Jon and Kate breaking up. Gasp!
Now that is really a newsworth item, but only to those with the intellectual limitations of the core Herald readership who actually know who Jon and Kate are and have such a minimal grasp on issues of public importance to think that the breakup has some actual significance in the real world.
Core Globe readers, like me, don't even know who Jon and Kate are, never mind having even the slightest concern whether they stay together or not.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Man on the Street Speaks in Falmouth
In response to: The Man on the Street Speaks in Falmouth
Don't complain too much about Mustafa btfh. Just remember how we used to elect selectmen like George Pinto who told the old Brothers Four nightclub in the Heights to take a sign down from their property for a group called "Band in Boston" because it was obscene. He thought since it was banned in Boston it must be obscene and he wasn't joking. Neither were the voters who elected him to help run the town, which is even scarier. At least Mustafa, agree with him or not, takes positions on real issues like the merits of a liquor violation charge.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Hello, Peter
Eagan is the Herald's token "liberal," but she is really what intelligent people would consider a right leaning centrist, like the moderate Republicans who used to guide the GOP, Eisenhower or Rockefeller nationally, and Richardson, Brooke, Sargent, Hatch and Weld locally.
As a left-leaning centrist, and an independent voter before 1980, I always voted for those Republicans. It was when Reagan started his 1980 campaign by appealing to racist whites in Philadelphia, Miss., on the basis of "states rights" demagoguery, creating divisive cultural issues by pandering to the so-called "values" voters, that I became a registered Democrat. And the GOP has done nothing since then to get my vote. I can only pray that Colin Powell might succeed in getting the GOP back on track, but it won't happen while most Republicans still subscribe to printed TP like the Herald.
That you would cite Eagan as a "left" leaning commentator only goes to prove my point about how far over into the deep, deep right wing abyss both the Herald and its defenders like you have fallen.
Eagan is the Herald's token "liberal," but she is really what intelligent people would consider a right leaning centrist, like the moderate Republicans who used to guide the GOP, Eisenhower or Rockefeller nationally, and Richardson, Brooke, Sargent, Hatch and Weld locally.
As a left-leaning centrist, and an independent voter before 1980, I always voted for those Republicans. It was when Reagan started his 1980 campaign by appealing to racist whites in Philadelphia, Miss., on the basis of "states rights" demagoguery, creating divisive cultural issues by pandering to the so-called "values" voters, that I became a registered Democrat. And the GOP has done nothing since then to get my vote. I can only pray that Colin Powell might succeed in getting the GOP back on track, but it won't happen while most Republicans still subscribe to printed TP like the Herald.
That you would cite Eagan as a "left" leaning commentator only goes to prove my point about how far over into the deep, deep right wing abyss both the Herald and its defenders like you have fallen.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Hi, Ned.
You're right about the Post of course, but when Paxton wrote the song the Daily News was clearly the paper of choice for right wing nitwits, as the Herald is today.
You're right about the Post of course, but when Paxton wrote the song the Daily News was clearly the paper of choice for right wing nitwits, as the Herald is today.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The lies of Hiroshima
In response to: The lies of Hiroshima
Some perspective. The Nazis were intensively trying to develop an atomic bomb, and as has come to light during the past decade, the Japanese themselves were trying to develop a uraniam based fission bomb.
The travesty was not dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which either the Germans or the Japanese would have done to us if they got there first. That bombing did, in fact, save American lives, and many, many Japanese lives outside the target areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is unrealistic ideolology to deny that fact.
No, the real travesty occurred after the war ended when Oppenheimer's plan to internationalize all nuclear development with close controls over all fissionable materials, was rejected by Truman, listening to the paranoid right, saying we had to protect our "atomic secrets."
That's the travesty because there were no secrets. Everyone knew the basic theory, and after Hiroshima they knew it could work. So it was only a matter of time before Russia, China, Israel, Korea, at al. got their own bombs. Now it's Iran's turn.
The travesty was not dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which either the Germans or the Japanese would have done to us if they got there first. That bombing did, in fact, save American lives, and many, many Japanese lives outside the target areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is unrealistic ideolology to deny that fact.
No, the real travesty occurred after the war ended when Oppenheimer's plan to internationalize all nuclear development with close controls over all fissionable materials, was rejected by Truman, listening to the paranoid right, saying we had to protect our "atomic secrets."
That's the travesty because there were no secrets. Everyone knew the basic theory, and after Hiroshima they knew it could work. So it was only a matter of time before Russia, China, Israel, Korea, at al. got their own bombs. Now it's Iran's turn.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Getting Rid of God
In response to: Getting Rid of God
Hi, Jon
Two weeks ago a church member played that song on guitar and sang during the early morning service at North Falmouth Congregational Church. It was well received by the congregation.
The song was still resonating in my head when I read Danny's post and the AA concept just kind of fit in with it, know what I mean?
Two weeks ago a church member played that song on guitar and sang during the early morning service at North Falmouth Congregational Church. It was well received by the congregation.
The song was still resonating in my head when I read Danny's post and the AA concept just kind of fit in with it, know what I mean?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY OFFERS RESOLUTION BEFORE HOUSE PROTECTING 10th AMENDMENT
In response to: PERRY OFFERS RESOLUTION BEFORE HOUSE PROTECTING 10th AMENDMENT
Since VR asked for my input, I'll just ask a simple question. Why has Mr. Perry and his ilk stopped reading at the 10th Amendment and never seem to mention the 14th Amendment?
I would suggest it's because they know that the principles of equal protection and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment throws their 10th Amendment "states rights" bullstuff into the dungheap where it belongs.
I would suggest it's because they know that the principles of equal protection and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment throws their 10th Amendment "states rights" bullstuff into the dungheap where it belongs.
Richard [Member]
In response to: David v. Goliath Cases: What Would Have Happened Without the Slingshot?
In response to: David v. Goliath Cases: What Would Have Happened Without the Slingshot?
The problem today is that too many Goliaths have become "too big to fail." Look at the insurance biz, for example. Everyone knows that we'd be much better off with a publicly backed single payer health care system, but since the U.S. now has an equity stake in the Goliath AIG, how likely is it we will get a system that takes premiums away from that asset?
When you have to fight the U.S., on Social Security claims or Medicare liens,they resist but at least you know they're only protecting public funds generated by taxes, serving an important public policy.
With the insurance Goliaths they're resisting only in the name of their own bottom line. We're gonna need more than a slingshot to kill that Goliath as most other Western societies have done.
When you have to fight the U.S., on Social Security claims or Medicare liens,they resist but at least you know they're only protecting public funds generated by taxes, serving an important public policy.
With the insurance Goliaths they're resisting only in the name of their own bottom line. We're gonna need more than a slingshot to kill that Goliath as most other Western societies have done.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Getting Rid of God
In response to: Getting Rid of God
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbyyl_joan-osborne-what-if-god-was-one-of
Whose call would he return first, the Pope's or Bill's?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbyyl_joan-osborne-what-if-god-was-one-of
Whose call would he return first, the Pope's or Bill's?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Hi, Buzz
Good to hear from you. Yes, if by elitist you mean someone who is capable of critical thinking about the issues, and doesn't need to be told what to think by authority figures and demagogues like Limbaugh, and then says so, I have to say mea culpa.
I think that's a lot better, though, than someone who is a mere sycophant to what is the true elite in America today, not the thinkers and the educators, but the corporate masters in industry, finance and insurance, who own most of America while the rest of us just get further and further behind.
We all know that the corporate elite have billions of reasons for this, but those in the media who earn chump change to enable them, like the Herald editors, are just fools.
You can call me "elitist" for pointing out how the so-called "values" voters, the Herald readers for example, have let themselves be duped by the corporate elite while the income and ownership gaps steadily increase in what is really a class-based society today.
I just call it being honest.
Good to hear from you. Yes, if by elitist you mean someone who is capable of critical thinking about the issues, and doesn't need to be told what to think by authority figures and demagogues like Limbaugh, and then says so, I have to say mea culpa.
I think that's a lot better, though, than someone who is a mere sycophant to what is the true elite in America today, not the thinkers and the educators, but the corporate masters in industry, finance and insurance, who own most of America while the rest of us just get further and further behind.
We all know that the corporate elite have billions of reasons for this, but those in the media who earn chump change to enable them, like the Herald editors, are just fools.
You can call me "elitist" for pointing out how the so-called "values" voters, the Herald readers for example, have let themselves be duped by the corporate elite while the income and ownership gaps steadily increase in what is really a class-based society today.
I just call it being honest.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Whalerick suggests that Herald Readers reject the Globe because the don't want to read "a paper that has what they consider to be too much left bias, with stories that don't appeal to them."
But, let's get real here, huh? Look at the editorial slant of the Herald,including the Op Ed, and its virtually all right wing bias. Compare that to the Globe which is, at least in the Op Ed usually 30 to 40 percent right wing with a lot of middle of the road stuff. Then look at the headlines of the Herald which are very opinionated, as well as many alleged "new" stories, always with a right slant.
So you're just making my point here, because it's just those people who can't handle the kind of critical thinking required to digest and evaluate two different viewpoints who buy the Herald and who generally vote for today's GOP.
The reason such people prefer the Herald is not because the Globe has too much of a left bias, but because the Herald as almost zero left content.
Like the Beatles said: "Living is easy with eyes closed," and they were not talking about Globe readers.
But, let's get real here, huh? Look at the editorial slant of the Herald,including the Op Ed, and its virtually all right wing bias. Compare that to the Globe which is, at least in the Op Ed usually 30 to 40 percent right wing with a lot of middle of the road stuff. Then look at the headlines of the Herald which are very opinionated, as well as many alleged "new" stories, always with a right slant.
So you're just making my point here, because it's just those people who can't handle the kind of critical thinking required to digest and evaluate two different viewpoints who buy the Herald and who generally vote for today's GOP.
The reason such people prefer the Herald is not because the Globe has too much of a left bias, but because the Herald as almost zero left content.
Like the Beatles said: "Living is easy with eyes closed," and they were not talking about Globe readers.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Hey,Monponsett
Another great headline in the Herald yesterday "Horse Snit" about the BPD mounted patrol. And that was actually real news, too.
Another great headline in the Herald yesterday "Horse Snit" about the BPD mounted patrol. And that was actually real news, too.
Richard [Member]
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
Hi, Possee
Since you asked, the logical opposite of progressive is regressive. That pretty much sums it up about the GOP, too. The Democrats are acused of "empathy" for others less fortunate, but the Republicans binge on antipathy, i.e. hatred,for anyone who doesn't believe in their narrow, regressive world view.
Since you asked, the logical opposite of progressive is regressive. That pretty much sums it up about the GOP, too. The Democrats are acused of "empathy" for others less fortunate, but the Republicans binge on antipathy, i.e. hatred,for anyone who doesn't believe in their narrow, regressive world view.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
whalerick asks: And yet, all reports are that it's the GLOBE that's in trouble the most. Why is that?
I think the Globe being in trouble might have something to do with the fact that almost half of American voters, including all who can barely read, voted for McCain Palin last November. McCain likes to get "talking points" for Senatorial debate by "twittering" with his colleagues. I mean, can you imaging Levertt Saltonstall doing that? Or even Ed Brooke? As for Palin, after the Couric interview everyone who can read knew she was just a twit.
I think the Globe being in trouble might have something to do with the fact that almost half of American voters, including all who can barely read, voted for McCain Palin last November. McCain likes to get "talking points" for Senatorial debate by "twittering" with his colleagues. I mean, can you imaging Levertt Saltonstall doing that? Or even Ed Brooke? As for Palin, after the Couric interview everyone who can read knew she was just a twit.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Hi, bipr
That's mainly why I buy the Herald,for the front page headlines.
That's mainly why I buy the Herald,for the front page headlines.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
"All this highbrow critique from a fella who misspelled "newspaper" in the third paragraph."
Thank you Mrs. Gradgrind. So now do you have anything of substance to say?
[
Thank you Mrs. Gradgrind. So now do you have anything of substance to say?
[
Richard [Member]
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
No, Mr. Perry, it is the Republican Party that has lost an understanding of what the Republican Party used to stand for -before the divisive demagoguery of Ronald Reagan on so-called "values" issues.
To mention Reagan in the same breath as Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist who built our national park system, as Coolidge, a principled conservative who believed in capitalism only to the extent that it served the public welfare and not private greed, as Eisenhower, who stood up to state's rights racism in Little Rock instead of embracing it to get votes like Reagan did in Philadelphia, Mississippi, is a joke. To mention Reagan in the same breath as Lincoln, is pure farce.
I used to vote for Republicans and became a registed Democrat only after Reagan got the nomination in 1980. I know what the Republican Party, the candidates my parents voted for, always stood for and I respected that with my votes for Republicans who were a lot like General Colin Powell, and worlds apart from demagogic phonies like Cheney, Bush, Palin and, yes, Ronald Reagan.
To mention Reagan in the same breath as Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist who built our national park system, as Coolidge, a principled conservative who believed in capitalism only to the extent that it served the public welfare and not private greed, as Eisenhower, who stood up to state's rights racism in Little Rock instead of embracing it to get votes like Reagan did in Philadelphia, Mississippi, is a joke. To mention Reagan in the same breath as Lincoln, is pure farce.
I used to vote for Republicans and became a registed Democrat only after Reagan got the nomination in 1980. I know what the Republican Party, the candidates my parents voted for, always stood for and I respected that with my votes for Republicans who were a lot like General Colin Powell, and worlds apart from demagogic phonies like Cheney, Bush, Palin and, yes, Ronald Reagan.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Health Care-Government, Market or Both
In response to: Health Care-Government, Market or Both
So, Mr. Kelly, please tell us exactly where in the Constitution "socialism" is ruled out as a valid economic policy for America. Indeed, please tell us exactly where the Constitution states that "capitalism" and "free market" ideology are either a required or even preferred economic model.
What the Consitution does say, both in the Preamble and the tax clause of Article I, is that our democratic government was created to promote "the general welfare," and Congress has the power to levy taxes for that purpose.
Congress also has the right to regulate commerce to promote the general welfare but, damn, I can't seem to find the clause where it states that we have to let the parasitic insurance companies dip their beak whenever a doctor gets paid for providing necessary medical care to someone who isn't represented by K Street. If you know where that "insurance welfare" clause is found in the Constitution, please tell us.
What the Consitution does say, both in the Preamble and the tax clause of Article I, is that our democratic government was created to promote "the general welfare," and Congress has the power to levy taxes for that purpose.
Congress also has the right to regulate commerce to promote the general welfare but, damn, I can't seem to find the clause where it states that we have to let the parasitic insurance companies dip their beak whenever a doctor gets paid for providing necessary medical care to someone who isn't represented by K Street. If you know where that "insurance welfare" clause is found in the Constitution, please tell us.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Hope I'm Not Embarrassing Anyone
In response to: Hope I'm Not Embarrassing Anyone
Very droll, Monponsett, but you know it's exactly like Steinem said: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Richard [Member]
In response to: That "Odor" You Smell Could be Damage to Property
In response to: That "Odor" You Smell Could be Damage to Property
Hi, Buzz
The tort of nuisance has existed for centuries under Common Law as, you know, a very conservative law. The word "nuisance" derives from the French "nuisir" which means to annoy. A tort claim for private nuisance is based on interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his property due to some offensive, or "annoying," condition coming from the defendant's property.
A tort case in nuisance can be based on the emanation of foul smells from one property to another. That was the situtaion in Pendoly v. Ferreira (1961), in which the Massachusetts SJC ordered that the defendant pig farmer must shut down because of odors emanating onto neighboring residential properties. And you know, Buzz, you would certainly have been one of the plaintiffs in that case if you lived next to the piggery. You can tell your kid to put his sneakers on the porch, but you have to sue a neighbor for nuisance.
So, yes, odor itself is damage to property under Massachusetts common law, just at the Court of Appeals ruled.
Next case!
The tort of nuisance has existed for centuries under Common Law as, you know, a very conservative law. The word "nuisance" derives from the French "nuisir" which means to annoy. A tort claim for private nuisance is based on interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his property due to some offensive, or "annoying," condition coming from the defendant's property.
A tort case in nuisance can be based on the emanation of foul smells from one property to another. That was the situtaion in Pendoly v. Ferreira (1961), in which the Massachusetts SJC ordered that the defendant pig farmer must shut down because of odors emanating onto neighboring residential properties. And you know, Buzz, you would certainly have been one of the plaintiffs in that case if you lived next to the piggery. You can tell your kid to put his sneakers on the porch, but you have to sue a neighbor for nuisance.
So, yes, odor itself is damage to property under Massachusetts common law, just at the Court of Appeals ruled.
Next case!
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
Hi, djm55
I have to say Oops! Because I knew that, too. But unlike Scalia's dissembling it was just a mistake.
Thanks for the correction.
RKL
I have to say Oops! Because I knew that, too. But unlike Scalia's dissembling it was just a mistake.
Thanks for the correction.
RKL
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
Hi, Possee
Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence is himself, just like Scalia, a consrvative Republican appointee and a Roman Catholic. Unlike Scalia, however, he respects his obligation to uphold the Constitution, over and above any faith based moral beliefs, when considering our individual Constitutional rights.
Scalia's dissent in Lawrence concludes with ruminations about the potential for gay marriage, as if there were no distinction between the state's taking away a person's liberty for engaging in private conduct like homosexuality, and the state's refusal to honor such conduct by recognizing same sex marriage. Kennedy, by the way, expressly noted that difference in passing when he wrote the Lawrence majority opinion which is why, as I have suggested in my earlier post on gay marriage, I believe he will vote against any recognition of gay marriage, which is entirely a creature of state law, when a case gets to the Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution, such as the suit just filed against California on Proposition 8.
Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence is himself, just like Scalia, a consrvative Republican appointee and a Roman Catholic. Unlike Scalia, however, he respects his obligation to uphold the Constitution, over and above any faith based moral beliefs, when considering our individual Constitutional rights.
Scalia's dissent in Lawrence concludes with ruminations about the potential for gay marriage, as if there were no distinction between the state's taking away a person's liberty for engaging in private conduct like homosexuality, and the state's refusal to honor such conduct by recognizing same sex marriage. Kennedy, by the way, expressly noted that difference in passing when he wrote the Lawrence majority opinion which is why, as I have suggested in my earlier post on gay marriage, I believe he will vote against any recognition of gay marriage, which is entirely a creature of state law, when a case gets to the Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution, such as the suit just filed against California on Proposition 8.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
Hi, SM
Thanks for your comment. I've communicated with Walter Brooks about the length of my posts, raising the question myself, and he stated that the internet is not limited by spatial constraints as are the print media.
One problem with all public media today is the tendency to limit debate to competing slogans, sound bytes and "talking points." That leads inevitably to candidates for high office like Sarah Palin giving opinions on issues of Constitutional law based on zero understanding of either the Constitution or the legal principles involved.
I wish I could get published in LW, because then I might get paid. Meanwhile, for the more streamlined version of this post,check out the letters in today's CC Times. I made the same points, without any analysis or documentation, within the 200 word limit suitable for a newspaper letters column. I even alluded to Scalia's raising the specter of gay marriage in the Lawrence dissent, which I decided to leave out of this post in the interest of brevity.
Thanks for your comment. I've communicated with Walter Brooks about the length of my posts, raising the question myself, and he stated that the internet is not limited by spatial constraints as are the print media.
One problem with all public media today is the tendency to limit debate to competing slogans, sound bytes and "talking points." That leads inevitably to candidates for high office like Sarah Palin giving opinions on issues of Constitutional law based on zero understanding of either the Constitution or the legal principles involved.
I wish I could get published in LW, because then I might get paid. Meanwhile, for the more streamlined version of this post,check out the letters in today's CC Times. I made the same points, without any analysis or documentation, within the 200 word limit suitable for a newspaper letters column. I even alluded to Scalia's raising the specter of gay marriage in the Lawrence dissent, which I decided to leave out of this post in the interest of brevity.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The True Meaning Of Conservatism In Our Constitutional Democracy
In response to: The True Meaning Of Conservatism In Our Constitutional Democracy
Hi, Robert
An intelligent reply to your view of Justice Scalia, one that doesn't simply elevate "talking points" and "sound bytes" to the level of argument, would take up more space than is available in this comment format.
Therefore, see my next post in a day or so discussing Scalia's alleged "conservatism" in the Constiutional sense, comparing his majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller which is clearly correct in both result and reasoning, though comes up a little bit incomplete on reasoning, as against his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas which clearly betrays his penchant for judicial activism in service of his faith-based "conservatism."
