Up at bat!

Up at bat! 17 March 2008

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems, U.S. Senate.
trackback

10:15 am ET Philadelphia… Be there or catch it on endless cable runs… 😉

Surely there is something else going on somewhere. War, pestilence, plague… collapsing bears?

Surely?….

This just seems … dumb:

Durbin’s New Defense of Obama on the Wright Issue [Byron York]

The Obama campaign has just wrapped up a conference call with reporters. On the call, top Obama supporter Sen. Dick Durbin claimed that “many” of the controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright were made before Barack Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ. “Many of the quotes that have been disclosed publicly were made by Reverend Wright at a time before Barack Obama became part of his congregation and in places where Barack Obama was not even present,” Durbin said. Later, asked about fallout from the Wright affair among Democrats, Durbin said, “Let me just say that the people I have spoken to understand, as I hope we all do, that to hold Sen. Obama accountable for speeches and sermons that were given before he joined the church is fundamentally unfair.”

To my knowledge, Wright’s statements “God damn America,” “America’s-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost,” and “U.S. of KKK A” were made while Obama was part of the Trinity congregation, although the senator says he was not present in church for any of them. I don’t believe Obama has claimed that they were made before he joined the church, and I’m not sure why Durbin is using that argument now.

The Obama campaign quickly ended the call after the second Wright question.

03/17 04:16 PM

And one reason when the Dems are really up a tree I like to walk thru the conservative tulips…

And the catch up:

Durbin’s Mistake [Byron York]

I just asked the Obama campaign whether Sen. Dick Durbin was mistaken when he told reporters a couple of hours ago that, “Many of the quotes that have been disclosed publicly were made by Reverend Wright at a time before Barack Obama became part of his congregation…” and that, “the people I have spoken to understand, as I hope we all do, that to hold Sen. Obama accountable for speeches and sermons that were given before he joined the church is fundamentally unfair.” I got back a one-word answer: Yes.

03/17 05:40 PM

Yes yes yes, that is Byron York at The Corner at the National Review. Can’t always be the noodle knee’d liberals looking a candidate over..

*********************************

Comments»

1. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: Flying women-like angel fish in the background alert!

Reply
2. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: My Lai probe hid policy that led to massacre

And, 10:15 ET is too damn early for this herb to be up watching a speech. I will, however, have the appropriate number of tissues available when I catch the rerun.

Reply
3. marisacat - 17 March 2008: ugh… I did not bother to post it here, but a couple weeks ago, Spengler had an awful article at Asia Times. he trashed Michelle (OK whatever, politics is politics and she is barely off front and center, even if he just went to town) but he trashed the dead mother.

The woman is dead. And actually the only kind words for her have been from the half sister Soetero-Ng (some lovely almost lyrical quotes in a piece in the NYT a few weeks ago) and a couple of kind references from Michelle O. Obam is completely father and fatehr replacement fixated is my take.

It really was a hit piece. Have not read dthis yet, juet got Atimes to open up, but a word of warning.

ooops PS, this relates to a link catnip posted at the end of the last thread, a piece on Black Liberation Theology from Spengler at Asia TImes..

Reply
4. bayprairie - 17 March 2008: spengler’s an xtian loon.

Reply
5. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: I have no idea who this Spengler guy is – first I’ve heard of him – but the quotes he included may cause some peoples’ BP to rise.

Not to worry. This will all be over in the morning, right? (Not bloody likely).

Reply
6. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: I knew I forgot to add something to my post about Obama on my blog. Darn.

Reply
7. marisacat - 17 March 2008: I see at the end of the current Spengler article,

Spengler on Black Liberation Theology in ATimes

he links to the earlier piece he wrote on wife and teh dead mother.

Reply
8. bayprairie - 17 March 2008: well hey, if you run across another black theology hit-piece by someone named “the pope”.

do us all a favor, try researching the author first.

otherwise you might just end up citing more crap.

Reply
9. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: he links to the earlier piece he wrote on wife and teh dead mother.

Thanks. I’ll check that out in the morning.

Reply
10. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: otherwise you might just end up citing more crap.

Do you want me to do penance now or can it wait until I get up?

Reply
11. liberalcatnip - 17 March 2008: And where do I even begin to research this Spengler character anyway? Hints? Clues?