Stay tuned.
An intelligent reply to your view of Justice Scalia, one that doesn't simply elevate "talking points" and "sound bytes" to the level of argument, would take up more space than is available in this comment format.
Therefore, see my next post in a day or so discussing Scalia's alleged "conservatism" in the Constiutional sense, comparing his majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller which is clearly correct in both result and reasoning, though comes up a little bit incomplete on reasoning, as against his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas which clearly betrays his penchant for judicial activism in service of his faith-based "conservatism."
Stay tuned.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Shadow: You say that my supposed "factual inaccuracies" and "baseless assumptions" are not even worth mentioning and therefore, of course, you do not get into any specifics. Obviously, you won't provide any specifics as to my legal analysis about the nature of our rights and duties under the social contract we call the Constitution of the United States because you cannot.
Whether or not PETA and HSUS are "animal rights" groups is irrelevant. The whole concept of "rights" belonging to animals who can neither understand nor claim them for themselves, and who are incapable of performing any concommitant duties, is nothing but inane drivel.
Our Constitution provides rights, along with correlative duties, only to "persons" -period! If you want to argue that my position on this point is "drivel," at least try to give some informed argument, based on the Constitution and our American jurisprudence.
Clearly, it is you,shadow, who doesn't have a clue as to the legal issue of claiming "rights" for animals, and why such claims are not constitutionally justiciable in the courts.
Whether or not PETA and HSUS are "animal rights" groups is irrelevant. The whole concept of "rights" belonging to animals who can neither understand nor claim them for themselves, and who are incapable of performing any concommitant duties, is nothing but inane drivel.
Our Constitution provides rights, along with correlative duties, only to "persons" -period! If you want to argue that my position on this point is "drivel," at least try to give some informed argument, based on the Constitution and our American jurisprudence.
Clearly, it is you,shadow, who doesn't have a clue as to the legal issue of claiming "rights" for animals, and why such claims are not constitutionally justiciable in the courts.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Memorial Day Reflection On Patriotism And Duty
In response to: A Memorial Day Reflection On Patriotism And Duty
Hi,JM
The only thing I disagree with is the implication that only veterans can honor veterans and that respect for the Constitution is best displayed by being a veteran. Only veterans and non-veterans, acting as citizens, can honor both our Constitution and veterans, by not letting the military industrial complex get away with starting wars for corporate opportunity overseas, as in Iraq, that have no real connection to our defense or national interest.
It is the duty of both veterans and non veterans, acting as citizens, to question the official reasons for starting wars of aggression overseas, especially when it is an administration with close connections to an industry like petroleum that invades a petroleum rich nation like Iraq by making up serial pretexts.
Many veterans come back from Iraq maimed for life, and it is no honor to them to simply ignore the official malfeasance and corruption that sent them off to war in service of the petroleum industry as opposed to any real concern for our defense. That disrespects both their sacrifice and our basic democratic values.
The only thing I disagree with is the implication that only veterans can honor veterans and that respect for the Constitution is best displayed by being a veteran. Only veterans and non-veterans, acting as citizens, can honor both our Constitution and veterans, by not letting the military industrial complex get away with starting wars for corporate opportunity overseas, as in Iraq, that have no real connection to our defense or national interest.
It is the duty of both veterans and non veterans, acting as citizens, to question the official reasons for starting wars of aggression overseas, especially when it is an administration with close connections to an industry like petroleum that invades a petroleum rich nation like Iraq by making up serial pretexts.
Many veterans come back from Iraq maimed for life, and it is no honor to them to simply ignore the official malfeasance and corruption that sent them off to war in service of the petroleum industry as opposed to any real concern for our defense. That disrespects both their sacrifice and our basic democratic values.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Single Payer is Coming....
In response to: Single Payer is Coming....
I agree with j.madden about Obama tying his own hands in many cases. In the case of health insurance, I suspect it may also involve the fact that we, i.e. the U.S., owns a major share of AIG and other companies as well. Therefore, it is something of a conflict of interest situation -the more profitable health insurance is, the bigger the conflict for government, but also the bigger the need to nationalize it for us the taxpayers.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
The Ecuadoran constitution recognizing the "rights" of nature is interesting and it is on topic with this post, but it is also in keeping with one of the main points of this post that all "rights" as such can only arise by agreement among human being that they exist. The new Ecuadoran constitution is a social contract among men by which they agree, among themselves, to recognize "rights" belonging to nature. That creates obligations among the citizens of Ecuador, but it creates no conommitant duty on the part of "nature" which is therefore not party to that social contract.
In effect, the ecuadorans have only elevated environmental protection laws to the status of constitutional mandates, as opposed to simple civil laws such as the EPA which Nixon signed into law.
Getting back to corporate constitutional rights, it makes sense as to property rights. But when we get into corporate "free speech" it becomes nonsense because corporations per se don't have any ideas or beliefs to be protected, only natural persons can claim free speech rights consistent with Constitutional intent.
In effect, the ecuadorans have only elevated environmental protection laws to the status of constitutional mandates, as opposed to simple civil laws such as the EPA which Nixon signed into law.
Getting back to corporate constitutional rights, it makes sense as to property rights. But when we get into corporate "free speech" it becomes nonsense because corporations per se don't have any ideas or beliefs to be protected, only natural persons can claim free speech rights consistent with Constitutional intent.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
The idea of corporate personhood began with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). The issue was differential taxation of corporate property belonging to the railroad, under the equal protection clause. But the language relied on by later lower courts was mere obiter dictum, that "persons" created by law are protected by the 14th Amendment, unrelated to the basis on which the case was actually decided.
The fact is that corporations have always been recognized as separate entities from their owners. As Ambrose Bierce noted in his Devils Dictionary, a corporation is a device designed to maximize personal profit while minimizing personal liability.
The argument for recognizing corporate personhood is that they are separate entities and therefore the owners cannot claim equal protection for them.
Within the social contract analysis, corporations can reasonably be held to observe legal duties to others as well as possess rights, e.g. to pay fair taxes or to make safe products, etc., while animals cannot. They can't do time, however.
The fact is that corporations have always been recognized as separate entities from their owners. As Ambrose Bierce noted in his Devils Dictionary, a corporation is a device designed to maximize personal profit while minimizing personal liability.
The argument for recognizing corporate personhood is that they are separate entities and therefore the owners cannot claim equal protection for them.
Within the social contract analysis, corporations can reasonably be held to observe legal duties to others as well as possess rights, e.g. to pay fair taxes or to make safe products, etc., while animals cannot. They can't do time, however.
Richard [Member]
In response to: We have met the enemy, and they are us
In response to: We have met the enemy, and they are us
The story about the flea is a good example of flawed logic, drawing a logical but erroneous conclusion without taking all the available information into account.
Here's another story about how impeccable logic, based on ignorance, can lead to the correct conclusion.
Mike, a Cockney, was on an American quiz show with a chance to win a million dollars. The question was what bird doesn't build its own nest, a robin, a thrush or a cuckoo. Mike said he had to call his mate Tommy back home. Tommy said it was obvous -it's the cuckoo. The host asked Mike if that was his final answer and yes it was. So Mike won the million dollars.
Back in London Mike met Tommy at the pub to give him 500 grand and asked how in the world Tommy knew the cuckoo didn't build its own nest. Tommy replied, "think on it, mate, the cuckoo lives in a bloody clock!"
A blind pig can find nuts in the forest because he can smell them. But in real life people don't fall out of trees headfirst and land on their feet like Tommy did.
Here's another story about how impeccable logic, based on ignorance, can lead to the correct conclusion.
Mike, a Cockney, was on an American quiz show with a chance to win a million dollars. The question was what bird doesn't build its own nest, a robin, a thrush or a cuckoo. Mike said he had to call his mate Tommy back home. Tommy said it was obvous -it's the cuckoo. The host asked Mike if that was his final answer and yes it was. So Mike won the million dollars.
Back in London Mike met Tommy at the pub to give him 500 grand and asked how in the world Tommy knew the cuckoo didn't build its own nest. Tommy replied, "think on it, mate, the cuckoo lives in a bloody clock!"
A blind pig can find nuts in the forest because he can smell them. But in real life people don't fall out of trees headfirst and land on their feet like Tommy did.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Hi, trog
"Nature" as a "rights bearing entity" is nonsense, especially under our determinedly secular Constitutional democracy.
Our Constitution does not recognize any church, and it expressly prohibits the establishment of any religion. But the First Amendment does grant the freedom of every citizen to practice religion or not practice religion as he chooses. That's a decision that can only be made by a human being.
A horse cannot make such a decision, or respect the rights of others to do so, never mind a rain forest. We protect horses and rain forests solely as a function of our decency as human beings and in our own enlightened self-interest -not to uphold any "rights" belonging to the horse or the trees and rivers.
"Nature" as a "rights bearing entity" is nonsense, especially under our determinedly secular Constitutional democracy.
Our Constitution does not recognize any church, and it expressly prohibits the establishment of any religion. But the First Amendment does grant the freedom of every citizen to practice religion or not practice religion as he chooses. That's a decision that can only be made by a human being.
A horse cannot make such a decision, or respect the rights of others to do so, never mind a rain forest. We protect horses and rain forests solely as a function of our decency as human beings and in our own enlightened self-interest -not to uphold any "rights" belonging to the horse or the trees and rivers.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Hacked by Jesus freaks!
In response to: Hacked by Jesus freaks!
Solon,don't you know, the Commies are passe'. The real threat to our Consitutional democracy today is the religious right, the Jesus freaks, along with financial irresponsibility and petroleum based foreign policy. But don't just take my word for it.
Read Kevin Philips' 2004 book "American Theocracy" where he provides both cogent analysis and thorough documentation to draw parallels between the decline of the Dutch Empire at the end of the era of wood and wind, the decline of the British Empire at the end of the coal era, and to predict decline of the U.S. as the age of petroleum is drawing to a close. In every instance, dependence on a single energy technology for economic strength, combined with foolish financial policies and the rise of religion in politics are the factors that end world hegemony.
Philips you may recall is the conservative political analyst who cut his teeth working for Nixon and wrote "The Emerging Republican Majority" in 1969, predicting the rise of the GOP through focusing on "values" voters, like the Jesus freaks, in the South and mid-West.
Read Kevin Philips' 2004 book "American Theocracy" where he provides both cogent analysis and thorough documentation to draw parallels between the decline of the Dutch Empire at the end of the era of wood and wind, the decline of the British Empire at the end of the coal era, and to predict decline of the U.S. as the age of petroleum is drawing to a close. In every instance, dependence on a single energy technology for economic strength, combined with foolish financial policies and the rise of religion in politics are the factors that end world hegemony.
Philips you may recall is the conservative political analyst who cut his teeth working for Nixon and wrote "The Emerging Republican Majority" in 1969, predicting the rise of the GOP through focusing on "values" voters, like the Jesus freaks, in the South and mid-West.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
j.l. houtte wrote:
"Read some history of Rousseau, Professor Cape Cod Today. From Pythagorus to PETA is a good volume on the history of animal protection."
You really don't get it, do you? Advocating animal "rights" enforceable under our Constitution, as opposed to animal welfare laws based solely on our decency and compassion as human beings, is both absurd and pernicious to our Constitutional system of "ordered liberties."
To defend animal "rights," based on what Pythagorus wrote, or Plato's notion of ideal forms for concepts like justice, etc., on behalf of what amounts to nothing more than an political expression of Jainism, is every bit as unrealistic and anti-constitutional as those who seek to teach Creationism in the public schools.
The difference is that Christian fundamentalists are real people who live in the real world with a limited understanding, while animal "rights" theorists are unreal academics in ivory towers who think reading and "peer review" bestows credibility, as opposed to trying specific cases in court to define our "rights" under the rule of law.
"Read some history of Rousseau, Professor Cape Cod Today. From Pythagorus to PETA is a good volume on the history of animal protection."
You really don't get it, do you? Advocating animal "rights" enforceable under our Constitution, as opposed to animal welfare laws based solely on our decency and compassion as human beings, is both absurd and pernicious to our Constitutional system of "ordered liberties."
To defend animal "rights," based on what Pythagorus wrote, or Plato's notion of ideal forms for concepts like justice, etc., on behalf of what amounts to nothing more than an political expression of Jainism, is every bit as unrealistic and anti-constitutional as those who seek to teach Creationism in the public schools.
The difference is that Christian fundamentalists are real people who live in the real world with a limited understanding, while animal "rights" theorists are unreal academics in ivory towers who think reading and "peer review" bestows credibility, as opposed to trying specific cases in court to define our "rights" under the rule of law.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
j.l. houtte wrote:
Usually, when I read things, and critique upon them, I mention what I've read...
Well, j.l., if you are addressing my coments from a position that favors animal "rights" as enforceable in our Courts of law, which is the main focus of my critique, it's quite plain you haven't read much of the relevant history of our democratic government, or any of the Constitution, which is the basis of my critique of animal "rights," as opposed to rational animal welfare laws.
My brief citation of Rousseau was to underscore the fact that the Constitution is a social contract among men, one that does not and cannot provide for any animal rights or duties. Jefferson was influenced by Locke's concept of man's Natural Rights, but even that was only in terms of our Constitutional ideals of equality and liberty -among people not animals.
As a lawyer I have worked in the area of Constitutional law upholding our basic rights and I therefore suggest that you follow your own advice:
"As for separating the amateur from the learned scholar is one who reads before concluding.
Usually, when I read things, and critique upon them, I mention what I've read...
Well, j.l., if you are addressing my coments from a position that favors animal "rights" as enforceable in our Courts of law, which is the main focus of my critique, it's quite plain you haven't read much of the relevant history of our democratic government, or any of the Constitution, which is the basis of my critique of animal "rights," as opposed to rational animal welfare laws.
My brief citation of Rousseau was to underscore the fact that the Constitution is a social contract among men, one that does not and cannot provide for any animal rights or duties. Jefferson was influenced by Locke's concept of man's Natural Rights, but even that was only in terms of our Constitutional ideals of equality and liberty -among people not animals.
As a lawyer I have worked in the area of Constitutional law upholding our basic rights and I therefore suggest that you follow your own advice:
"As for separating the amateur from the learned scholar is one who reads before concluding.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Hi, j.l.
Thanks for your comment. Your link, clearly, is just another example of the "rarefied" philosophical unreality that informs the animal "rights" ethic.
I speak as a practicing lawyer, and as a Constitutionalist under our secular American democracy. To undertand the concept of "rights," enforceable through our laws, we need look no further than that, and there is no ambiguity in this context as to the existence of animal "rights." There just ain't no such animal, period.
Our Consitution defines all of the rights which our Courts can or do enforce, and they belong only to "We the People," under what is basically the "social contract" among the Founders and us as their "posterity." The Constitution was expressly based on Enlightenment principles, including Rousseau's concept of civil rights under a social contract, as opposed to "Natural Rights" that all creatures possess in nature where the only law is kill or be killed.
I support animal protection, but only through rational environmental and humane laws that balance our human needs against animal welfare.
Thanks for your comment. Your link, clearly, is just another example of the "rarefied" philosophical unreality that informs the animal "rights" ethic.
I speak as a practicing lawyer, and as a Constitutionalist under our secular American democracy. To undertand the concept of "rights," enforceable through our laws, we need look no further than that, and there is no ambiguity in this context as to the existence of animal "rights." There just ain't no such animal, period.
Our Consitution defines all of the rights which our Courts can or do enforce, and they belong only to "We the People," under what is basically the "social contract" among the Founders and us as their "posterity." The Constitution was expressly based on Enlightenment principles, including Rousseau's concept of civil rights under a social contract, as opposed to "Natural Rights" that all creatures possess in nature where the only law is kill or be killed.
I support animal protection, but only through rational environmental and humane laws that balance our human needs against animal welfare.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Hi, scrapster
Thanks for your comments. I don't expect to "change" minds here, certainly not the committed animal activists who support PETA and HSUS.
As for the moral basis of our laws, I distinguished between Rousseau's natural "rights" and our Constitutional system of mutual rights and obligations based on values laden beliefs that all men are created equal, possessing the right to life and liberty, and showing a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
As stressed in all my postings on this site, ours is a determinedly secular Constitution, a social contract among men based on Enlightenment principles of equality and liberty, and all constitutional moral mandates, in the form of "rights" analysis, begin and end there -with us. Compassion is a virtue, not a "rights" based legal mandate under our democratic Constitution.
As for compassion, I contrasted Jim Jackson, the son of former slaves, who expressed a compassionate and realistic attitude toward animals in Old Dog Blue, against the inane animal rights "ethic" as "rarefied" unreality personified.
Thanks for your comments. I don't expect to "change" minds here, certainly not the committed animal activists who support PETA and HSUS.
As for the moral basis of our laws, I distinguished between Rousseau's natural "rights" and our Constitutional system of mutual rights and obligations based on values laden beliefs that all men are created equal, possessing the right to life and liberty, and showing a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
As stressed in all my postings on this site, ours is a determinedly secular Constitution, a social contract among men based on Enlightenment principles of equality and liberty, and all constitutional moral mandates, in the form of "rights" analysis, begin and end there -with us. Compassion is a virtue, not a "rights" based legal mandate under our democratic Constitution.
As for compassion, I contrasted Jim Jackson, the son of former slaves, who expressed a compassionate and realistic attitude toward animals in Old Dog Blue, against the inane animal rights "ethic" as "rarefied" unreality personified.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Possee
And "informed PETA member?" Is that some kind of oxymoron?
I've never been challenged by them personally, but I have had some exchanges in the Cape Cod Times letters page with people like Patricia Panitz and others over the years about some of the specific issues discussed in this post.
A funny exchange was with Sean Gonsalves who claimed he was a vegetarian because eating meat was not "spiritual." To his credit, he did not frame the issue specifically in terms of animal "rights," but I then asked if he meant to impugn the spirituality of Native Americans based on animism, who both hunt for meat as local Wampanoag still do or raise livestock like the Navajo. Oops! He stepped right into that PC cowflap, didn't he?
So Sean backed off on that one, but it only goes to show how even supposedly intelligent citizens like him let themselves get dumbed down by the dishonest, cynical and hysterical rhetoric of the animal activists.
And "informed PETA member?" Is that some kind of oxymoron?
I've never been challenged by them personally, but I have had some exchanges in the Cape Cod Times letters page with people like Patricia Panitz and others over the years about some of the specific issues discussed in this post.
A funny exchange was with Sean Gonsalves who claimed he was a vegetarian because eating meat was not "spiritual." To his credit, he did not frame the issue specifically in terms of animal "rights," but I then asked if he meant to impugn the spirituality of Native Americans based on animism, who both hunt for meat as local Wampanoag still do or raise livestock like the Navajo. Oops! He stepped right into that PC cowflap, didn't he?
So Sean backed off on that one, but it only goes to show how even supposedly intelligent citizens like him let themselves get dumbed down by the dishonest, cynical and hysterical rhetoric of the animal activists.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Tribute to a Son; William Modestino, Jr.
In response to: A Tribute to a Son; William Modestino, Jr.
That's the thing that way too many people fail to realize about lawyers, that we are not all just focussed on money but are drawn to the law primarily to serve the interests of justice -at least those of us not working for Wall Street firms.
You obviously knew in advance that you had a difficult case on fault, and an almost impossible case on causation, but you went ahead anyway accepting the significant chance that you would not recover any money for your clients. Bravo!
You obviously knew in advance that you had a difficult case on fault, and an almost impossible case on causation, but you went ahead anyway accepting the significant chance that you would not recover any money for your clients. Bravo!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Evolution, Natural Rights, The Social Contract And Animal Rights
In response to: Evolution, Natural Rights, The Social Contract And Animal Rights
Hi, JM
Too many folks are duped into believing that the animal rights agenda is related to protecting species or habitat as part of the larger environmental ethic. That's the subject of my next and final post on this subject, with specific examples the kind of damage that these self-appointed "animal rights" protectors have done, both directly and indirectly, to the cause of real Environmentalism -not the least of which is lending credence to the right-wing attempt to smear all environmentalists as lefty "moonbats." That's what gets me so incensed over "animal rights" as pernicious nonsense when it would otherwise be nothing more than harmless, simple minded silliness.
I have long been involved in real environmental protection: as a former ConCom member, as a former director of Falmouth's 300 Committee for preserving open space, a director of Trout Unlimited with over 200 hours volunteer work restoring the Quashnet River and with CPWB getting the state to buy the Quashnet lands, a member of FR&G with over 200 acres of private conservation land and other activities.