Reply
12. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: This is an almost word for word of the old anti-semitic slur that Jewish converts to Christianity aren’t real Christians.

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

In fact, it was part of the justification Innocent III used to start the Albigensian crusade, that the Albigensians were influenced by Jews and false converts.

Essentially Spengler is calling Obama a heretic.

Reply
13. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Ooops. Not essentially. He actually uses the word.

Spengler’s obviously a pseudonym.

Reply
14. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Here’s the tradition it’s coming out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano

The church considered the Conversos neither Christians nor Jews, but atheists and heretics and the cause of a months-long plague that affected the city in 1506. On April 17, 1506, several Conversos were discovered who had in their possession “some lambs and poultry prepared according to Jewish custom; also unleavened bread and bitter herbs according to the regulations for the Passover, which festival they celebrated far into the night.” Several of them were seized, but were released after a few days.

The populace, which had expected to see them punished, swore vengeance. On the same day on which the Conversos were liberated, the Dominicans displayed in a side-chapel of their church, where several New Christians were present, a crucifix and a reliquary in glass from which a peculiar light issued. A New Christian, who was so incautious as to explain this ostensible miracle as being due to natural causes, was dragged from the church and was killed by an infuriated woman.

Reply
15. Madman in the Marketplace - 18 March 2008: Boy am I sick of endless back and forth on variations of different people’s fairy tales.

Not like there are any real problems that need to be dealt with.

Speaking of fairy tales, futures for the Dow are trending up, in anticipation of more cheap money coming from the Fed today.

Oh, yes, stupid homeowners are to blame for being “greedy” for cheap credit, but Wall Street is SAVVY.

Have a good day everybody.

Reply
16. JJB - 18 March 2008: Terrific article in The New York Review of Books:

In Tacitus’ Agricola, a Caledonian rebel named Calgacus, addressing “a close-packed multitude” preparing to fight, declares that Rome has overrun so much of the world that “there are no more nations beyond us; nothing is there but waves and rocks, and the Romans, more deadly still than these— for in them is an arrogance which no submission or good behavior can escape.” Certain habits of speech, he adds, abet the ferocity and arrogance of the empire by infecting even the enemies of Rome with Roman self-deception[.]. . . The frightening thing about such acts of renaming or euphemism, Tacitus implies, is their power to efface the memory of actual cruelties. Behind the façade of a history falsified by language, the painful particulars of war are lost. Maybe the most disturbing implication of the famous sentence “They create a desolation and call it peace” is that apologists for violence, by means of euphemism, come to believe what they hear themselves say.

[snip]

Before launching their response to Islamic jihadists in September 2001, members of the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney gave close consideration to the naming of that response.. . .
The name must admit the tremendousness of the task and imply its eventual solubility, but also discourage any close inquiry into the means employed. They wanted to call it a war; but what sort of war? The phrase they agreed on, the global war on terrorism, was at once simple-sounding and elusive, and it has served its purpose as nothing more definite could have done.

The “global war on terrorism” promotes a mood of comprehension in the absence of perceived particulars, and that is a mood in which euphemisms may comfortably take shelter. There is (many commentators have pointed out) something nonsensical in the idea of waging war on a technique or method, and terrorism was a method employed by many groups over many centuries before[.]. . . But the “war on crime” and “war on drugs” probably helped to render the initial absurdity of the name to some degree normal. This was an incidental weakness, in any case. The assurance and the unspecifying grandiosity of the global war on terrorism were the traits most desired in such a slogan.

Those qualities fitted well with a style of white-lipped eloquence that Bush’s speechwriter Michael Gerson had begun to plot into his major speeches in late 2001. It made for a sort of continuous, excitable, canting threat, emitted as if unwillingly from a man of good will and short temper. Gerson . . . worked up for the President a highly effective contemporary “grand style” that skated between hyperbole and evasion. The manner suggested a stark simplicity that was the end product of sophisticated analysis and a visionary impatience with compromise.

[snip]

Euphemism has been the leading quality of American discussions of the war in Iraq.. . .

There has sprung up, over the past five years, a euphemistic contract between the executive branch and many journalists. “A short, sharp war,” as Tony Blair was sure it would be, has become one of the longest of American wars; but the warmakers have blunted that recognition by breaking down the war into stages: the fall of Baghdad; the Coalition Provisional Authority; the insurgency; the election of the Assembly; the sectarian war. In this way the character of the war as a single failed attempt has eluded discovery; it has come to seem, instead, a many-featured entity, difficult to describe and impossible to judge. And to assist the impression of obscurity, two things are consistently pressed out of view: the killing of Iraqi civilians by American soldiers and the destruction of Iraqi cities by American bombs and artillery.

Slight uptick in violence is a coinage new to the war in Iraq, and useful for obvious reasons. It suggests a remote perspective in which fifty or a hundred deaths, from three or four suicide bombings in a day, hardly cause a jump in the needle that measures such things. The phrase has a laconic sound, in a manner popularly associated with men who are used to violence and keep a cool head. Indeed, it was generals at briefings—Kimmitt, Hertling, and Petraeus—who gave currency to a phrase that implies realism and the possession of strong personal shock absorbers.

A far more consequential euphemism, in the conduct of the Iraq war— and a usage adopted without demur until recently, by journalists, lawmakers, and army officers—speaks of mercenary soldiers as contractors or security[.]. . . The Blackwater killings in Baghdad’s Nissour Square on September 16, 2007, brought this euphemism, and the extraordinary innovation it hides, suddenly to public view. Yet the armed Blackwater guards who did the shooting, though now less often described as mere “contractors,” are referred to as employees—a neutral designation that repels further attention. The point about mercenaries is that you employ them when your army is inadequate to the job assigned. This has been the case from the start in Iraq. But the fact that the mercenaries have been continuously augmented until they now outnumber American troops suggests a truth about the war that falls open to inspection only when we use the accurate word. It was always known to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Defense that the conventional forces they deployed were smaller than would be required to maintain order in Iraq. That is why they hired the extracurricular forces.

With all that in mind, this bit of rubbish in today’s NY Times take on a whole new light:

In the days immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, members of President Bush’s war cabinet declared that it would be impossible to deter the most fervent extremists from carrying out even more deadly terrorist missions with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Since then, however, administration, military and intelligence officials assigned to counterterrorism have begun to change their view. After piecing together a more nuanced portrait of terrorist organizations, they say there is reason to believe that a combination of efforts could in fact establish something akin to the posture of deterrence, the strategy that helped protect the United States from a Soviet nuclear attack during the cold war.

Interviews with more than two dozen senior officials involved in the effort provided the outlines of previously unreported missions to mute Al Qaeda’s message, turn the jihadi movement’s own weaknesses against it and illuminate Al Qaeda’s errors whenever possible.

God forbid we should pay attention to any of that when we can obsess about the idiotic beliefs of some obscure preacher.

Reply
17. JJB - 18 March 2008: Long post with links stuck in Moderation, I think.

Reply
18. NYCO - 18 March 2008: From the last thread, re Paterson and his affair: This sort of up-front, almost pre-emptive acknowledgment, as a defusion strategy, is very Patersonlike. He once volunteered to a reporter that he had misreported his income at tax time and that he had corrected it (and the reporter hadn’t even been sniffing around about it). It’s also an affront to the media, who thought they had more time to break the story. Heh.

Reply
19. wilfred - 18 March 2008: The NY Times did a piece on Obama’s mother last Saturday i believe. She came off as an extraordinary woman.

Reply
20. marisacat - 18 March 2008: I saw that piece… they called her a free spirit who set his path. And ran it day 2 of high profile Wright. Think they had been sitting on it for a while.

Reply
21. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: By some miracle and due to the fact that Obama
s mic isn’t working I’m up before the speech.

And, btw bayprairie, I did a disclaimer when I linked to Spengler’s article – which you obviously saw, since you commented right after it.

Tea time.

Reply
22. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Throw a bone to AIPAC. Israel’s off the hook.

Reply
23. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Ben Smith has the text of the speech, apparently Drudge broke the embargo.

Reply
24. XP - 18 March 2008: I am watching it live …. it is not looking like it is his best speech. There are parts where he is expecting a thunderous applause, but it is crickets who are winning. I could be wrong and it is CNN that is muting.

Reply
25. lucid - 18 March 2008: a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

Um, the conflicts in the middle east are rooted primarily in Israeli aggression…

[with a little help from the destabilizing influence of the CIA in propping up ‘radical Islam’ in order to keep Arabs from rising up, throwing off their aristocracies and nationalizing their oil supplies…]

Reply
26. marisacat - 18 March 2008: the last several grafs are pure stump boilerplate. Reading the prepared text that is, not as delivered.