Too many folks are duped into believing that the animal rights agenda is related to protecting species or habitat as part of the larger environmental ethic. That's the subject of my next and final post on this subject, with specific examples the kind of damage that these self-appointed "animal rights" protectors have done, both directly and indirectly, to the cause of real Environmentalism -not the least of which is lending credence to the right-wing attempt to smear all environmentalists as lefty "moonbats." That's what gets me so incensed over "animal rights" as pernicious nonsense when it would otherwise be nothing more than harmless, simple minded silliness.
I have long been involved in real environmental protection: as a former ConCom member, as a former director of Falmouth's 300 Committee for preserving open space, a director of Trout Unlimited with over 200 hours volunteer work restoring the Quashnet River and with CPWB getting the state to buy the Quashnet lands, a member of FR&G with over 200 acres of private conservation land and other activities.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
Hi, Ned
That's o.k., because my questions are rhetorical anyway, since we all know guys like him really don't have any answers, just attitude and ideology.
That's o.k., because my questions are rhetorical anyway, since we all know guys like him really don't have any answers, just attitude and ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
balognasamich wrote:
Quick, name the first elected Republican President.
The first truly green president since Jefferson was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who put vast acreages under federal administration as national parkland, and asserted federal regulatory power over business.
Then there was the Republican Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act into law in 1970. So this isn't really a GOP vs. Dem issue in historical context.
Change began with Reagan's 1980 Mississippi campaign appearance preaching "states rights" as against federal law, in a subtle but clear attack on federal regulatory powers. It continued with his more obvious attacks: "government is the problem," and culminated, inevitably, with the complete collapse of the economy in 2008 under Bush, who implemented Reagan's deregulatory agenda with a vengeance, in both the financial and industrial areas, including his gutting of Nixon's Clean Air Act.
Bush was living proof of Reagan's dictum that the "best minds" are not in government. Problem is, as 2008 proved, they weren't in industry or finance either -were they?
Quick, name the first elected Republican President.
The first truly green president since Jefferson was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who put vast acreages under federal administration as national parkland, and asserted federal regulatory power over business.
Then there was the Republican Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act into law in 1970. So this isn't really a GOP vs. Dem issue in historical context.
Change began with Reagan's 1980 Mississippi campaign appearance preaching "states rights" as against federal law, in a subtle but clear attack on federal regulatory powers. It continued with his more obvious attacks: "government is the problem," and culminated, inevitably, with the complete collapse of the economy in 2008 under Bush, who implemented Reagan's deregulatory agenda with a vengeance, in both the financial and industrial areas, including his gutting of Nixon's Clean Air Act.
Bush was living proof of Reagan's dictum that the "best minds" are not in government. Problem is, as 2008 proved, they weren't in industry or finance either -were they?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
The world according to Robert Kelly:
"Obama ignores the Reagan model and has apparently bought into the false myth that Roosevelt's spending orgy fixed the Great Depression."
False myth? That must be different from the actual myth that Ronald Reagan was a "leader," huh? Or that Reagan was anything other than a shill for the corporate elite, selling deregulation in his later years as opposed to the soap suds he was selling when he cut his teeth as the "Great Communicator" on early television commercials.
"False myth," indeed!
"Obama ignores the Reagan model and has apparently bought into the false myth that Roosevelt's spending orgy fixed the Great Depression."
False myth? That must be different from the actual myth that Ronald Reagan was a "leader," huh? Or that Reagan was anything other than a shill for the corporate elite, selling deregulation in his later years as opposed to the soap suds he was selling when he cut his teeth as the "Great Communicator" on early television commercials.
"False myth," indeed!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III
On the issue of alternative energy, let's pretend you are right. There's no causal connection between global warming and fossil fuels.
O.k., Bob, so now explain for us all:
1. How dependence on fossil fuels is so much better than clean, renewable energy would be for air quality generally and our pulmonary health.
2. How drilling and transporting oil is so much better in terms of preventing water pollution, both as massive offshore spills and local seepage into groundwater, acidified rain, etc.
3. How continued dependence on foreign oil is so much better economically, sending dollars overseas for energy, than development of alternative energy technologies we could patent and license and sell overseas, helping to restore the balance of trade?
4. How anyone but the corporate elite highly invested in petroleum would suffer in the long term once alternative energy technology dumps the fossil fuel industry into the dustbin of history as petroleum did to the whaling industry some 150 years ago?
5. How would converting to alternative energy make climate change any worse?
O.k., Bob, so now explain for us all:
1. How dependence on fossil fuels is so much better than clean, renewable energy would be for air quality generally and our pulmonary health.
2. How drilling and transporting oil is so much better in terms of preventing water pollution, both as massive offshore spills and local seepage into groundwater, acidified rain, etc.
3. How continued dependence on foreign oil is so much better economically, sending dollars overseas for energy, than development of alternative energy technologies we could patent and license and sell overseas, helping to restore the balance of trade?
4. How anyone but the corporate elite highly invested in petroleum would suffer in the long term once alternative energy technology dumps the fossil fuel industry into the dustbin of history as petroleum did to the whaling industry some 150 years ago?
5. How would converting to alternative energy make climate change any worse?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Loved One Remembered: A Dive Bomber's Tale
In response to: A Loved One Remembered: A Dive Bomber's Tale
Hi, Jon
I never knew my wife's dad, Commander John Glover,U.S.N., who passed away before we met. He had been a Navy flyer during WWII, flying Hellcats from carriers in the Pacific. Ca. 1995, several years after we were married, my mother-in-law was preparing to move and she asked me to take the Commander's service revolver. It's a good looking blue-steel S&W .38, with walnut handles in a leather holster stamped USN, complete with leather bandolier.
I thought I'd like to try it out at the indoor range at Falmouth Rod & Gun, so I took it to the gunsmith at Gun & Tackle to be cleaned. He called me the next day to say it was done. The pistol had never been fired since it was issued to the Commander in the early 1940s!
The gunsmith told me it was still in excellent like new condition, but strongly recommended that I store it separately from the leather holster. I've only used it a few times for target practice and otherwise keep it locked away in a steel box after cleaning.
I haven't had it out for awhile but it's a nice family heirloom to pass on to my son when he's older.
I never knew my wife's dad, Commander John Glover,U.S.N., who passed away before we met. He had been a Navy flyer during WWII, flying Hellcats from carriers in the Pacific. Ca. 1995, several years after we were married, my mother-in-law was preparing to move and she asked me to take the Commander's service revolver. It's a good looking blue-steel S&W .38, with walnut handles in a leather holster stamped USN, complete with leather bandolier.
I thought I'd like to try it out at the indoor range at Falmouth Rod & Gun, so I took it to the gunsmith at Gun & Tackle to be cleaned. He called me the next day to say it was done. The pistol had never been fired since it was issued to the Commander in the early 1940s!
The gunsmith told me it was still in excellent like new condition, but strongly recommended that I store it separately from the leather holster. I've only used it a few times for target practice and otherwise keep it locked away in a steel box after cleaning.
I haven't had it out for awhile but it's a nice family heirloom to pass on to my son when he's older.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Valerie Twomey Beach Yoga Update from Tim Wood!
In response to: Valerie Twomey Beach Yoga Update from Tim Wood!
Hi, Ned.
I really enjoyed the Jay Kinney link. I've always been a fan of Bill Griffiths Zippy and Robert Crumb's stuff Mr. Natural and, closer to topic, the Sewer Snoids. I can see some of Crumb's style in Kinney's cartooning, plus just a suggestion of Magritte in some of his drawing, e.g. "The Garden."
I'm an art school dropout myself, then drifting from job to job and place to place, for several years before going to college and then on to law school. So, where'd you guys go to art school? When did you graduate?
I really enjoyed the Jay Kinney link. I've always been a fan of Bill Griffiths Zippy and Robert Crumb's stuff Mr. Natural and, closer to topic, the Sewer Snoids. I can see some of Crumb's style in Kinney's cartooning, plus just a suggestion of Magritte in some of his drawing, e.g. "The Garden."
I'm an art school dropout myself, then drifting from job to job and place to place, for several years before going to college and then on to law school. So, where'd you guys go to art school? When did you graduate?
Richard [Member]
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
Hi, Julie
Thanks for your comment and the book reference. The gist of what you say is reflected in my opening remarks to this post:
"There is much to be said for increasing our consumption of vegetables and reducing red meat in our diets. That is a matter which makes a lot of sense based on economic, health and environmental concerns. It is not warranted, however, as a moral or "ethical" mandate based on any "rights" allegedly belonging to other animal species. There is also much to be said about the inanity of "animal rights" in terms of law and politics, which I will address in a later post. For now, I will focus on the question of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism."
I'm working on a follow-up post that will deal with the conflict between genuine environmentalism and the actual harm done by people conflating "animal rights" with environmentalism, as well as the absurdy of the concept of "animal rights" in terms of law and the Constitution.
Thanks for your comment and the book reference. The gist of what you say is reflected in my opening remarks to this post:
"There is much to be said for increasing our consumption of vegetables and reducing red meat in our diets. That is a matter which makes a lot of sense based on economic, health and environmental concerns. It is not warranted, however, as a moral or "ethical" mandate based on any "rights" allegedly belonging to other animal species. There is also much to be said about the inanity of "animal rights" in terms of law and politics, which I will address in a later post. For now, I will focus on the question of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism."
I'm working on a follow-up post that will deal with the conflict between genuine environmentalism and the actual harm done by people conflating "animal rights" with environmentalism, as well as the absurdy of the concept of "animal rights" in terms of law and the Constitution.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
voiceofreason22 wrote:
Finally, I agree with Richard.
Never thought I would see the day.
Kudo's for tackling a liberal, tree hugger issue such as animal "rights".
Hi, VR. Go back and read my post about "moonbat" and "wingnut" extremists. Then read the two-part post criticizing gay "marriage", first from a purely legal and Constitutional perspective, and then from a political perspective.
From this you'll see that I am not and never have been a "liberal" ideologue. I am a Constitutional centrist who reacts most strongly today against the excesses of post-Regan right wing extremism, because it has done a lot more damage to our Constitutional democracy than left wing extremism.
Still I deplore both as being, in Ike's metaphor, people in the gutter throwing rocks at people in the center. Only difference is, I throw them back, harder and with better aim.
Finally, I agree with Richard.
Never thought I would see the day.
Kudo's for tackling a liberal, tree hugger issue such as animal "rights".
Hi, VR. Go back and read my post about "moonbat" and "wingnut" extremists. Then read the two-part post criticizing gay "marriage", first from a purely legal and Constitutional perspective, and then from a political perspective.
From this you'll see that I am not and never have been a "liberal" ideologue. I am a Constitutional centrist who reacts most strongly today against the excesses of post-Regan right wing extremism, because it has done a lot more damage to our Constitutional democracy than left wing extremism.
Still I deplore both as being, in Ike's metaphor, people in the gutter throwing rocks at people in the center. Only difference is, I throw them back, harder and with better aim.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
Peter:
Reagan isn't just a "strawman" for GOP demagoguery, he's the real thing -and demagoguery is the only thing real about him or his "legacy."
I've discussed the length of my posts with website editor Walter Brooks, raising the subject myself. He said to write as much as I wanted. Unlike a newspaper, there is no necessary word limit online.
I write both to inform and to entertain. For information, I avoid simplistic black and white sound bites. Being to the left of center I recognize the validity of positions to the right of center on many issues. So, to avoid self-contradiction, like Reagan taking opposite positions on states rights vs. civil rights before different audiences, explanation is necessary. Who cares what anyone thinks on a subject if they won't or can't back it up with reasons?
As for entertainment, I put in humorous asides, jokes, songs, cartoons, etc., all of which relate to the point I'm making.
An old Chinese Proverb says: "A trip of 1,000 miles begins with a single step." But if you only take that one step, you won't go very far or see very much.
Reagan isn't just a "strawman" for GOP demagoguery, he's the real thing -and demagoguery is the only thing real about him or his "legacy."
I've discussed the length of my posts with website editor Walter Brooks, raising the subject myself. He said to write as much as I wanted. Unlike a newspaper, there is no necessary word limit online.
I write both to inform and to entertain. For information, I avoid simplistic black and white sound bites. Being to the left of center I recognize the validity of positions to the right of center on many issues. So, to avoid self-contradiction, like Reagan taking opposite positions on states rights vs. civil rights before different audiences, explanation is necessary. Who cares what anyone thinks on a subject if they won't or can't back it up with reasons?
As for entertainment, I put in humorous asides, jokes, songs, cartoons, etc., all of which relate to the point I'm making.
An old Chinese Proverb says: "A trip of 1,000 miles begins with a single step." But if you only take that one step, you won't go very far or see very much.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Infinitely Yours
In response to: Infinitely Yours
Hi, Ana
I've noticed that you seem to be the haiku to my dissertation on this website.
I've noticed that you seem to be the haiku to my dissertation on this website.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Baby chicks for starting over and more
In response to: Baby chicks for starting over and more
Hi, Beth
You left out the really fun part. When I was a kid we would visit the folks back in rural Nova Scotia. I hung around with some boys my age, real farm boys who got up at dawn to milk the cows and shot small game for the family table. I thought that was cool, and I did pitch in with the haying.
One time, cousin Irving who owned a small stock of laying hens, selling eggs to the people in the village who didn't have farms, hired Kevin and Frank, through their dad, to clean out the chicken houses. I wanted so badly to help out, too, but my folks said no way. I still can't figure out why. :-)
You left out the really fun part. When I was a kid we would visit the folks back in rural Nova Scotia. I hung around with some boys my age, real farm boys who got up at dawn to milk the cows and shot small game for the family table. I thought that was cool, and I did pitch in with the haying.
One time, cousin Irving who owned a small stock of laying hens, selling eggs to the people in the village who didn't have farms, hired Kevin and Frank, through their dad, to clean out the chicken houses. I wanted so badly to help out, too, but my folks said no way. I still can't figure out why. :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Massachusetts GOP old guard's false hope for 2010
In response to: The Massachusetts GOP old guard's false hope for 2010
I became a registered Democrat in 1980 when Reagan got the GOP nomination. If Bush had gotten it, I might still be an independent voter.
I always voted for Sargent, Brooke, Bill Weld. I think I missed voting for Richardson, but I would have voted for him, too. I made calls for Frank Hatch against the corporatist conservative Democrat Ed King.
The last time I voted Republican was more of a vote against the ultra-liberal Harshbarger, for signing off as AG on the fraudulent animal rights 3-in-1 ballot initiative, so I held my nose and voted for Celucci.
I still would, because I detest extremism on both the left and right. I mostly vote Democratic today because most of the extremism and ideological rigidity comes from the post-Reagan GOP.
I always voted for Sargent, Brooke, Bill Weld. I think I missed voting for Richardson, but I would have voted for him, too. I made calls for Frank Hatch against the corporatist conservative Democrat Ed King.
The last time I voted Republican was more of a vote against the ultra-liberal Harshbarger, for signing off as AG on the fraudulent animal rights 3-in-1 ballot initiative, so I held my nose and voted for Celucci.
I still would, because I detest extremism on both the left and right. I mostly vote Democratic today because most of the extremism and ideological rigidity comes from the post-Reagan GOP.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
petercohen wrote:
I can tell without even looking at his C.V. that Richard's a lawyer -- he very rarely, if ever, uses one word when 1,400 will do.
Oh, yes, Peter. And just look at what great things have been accomplished by the post-Reagan GOP's terse pronouncements.
"Government isn't the solution to our problem. Government is our problem" -Wall Street's problem that is while Main Street's just gone to hell.
"Ketchup is a vegetable," so school kids can just continue to be fat and undernourished while the GOP weasels spend our tax money on wars of corporate opportunity rather than school lunches.
"I support states rights" spoken to a Jim Crow crowd in Mississippi, where the KKK got away with murdering civil rights workers a little more than a decade earlier, and then a week later "I support civil rights" spoken to a group of Northern blacks.
As a rational voter, wouldn't you have liked to hear maybe 1,400 words from Reagan to explain these statements. Or, like most GOP voters, are you content, intellectually, with simple-minded slogans like "No new taxes"?
I can tell without even looking at his C.V. that Richard's a lawyer -- he very rarely, if ever, uses one word when 1,400 will do.
Oh, yes, Peter. And just look at what great things have been accomplished by the post-Reagan GOP's terse pronouncements.
"Government isn't the solution to our problem. Government is our problem" -Wall Street's problem that is while Main Street's just gone to hell.
"Ketchup is a vegetable," so school kids can just continue to be fat and undernourished while the GOP weasels spend our tax money on wars of corporate opportunity rather than school lunches.
"I support states rights" spoken to a Jim Crow crowd in Mississippi, where the KKK got away with murdering civil rights workers a little more than a decade earlier, and then a week later "I support civil rights" spoken to a group of Northern blacks.
As a rational voter, wouldn't you have liked to hear maybe 1,400 words from Reagan to explain these statements. Or, like most GOP voters, are you content, intellectually, with simple-minded slogans like "No new taxes"?
Richard [Member]
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
j. madden wrote:
"The story of Emily the Cow"
That's a touching story, emotionally, and it may well involve a significant issue of animal welfare under humane laws based on our sense of decency. It has absolutely no relevance to the anti-human animal "rights" credo as a legal matter, or the illegal animal liberation movement.
People touched by Emily's plight, have reacted sympathetically to the story, but that's not really where the anti-human animal rights advocates are coming from, as I have documented.
The alternative to using cows for milk, to furnish a valuable nutritional product for human consumption, is to eliminate the product and then there will be no more Emilys.
In America we have no sacred cows. Nobody is going to use their land or pay money to support a herd of wild, unproductive ruminants. And it would be insanely dangerous to let bulls run free on pasture land, which is why cattle ranchers have steers.
So JM, no dairy industry, no milk cows. If tighter animal welfare laws are needed, fine. That's a matter of our human decency, not animal "rights."
"The story of Emily the Cow"
That's a touching story, emotionally, and it may well involve a significant issue of animal welfare under humane laws based on our sense of decency. It has absolutely no relevance to the anti-human animal "rights" credo as a legal matter, or the illegal animal liberation movement.
People touched by Emily's plight, have reacted sympathetically to the story, but that's not really where the anti-human animal rights advocates are coming from, as I have documented.
The alternative to using cows for milk, to furnish a valuable nutritional product for human consumption, is to eliminate the product and then there will be no more Emilys.
In America we have no sacred cows. Nobody is going to use their land or pay money to support a herd of wild, unproductive ruminants. And it would be insanely dangerous to let bulls run free on pasture land, which is why cattle ranchers have steers.
So JM, no dairy industry, no milk cows. If tighter animal welfare laws are needed, fine. That's a matter of our human decency, not animal "rights."
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Hi, everyone
Feel free to comment as much or as little as you wish on this post, but I've moved on to other issues, with the current post about "ethical" vegetarianism and "animal rights" philosophy, and I intend in future posts to deal with legal and constitutional issues involved with so-called "animal rights", abortion and other matters which I find interesting.
As for karent2's comment, if you consider someone to be "bored" who is an active and vocal participant in town politics, who is active in youth sports, now as a soccer referee, who frequently speaks out on issues of public importance in several media venues, and posts commentary on important public issues on a site like this, in addition to maintaining a law practice, well -mea culpa.
Meanwhile, you with your fervent little mind, so used to getting your "ideas" and information from right-wing media sound bites, find my comments to be "long winded." You have every right to say so here, but that says more about your tiny attention span, like the folks who couldn't follow Obama's inaugural address, than my rhetoric.
Feel free to comment as much or as little as you wish on this post, but I've moved on to other issues, with the current post about "ethical" vegetarianism and "animal rights" philosophy, and I intend in future posts to deal with legal and constitutional issues involved with so-called "animal rights", abortion and other matters which I find interesting.
As for karent2's comment, if you consider someone to be "bored" who is an active and vocal participant in town politics, who is active in youth sports, now as a soccer referee, who frequently speaks out on issues of public importance in several media venues, and posts commentary on important public issues on a site like this, in addition to maintaining a law practice, well -mea culpa.
Meanwhile, you with your fervent little mind, so used to getting your "ideas" and information from right-wing media sound bites, find my comments to be "long winded." You have every right to say so here, but that says more about your tiny attention span, like the folks who couldn't follow Obama's inaugural address, than my rhetoric.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
In response to: On "Ethical" Vegetarianism:
Ana Paulina wrote:
"The pervasive influence of a gag reflex, would you like a vitamin with that GUILT?"
That all depends, Ana. Was the vitamin formula tested on retarded babies or on bright little dogs?
"The pervasive influence of a gag reflex, would you like a vitamin with that GUILT?"