Reply
27. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: As I expected, he tried to be all things to all people. It was a good speech overall but I don’t think it solved much of anything among certain groups.

And, seeing that he made policy changes about education, health care etc. his central plan for addressing race issues, I found myself wondering why, based on that approach, he thinks he’s the best person for the job. I’m not sure that question was answered.

Reply
28. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: One day he will try to be all things to catnip.

Reply
29. cad - 18 March 2008: Andy Sullivan has been shown to Heaven’s door by Obama:

But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation.

Thank god it was deeply Christian.

Reply
30. marisacat - 18 March 2008: LOL The christians believe he is the one to bring the Democrats to jeeesus.

I mean if one wants to talk of one issue voters.

i say Good luck!

Reply
31. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Dow up 261… there is nothing that cannot be cured by magic. Or religion.

What a crock, LOL

Reply
32. wilfred - 18 March 2008: The Dow opened up 200 points within minutes based on the rate cut, can’t believe that shit is working again. When it doesn’t the whole bottom will fall out.

Obama speech was well done on the whole, an important speech for him. Loved that he put Wright and Ferraro in the same sentence, Hillpac must have had a coronary.

Reply
33. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: 29-I thought so too. but go read at talk left and you will find the speech interpreted as being anti-ferraro.

It’s funny, people are criticising his delivery in this speech. They want him to be Rally Obama.

Reply
34. lucid - 18 March 2008: Mcat – but Jeebus is magic!

Reply
35. marisacat - 18 March 2008: If Wright’s rhetoric costs Obama some votes, others believe that would be more than offset by voters moved by Obama’s ability to bring religion back into the liberal political message.

Ronald Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, notes that Obama is getting the support of many black preachers who flirted with the Republican Party during the Bush administration, finding its position on cultural issues such as gay marriage and abortion appealing.

“Jeremiah Wright is one of the most influential and well-known black preachers in America,” Walters said. “His church is in the center of black culture. It is not some cult. It is not something out of the way. It is a quintessential black church.”

from the Baltimore Sun earlier this month. All the Democrats need to pander to gays and women but cut them off at the ankles (which is what they increasingly do) is the thought they can trade in new voters [and brokers] of a conservative repressive bent.

Good fucking luck. I’d die before I voted for the party. Which is what voting for their candidates is all about.

Reply
36. marisacat - 18 March 2008: 32

The media has increasingly linked Wright and Ferraro, for days.

As an easy sqeezy scnario it works. Much like Obama as Jeebus on earth.

Reply
37. marisacat - 18 March 2008: From Ben Smith…. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

he links to the various news reactions at the blog post

A range of headlines

The headlines:

CNN: Obama: Constitution stained by ‘sin of slavery’

ABC: Obama: Pastor Has Distorted View, But He Is Family to Me

FOX: Obama Condemns Pastor, But Won’t ‘Disown Him’
MSNBC: Obama: Racial anger is ‘real’

CBS: Obama Urges End To “Racial Stalemate”

That last one is probably the closest to what the campaign wanted — an emphasis on the broader issues of reconciliation, not the narrower one of Jeremiah Wright.

UPDATE: CNN changes to “Obama: We can move beyond racial wounds.”

Reply
38. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: FOX: Obama Condemns Pastor, But Won’t ‘Disown Him’

HCfM: Obama kisses AIPAC ass, disses his brutha, and it still won’t do him no good. Uncle Tom.

Reply
39. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: yeah, I denounce and reject the mideast bit.

Reply
40. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: yeah, I denounce and reject the mideast bit.

Justin Raimondo’s a cheaper whore than Ashley Youmans. One or two campaign advisors say something nice about Walt and Mesheimer and Justin’s on his back.

Reply
41. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Raw Story changed its headline too from “Obama: Constitution stained by slavery ” to “Obama: Wright comments were ‘profoundly distorted view’ of America”.

Hmm…

Reply
42. bayprairie - 18 March 2008: And, btw bayprairie, I did a disclaimer when I linked to Spengler’s article – which you obviously saw, since you commented right after it.

disclaimer or no, that spengler link was a crap cite. i’m curious about your motivation. not still on susanhu’s email tree, are you?