That all depends, Ana. Was the vitamin formula tested on retarded babies or on bright little dogs?
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Buzz wrote:
Richard wrote: "If you read my comments closely, in this post as well as all my prior posts" Honestly Richard,. . . I too am a fisherman. Unfortunatley, my boots don't go up that high.
LOL! But still, Buzz, how do you manage wading through it at Fox News?
Richard wrote: "If you read my comments closely, in this post as well as all my prior posts" Honestly Richard,. . . I too am a fisherman. Unfortunatley, my boots don't go up that high.
LOL! But still, Buzz, how do you manage wading through it at Fox News?
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
voiceofreason22 wrote:
"It's obvious Richard just writes these blogs to incite criticism so he can blast the greedy capitalists."
Herbert Hoover said after the crash of '29 that the problem with capitalism was capitalists: "They're too damn greedy." Tha's all I'm sayin' bro.
"It would be refreshing if you wrote about the positive aspects of the democratic party and all the good they have done over your lifetime rather than finding fault and beating it to death...."
Problem with that VR is that the Dems aren't really saints anymore than the GOP. They're all just pols, but the Dems lean more to favoring the public interest with the GOP more toward private capital.
I don't object to capitalism per se, but to corporatism, where both the economy and politics are serving the agenda of the corporate elite, enabled by cyincal GOP manipulation of divisive "values" issues in order to get middle class people to vote against their real economic interests.
"States rights" in service of "small government" leads to deregulation. You know, "government isn't the solution. . ." -RWR
"It's obvious Richard just writes these blogs to incite criticism so he can blast the greedy capitalists."
Herbert Hoover said after the crash of '29 that the problem with capitalism was capitalists: "They're too damn greedy." Tha's all I'm sayin' bro.
"It would be refreshing if you wrote about the positive aspects of the democratic party and all the good they have done over your lifetime rather than finding fault and beating it to death...."
Problem with that VR is that the Dems aren't really saints anymore than the GOP. They're all just pols, but the Dems lean more to favoring the public interest with the GOP more toward private capital.
I don't object to capitalism per se, but to corporatism, where both the economy and politics are serving the agenda of the corporate elite, enabled by cyincal GOP manipulation of divisive "values" issues in order to get middle class people to vote against their real economic interests.
"States rights" in service of "small government" leads to deregulation. You know, "government isn't the solution. . ." -RWR
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Hi,vr
I said this about golf per se:
"Both golf and fly-fishing are respectable and venerable pastimes, despite Twain's dismissive remark, with golf having its roots in the wild, coastal linkslands of 15th Century Scotland."
"If private acreage is going to be developed, I'd much rather see a public golf course there than a luxury condominium complex. Golf courses, properly sited, designed and maintained, clearly are compatible with the kind of "smart growth" we need to begin practicing if we are to survive as a species."
"With local public golf courses, private capital is allowed to work with minimal impact on the environment, in comparison to other types of by-right development, subject to reasonable controls regarding environmental impacts through local agencies such as the conservation commission or the planning board. That is an appropriate balance that accommodates the public interest while recognizing the legitimate needs of private capital and of the golfing public, a reasonable balance between Jefferson's vision and Hamilton's."
So how is that "negative"?
I said this about golf per se:
"Both golf and fly-fishing are respectable and venerable pastimes, despite Twain's dismissive remark, with golf having its roots in the wild, coastal linkslands of 15th Century Scotland."
"If private acreage is going to be developed, I'd much rather see a public golf course there than a luxury condominium complex. Golf courses, properly sited, designed and maintained, clearly are compatible with the kind of "smart growth" we need to begin practicing if we are to survive as a species."
"With local public golf courses, private capital is allowed to work with minimal impact on the environment, in comparison to other types of by-right development, subject to reasonable controls regarding environmental impacts through local agencies such as the conservation commission or the planning board. That is an appropriate balance that accommodates the public interest while recognizing the legitimate needs of private capital and of the golfing public, a reasonable balance between Jefferson's vision and Hamilton's."
So how is that "negative"?
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Buzz wrote:
Hey, what the hell would "Earth Day" be without some liberal diatribe nonsense attacking capitalist America.
Thanks for making my point here Buzz. Your phrase "capitalist America" sums it up nicely, as that is an expression of your worldview and of the capitalist elite whose interests you serve.
If you read my comments closely, in this post as well as all my prior posts, I do not call for abolishing capitalism, only for responsible and sensible regulation that recognizes that capitalism and America are not as synonymous as your phrase suggests.
What I have consistently attacked, here and in other posts, is corporatism. That is the elevation of the corporate elite, economically and politically, without any responsible governmental oversight or limits, that has caused so many problems for all Americans, unnecessary wars that kill our kids, products that pollute our air and water,and financial schemes that cause us to lose our homes and retirements. I clearly lamented televised golf as a manifestation of that corporate ethic, not as capitalism per se.
Hey, what the hell would "Earth Day" be without some liberal diatribe nonsense attacking capitalist America.
Thanks for making my point here Buzz. Your phrase "capitalist America" sums it up nicely, as that is an expression of your worldview and of the capitalist elite whose interests you serve.
If you read my comments closely, in this post as well as all my prior posts, I do not call for abolishing capitalism, only for responsible and sensible regulation that recognizes that capitalism and America are not as synonymous as your phrase suggests.
What I have consistently attacked, here and in other posts, is corporatism. That is the elevation of the corporate elite, economically and politically, without any responsible governmental oversight or limits, that has caused so many problems for all Americans, unnecessary wars that kill our kids, products that pollute our air and water,and financial schemes that cause us to lose our homes and retirements. I clearly lamented televised golf as a manifestation of that corporate ethic, not as capitalism per se.
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Buzz wrote:
"No hole-in-one or putter jokes necessary"
Like I said, golf has much funnier jokes than fishing. Here are two of my favorite punchlines -maybe you know the jokes.
"No, it's not the sex, but you were driving off the pink tees!"
"Christ, so that's what happened to my Mulligan!"
So there, if you know the jokes, I've made you laugh again. If not, and if you're real nice, I'll send them to you in an e-mail.
"No hole-in-one or putter jokes necessary"
Like I said, golf has much funnier jokes than fishing. Here are two of my favorite punchlines -maybe you know the jokes.
"No, it's not the sex, but you were driving off the pink tees!"
"Christ, so that's what happened to my Mulligan!"
So there, if you know the jokes, I've made you laugh again. If not, and if you're real nice, I'll send them to you in an e-mail.
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Hi,bobcat
I don't hate golf and I didn't say that. What I detest is how televised golf corrupts the game as a vehicle for promoting corporate commercial values.
I also said the same thing about televised bass pro fishing tournaments didn't I? That doesn't mean I hate bass fishing, to the contrary, but I hate the way that pastime has been corrupted by corporate money as much as, or even more than with golf. I said so, too.
Yes, I did have a little fun at golf's expense, comparing it with fly fishing in terms of athleticism. But that was only because televised golf is so pretentious in presenting golfers as "athletes." They asked for it.
As for ethics, I contrasted and compared golf and flyfishing in terms of Jefferson and Hamilton, the environment vs. commerce, which is absolutley fair. And what I said was that we cannot go overboard in either direction -which is what corporate televised golf seeks to do by marketing the game as just another commodity like beer or automobiles.
I don't hate golf and I didn't say that. What I detest is how televised golf corrupts the game as a vehicle for promoting corporate commercial values.
I also said the same thing about televised bass pro fishing tournaments didn't I? That doesn't mean I hate bass fishing, to the contrary, but I hate the way that pastime has been corrupted by corporate money as much as, or even more than with golf. I said so, too.
Yes, I did have a little fun at golf's expense, comparing it with fly fishing in terms of athleticism. But that was only because televised golf is so pretentious in presenting golfers as "athletes." They asked for it.
As for ethics, I contrasted and compared golf and flyfishing in terms of Jefferson and Hamilton, the environment vs. commerce, which is absolutley fair. And what I said was that we cannot go overboard in either direction -which is what corporate televised golf seeks to do by marketing the game as just another commodity like beer or automobiles.
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
bottomline wrote:
"Try to attain the finesse and touch that pro golfers on tour have with their shots. You would fail miserably.. . . That’s probably why you are so hell bent against golf. You come across as being morally outraged by the sport, thus compensating for your lack of ability to play the sport."
Finesse and touch? Lessee, where have I seen that before? Oh, yes, in the pool hall, another venue where out of shape fat men can excel at hitting a little ball with a stick into a hole. Thing is, those guys know better than to pretend they're "athletes."
You don't do a very good job of reading, though, if you think I "hate" golf. Where did I say that? To the contrary, what I said was I deplore how corporate money is corrupting an otherwise pleasant participatory game, or pastime, by investing it with an artificial sense of importance in order to mass market both golf and golf equipment.
As a matter of public record, I have voted for building golf courses as a TM member and PB member. So where do you get the notion that I "hate" the game? A tad defensive are we?
"Try to attain the finesse and touch that pro golfers on tour have with their shots. You would fail miserably.. . . That’s probably why you are so hell bent against golf. You come across as being morally outraged by the sport, thus compensating for your lack of ability to play the sport."
Finesse and touch? Lessee, where have I seen that before? Oh, yes, in the pool hall, another venue where out of shape fat men can excel at hitting a little ball with a stick into a hole. Thing is, those guys know better than to pretend they're "athletes."
You don't do a very good job of reading, though, if you think I "hate" golf. Where did I say that? To the contrary, what I said was I deplore how corporate money is corrupting an otherwise pleasant participatory game, or pastime, by investing it with an artificial sense of importance in order to mass market both golf and golf equipment.
As a matter of public record, I have voted for building golf courses as a TM member and PB member. So where do you get the notion that I "hate" the game? A tad defensive are we?
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
bottomline wrote:
"This article mentions nothing about one bit of good that professional golfers do for charities in this country. NOT ONE WORD."
And your point is . . . ? Everyone has, or should have some charitable outlet, at least those of us who claim to be Christians. Sometimes, corporations put lots of money into charity because it enhances their public image while providing a nice little tax write-off, but who am I to judge them? I take charitable deductions from my income too. That doesn't make us especially ethical in how we conduct business, though, or make our business itself ethical,does it?
FYI, my church is attempting to organize a golf tournament for charity. I was asked to participate this past Sunday by some friends and while I demurred on actually playing, I did promise financial support and organizational assistance. I expect it will be fun and, who knows, I might actually be tempted to play 18 holes if someone lends me his clubs.
"This article mentions nothing about one bit of good that professional golfers do for charities in this country. NOT ONE WORD."
And your point is . . . ? Everyone has, or should have some charitable outlet, at least those of us who claim to be Christians. Sometimes, corporations put lots of money into charity because it enhances their public image while providing a nice little tax write-off, but who am I to judge them? I take charitable deductions from my income too. That doesn't make us especially ethical in how we conduct business, though, or make our business itself ethical,does it?
FYI, my church is attempting to organize a golf tournament for charity. I was asked to participate this past Sunday by some friends and while I demurred on actually playing, I did promise financial support and organizational assistance. I expect it will be fun and, who knows, I might actually be tempted to play 18 holes if someone lends me his clubs.
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Hi, Ned
I don't hate golf per se. I have friends who play it, and I've played with some of them on a few local public courses myself many years ago.
One time, I hit a guy in the head when I drove the ball off the tee. I had checked the fairway and the green before going into my backswing, and just as I started forward my friends yelled "fore"! I wasn't able to stop, but I hit the ball weakly so it skipped off the grass and hit the guy in the forehead.
He'd come out of the wooded rough to cross the fairway just as I began my swing -and he didn't even look back up at the tee. He didn't even try to duck back when my friends yelled fore.
I don't hate golf per se. I have friends who play it, and I've played with some of them on a few local public courses myself many years ago.
One time, I hit a guy in the head when I drove the ball off the tee. I had checked the fairway and the green before going into my backswing, and just as I started forward my friends yelled "fore"! I wasn't able to stop, but I hit the ball weakly so it skipped off the grass and hit the guy in the forehead.
He'd come out of the wooded rough to cross the fairway just as I began my swing -and he didn't even look back up at the tee. He didn't even try to duck back when my friends yelled fore.
Richard [Member]
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
In response to: An Earth Day 2009 Reflection
Buzz wrote:
"So I say to all you golfers out their, enjoy your earth day anyway you see fit. Hit them long and straight, ride that electric golf cart with pride, enjoy that refreshing vodka tonic in the club house, appreciate that man made pond on the 17th hole. You worked hard for that exclusive membership, enjoy it."
So how's that any different from my closing advice to golfers -to shut off the damned television and go out and play 18 holes? Ride the golf cart, fine, we both know we're not athletes any more, so why watch golf on t.v. pretending that golf is an "athletic" competition? Enjoy golf for what it is, in person not vicariously, a pleasant day outside with friends playing a harmless little game as opposed to some hoked up national "event" driven by corporate money.
Hey, Buzz, we agree! Only difference is I see how televised pro golf is an exercise in markteting that detracts from the true spirit of the game and you just don't seem to get it -or don't want to admit it.
"So I say to all you golfers out their, enjoy your earth day anyway you see fit. Hit them long and straight, ride that electric golf cart with pride, enjoy that refreshing vodka tonic in the club house, appreciate that man made pond on the 17th hole. You worked hard for that exclusive membership, enjoy it."
So how's that any different from my closing advice to golfers -to shut off the damned television and go out and play 18 holes? Ride the golf cart, fine, we both know we're not athletes any more, so why watch golf on t.v. pretending that golf is an "athletic" competition? Enjoy golf for what it is, in person not vicariously, a pleasant day outside with friends playing a harmless little game as opposed to some hoked up national "event" driven by corporate money.
Hey, Buzz, we agree! Only difference is I see how televised pro golf is an exercise in markteting that detracts from the true spirit of the game and you just don't seem to get it -or don't want to admit it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
Hi, Cru
About Bush's ivy league MBA, I just can't help but think of Dylan's line in Like A Rolling Stone:
You've gone to the finest school all right, Miss Lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it
And nobody has ever taught you how to live on the street
And now you find out you're gonna have to get used to it
The part about getting juiced as a legacy admission to Yale and at Harvard B. School certainly fits Bush to a tee. He never really had to live on the actual street like Miss Lonely did, as I have too for that matter, but he certainely was just as much as a sellout and didn't even have a clue about what was required of him on the "street" of responsible Constitutional government when he got into politics instead of just running shaky oil investment schemes into the ground to create tax writeoffs for his poppy's rich friends.
About Bush's ivy league MBA, I just can't help but think of Dylan's line in Like A Rolling Stone:
You've gone to the finest school all right, Miss Lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it
And nobody has ever taught you how to live on the street
And now you find out you're gonna have to get used to it
The part about getting juiced as a legacy admission to Yale and at Harvard B. School certainly fits Bush to a tee. He never really had to live on the actual street like Miss Lonely did, as I have too for that matter, but he certainely was just as much as a sellout and didn't even have a clue about what was required of him on the "street" of responsible Constitutional government when he got into politics instead of just running shaky oil investment schemes into the ground to create tax writeoffs for his poppy's rich friends.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There?
In response to: Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There?
Hi, Concon
You forgot about all those other terrorist acts on American soil, Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, the systematic terorism of the Jim Crow South with official acquiescence, including mob lyinchings, church burnings, etc., the annihillation of Native American society through destruction of villages and killing off of game, with forced marches into concentration camps, a sustained program of terrorism that included germ warfare when smallpox infected blankets were left out for the Indians by Amherst's troops in 1763. Then, of course there was the Boston Tea Party, when an angry mob, in disguise and armed with clubs and axes commandeered several British ships, falsely imprisoned their crews and destroyed valuable cargoes of tea.
Terrorism is criminal activity to be prosecuted as such, whether it is perpretrated by a government as in our "Indian wars," or acquiesced in by government as with Jim Crow or carried out by private individuals as with the Boston Tea Party, Timothy McVeigh or William Ayers -or by any unofficial foreign organization like al Qaeda.
You forgot about all those other terrorist acts on American soil, Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, the systematic terorism of the Jim Crow South with official acquiescence, including mob lyinchings, church burnings, etc., the annihillation of Native American society through destruction of villages and killing off of game, with forced marches into concentration camps, a sustained program of terrorism that included germ warfare when smallpox infected blankets were left out for the Indians by Amherst's troops in 1763. Then, of course there was the Boston Tea Party, when an angry mob, in disguise and armed with clubs and axes commandeered several British ships, falsely imprisoned their crews and destroyed valuable cargoes of tea.
Terrorism is criminal activity to be prosecuted as such, whether it is perpretrated by a government as in our "Indian wars," or acquiesced in by government as with Jim Crow or carried out by private individuals as with the Boston Tea Party, Timothy McVeigh or William Ayers -or by any unofficial foreign organization like al Qaeda.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
Hi, Ned
I knew a fellow lawyer who had gone to NYU lawschool in the 1960s. He told me a story about sitting in Washington Square Park one sunny spring day as a lovely young woman was walking past. Just then a long black limo pulled up alongside her and the darkened rear seat window rolled down to reveal the grinning face of RFK, trying to make a pickup. I forget how the story ended, but it says a lot about the difference in politics between then and now.
Then, we had principled democratic leaders like RFK, and JFK too, who weren't morally constrained about screwing around a bit in their personal lives. Since then we have had a series of unprincipled GOP politicians, like Reagan and Bush, who maybe don't screw around in their personal lives, but are committed with passionate intensity to screwing the middle class and working class on behalf of the corporate elite, through cutting taxes and deregulation.
The word for that kind of personal "morality", combined with cynical, unprincipled political demagoguery is "hypocrisy".
I knew a fellow lawyer who had gone to NYU lawschool in the 1960s. He told me a story about sitting in Washington Square Park one sunny spring day as a lovely young woman was walking past. Just then a long black limo pulled up alongside her and the darkened rear seat window rolled down to reveal the grinning face of RFK, trying to make a pickup. I forget how the story ended, but it says a lot about the difference in politics between then and now.
Then, we had principled democratic leaders like RFK, and JFK too, who weren't morally constrained about screwing around a bit in their personal lives. Since then we have had a series of unprincipled GOP politicians, like Reagan and Bush, who maybe don't screw around in their personal lives, but are committed with passionate intensity to screwing the middle class and working class on behalf of the corporate elite, through cutting taxes and deregulation.
The word for that kind of personal "morality", combined with cynical, unprincipled political demagoguery is "hypocrisy".
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
Hi, cru
I usually try to catch Bill Moyers on channel 2 but I missed this segment. I'll try to listen and get back to you, or maybe even pick up a relevant point to expand upon in a future post.
I usually try to catch Bill Moyers on channel 2 but I missed this segment. I'll try to listen and get back to you, or maybe even pick up a relevant point to expand upon in a future post.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
jmadden wrote:
My thoughts drift off to Pete Seeger, HUAC, and all those ostracized or destroyed. To what end? Surely not to protect a democratic way of life.
Yeah, JM, and what did that great democratic "patriot" Ronald Reagan do? Stand up for principle against that kind of anti-democratic demagoguery? Hell, no! First he just caved to save his own career, while many of his colleagues in the movie industry had theirs destroyed. Then he joined the demagogues himself, after marrying into the very rich, very right-wing Davis family in California.
There's a fine but very real difference between hatred and comtempt. Hatred is a blind emotion, the kind of rage we get from the right-wing media, while contempt is an informed and reasoned revulsion. I don't hate Reagan and his ilk, but I surely do hold them in contempt, not for who they are but for what they have done to America over the past 40 years.
If you feel I go too far in expressing this sometimes, it's only because I feel so passionately about our precious secular Constitutional democracy.
My thoughts drift off to Pete Seeger, HUAC, and all those ostracized or destroyed. To what end? Surely not to protect a democratic way of life.
Yeah, JM, and what did that great democratic "patriot" Ronald Reagan do? Stand up for principle against that kind of anti-democratic demagoguery? Hell, no! First he just caved to save his own career, while many of his colleagues in the movie industry had theirs destroyed. Then he joined the demagogues himself, after marrying into the very rich, very right-wing Davis family in California.
There's a fine but very real difference between hatred and comtempt. Hatred is a blind emotion, the kind of rage we get from the right-wing media, while contempt is an informed and reasoned revulsion. I don't hate Reagan and his ilk, but I surely do hold them in contempt, not for who they are but for what they have done to America over the past 40 years.
If you feel I go too far in expressing this sometimes, it's only because I feel so passionately about our precious secular Constitutional democracy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
dingbat wrote:
Sadly, you also appear to be a card-carrying member of the Hate-America-First Society.