Reply
43. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Well they’re just going to have to delete that line from the Constitution before Rush and Michael Savage get mad.

Reply
44. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: It’s more than a bit ironic that he seeks a dialogue on race issues (sort of) yet headline writers at CNN and RS are too afraid, apparently, to actually quote what he said in their headlines.

Reply
45. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Oh yes, bayprairie, you’ve found me out: I LOVE HILLARY and will go the ends of the earth to support and embrace her!!!

Sheesh. Get over yourself.

And if you expect me to “research” every author of every article I link to – sorry – I don’t have the inclination or energy to do that. What’s wrong with linking to something controversial or has this place suddenly turned into dkos? Do you have list of “acceptable” sources, topics of conversation and worthy opinions or is the rule simply not posting anything that might offend your sensibilities?

I’m tired of this sniping which says much more about you than it does about me. I admitted that I wasn’t all that familiar with black liberation theology but that wasn’t enough for you. How many “crap” comments have you made since then? Don’t I have the right to decide what’s “crap” and what isn’t? Can’t “crap” be a jumping off point for respectful discussion? That is my motivation, in case you were wondering. I have never pretended to know all of the answers to everything, so take your ad hominems and stick them where the sun don’t shine.

Reply
46. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: And with that, I’m off to the dentist’s. HAND.

Reply
47. bayprairie - 18 March 2008: Sheesh. Get over yourself.

and you think about not posting crap cites from theological nut cases and, dare i say it, ridiculous romance novelists.

Reply
48. marisacat - 18 March 2008: lynn Sweet of Sun TImes has the text “as delivered”, as opposed to as prepared.

It was a small venue, I think 190… and I read that it was ‘community officials and elected leaders’ as invited by the camp, elsewhere I read it had a number of AA and AA clerics.

I also read of three rabbis, and who stayed and were giving interviews afterwards in the balcony or gallery.

Just a note, as I recall from reading, Kennedy went to the belly of the beast, anti papist clerics in Texas. (did nto google, going on memory).

LOL btw, white granny is still alive in Hawai’i, tho too ill to give interviews. I’d say he threw her off the train. She cannot speak for herself.

Criticism, he needed MORE FLAGS. 6 or 8 is not enough.

Reply
49. marisacat - 18 March 2008: People can post and link as they see fit. They just have to agree to live iwht, deal with, the push back.

When I read a reference (think it was in a Counterpunch article a few weeks ago) to a very harsh attack piece on the women in Obama’s life (wife and mother) at Asia Times, I was surprised. Then thought and realised it would be Spengler. Far to the right of me. I don’t usually bother to read Spengler, but I do from time to time.

But I had no idea he is known as an anti whatever or rabid christianist.

From a link catnip posted it seems SPengler is a nom de plume. I thought he was “Otto Spengler”, a real person.

Reply
50. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Lynn Sweet, who was at both Phildelphia speeches today:

Clinton is speaking flanked by six U.S. flags. Obama was flanked by eight flags when he delivered a speech earlier Tuesday at The Constitution Center here about race and his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

More FLAGS!

Reply
51. marisacat - 18 March 2008: ”The US Federal Reserve cuts interest rates to 2.25% in an effort to tackle a credit crisis.”

BBC

Reply
52. XP - 18 March 2008: The Philadelphia Weekly has some bite.

Media Just Like A Sad Puppy To Obama

Barack Obama’s big speech on race was like 84 billion minutes long. It was good and all — I mean, it was good when I was paying attention to it in the beginning — but then it kept going on and on. I especially liked the part where he was like, “My grandma was scared of black people!” Oh, you silly white people. …

Anyway, apparently while up in the Wilkes-Barre area, Barack Obama was mean to The Times Leader, ….

You take that, Times Leader! It is interesting that for once Hillary Clinton is the warm-‘n’-fuzzy lovable, hug-able candidate and Barack Obama is Mr. Meanie. But Obama is the one the press is in favor of, according to conventional wisdom; even though he treats them like crap, they keep coming back like a dog. Aww, good boy.

Reply
53. lucid - 18 March 2008: ”The US Federal Reserve cuts interest rates to 2.25% in an effort to tackle a credit crisis.”

How long do you suppose they will keep the charade going on?

Reply
54. lucid - 18 March 2008: even though he treats them like crap, they keep coming back like a dog. Aww, good boy.

That’s always been the American way.