No, ding, I love America, which is exactly why I detest what the GOP's extremist post-Reagan capitalist ideology has done to our Constitution and the rule of law over the past 40 years. I try to make that plain in every post.
Remember: Decatur said "My country right or wrong" to justify bellicosity.
But Carl Schurz, Union Army General, then Republican Senator and Secretary of the Interior under Hayes said:
"My country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right,and when wrong, to be put right."
The first thing responsible citizens must do in that effort is to inform ourselves of the principles on which our democracy is based, and then make every effort to ensure that our elected leaders conform to those principles
That's exactly what I try to do here with detailed explanation of my premises and reasoning. Anything, less, like blind acceptance of right-wing jingoistic cant, isn't love of country, it's intellectual and moral laziness or,worse, corrupt cynicism.
Sadly, you also appear to be a card-carrying member of the Hate-America-First Society.
No, ding, I love America, which is exactly why I detest what the GOP's extremist post-Reagan capitalist ideology has done to our Constitution and the rule of law over the past 40 years. I try to make that plain in every post.
Remember: Decatur said "My country right or wrong" to justify bellicosity.
But Carl Schurz, Union Army General, then Republican Senator and Secretary of the Interior under Hayes said:
"My country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right,and when wrong, to be put right."
The first thing responsible citizens must do in that effort is to inform ourselves of the principles on which our democracy is based, and then make every effort to ensure that our elected leaders conform to those principles
That's exactly what I try to do here with detailed explanation of my premises and reasoning. Anything, less, like blind acceptance of right-wing jingoistic cant, isn't love of country, it's intellectual and moral laziness or,worse, corrupt cynicism.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
ceitaech wrote:
I find that BBC-America gives the most objective view to be had in the US. They do not sensationalize the news, do provocative lead-ins ... they just deliver the news. They also cover news from around the world using descriptive prose ... not just sound-bites. But then I listen to news for information not entertainment.
Thanks for the insightful comment ct. What you suggest is all too true for most broadcast media today, focussed more on sensationalist "newsiness" than actually providing relevant information or reasoned analysis on matters of public interest. It's not just Fox TV or right wing media generally, but because they are promoting an ideolgical agenda specifically serving the economic interest of their corporate sponors, small government, no taxes, no regulation, etc., they are among the worst offenders.
I find that BBC-America gives the most objective view to be had in the US. They do not sensationalize the news, do provocative lead-ins ... they just deliver the news. They also cover news from around the world using descriptive prose ... not just sound-bites. But then I listen to news for information not entertainment.
Thanks for the insightful comment ct. What you suggest is all too true for most broadcast media today, focussed more on sensationalist "newsiness" than actually providing relevant information or reasoned analysis on matters of public interest. It's not just Fox TV or right wing media generally, but because they are promoting an ideolgical agenda specifically serving the economic interest of their corporate sponors, small government, no taxes, no regulation, etc., they are among the worst offenders.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
Hey, local13516
Might I suggest that, in future, before you attempt to comment on my approach to issues, by saying something like I "dismiss the inequities of the liberal left," you might try actually reading what I have said about those "inequities," or as I would describe them "excesses," as in the case of my two-part critique of gay marriage, from both a legal and political perspective.
Is that too much to ask Mr. local13516?
Or are you just one more of the typical right wing dittoheads who get upset when I return their vitriol in kind, except I will refrain from calling you any names like "boor."
I might suggest that your tendency to respond by calling me a boor and other ad hominem comments makes you sound like a typical right-wing bully. You know about bullies, don't you? They love to dish it but they really can't take it so they resort to name calling. Na,na,na,na,na-a,na!
Might I suggest that, in future, before you attempt to comment on my approach to issues, by saying something like I "dismiss the inequities of the liberal left," you might try actually reading what I have said about those "inequities," or as I would describe them "excesses," as in the case of my two-part critique of gay marriage, from both a legal and political perspective.
Is that too much to ask Mr. local13516?
Or are you just one more of the typical right wing dittoheads who get upset when I return their vitriol in kind, except I will refrain from calling you any names like "boor."
I might suggest that your tendency to respond by calling me a boor and other ad hominem comments makes you sound like a typical right-wing bully. You know about bullies, don't you? They love to dish it but they really can't take it so they resort to name calling. Na,na,na,na,na-a,na!
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
In response to: The Bragging Song: A Timely Update
Hi, Peter
Thanks for asking. You're going to get editorial slant no matter where you look, in some places more than in others. That's why I always buy both the Globe and the Herald every day and read all the news and editorials, including the letters. I've actually had more of my letters published in the Herald than in the Globe -one of which Walter republished on this site awhile back.
I also watch Fox snooze as well as PBS and Channel 4 for news.
You won't get the whole picture from any single source, unlike what Fox and Rush claim for themselves. So the only responsible thing is to get information from a variety of sources in a variety of media and make up your own mind.
That is exactly what I do, Peter. How about you?
Thanks for asking. You're going to get editorial slant no matter where you look, in some places more than in others. That's why I always buy both the Globe and the Herald every day and read all the news and editorials, including the letters. I've actually had more of my letters published in the Herald than in the Globe -one of which Walter republished on this site awhile back.
I also watch Fox snooze as well as PBS and Channel 4 for news.
You won't get the whole picture from any single source, unlike what Fox and Rush claim for themselves. So the only responsible thing is to get information from a variety of sources in a variety of media and make up your own mind.
That is exactly what I do, Peter. How about you?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Taxes, Terrorism, Christianity & Socialism
In response to: Taxes, Terrorism, Christianity & Socialism
Hi, Buzz
Thanks for the correction. I originally wrote David, then I put it onto the work page, checked the name and corrected it there. Then I had a problem getting that copy to work, erased it, started over and forgot to correct the name. So I've never claimed to be perfect.
As for the rest of it, laugh all you want. But the Tea Party was a terrorist act by any modern definition, an armed gang, committing criminal trespass, holding the lawful occupants of the vessels hostage while destroying valuable cargo. Only reason it wasn't piracy was it didn't happen on the high seas. As I said, it's exactly the same in prinicple as anything Ayers did and there wasn't that much difference in the real damage done.
As for other approved or tolerated acts of American domestic terrorism look up Indian wars, poisoned blankets, burning villages, or Jim Crow lyinchings, church burnings, etc., all by supposed Christians.
So ha, ha, Buzz, that's all very funny isn't it. I'd suggest you try looking at things with perspective instead of the typical right wing myopia you get on Fox snooze.
Thanks for the correction. I originally wrote David, then I put it onto the work page, checked the name and corrected it there. Then I had a problem getting that copy to work, erased it, started over and forgot to correct the name. So I've never claimed to be perfect.
As for the rest of it, laugh all you want. But the Tea Party was a terrorist act by any modern definition, an armed gang, committing criminal trespass, holding the lawful occupants of the vessels hostage while destroying valuable cargo. Only reason it wasn't piracy was it didn't happen on the high seas. As I said, it's exactly the same in prinicple as anything Ayers did and there wasn't that much difference in the real damage done.
As for other approved or tolerated acts of American domestic terrorism look up Indian wars, poisoned blankets, burning villages, or Jim Crow lyinchings, church burnings, etc., all by supposed Christians.
So ha, ha, Buzz, that's all very funny isn't it. I'd suggest you try looking at things with perspective instead of the typical right wing myopia you get on Fox snooze.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Hi Buzz
(a) Yes, as I've made very clear, states rights has evolved from being only code for racism in the South to being code for an anti-constitutional agenda on those right wing "values" issues based on religion, e.g. Creationism in public schools, daily prayer in public schools, banning contraceptives, discriminating against gays, banning abortions, all in the name of allowing the states to disregard the federal courts and acts of Congress on such issues.
(b) The problem with Limbaugh is he's a demagogue, just like Goebbels was. I'm not saying he's a "Nazi" but he operates just like Goebbels, spreading anti-constitutional right wing propaganda in order to create and exploit divisive "values" issues. That's dangerous!
Limbaugh is iconic where major media markets have been monopolized by right wing corporate interests who steadily promote their anti-constitutional agenda with no effective opportunity for counterpoint.
It's very different today from Wm. Buckley, say, who invited and engaged debate, and didn't have to hide behind a delete button like Rush does.
(a) Yes, as I've made very clear, states rights has evolved from being only code for racism in the South to being code for an anti-constitutional agenda on those right wing "values" issues based on religion, e.g. Creationism in public schools, daily prayer in public schools, banning contraceptives, discriminating against gays, banning abortions, all in the name of allowing the states to disregard the federal courts and acts of Congress on such issues.
(b) The problem with Limbaugh is he's a demagogue, just like Goebbels was. I'm not saying he's a "Nazi" but he operates just like Goebbels, spreading anti-constitutional right wing propaganda in order to create and exploit divisive "values" issues. That's dangerous!
Limbaugh is iconic where major media markets have been monopolized by right wing corporate interests who steadily promote their anti-constitutional agenda with no effective opportunity for counterpoint.
It's very different today from Wm. Buckley, say, who invited and engaged debate, and didn't have to hide behind a delete button like Rush does.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Hi, Possee
Thanks for clarifying your question. As to the authority for a state to secede from the union, that's something that I haven't really given much thought, unlike the matters that I choose to discuss on this site.
I do know it is a contentious constitutional question for which there is no clear answer. The right of secession is clearly the foundation of the Constitution itself, i.e. our secession from Britain. The procedure, short of warfare, is a murkier issue, e.g. does secession of one state require the consent of all other states?
I haven't studied this issue -haven't had any reason to do so over my 34 year legal career, so I won't pretend to know the answer on this one any more than you do. I will keep an open mind on the debate, though.
Did Texas violate constitutional rights? It seceded before as a slave state during the Civil War. It had Jim Crow segregationist laws like any other state before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So the answer is yes.
Politically, with the Bush regency in mind, I wouldn't object to secession. But then there was LBJ. . . .
Thanks for clarifying your question. As to the authority for a state to secede from the union, that's something that I haven't really given much thought, unlike the matters that I choose to discuss on this site.
I do know it is a contentious constitutional question for which there is no clear answer. The right of secession is clearly the foundation of the Constitution itself, i.e. our secession from Britain. The procedure, short of warfare, is a murkier issue, e.g. does secession of one state require the consent of all other states?
I haven't studied this issue -haven't had any reason to do so over my 34 year legal career, so I won't pretend to know the answer on this one any more than you do. I will keep an open mind on the debate, though.
Did Texas violate constitutional rights? It seceded before as a slave state during the Civil War. It had Jim Crow segregationist laws like any other state before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So the answer is yes.
Politically, with the Bush regency in mind, I wouldn't object to secession. But then there was LBJ. . . .
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
maverick wrote:
"No substance..."What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along?"
Geez, Mav, can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a? As in right wing paranoia?
Again, what does your question have to do with the point I actually made in the last post? I said that Reagan was a shill for the corporate elite, he used states rights as racist code to get the South and spoke from the other side of his mouth to the Urban league about civil rights, i.e. pandering.
Unlike your speculative ruminations about Obama, I'm referred to matters of public record, historical fact, and drawing logical, well reasoned conclusions from those facts, not mere innuendo as you are doing with Obama.
Look, Hugo Black associated with the KKK as an ambitious young Alabama politician, then voted with the unanimous Supreme Court in Brown to end segregated schools.
So don't just cite factoids or innuendo about Obama's former ties to Acorn. Give us specific facts and analysis. As Clara Peller would say: "Where's the beef?"
"No substance..."What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along?"
Geez, Mav, can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a? As in right wing paranoia?
Again, what does your question have to do with the point I actually made in the last post? I said that Reagan was a shill for the corporate elite, he used states rights as racist code to get the South and spoke from the other side of his mouth to the Urban league about civil rights, i.e. pandering.
Unlike your speculative ruminations about Obama, I'm referred to matters of public record, historical fact, and drawing logical, well reasoned conclusions from those facts, not mere innuendo as you are doing with Obama.
Look, Hugo Black associated with the KKK as an ambitious young Alabama politician, then voted with the unanimous Supreme Court in Brown to end segregated schools.
So don't just cite factoids or innuendo about Obama's former ties to Acorn. Give us specific facts and analysis. As Clara Peller would say: "Where's the beef?"
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Hey Maverick:
Shouldn't it be "my ho-mo-sex-ual English teacher"?
Shouldn't it be "my ho-mo-sex-ual English teacher"?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Hi, JM
Thanks for the comments, but I do respond to intelligent, on point remarks in kind, as shown by several recent responses to possee and buzz which were both pertinent to the issues I raised and based on fact and reason.
This post was directed to another sort of comment, i.e. changing the subject to make a different political point in an attempt to divert blame for the problem under discussion to someone else who may or may not be to blame for a different problem; and/or responding only in pejorative ad hominem terms; and/or speaking only in slogans, sound-bytes or right wing "talking points" with no attempt to make any logical connection to the subject at hand.
I choose a subject for each post, I welcome comments that respond to the subject in an informed analytical manner and I try to respond in kind. But when I get mindless right wing demagoguery, fresh from the pages of the NY Post or Rush's latest bloviation, I give back what I get.
That's distasteful, and it's gotten old. All I'm saying here is I won't respond to that kind of thing anymore except to dismiss it.
Thanks for the comments, but I do respond to intelligent, on point remarks in kind, as shown by several recent responses to possee and buzz which were both pertinent to the issues I raised and based on fact and reason.
This post was directed to another sort of comment, i.e. changing the subject to make a different political point in an attempt to divert blame for the problem under discussion to someone else who may or may not be to blame for a different problem; and/or responding only in pejorative ad hominem terms; and/or speaking only in slogans, sound-bytes or right wing "talking points" with no attempt to make any logical connection to the subject at hand.
I choose a subject for each post, I welcome comments that respond to the subject in an informed analytical manner and I try to respond in kind. But when I get mindless right wing demagoguery, fresh from the pages of the NY Post or Rush's latest bloviation, I give back what I get.
That's distasteful, and it's gotten old. All I'm saying here is I won't respond to that kind of thing anymore except to dismiss it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Hi,VR
Thanks for your input. I don't know how many of my posts you have read, but I've made it pretty clear that I'm squarely on the roadway politically, on the left side of the line, and crossing over the line on some issues.
I don't know if you caught Eisenhowers comment about despising people throwing rocks from the gutter, left or' right, to people in the center.
Well, the reality of today's political "discourse" is the extreme right throwing rocks at anyone who disagrees with their absolute infallible wisdom.
I'm not Ike, or Obama, so I've got no political constraints on throwing rocks back. If that makes me seem pompous and arrogant, well, I'm just using the tactics of those "noisiest authorities" on the right, like Limbaugh or Palin, and throwing their rocks back at them. My last Post made that clear, giving the dittoheads the kind of stuff they hear From "Rush", only I think I've got bigger rocks and a better aim.
Thanks for your input. I don't know how many of my posts you have read, but I've made it pretty clear that I'm squarely on the roadway politically, on the left side of the line, and crossing over the line on some issues.
I don't know if you caught Eisenhowers comment about despising people throwing rocks from the gutter, left or' right, to people in the center.
Well, the reality of today's political "discourse" is the extreme right throwing rocks at anyone who disagrees with their absolute infallible wisdom.
I'm not Ike, or Obama, so I've got no political constraints on throwing rocks back. If that makes me seem pompous and arrogant, well, I'm just using the tactics of those "noisiest authorities" on the right, like Limbaugh or Palin, and throwing their rocks back at them. My last Post made that clear, giving the dittoheads the kind of stuff they hear From "Rush", only I think I've got bigger rocks and a better aim.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Buzz wrote:
Fact: "Reagan addressed the Urban League "he was commited to the protection of the civil rights of black Americans"
No, Buzz, he only said he was committed to civil rights, like he only pretended to be in favor of Jim Crow by talking about states rights in Mississippi.
Did Reagan endorse "states rights" to the Urban League folks? He did say: "I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans. This commitment is interwoven into every phase of the plans I will propose."
But how does that square with what he told the Jim Crow bigots in MS, "I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment", when those folks all knew that "states rights" was the defiant rallying cry against the federal government's power to enforce the Constitutional rights of black Americans against their local segregationist Jim Crow laws?
Thus, as a matter of historical fact, those are two mutually inconsistent positions, i.e. cynical pandering.
Fact: "Reagan addressed the Urban League "he was commited to the protection of the civil rights of black Americans"
No, Buzz, he only said he was committed to civil rights, like he only pretended to be in favor of Jim Crow by talking about states rights in Mississippi.
Did Reagan endorse "states rights" to the Urban League folks? He did say: "I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans. This commitment is interwoven into every phase of the plans I will propose."
But how does that square with what he told the Jim Crow bigots in MS, "I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment", when those folks all knew that "states rights" was the defiant rallying cry against the federal government's power to enforce the Constitutional rights of black Americans against their local segregationist Jim Crow laws?
Thus, as a matter of historical fact, those are two mutually inconsistent positions, i.e. cynical pandering.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
possee wrote:
Richard -Your thoughts...on the Texas Sovereignty issue regarding the 10th Ammendment as premise?
If you've been following along, poss, you already know. Start with the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land", and end there, with Congress and the federal courts having the final say on civil rights under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution prohibits the states from infringing the rights and liberties of citizens, and from denying due process and equal protection of the law to anyone. So no power is reserved to the states that violates those rights.
Therefore, even though the states have jurisdiction over voter qualifications, public schools, etc., they can't use that power to deny anyone's basic Constitutional rights and liberties, or deny due process or equal protection.
That's exactly what gets the "states rights" racists and today's "values" voters so upset. The Constitution, enforced by the federal government, prevents them from infringing voting along racial lines, or teaching religion in public schools, etc.
Richard -Your thoughts...on the Texas Sovereignty issue regarding the 10th Ammendment as premise?
If you've been following along, poss, you already know. Start with the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land", and end there, with Congress and the federal courts having the final say on civil rights under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution prohibits the states from infringing the rights and liberties of citizens, and from denying due process and equal protection of the law to anyone. So no power is reserved to the states that violates those rights.
Therefore, even though the states have jurisdiction over voter qualifications, public schools, etc., they can't use that power to deny anyone's basic Constitutional rights and liberties, or deny due process or equal protection.
That's exactly what gets the "states rights" racists and today's "values" voters so upset. The Constitution, enforced by the federal government, prevents them from infringing voting along racial lines, or teaching religion in public schools, etc.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
maverick wrote:
"When I want to read unbiased journalism I visit the Cape Cod Times or Bugsy at Cape Cod Living."
So, be my guest, please!
"When I want to read unbiased journalism I visit the Cape Cod Times or Bugsy at Cape Cod Living."
So, be my guest, please!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
In response to: Democracy and Bigotry: Executive Summary for Conservative Dummies
Hi, Ned
That's also true of most of the GOP Congressional minority and the entire cadre of right-wing media schlockmeisters.
I prefer to use the metapor "political kudzu."
That's also true of most of the GOP Congressional minority and the entire cadre of right-wing media schlockmeisters.
I prefer to use the metapor "political kudzu."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Hi, Buzz
I responded to your post about Jefferson and Hamilton because it made intelligent but somewhat erroneous arguments which I have attempted to rebut. That's what informed debate is all about. And it was also related, at least in terms of the broad subject of federalism, to the actual topic of democracy, bigotry and states that my post was discussing.
About your on-topic reference to 2 white southern Republicans from Texas supporting a resolution for states rights -and your point is?
As for your other comments about Spector's Obama button, talk radio hosts, etc., I can only say, “More trivial irrelevance, no reply needed.” See my next post, today, for an informed, detailed, analytical explanation of why this is so.
Pf-f-f-ft!
I responded to your post about Jefferson and Hamilton because it made intelligent but somewhat erroneous arguments which I have attempted to rebut. That's what informed debate is all about. And it was also related, at least in terms of the broad subject of federalism, to the actual topic of democracy, bigotry and states that my post was discussing.
About your on-topic reference to 2 white southern Republicans from Texas supporting a resolution for states rights -and your point is?
As for your other comments about Spector's Obama button, talk radio hosts, etc., I can only say, “More trivial irrelevance, no reply needed.” See my next post, today, for an informed, detailed, analytical explanation of why this is so.
Pf-f-f-ft!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Buzz wrote:
"Did the Founding generation contemplate the creation of a capitalistic, free-market economy? No, the majority did not. Had. . .the Jeffersonians prevailed, had those committed to pure republicanism prevailed, the United States would have remained an agrarian, colonial economy. . . . Fortunately, a handful of . . . visionaries working through Alexander Hamilton . . . as Secretary of the Treasury used the freedoms of the Constitution and its protections to create a capitalistic, free-market economy and ensured that the United States would become the richest, most powerful, freest country the world has ever known." F. McDonald
Agreed, in major part, but it was Jefferson who actually wrote the Constitution, giving strong regulatory and taxation powers to the central, federal government. His beef with Hamilton was primarily over the need for a standing army. Both agreed federal regulation and taxation was neeeded to promote and control the economy, as opposed to McDonald's "free market" nonsense. Hamiltonians, unlike Reaganomists, used regulation and taxation!
"Did the Founding generation contemplate the creation of a capitalistic, free-market economy? No, the majority did not. Had. . .the Jeffersonians prevailed, had those committed to pure republicanism prevailed, the United States would have remained an agrarian, colonial economy. . . . Fortunately, a handful of . . . visionaries working through Alexander Hamilton . . . as Secretary of the Treasury used the freedoms of the Constitution and its protections to create a capitalistic, free-market economy and ensured that the United States would become the richest, most powerful, freest country the world has ever known." F. McDonald
Agreed, in major part, but it was Jefferson who actually wrote the Constitution, giving strong regulatory and taxation powers to the central, federal government. His beef with Hamilton was primarily over the need for a standing army. Both agreed federal regulation and taxation was neeeded to promote and control the economy, as opposed to McDonald's "free market" nonsense. Hamiltonians, unlike Reaganomists, used regulation and taxation!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Hi, Possee
Thanks for your intelligent, focussed response to what I actually wrote in this post. We both agree as to the high level of inconsistency, incoherence and outright self-contradiction of the Judeo Christian scripture, as did Thomas Jefferson.
My point about Christian doctrine is that Jefferson, acting on that same skepticism, did find a body of moral principles in Jesus' words, as consistently reported by the apostles, which he considered to be divinely inspired even though he did not believe in Jesus as a divine being. And those "Christian" principles in fact informed his democratic ideals, as did the European Enlightenment philosophers read by all the Founders, when he drafted both the Declaration of Independence and the Constution.
As you say, "It is no longer left vs right..but what we as a nation decide and elect for our representatives to enact. To keep our country soverieign and free is essential.." And a good place to start is with informed, reasoned discussion of the issues guided by and understanding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Thanks for your intelligent, focussed response to what I actually wrote in this post. We both agree as to the high level of inconsistency, incoherence and outright self-contradiction of the Judeo Christian scripture, as did Thomas Jefferson.
My point about Christian doctrine is that Jefferson, acting on that same skepticism, did find a body of moral principles in Jesus' words, as consistently reported by the apostles, which he considered to be divinely inspired even though he did not believe in Jesus as a divine being. And those "Christian" principles in fact informed his democratic ideals, as did the European Enlightenment philosophers read by all the Founders, when he drafted both the Declaration of Independence and the Constution.
As you say, "It is no longer left vs right..but what we as a nation decide and elect for our representatives to enact. To keep our country soverieign and free is essential.." And a good place to start is with informed, reasoned discussion of the issues guided by and understanding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Hey, Maverick!
You got me on that one about you being a soulless, cynical Republican conservative. I had no informed basis on which to call you a Republican, and my analytical basis for doing so was therefore rather thin,so I must apologize to you for that, as I certainly agree it is a serious affront to call anyone a Republican in today's political climate.
Based on your remarks about Walmart people being like zoo animals, I am warranted only in referring to you, with no apology necessary, as a soulless, cynical free-lance conservative, as you have in prior posts admitted to being a conservative.
As for the rest of your recent commentary, without in any way conceding anything to you, I need only say “More trivial irrelevance, no reply needed.” See my next post, today, for an informed, detailed, analytical explanation of why this is so.
Pf-f-f-ft!
You got me on that one about you being a soulless, cynical Republican conservative. I had no informed basis on which to call you a Republican, and my analytical basis for doing so was therefore rather thin,so I must apologize to you for that, as I certainly agree it is a serious affront to call anyone a Republican in today's political climate.
Based on your remarks about Walmart people being like zoo animals, I am warranted only in referring to you, with no apology necessary, as a soulless, cynical free-lance conservative, as you have in prior posts admitted to being a conservative.
As for the rest of your recent commentary, without in any way conceding anything to you, I need only say “More trivial irrelevance, no reply needed.” See my next post, today, for an informed, detailed, analytical explanation of why this is so.
Pf-f-f-ft!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Buzz wrote:
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11: 46
Like I said about states rights, Buzz, you apologists for neocon Reaganomic deregulation are just like so much political Kudzu. You keep coming back and back with more worthless, evasive factoids, this time with an irrelevant ad hominem argument against me as a lawyer that is totally at odds with what I advocate with a quote taken from an entirelydifferent legal context.
Jesus was talking about legal experts in the repressive political systems of his day. I speak as a lawyer who has in fact done more than "lift a finger" to uphold the rights of the people under our liberal, secular Constitutional democracy. This is a purpose I make very clear with every single post.
So, instead of coming back with specific facts or logic to demonstrate any substantive error on my part, all you've got is this kind of ad hominem political kudzu. I.e., once again, you got nuthin'.
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11: 46
Like I said about states rights, Buzz, you apologists for neocon Reaganomic deregulation are just like so much political Kudzu. You keep coming back and back with more worthless, evasive factoids, this time with an irrelevant ad hominem argument against me as a lawyer that is totally at odds with what I advocate with a quote taken from an entirelydifferent legal context.
Jesus was talking about legal experts in the repressive political systems of his day. I speak as a lawyer who has in fact done more than "lift a finger" to uphold the rights of the people under our liberal, secular Constitutional democracy. This is a purpose I make very clear with every single post.
So, instead of coming back with specific facts or logic to demonstrate any substantive error on my part, all you've got is this kind of ad hominem political kudzu. I.e., once again, you got nuthin'.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
maverick wrote: So again, tell us where does the Constitution mention Fascism?
And please tell us where it mentions Socialism.
Again all you can come back with is more evasive, mischaracterizations of my argument. Where did I ever imply that the Constitution is or even should be based on fascism?
As for socialism, all I've ever said was that it is permissible under the Constitution, no more or less than capitalism, as an economic tool to serve our "general welfare" -which is clearly stated as a basic purpose of government, in the tax clause!
Meanwhile, I've cited the express powers of regulation and taxation mentioned in Article I, as well as the power to take private property for public use (socialism?), recognized in Amendment V.
Am I mistaken here? Is capitalism promoted in the Constitution or "socialism" prohibited? Where? How are Obama's policies of regulation, taxes and stimulus spending prohibited as "socialist" as your GOP obstructionists claim?
Please give us specific facts and textual citations, with analysis, if you can. Otherwise, you just got nuthin'.
And please tell us where it mentions Socialism.
Again all you can come back with is more evasive, mischaracterizations of my argument. Where did I ever imply that the Constitution is or even should be based on fascism?
As for socialism, all I've ever said was that it is permissible under the Constitution, no more or less than capitalism, as an economic tool to serve our "general welfare" -which is clearly stated as a basic purpose of government, in the tax clause!
Meanwhile, I've cited the express powers of regulation and taxation mentioned in Article I, as well as the power to take private property for public use (socialism?), recognized in Amendment V.
Am I mistaken here? Is capitalism promoted in the Constitution or "socialism" prohibited? Where? How are Obama's policies of regulation, taxes and stimulus spending prohibited as "socialist" as your GOP obstructionists claim?
Please give us specific facts and textual citations, with analysis, if you can. Otherwise, you just got nuthin'.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Buzz wrote:
Do not be a man who strikes hands in pledge or puts up security for debts; if you lack the means to pay, your very bed will be snatched from under you. Proverbs 22:26-27
So Buzz, some facts please. What percentage of the mortgage market was in subprime mortgages where the deregulated bankers were allowed to build paper castles of debt by overvaluing both the underlying real assets and the value of the paper debt, as compared with all those more "legitimate" loans where they were doing the exact same thing?
As a percentage of the whole market, subprimes went from 5% under Clinton to 26% under Bush by 2006. Meanwhile, thanks to deregulation, the bankers were overvaluing all of their real assets, based on inflated current market value instead of taking any responsible account of historic market volatilty, as they were bundling overvalued assets and dispersing mortgage investment risk across the economy.
Sure,blame the foolish borrowers. But first, to understand the problem and solution, recognize how they were misled by unregulated, fraudulent banking practices.
Do not be a man who strikes hands in pledge or puts up security for debts; if you lack the means to pay, your very bed will be snatched from under you. Proverbs 22:26-27
So Buzz, some facts please. What percentage of the mortgage market was in subprime mortgages where the deregulated bankers were allowed to build paper castles of debt by overvaluing both the underlying real assets and the value of the paper debt, as compared with all those more "legitimate" loans where they were doing the exact same thing?
As a percentage of the whole market, subprimes went from 5% under Clinton to 26% under Bush by 2006. Meanwhile, thanks to deregulation, the bankers were overvaluing all of their real assets, based on inflated current market value instead of taking any responsible account of historic market volatilty, as they were bundling overvalued assets and dispersing mortgage investment risk across the economy.
Sure,blame the foolish borrowers. But first, to understand the problem and solution, recognize how they were misled by unregulated, fraudulent banking practices.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Maverick wrote:
You my friend are a charlatan. Glib, clever, well educated with an answer for everything. But no honest solution for anything.
I'd like to say I've been called worse, Mav, but since you've provided us with such a succinct description of Ronald W. Reagan, with much greater efficiency than I mustered in my two prior posts, well it just makes me feel bad to be put in the same category as that world-class phony.
I admit to being verbally skilled, a bit clever and well educated, with honest answers, not for everything, for the problems I choose to discuss, backed up by both facts and reasoned analysis under our Constitution which I am able to recite for you in detail.
I think this compares me, albeit with much less authority, more with Obama or Jefferson, whose basic principles I share, than any GOP "leader" of the post-Reagan era.
The Constituton gives you every right to express a different opinion, but I do wish you would back it up with both reason and facts, instead of comparing people who must shop or work at Walmart with zoo animals.
You my friend are a charlatan. Glib, clever, well educated with an answer for everything. But no honest solution for anything.
I'd like to say I've been called worse, Mav, but since you've provided us with such a succinct description of Ronald W. Reagan, with much greater efficiency than I mustered in my two prior posts, well it just makes me feel bad to be put in the same category as that world-class phony.
I admit to being verbally skilled, a bit clever and well educated, with honest answers, not for everything, for the problems I choose to discuss, backed up by both facts and reasoned analysis under our Constitution which I am able to recite for you in detail.
I think this compares me, albeit with much less authority, more with Obama or Jefferson, whose basic principles I share, than any GOP "leader" of the post-Reagan era.
The Constituton gives you every right to express a different opinion, but I do wish you would back it up with both reason and facts, instead of comparing people who must shop or work at Walmart with zoo animals.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
maverick wrote:
"And please! No biblical references to the "loaves and fishes".
Well, Mav, as soon as you get your Christian "values" compatriots to back off the claim that America is a "Christian" nation while they clamor for welfare "reform," i.e. making it harder for poor people to get public assistance, I'll just have to keep reminding you of Jesus' actual words until they, and you, understand what true "Cristian" values really are.
"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)
That's what our Constitution means when it provides for equal protection of the laws to promote the "general welfare," at least insofar as informed by the genuine Christian values that Jefferson wrote into it.
No honest solution? It takes ears open to the truth to hear honesty, something clearly lacking with revisionist deniers like you who can't rebut my honest Constitutional and Christian views with either reasoned analysis or specific facts.
So, again, tell us where does the Constitution mention capitalism?
"And please! No biblical references to the "loaves and fishes".
Well, Mav, as soon as you get your Christian "values" compatriots to back off the claim that America is a "Christian" nation while they clamor for welfare "reform," i.e. making it harder for poor people to get public assistance, I'll just have to keep reminding you of Jesus' actual words until they, and you, understand what true "Cristian" values really are.
"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)
That's what our Constitution means when it provides for equal protection of the laws to promote the "general welfare," at least insofar as informed by the genuine Christian values that Jefferson wrote into it.
No honest solution? It takes ears open to the truth to hear honesty, something clearly lacking with revisionist deniers like you who can't rebut my honest Constitutional and Christian views with either reasoned analysis or specific facts.
So, again, tell us where does the Constitution mention capitalism?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Gospel According to...
In response to: The Gospel According to...
Hi, Jack
Your description of the typical tourist question reminds me of one I got as a taxi driver in Falmouth a long time ago. That was my summer job during college back in the 1960s.
Anyway a middle aged woman got into my cab from the bus and said she wanted me to take her to see the "Cape," and she meant to see the Cape like it was the Plymouth Rock or something.
I politely explained that we were already on the Cape but I'd be happy to show her more of it. So I got a nice, easy half-day tour out of it.
Your description of the typical tourist question reminds me of one I got as a taxi driver in Falmouth a long time ago. That was my summer job during college back in the 1960s.
Anyway a middle aged woman got into my cab from the bus and said she wanted me to take her to see the "Cape," and she meant to see the Cape like it was the Plymouth Rock or something.
I politely explained that we were already on the Cape but I'd be happy to show her more of it. So I got a nice, easy half-day tour out of it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Hi, ezkept
Thanks for your kind words, and for showing there are still some American citizens left who are capable of reading and understanding political commentary that goes beyond the sloganeering and invective of Fox TV and other right-wing news media.
As for writing this post, it is based on ideas and history I've gathered over a long time, but the specific premise, relating present day racial and religious bigotry to St. Peter's rebuke of the circumsized Christians, just came to me yesterday morning -in Church!
I always like to read the day's scriptural readings before the service, and I usually read them in wider context. So I opened to the typical Easter reading of Acts 10:34-43, as UCC congregations were doing all over America, and I continued on to verses 44 through 48. And voila!
When I make a connection like that I just have to sit down and put it all together, the Jefferson Bible, its connection to the Constitution, and the history of states rights as bigotry that I already had in my "common place", with St. Peter's rebuke, as I did here yesterday afternoon.
Thanks for your kind words, and for showing there are still some American citizens left who are capable of reading and understanding political commentary that goes beyond the sloganeering and invective of Fox TV and other right-wing news media.
As for writing this post, it is based on ideas and history I've gathered over a long time, but the specific premise, relating present day racial and religious bigotry to St. Peter's rebuke of the circumsized Christians, just came to me yesterday morning -in Church!
I always like to read the day's scriptural readings before the service, and I usually read them in wider context. So I opened to the typical Easter reading of Acts 10:34-43, as UCC congregations were doing all over America, and I continued on to verses 44 through 48. And voila!
When I make a connection like that I just have to sit down and put it all together, the Jefferson Bible, its connection to the Constitution, and the history of states rights as bigotry that I already had in my "common place", with St. Peter's rebuke, as I did here yesterday afternoon.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Hi, Mav
Yeah, sure, Acorn goes over the top at times, but in service of the democratic ideal of promoting the general welfare by curbing the excesses of unregulated capitalism. So they coerced some banks into paying tribute, money that the banks coerced out of poor debtors for decades. Compared with the GOP's "free market" collapse of 2008, BFD! Ever hear of "perspective"?
Acorn today is for municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, reversing welfare "reform", and regulating banks to combat “predatory lending", all as acknowledged by conservative critic Stanley Kurtz.
They're against exploitive capitalist excess. BFD! Where does the Constitution say that's wrong -as it clearly does about denying anyone's right to vote and equal protection of the law? I've asked this before and you guys never have an answer. Why not?
Obama represented Acorn as a lawyer in 1995, and sought its support when running for office. So what? How does that even register against Bush's racist smear of McCain in So. Carolina's 2000 GOP primary? Try using perspective, pal.
Yeah, sure, Acorn goes over the top at times, but in service of the democratic ideal of promoting the general welfare by curbing the excesses of unregulated capitalism. So they coerced some banks into paying tribute, money that the banks coerced out of poor debtors for decades. Compared with the GOP's "free market" collapse of 2008, BFD! Ever hear of "perspective"?
Acorn today is for municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, reversing welfare "reform", and regulating banks to combat “predatory lending", all as acknowledged by conservative critic Stanley Kurtz.
They're against exploitive capitalist excess. BFD! Where does the Constitution say that's wrong -as it clearly does about denying anyone's right to vote and equal protection of the law? I've asked this before and you guys never have an answer. Why not?
Obama represented Acorn as a lawyer in 1995, and sought its support when running for office. So what? How does that even register against Bush's racist smear of McCain in So. Carolina's 2000 GOP primary? Try using perspective, pal.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
possee wrote:
I strongly take exception of your inclusive remarks of racism and my surname.
You, Richard, are the following,
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Well, here's a definition for you:
A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde.
It's also someone who deliberately distorts the words of others in order to refute those words on false premises, based on isolated factoids that ignore the relevant context, i.e. the "values" they stand for, as you and Buzz do.
See my following post about democracy and bigotry stating how our Constitutional democracy must tolerate even the most craven bigoted beliefs. My point is that it must never endorse such beliefs, as the cynical post Reagan GOP clearly does with its "states rights" legal nonsense.
Your buying into that BS doesn't make you a racist, whether you have black friends or not, but it surely makes you a cynic, and if you do have black friends it makes you a hypocrite as well.
I strongly take exception of your inclusive remarks of racism and my surname.
You, Richard, are the following,
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Well, here's a definition for you:
A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde.
It's also someone who deliberately distorts the words of others in order to refute those words on false premises, based on isolated factoids that ignore the relevant context, i.e. the "values" they stand for, as you and Buzz do.
See my following post about democracy and bigotry stating how our Constitutional democracy must tolerate even the most craven bigoted beliefs. My point is that it must never endorse such beliefs, as the cynical post Reagan GOP clearly does with its "states rights" legal nonsense.
Your buying into that BS doesn't make you a racist, whether you have black friends or not, but it surely makes you a cynic, and if you do have black friends it makes you a hypocrite as well.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Buzz wrote:
Come on Richard, the information about Philadelphia is all over the internet and theirs been a recent revisionist history on the event.
History? C'mon, Buzz, you surely can do better than that. In this post and the next one about democracy and bigotry, I review in detail over 100 years of history before Reagan's speech in 1980, a disgraceful history of Southern Jim Crow racism that aimed specifically at denying basic political and civil rights to black citizens.
Context is everything Buzz, and I posted not a transcript of RWR's speech as you did, but an actual live recording. That speech, in context, weaving "states rights" as racist code into neocon buzz words about regulation and taxation was clearly pandering to white Southern racism in order to solidify that "emerging Republican majority" that K. Philips wrote about in 1969, in a blatantly race-baiting exercise of the "Southern Strategy" that Buchanan devised for Nixon.
Talk about "revisionism"! You and the folks on Fox TV would feel right at home as Orwell's Big Brother in 1984.
Come on Richard, the information about Philadelphia is all over the internet and theirs been a recent revisionist history on the event.
History? C'mon, Buzz, you surely can do better than that. In this post and the next one about democracy and bigotry, I review in detail over 100 years of history before Reagan's speech in 1980, a disgraceful history of Southern Jim Crow racism that aimed specifically at denying basic political and civil rights to black citizens.
Context is everything Buzz, and I posted not a transcript of RWR's speech as you did, but an actual live recording. That speech, in context, weaving "states rights" as racist code into neocon buzz words about regulation and taxation was clearly pandering to white Southern racism in order to solidify that "emerging Republican majority" that K. Philips wrote about in 1969, in a blatantly race-baiting exercise of the "Southern Strategy" that Buchanan devised for Nixon.
Talk about "revisionism"! You and the folks on Fox TV would feel right at home as Orwell's Big Brother in 1984.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
maverick asks:
Are you suggesting that today's "states rights" are racist?
Not exclusively, Mav. Try reading what I actually say rather than the spin you want to put on it. As I said clearly in this post, the corporatist GOP for whom Reagan was a shill weren't racists, but they were using the racist code word "states rights" in order to put the GOP in power in order to advance their free market agenda of deregulation. Maybe that's where you come from too, in which case you're not a racist but, like Reagan, simply a cynical, unprincipled exploiter of divisive social issues like racism.
State's rights is now used by the GOP to exploit religious bigotry, too, as I hinted at in this post and as specifically stated in my following Easter reflection on bigotry.
Whether you have black friends or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant on a personal level, though, is whether you have ever felt the sting of bigotry as I have.
If you have, and you still countenance that "states rights" legal nonsense, then you're not only a cynic but a hypocrite as well.
Are you suggesting that today's "states rights" are racist?
Not exclusively, Mav. Try reading what I actually say rather than the spin you want to put on it. As I said clearly in this post, the corporatist GOP for whom Reagan was a shill weren't racists, but they were using the racist code word "states rights" in order to put the GOP in power in order to advance their free market agenda of deregulation. Maybe that's where you come from too, in which case you're not a racist but, like Reagan, simply a cynical, unprincipled exploiter of divisive social issues like racism.
State's rights is now used by the GOP to exploit religious bigotry, too, as I hinted at in this post and as specifically stated in my following Easter reflection on bigotry.
Whether you have black friends or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant on a personal level, though, is whether you have ever felt the sting of bigotry as I have.
If you have, and you still countenance that "states rights" legal nonsense, then you're not only a cynic but a hypocrite as well.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Gospel According to...
In response to: The Gospel According to...
Hi, Jack
Very funny post, but I heard somewhere that the Roman Soldier was actually named Josephus Venerdius. He was very good at getting "just the facts", too.
For a clearer account of Jesus' moral teachings, you might wish to consult the Jefferson Bible, if only to get a better handle on our American Constitution as drafted by Jefferson, and the true nature and extent of the "Christian values" that inform that document.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html
Very funny post, but I heard somewhere that the Roman Soldier was actually named Josephus Venerdius. He was very good at getting "just the facts", too.
For a clearer account of Jesus' moral teachings, you might wish to consult the Jefferson Bible, if only to get a better handle on our American Constitution as drafted by Jefferson, and the true nature and extent of the "Christian values" that inform that document.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html
Richard [Member]
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
In response to: Democracy And Bigotry, An Easter Reflection
Hi, Mav
What I'm actually referring to is the fact that in both the W. Va. and Kentucky primaries, where they actually asked the specific question on exit polls, about twenty percent of white Democrats candidly said the voted against Obama because he is black.
These were Democrats who had no special reason to favor GOP economic policies, who might have referred to so-called "values" issues but didn't, and who had no reason to lie about the matter.
So you think all those white Southerners who voted against Obama in the general election, the people who heard Reagan's states rights message loud and clear back in 1980, were voting for McCain because of policy issues -issues on which he was in fact a GOP "maverick," as opposed to against Obama based on race, the way many white Democrats admitted they did in the primaries? Remember, there were several former GOP states outside the deep south who voted for Obama this time.
So, Mav, send me a check for $50,000 and I'll get my attorney to draft a conveyance of all my right, title and interest in the Bourne Bridge to you.
What I'm actually referring to is the fact that in both the W. Va. and Kentucky primaries, where they actually asked the specific question on exit polls, about twenty percent of white Democrats candidly said the voted against Obama because he is black.
These were Democrats who had no special reason to favor GOP economic policies, who might have referred to so-called "values" issues but didn't, and who had no reason to lie about the matter.
So you think all those white Southerners who voted against Obama in the general election, the people who heard Reagan's states rights message loud and clear back in 1980, were voting for McCain because of policy issues -issues on which he was in fact a GOP "maverick," as opposed to against Obama based on race, the way many white Democrats admitted they did in the primaries? Remember, there were several former GOP states outside the deep south who voted for Obama this time.
So, Mav, send me a check for $50,000 and I'll get my attorney to draft a conveyance of all my right, title and interest in the Bourne Bridge to you.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
bittersweet wrote:
This country is still racist as hell, it's just gone underground, put a "respectable" face on it.
It's gotten better, Bitsy, but only incrementally as with Obama's ability to win based largely on the demonstrated total incompetence of GOP economic ideology.
But you're right,too, that racism hasn't gone away. We only need to look at the conservative majority's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Bartlett v. Strickland this March, severely cutting back on the Voting Rights Act on an appeal by North Carolina officials seeking to redistrict to create white majorities throughout the state. Those GOP court appointees are, as you say, trying to put a "respectable" face on it. Like I said before, "Plus ça change. . . ."
As Santayana remarked: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." That sounds a lot like Buzz, Possee, Snakedoo and even Maverick, except with Buzz, Possee and Snakedoo, I suspect it's not that they can't learn but won't learn because they want America to repeat the mistakes of the post-Reagan GOP, i.e. anti-constitutional ideology.
This country is still racist as hell, it's just gone underground, put a "respectable" face on it.
It's gotten better, Bitsy, but only incrementally as with Obama's ability to win based largely on the demonstrated total incompetence of GOP economic ideology.
But you're right,too, that racism hasn't gone away. We only need to look at the conservative majority's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Bartlett v. Strickland this March, severely cutting back on the Voting Rights Act on an appeal by North Carolina officials seeking to redistrict to create white majorities throughout the state. Those GOP court appointees are, as you say, trying to put a "respectable" face on it. Like I said before, "Plus ça change. . . ."
As Santayana remarked: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." That sounds a lot like Buzz, Possee, Snakedoo and even Maverick, except with Buzz, Possee and Snakedoo, I suspect it's not that they can't learn but won't learn because they want America to repeat the mistakes of the post-Reagan GOP, i.e. anti-constitutional ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
possee wrote.
Why engage an attorney who has the advantage of legal speak and the vernacular? Forget the attempt to offer an opposing opinion here..it falls on deaf ears..
No, poss, I hear what you, Buzz, Mav et al. are saying. I just happen to disagree, and my disagreement isn't based on "legal speak and the vernacular" but on historical facts and informed analysis under the Consitution. I invite the same from you, but all I get is regurgitated nonsense from Fox TV. You're the deaf one, and there none so deaf as those who will not hear, which is my basic point in all these posts.
The American right today is so self deluded by the received wisdom of neoconservative ideology, that they are deaf and blind to both historical reality and informed constitutional reasoning.
The states rights legal nonsense is just one aspect of this sorry truth about today's GOP, and it's a sad heritage for Republicans of old like TR and Eisenhower, principled conservative leaders who never shirked their constitutional responsibilities even when it angered many in their own party.
Why engage an attorney who has the advantage of legal speak and the vernacular? Forget the attempt to offer an opposing opinion here..it falls on deaf ears..
No, poss, I hear what you, Buzz, Mav et al. are saying. I just happen to disagree, and my disagreement isn't based on "legal speak and the vernacular" but on historical facts and informed analysis under the Consitution. I invite the same from you, but all I get is regurgitated nonsense from Fox TV. You're the deaf one, and there none so deaf as those who will not hear, which is my basic point in all these posts.
The American right today is so self deluded by the received wisdom of neoconservative ideology, that they are deaf and blind to both historical reality and informed constitutional reasoning.
The states rights legal nonsense is just one aspect of this sorry truth about today's GOP, and it's a sad heritage for Republicans of old like TR and Eisenhower, principled conservative leaders who never shirked their constitutional responsibilities even when it angered many in their own party.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
maverick wrote:
I am a conservative independent. States rights means states rights. And has nothing to do with race.
For a self professed "conservative," Mav, you seem to know damned little about our history. States rights was the legal rationale for Jim Crow for about 100 years, and then when that nonsense was overturned in 1954 in Brown v. Bd. of Ed., and subsequent federal court rulings, it was the defiant cry of Faubus, Barnett and Wallace against racial integration in the South.
When Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress in 1964, with support from liberal Northern Republicans, Dixiecrats like Thurmond and Helms began bolting to the GOP, and by 1980, when RWR gave that little speech about states rights, the South was moving solidly GOP, based primarily on white, racist "states rights" opposition to integration.
That's history, Mav, based on documented facts and not ideology or "bigotry". Here I thought you knew better than to use desperate invective like Buzz does when he knows he's got nuthin' else.
History, Mav, you oughta try reading it sometime.
I am a conservative independent. States rights means states rights. And has nothing to do with race.
For a self professed "conservative," Mav, you seem to know damned little about our history. States rights was the legal rationale for Jim Crow for about 100 years, and then when that nonsense was overturned in 1954 in Brown v. Bd. of Ed., and subsequent federal court rulings, it was the defiant cry of Faubus, Barnett and Wallace against racial integration in the South.
When Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress in 1964, with support from liberal Northern Republicans, Dixiecrats like Thurmond and Helms began bolting to the GOP, and by 1980, when RWR gave that little speech about states rights, the South was moving solidly GOP, based primarily on white, racist "states rights" opposition to integration.
That's history, Mav, based on documented facts and not ideology or "bigotry". Here I thought you knew better than to use desperate invective like Buzz does when he knows he's got nuthin' else.
History, Mav, you oughta try reading it sometime.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Buzz wrote:
After appearing at the Mississippi fair, Reagan then flew to an Urban League meeting to declare in a major speech "I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans. Damn racist.
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz, "there you go again" as Ronnie himelf might say.
First, you flatly misstate my argument. I never said RWR was a racist, only a cyincal race baiter. He was a pimp for corporate America and would say anything, anywhere, depending on his audience to get the votes needed to put the GOP in power and thereby begin to implement its free market capitalist idelology of deregulating both industry and finance.
Your example of a speech to the Urban League, giving them a diametrically opposed message from what he said in Phila., MS, only proves my point. Within a week he was talking out of two different sides of his mouth, states rights as code for Jim Crow in Mississippi, and civil rights to the Urban League in New York.
That's not racist, Buzz, but it was clealry racial politics in Phila., MS.
After appearing at the Mississippi fair, Reagan then flew to an Urban League meeting to declare in a major speech "I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans. Damn racist.
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz, "there you go again" as Ronnie himelf might say.
First, you flatly misstate my argument. I never said RWR was a racist, only a cyincal race baiter. He was a pimp for corporate America and would say anything, anywhere, depending on his audience to get the votes needed to put the GOP in power and thereby begin to implement its free market capitalist idelology of deregulating both industry and finance.
Your example of a speech to the Urban League, giving them a diametrically opposed message from what he said in Phila., MS, only proves my point. Within a week he was talking out of two different sides of his mouth, states rights as code for Jim Crow in Mississippi, and civil rights to the Urban League in New York.
That's not racist, Buzz, but it was clealry racial politics in Phila., MS.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
voiceofreason22 wrote:
"What was the point of the Constitution?"
I don't know for sure what everyone in Philadelphia had in mind when they signed the Constitution in 1788, but a good place to start understanding it is to read the words Jefferson wrote and they all signed.
Start with the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common dedfense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I think that sort of gets to the point, or really several points that must be kept in balance through exercising the specific powers given to the federal government, and upholing individual right and liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights, not by ignoring them or picking and choosing on behalf of any political, cultural or economic special interest.
You got a better idea where to look?
"What was the point of the Constitution?"
I don't know for sure what everyone in Philadelphia had in mind when they signed the Constitution in 1788, but a good place to start understanding it is to read the words Jefferson wrote and they all signed.
Start with the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common dedfense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I think that sort of gets to the point, or really several points that must be kept in balance through exercising the specific powers given to the federal government, and upholing individual right and liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights, not by ignoring them or picking and choosing on behalf of any political, cultural or economic special interest.
You got a better idea where to look?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Buzz wrote:
"To liberals, however, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation."
You got it wrong, Buzz. States rights means racism not only to liberals but to white Southern racists who used it to justify Jim Crow segregation for over 100 years and still shout it defiantly to oppose federal civil rights laws.
The fact that Reagan chose a fetid backwater of racism like Phila, MS, where Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner were murdered just 15 years earlier in the name of Jim Crow, for helping blacks register to vote, says all anyone needs to know about what he meant, just as all those white racists across the south knew it then. You only pretend not to know it, because you don't want America to see what a race-baiting pimp Reagan really was, not a racist but a cynical, soulless GOP demagogue.
Why didn't he begin campaigning about all that other "lofty" stuff in a major city? Because he wanted to weave it into "states rights", as unambiguous code for white Southern bigots all across the South, to get their votes.
"To liberals, however, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation."
You got it wrong, Buzz. States rights means racism not only to liberals but to white Southern racists who used it to justify Jim Crow segregation for over 100 years and still shout it defiantly to oppose federal civil rights laws.
The fact that Reagan chose a fetid backwater of racism like Phila, MS, where Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner were murdered just 15 years earlier in the name of Jim Crow, for helping blacks register to vote, says all anyone needs to know about what he meant, just as all those white racists across the south knew it then. You only pretend not to know it, because you don't want America to see what a race-baiting pimp Reagan really was, not a racist but a cynical, soulless GOP demagogue.
Why didn't he begin campaigning about all that other "lofty" stuff in a major city? Because he wanted to weave it into "states rights", as unambiguous code for white Southern bigots all across the South, to get their votes.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Hi, Buzz
You really think I'm a "moonbat" huh? Or is that just more cynical neocon invective based on the fact that you guys don't have anything left -not that you ever really did have anything.
If you've read my posts, and you must have since you so freely comment on them, you know that I oppose extreme ideologies from both left and right, and I insist only that our leaders hew strictly to their duties under the Constitution, not any ideology.
In this post I expressly praised Ike for doing this in Little Rock after Brown v. Board of Ed., as well as JFK at 'Ol Miss. I've expressly credited Republican presidents, TR for reigning in the Railroads, and Coolidge for his honest capitalist beliefs, as contrasted with the extreme "free market" ideology of today's GOP.
Please explain exactly how this makes me a "moonbat". Show us what you got here, Buzz. Just remember what Ike said about how he despised anyone who throws rocks from the gutter, left or right, at people in the center. Do you mean I'm a "moonbat" just because I throw your rocks back at you in the wingnut gutter?
You really think I'm a "moonbat" huh? Or is that just more cynical neocon invective based on the fact that you guys don't have anything left -not that you ever really did have anything.
If you've read my posts, and you must have since you so freely comment on them, you know that I oppose extreme ideologies from both left and right, and I insist only that our leaders hew strictly to their duties under the Constitution, not any ideology.
In this post I expressly praised Ike for doing this in Little Rock after Brown v. Board of Ed., as well as JFK at 'Ol Miss. I've expressly credited Republican presidents, TR for reigning in the Railroads, and Coolidge for his honest capitalist beliefs, as contrasted with the extreme "free market" ideology of today's GOP.
Please explain exactly how this makes me a "moonbat". Show us what you got here, Buzz. Just remember what Ike said about how he despised anyone who throws rocks from the gutter, left or right, at people in the center. Do you mean I'm a "moonbat" just because I throw your rocks back at you in the wingnut gutter?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
karent2 wrote:
"A practicing attorney and has timne to write a lengthy piece of crap like this?"
Piece of crap? Now, that's intelligent debate isn't it? You been honing your rhetorical skills with snakedoo?
You're entitled to your opinion K2, but why don't you back it up? Give us some facts to show that your hero Ronnie the Great Commumicator wasn't expressly pimping a racist message to those Klansmen in Mississippi when he began his campaign there in 1980 preaching states rights. What you got on this one? Any facts?
My open question on your carping about "socialism" is still unanswered,too. Please tell us where the Constitution says anything about capitalism or "free markets" as either a necessary or desirable means to promote our general welfare -a purpose that is mentioned in the Constitution itself. Got anything on this one?
Until you can answer these questions with specific facts, it's obvious that it's you who's full of it, the same ideological excrement that Bush and the GOP dumped on us over the past 8 years.
BTW, my business ain't your business. Capiche?
"A practicing attorney and has timne to write a lengthy piece of crap like this?"
Piece of crap? Now, that's intelligent debate isn't it? You been honing your rhetorical skills with snakedoo?
You're entitled to your opinion K2, but why don't you back it up? Give us some facts to show that your hero Ronnie the Great Commumicator wasn't expressly pimping a racist message to those Klansmen in Mississippi when he began his campaign there in 1980 preaching states rights. What you got on this one? Any facts?
My open question on your carping about "socialism" is still unanswered,too. Please tell us where the Constitution says anything about capitalism or "free markets" as either a necessary or desirable means to promote our general welfare -a purpose that is mentioned in the Constitution itself. Got anything on this one?
Until you can answer these questions with specific facts, it's obvious that it's you who's full of it, the same ideological excrement that Bush and the GOP dumped on us over the past 8 years.
BTW, my business ain't your business. Capiche?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Hi, Mav
I'm happy to hear your son lives in Philly and not Philadelphia, Miss., even if he's white. I've been to Philly a couple of times, once to take depositions in my law practice and once to visit relatives. On the whole, I'd rather be in purgatory than anywhere in Mississippi.
As for FSMA, Clinton signed the bill, but who enacted it? A president has only so much political capital, and here Clinton just struck a deal with the GOP Congressional majority. The relevance of FSMA today is not the CRA provisions per se, but the fact that globalization of the financial markets makes it much harder for Obama to fix the systemic problems that were actually caused by deregulation per se, with CRA subprime loans only a small part of the problem -look to a future post on this subject.
Meanwhile, you got anything yet, any facts, to support your hero Ronnie against my well-documented case of his race-baiting in 1980? That, after all, was the main point of this post, no matter how desperately you and Buzz want to obfuscate it with trivial, irrelevant factoids about Bill Clinton.
I'm happy to hear your son lives in Philly and not Philadelphia, Miss., even if he's white. I've been to Philly a couple of times, once to take depositions in my law practice and once to visit relatives. On the whole, I'd rather be in purgatory than anywhere in Mississippi.
As for FSMA, Clinton signed the bill, but who enacted it? A president has only so much political capital, and here Clinton just struck a deal with the GOP Congressional majority. The relevance of FSMA today is not the CRA provisions per se, but the fact that globalization of the financial markets makes it much harder for Obama to fix the systemic problems that were actually caused by deregulation per se, with CRA subprime loans only a small part of the problem -look to a future post on this subject.
Meanwhile, you got anything yet, any facts, to support your hero Ronnie against my well-documented case of his race-baiting in 1980? That, after all, was the main point of this post, no matter how desperately you and Buzz want to obfuscate it with trivial, irrelevant factoids about Bill Clinton.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Hi, Mav
Look back at my prior posts. Where did I defend Clinton's economic policies? I've always been critical of the "free market" capitalist ideology,including the wide open globalization BS of the American corporate elite, no matter which party implements it.
My larger point is how free market capitalist ideology, preached by the GOP for 40 years, is morally, politically and economically bankrupt. It was brought to its final collapse through 8 years of GOP misgovernance.
My specific point here is how sleasebag Reagan used racist, gutter politics to get the GOP into power so they could implement their neocon economic BS and that, clearly, is what bankrupted America. Clinton made a mistake? So why didn't Bush and his GOP Congress fix it sometime beteen 2000 and 2006? Because they didn't want to. Fact is, no matter what Clinton did, Bush had 8 freaking years to fix it, didn't he? End of story on that kind of trivial blame game talking point.
Now try to defend your GOP hero Reagan against my documented charge of race baiting. Got any facts, or just more GOP BS factoids?
Look back at my prior posts. Where did I defend Clinton's economic policies? I've always been critical of the "free market" capitalist ideology,including the wide open globalization BS of the American corporate elite, no matter which party implements it.
My larger point is how free market capitalist ideology, preached by the GOP for 40 years, is morally, politically and economically bankrupt. It was brought to its final collapse through 8 years of GOP misgovernance.
My specific point here is how sleasebag Reagan used racist, gutter politics to get the GOP into power so they could implement their neocon economic BS and that, clearly, is what bankrupted America. Clinton made a mistake? So why didn't Bush and his GOP Congress fix it sometime beteen 2000 and 2006? Because they didn't want to. Fact is, no matter what Clinton did, Bush had 8 freaking years to fix it, didn't he? End of story on that kind of trivial blame game talking point.
Now try to defend your GOP hero Reagan against my documented charge of race baiting. Got any facts, or just more GOP BS factoids?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Hi, Buzz
Thanks again for another example of GOP political obstructionism in action. You can't defend the past eight years of GOP misgovernance, and you've got no realistic or even honest policy alternatives to offer, so you try to spread the blame by diverting the debate to what Clinton did, what Barney Frank did, blah, blah, blah. You can't actually refute my basic Constitutional argument:
"Get past the specific factual context of segregation and Reagan's demagogic rhetoric about taxes, regulation and other such specific policy tools which the Constitution you drafted actually gives to the federal government, and consider what these two 20th Century presidents were actually saying about how the Constitution. . . is designed to work, i.e. the democratic constitutional process itself."
So you do what GOP demagogues always do, you change the subject and belch up trivial political factoids, Frank said this,Clinton boffed her, etc. to divert the public from how royally the GOP has screwed us over the past 40 years, and in the Oval Office too! Makes Bubba look like a virgin!
Thanks again for another example of GOP political obstructionism in action. You can't defend the past eight years of GOP misgovernance, and you've got no realistic or even honest policy alternatives to offer, so you try to spread the blame by diverting the debate to what Clinton did, what Barney Frank did, blah, blah, blah. You can't actually refute my basic Constitutional argument:
"Get past the specific factual context of segregation and Reagan's demagogic rhetoric about taxes, regulation and other such specific policy tools which the Constitution you drafted actually gives to the federal government, and consider what these two 20th Century presidents were actually saying about how the Constitution. . . is designed to work, i.e. the democratic constitutional process itself."
So you do what GOP demagogues always do, you change the subject and belch up trivial political factoids, Frank said this,Clinton boffed her, etc. to divert the public from how royally the GOP has screwed us over the past 40 years, and in the Oval Office too! Makes Bubba look like a virgin!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
In response to: Philadelphia: An American "Tale Of Two Cities"
Hi, Buzz
Thanks so much for your incisive comment, illustrating far more eloquently than I ever could the truth of Wilde's remark that shallow, unprinicipled cynics like yourself and today's GOP "leadership" are people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
And, believe me, that's the whole story.
Thanks so much for your incisive comment, illustrating far more eloquently than I ever could the truth of Wilde's remark that shallow, unprinicipled cynics like yourself and today's GOP "leadership" are people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
And, believe me, that's the whole story.
Richard [Member]
In response to: These are Taxing Times
In response to: These are Taxing Times
We had the vote tonight at Falmouth TM, and it went down to defeat after about 20 minutes of debate. The discussion focussed properly on the efficacy and fairness of the tax, plus the fact that there may be a better way to address this issue by TM vote only, so I voted no.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Gay “Marriage” As An Exercise In Ideological Extremism - Part II
In response to: Gay “Marriage” As An Exercise In Ideological Extremism - Part II
shootingshrink wrote:
"The question is not the range of the homophobic Scalia's power but whether or not gay marriage is something that Obama wants to include on his political capital work list. We have yet to see."
Shoot, Shoot! If you really believe that you're the one who's way, way out there in la la land. That's the one issue that can make Obama a one term president, not war or the economy.
The issue is indeed the virulence of Scalia's homophobia. He's gonna be the author of the ruling against every gay marriage appeal that reaches the Court over the next decade or so.
That's the long-term political reality of presidential politics about which Ms. Goodridge's lawyers didn't have a clue and, as Barney Frank recognizes, neither do the gay rights extremists who think now's a good time to push gay marriages on other states under the full faith and credit clause.
That'll be political stupidity. Like Walt Whitman, I hear America singing, and the song ain't very sweet for our civil rights while Scalia's 5-4 conservative majority gets to write the lyrics.
"The question is not the range of the homophobic Scalia's power but whether or not gay marriage is something that Obama wants to include on his political capital work list. We have yet to see."
Shoot, Shoot! If you really believe that you're the one who's way, way out there in la la land. That's the one issue that can make Obama a one term president, not war or the economy.
The issue is indeed the virulence of Scalia's homophobia. He's gonna be the author of the ruling against every gay marriage appeal that reaches the Court over the next decade or so.
That's the long-term political reality of presidential politics about which Ms. Goodridge's lawyers didn't have a clue and, as Barney Frank recognizes, neither do the gay rights extremists who think now's a good time to push gay marriages on other states under the full faith and credit clause.
That'll be political stupidity. Like Walt Whitman, I hear America singing, and the song ain't very sweet for our civil rights while Scalia's 5-4 conservative majority gets to write the lyrics.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouch! The War On Cannabis Still Hurts
In response to: Ouch! The War On Cannabis Still Hurts
When I was 10 or so my folks went out one evening leaving me home alone. People could do that in suburbia back then in the '50s. So I watched an episode of Dragnet, with Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday, you know, "just the facts ma'am" Joe Friday. The story was about some young people who (gasp!)had smoked marijuana, and we all heard from LAPD Sgt. Joe Friday how terrible and mortally sinful that was! Scared the bejesus out of me.
Of course, a decade later when I first actually got to "inhale" a bit, I immediately realized what a bunch of crap all that 1950s anti-marijuana stuff was. I began to smoke regularly and affected a hippie life style for awhile, dropping out like Leary said.
After a few years, I dropped back in and stopped inhaling and ingesting all those esoteric substances, not because they were "evil" but, for me, it was just dumb to continue. I had "other priorities" by then.
I don't miss it at all, but I can't really criticize anyone who still tokes and I don't. To each his own is the essence of liberty and it's none of the state's damned business.
Of course, a decade later when I first actually got to "inhale" a bit, I immediately realized what a bunch of crap all that 1950s anti-marijuana stuff was. I began to smoke regularly and affected a hippie life style for awhile, dropping out like Leary said.
After a few years, I dropped back in and stopped inhaling and ingesting all those esoteric substances, not because they were "evil" but, for me, it was just dumb to continue. I had "other priorities" by then.
I don't miss it at all, but I can't really criticize anyone who still tokes and I don't. To each his own is the essence of liberty and it's none of the state's damned business.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
Monponsett wrote:
Depending on when you think that Life truly begins, I know some chronic mastrubators who are damned like 100000 times over. Many read my column.
LOL!
Depending on when you think that Life truly begins, I know some chronic mastrubators who are damned like 100000 times over. Many read my column.
LOL!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
joe wrote:
Jesus I plead your blood over my sins and the sins of my nation. God end abortion and send revival to America.
That's nice, Joe. So now let's both open up our dog-eared Holy Bibles to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and really listen to him.
Matt. 5, 38-39: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person 43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
So please join me in praying, as Jesus taught us, to stop all American "holy" wars of agression, defiling his name, as in Iraq today.
Now let's do it as Jesus taught: Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. Matt. 6:1.
We can serve both Jesus and the Constitution by joining together, in private and without any government involvement. to pray that our leaders actually practice his teaching.
Jesus I plead your blood over my sins and the sins of my nation. God end abortion and send revival to America.
That's nice, Joe. So now let's both open up our dog-eared Holy Bibles to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and really listen to him.
Matt. 5, 38-39: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person 43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
So please join me in praying, as Jesus taught us, to stop all American "holy" wars of agression, defiling his name, as in Iraq today.
Now let's do it as Jesus taught: Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. Matt. 6:1.
We can serve both Jesus and the Constitution by joining together, in private and without any government involvement. to pray that our leaders actually practice his teaching.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lead, follow, or get out of the way
In response to: Lead, follow, or get out of the way
Hi, Dick
These anti-windfarm pols really don't understand the difference between protectionism and environmentalism. Sometimes protection is necessary to serve an important biodiversity concern, as with breeding piping plovers, but it is never a valid environmental concern simply to preserve "pristine" saltwater views -especially from seashore McMansions that drive the cost of housing up all over the Cape. If only the wind farms would actually devalue those properties it would benefit everyone, but that's nonsense anyway.
"Pristine" views are a two way street, so why shouldn't sailors on the Sound be entitled to see the same uncluttered shoreline that Gosnold saw? Let's just tear down all those ugly boxes that take up every half acre of shoreline and get really pristine about our Sound. Unless they're willing to do that, the anti-wind farm hacks should just shut up with their ersatz environmental concern for our "pristine" water views.
These anti-windfarm pols really don't understand the difference between protectionism and environmentalism. Sometimes protection is necessary to serve an important biodiversity concern, as with breeding piping plovers, but it is never a valid environmental concern simply to preserve "pristine" saltwater views -especially from seashore McMansions that drive the cost of housing up all over the Cape. If only the wind farms would actually devalue those properties it would benefit everyone, but that's nonsense anyway.
"Pristine" views are a two way street, so why shouldn't sailors on the Sound be entitled to see the same uncluttered shoreline that Gosnold saw? Let's just tear down all those ugly boxes that take up every half acre of shoreline and get really pristine about our Sound. Unless they're willing to do that, the anti-wind farm hacks should just shut up with their ersatz environmental concern for our "pristine" water views.
Richard [Member]
In response to: These are Taxing Times
In response to: These are Taxing Times
A similar article is coming up for debate at Falmouth Town Meeting tonight. I listened to both sides at the precinct meeting last week, and I still have an open mind about it.
I will greatly appreciate it if the debate tonight focuses, like your argument here, solely on weighing the substantive pros and cons of the specific tax at issue. If so, I am leaning toward a vote against it, flaming "liberal" that I am in the eyes of many.
However, if too many people get up just to rant about "taxes" in general as a political matter, as one candidate for Selectman did at the precinct meeting, that will surely persuade me not only to vote for the tax but to speak in favor of it as well, just to counter that kind of mindless anti-tax ideology which, like America itself, I've already suffered from way too much in the form of divisive, "conservative" demagoguery on taxes and everything else over the past eight years.
I will greatly appreciate it if the debate tonight focuses, like your argument here, solely on weighing the substantive pros and cons of the specific tax at issue. If so, I am leaning toward a vote against it, flaming "liberal" that I am in the eyes of many.
However, if too many people get up just to rant about "taxes" in general as a political matter, as one candidate for Selectman did at the precinct meeting, that will surely persuade me not only to vote for the tax but to speak in favor of it as well, just to counter that kind of mindless anti-tax ideology which, like America itself, I've already suffered from way too much in the form of divisive, "conservative" demagoguery on taxes and everything else over the past eight years.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
James wrote:
"You seem to think abortions started with Roe v Wade."
The basic legal principle behind Roe v. Wade was announced several years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut which struck down a state law banning the sale of contraceptives. It was in Griswold that the Court first specifically ruled that our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers and effects" necessarily includes a right to privacy in our personal affairs as against governmental interference.
These pro-life "moralists" just loathed Griwsold because it prevented them from imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else about contraception. Using a rubber is a "sin", don't you know, just like masturbation is a sin because it interferes with God's "plan" for every new human life.
Then came Justice Blackmun's meticulously balanced opinion in Roe v. Wade, based on ontological biology, weighing the woman's right to privacy vs. the foetus' alleged "right to life," and all those knee-jerk pro-lifers like Kelly just hit the roof.
"You seem to think abortions started with Roe v Wade."
The basic legal principle behind Roe v. Wade was announced several years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut which struck down a state law banning the sale of contraceptives. It was in Griswold that the Court first specifically ruled that our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers and effects" necessarily includes a right to privacy in our personal affairs as against governmental interference.
These pro-life "moralists" just loathed Griwsold because it prevented them from imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else about contraception. Using a rubber is a "sin", don't you know, just like masturbation is a sin because it interferes with God's "plan" for every new human life.
Then came Justice Blackmun's meticulously balanced opinion in Roe v. Wade, based on ontological biology, weighing the woman's right to privacy vs. the foetus' alleged "right to life," and all those knee-jerk pro-lifers like Kelly just hit the roof.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
In response to: Abortion and the Moral Consensus
The first amendment says no state establishment of religion, while we all get to believe whatever we want on matters of faith.
It's a fundamental democratic principle that morality itself must be decided by each individual for himself, where any "morality" imposed by a power elite, either governmental or theocratic, isn't "morality" at all, but authoritarian social and behavioral control.
You're free to believe in the existence of a soul, but I don't have to, and it's none of the government's business to enforce your belief against mine.
The abortion debate comes right down to this -when does a separate human being start to exist in the mother's womb? The Burger court answered that question based on the best science available and recognized a woman's absolute right to abortion in the first trimester and a qualified right in the second, as against any separate "right to life" of the foetus.
You don't like it? Fine, move to the Vatican, because the "pro-life" case isn't based on science but on authoritarian religious teaching that a human "soul" exists at conception.
It's a fundamental democratic principle that morality itself must be decided by each individual for himself, where any "morality" imposed by a power elite, either governmental or theocratic, isn't "morality" at all, but authoritarian social and behavioral control.
You're free to believe in the existence of a soul, but I don't have to, and it's none of the government's business to enforce your belief against mine.
The abortion debate comes right down to this -when does a separate human being start to exist in the mother's womb? The Burger court answered that question based on the best science available and recognized a woman's absolute right to abortion in the first trimester and a qualified right in the second, as against any separate "right to life" of the foetus.
You don't like it? Fine, move to the Vatican, because the "pro-life" case isn't based on science but on authoritarian religious teaching that a human "soul" exists at conception.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
bittersweet wrote:
I used to really Like McCain, until he ran for president, and caved to the hateful wing-nuts.
I used to respect McCain as well, until after the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary when Bush slimed him about his adopted black child, implying it was a love child. Then, when Bush asked him for an endorsement he caved to party pressure instead of doing the honorable thing by telling Bush he didn't deserve an endorsement because of the kind of sleasy racial politics he plays. McCain didn't have to endorse Gore, but he surely didn't have to endorse Bush either if he had any integrity.
Then there was the debate scheduling flap, when McCain went through the motions of having to get right back to Washington because of the financial crisis, and Obama just called his bluff.
I remember thinking at the time I'd much rather have Obama dealing with people like Putin, Kim or Ahmadinejad than someone who just caves in like McCain when push comes to shove.
I used to really Like McCain, until he ran for president, and caved to the hateful wing-nuts.
I used to respect McCain as well, until after the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary when Bush slimed him about his adopted black child, implying it was a love child. Then, when Bush asked him for an endorsement he caved to party pressure instead of doing the honorable thing by telling Bush he didn't deserve an endorsement because of the kind of sleasy racial politics he plays. McCain didn't have to endorse Gore, but he surely didn't have to endorse Bush either if he had any integrity.
Then there was the debate scheduling flap, when McCain went through the motions of having to get right back to Washington because of the financial crisis, and Obama just called his bluff.
I remember thinking at the time I'd much rather have Obama dealing with people like Putin, Kim or Ahmadinejad than someone who just caves in like McCain when push comes to shove.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
Hi, Buzz
It's just as I suspected. You are not a typical Limbaugh dittohead moron, but you are instead a person of intelligence who is capable of articulating substantive arguments and presenting them in interesting, nuanced ways instead of the shouting we typically get from right wing media hacks. This only confirms my suggestion that, when you engage in mindless sloganeering, attempting to beat people over the head with ideology, you are indeed one of the cynical, anti-democratic neocons serving the corporate elite.
You are not someone who honestly wants to see capitalism work for everyone's benefit, as I do and as honest Republicans like TR and Coolidge believed it should. Shame on you for that.
American capitalism worked in an earlier era as noted by F.McDonald because it was based on creating jobs and production rather than "free market" financial scams like today.
As to your quote from Madison before the Constitution was signed, that's the same old "original intent" nonsense in service of states rights which flatly contradicts what the Consitution actually says.
It's just as I suspected. You are not a typical Limbaugh dittohead moron, but you are instead a person of intelligence who is capable of articulating substantive arguments and presenting them in interesting, nuanced ways instead of the shouting we typically get from right wing media hacks. This only confirms my suggestion that, when you engage in mindless sloganeering, attempting to beat people over the head with ideology, you are indeed one of the cynical, anti-democratic neocons serving the corporate elite.
You are not someone who honestly wants to see capitalism work for everyone's benefit, as I do and as honest Republicans like TR and Coolidge believed it should. Shame on you for that.
American capitalism worked in an earlier era as noted by F.McDonald because it was based on creating jobs and production rather than "free market" financial scams like today.
As to your quote from Madison before the Constitution was signed, that's the same old "original intent" nonsense in service of states rights which flatly contradicts what the Consitution actually says.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cape Cod whales spur radical wind turbine blade design
In response to: Cape Cod whales spur radical wind turbine blade design
Your comment is right on. The Cape Wind project needs to get put in place ASAP, so we can then move on to siting more and more of them, inshore, offshore, on land -wherever they can deliver the most energy based on the most favorable conditions.
Those are the only meaningful criteria for people who understand that preserving "views" from million dollar waterfront homes is not the same thing as environmentalism.
Those are the only meaningful criteria for people who understand that preserving "views" from million dollar waterfront homes is not the same thing as environmentalism.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
Hi, Buzz.
It's not really my personality you get, more like a mirror image where the rocks you throw at me get thrown right back at you. Only diff is, Buzz, that in this little game of rock tossing I've got a lot stronger arm and a lot better aim than you do.
You want to play nice, I play nice. You want to play nasty, by hurling invective and accusations, trying to dismiss my position by falsely describing it as "anti-capitalist" and identifying me with rioting thugs, I'm gonna play nasty and hurl right back at you -every time. I'm not President, so I don't have to hold my peace or put up with political dross like yours that really deserves no respect as Obama is doing with the GOP right now.
BTW, I'm still waiting for you and snakedoo to put up on all that drivel about "socialism" by pointing out exactly where the Constitution says anything about "capitalism" or "free markets" as being either a necessary or preferred means for the government to carry out its Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.
Whaddya got on this one Buzz? You find anything in there yet?
It's not really my personality you get, more like a mirror image where the rocks you throw at me get thrown right back at you. Only diff is, Buzz, that in this little game of rock tossing I've got a lot stronger arm and a lot better aim than you do.
You want to play nice, I play nice. You want to play nasty, by hurling invective and accusations, trying to dismiss my position by falsely describing it as "anti-capitalist" and identifying me with rioting thugs, I'm gonna play nasty and hurl right back at you -every time. I'm not President, so I don't have to hold my peace or put up with political dross like yours that really deserves no respect as Obama is doing with the GOP right now.
BTW, I'm still waiting for you and snakedoo to put up on all that drivel about "socialism" by pointing out exactly where the Constitution says anything about "capitalism" or "free markets" as being either a necessary or preferred means for the government to carry out its Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.
Whaddya got on this one Buzz? You find anything in there yet?
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
estherandson wrote:
"We have a great moment in history to advance beside finding solutions for today's down failings, We can grow with an entirely new outlook. When the private sector cannot manage their business, the Government has to take up, where the country and the people are lost in hope and trust."
I don't disagree, Esther, but I believe that Obama is taking the right approach, for now, to see if we can get back on track with a broad national consensus that doesn't serve any ideology except the rule of law under the Constitution.
Before implementing any real, systematic "socialist" economic agenda, it's far better to rebuild the economy using viable, existing capitalist structures while reestabishing effective regulatory controls. Capitalism isn't the problem. It's the GOP's "free market" ideology and deregulation.
So, if it works, we're all better off. If not, it'll only be because Obama gave all those "best people" in finance and industry enough rope to hang themselves, enabling him to make more drastic changes later, if necessary, with much wider popular support.
"We have a great moment in history to advance beside finding solutions for today's down failings, We can grow with an entirely new outlook. When the private sector cannot manage their business, the Government has to take up, where the country and the people are lost in hope and trust."
I don't disagree, Esther, but I believe that Obama is taking the right approach, for now, to see if we can get back on track with a broad national consensus that doesn't serve any ideology except the rule of law under the Constitution.
Before implementing any real, systematic "socialist" economic agenda, it's far better to rebuild the economy using viable, existing capitalist structures while reestabishing effective regulatory controls. Capitalism isn't the problem. It's the GOP's "free market" ideology and deregulation.
So, if it works, we're all better off. If not, it'll only be because Obama gave all those "best people" in finance and industry enough rope to hang themselves, enabling him to make more drastic changes later, if necessary, with much wider popular support.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
In response to: On Wingnuts, Moonbats And Neo-Con Men
Hi, Buzz
Your comment here, as usual, reveals the same level of incomprehension that is purposely advanced by right-wing media hacks on places like Fox TV.
Speaking of things across the Pond, since you bring it up as being somehow relevant, I am struck by how closely your worldview conforms to an editorial comment from the December 10, 2000, Sunday Observer about the mind-numbing effects of TV snooze programs which serve primarily to show:
"the world as it might be viewed by a fly on the wall, which discerns no special providence in the fall of a sparrow
Your comment here, as usual, reveals the same level of incomprehension that is purposely advanced by right-wing media hacks on places like Fox TV.
Speaking of things across the Pond, since you bring it up as being somehow relevant, I am struck by how closely your worldview conforms to an editorial comment from the December 10, 2000, Sunday Observer about the mind-numbing effects of TV snooze programs which serve primarily to show:
"the world as it might be viewed by a fly on the wall, which discerns no special providence in the fall of a sparrow
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
Khalid will get as fair a trial in NYC as he would anywhere else in America, and a lot fairer than before a military tribunal. It will be a panel of 12 ordinary citizens who hear his case, as opposed to a panel of military officers.
The biggest joke in the OJ trial was not the ineptitude of Assistant D.A.s Clark and Darden, letting Furman tell Flea Bailey that he'd never in his whole life used the word "nigger," but D.A. Garcetti himself who decided to hold the trial in the 'hood instead of in Brentwood where OJ lived, where the murder was committed and where his actual peers resided.
Holder and the U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New York are a whole lot more competent.