Reply
55. melvin - 18 March 2008: The speech seemed a great success to me in one way. Think about anyone else giving a lengthy talk on the subject without looking utterly ridiculous and saying several things that were outright idiotic. He looked presidential, which is what he needs to do right now. HRC would have dragged in every black baby she’s ever kissed, and McCain is even today making a fool of himself on what is supposed somehow to be his field of expertise. The idea of him getting along with his teleprompter long enough to give this speec is laughable.

Reply
56. marisacat - 18 March 2008: well I for one see more and mroe push back in the media. Not all of it necessarily comfortable for the Obama camp, but there nonetheless.

However, dem party aligned media (yes wow there is such a thing) is working overtime.

The proof comes when ti is down to Obama and McCain. I think McCain has the stronger dog whistle, but we shall see.

Reply
57. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: 55–just read McCain was speechifying to the effect that Iran supports the Sunni insurgents, then Lieberman had to whisper in his ear, and he corrected to say no, Iran supports al-Queda. I guess Lieberman will have to play Cheney to McCain’s Bush.

Reply
58. melvin - 18 March 2008: Talk about yer crazy uncles. Notice BO always prefaces anything about McCain with great respect for him, service to country (170 years ago, when he still had some wits about him). But ya know, just here lately his judgement’s starting to slip. My crazy white uncle.

Reply
59. JJB - 18 March 2008: Miss Devore, no. 57,

Considering that al-Qaeda is a Sunni extremist group, Lieberman would also be wrong in telling McCain to make that claim.

Reply
60. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Seems the Patersons did not get it ALL out.

Darn! And they were doing so well.

Lesson, get it all out, when you are doing it.

Reply
61. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: 59–true, but the audience for the al-Queda association likely has no idea of the sect orientation.

It is truly funny that McCain goes “in country” for a “fact-finding” mission and can’t come up with the right facts. They are all just haji to him anyway.

Reply
62. lucid - 18 March 2008: actually I voted Róger Calero. (0.00 / 0)
You should really take your dead brown baby porn back to the litter box.
All you racists over there can enjoy it all you want.

by pinche tejano @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

Elegant, to the last…

Reply
63. marisacat - 18 March 2008: 58

LOL yeah it is very noticable. I deeply revere my crazy white uncle.

Good luck!

Reply
64. marisacat - 18 March 2008: LOL

62

well I have no comments in my history online, nor anywhere, that can even approach the nasty scheisse that pinche tejano trades in.

Reply
65. marisacat - 18 March 2008: LOL A few assessments are noting he now admits to having actually heard things in the pew….

Yeah, the other gambit was not going to fly.

Reply
66. melvin - 18 March 2008: Rhodes has opted to shut her yap today for as long as it takes to rebroadcast the entire speech.

This in itself is a greater miracle than the loaves and fishes. It is unfortunate that the thing is too long for the American attention span, so 90% of those arguing about it will never have heard it.

Reply
67. Arcturus - 18 March 2008: granny get yours:

In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.

& hey, Madman! thanks for the headsup on that Drug War doc – it was pretty good (tho I wanted to edit at times for tighter focus during the 2nd hour) – & hit on a number of taboo subjects

Reply
68. wilfred - 18 March 2008: After watching the Dow go up over 400 points today during a huge banking scandal that hasn’t even begun to play out, my conclusion is that the Dow officially suffers from bi-polar disorder. Move over Brittney.

Reply
69. cad - 18 March 2008: Randi Rhodes is unlistenable. She even talks over herself.

Reply
70. JJB - 18 March 2008: “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.

Has he considered that large numbers of homeowners may soon be turning those weapons on the bankers who hold their mortgages?

These people are truly nuts.

Reply
71. melvin - 18 March 2008: 69 lol

Reply
72. lucid - 18 March 2008: Has he considered that large numbers of homeowners may soon be turning those weapons on the bankers who hold their mortgages?

Or the cashiers at the local Safeways…

Reply
73. Arcturus - 18 March 2008: This 2003 interview (discussing the then up-coming ‘new bubble’ we’re seeing collapse today) The Coming Financial Reality, conducted by SF poet Standard Schaefer, with economic historian Michael Hudson (who, btw, was one of Kucinich’s econmic advisors) makes for interesting, prescient reading. Isn’t one of Obama’s econ advisors (forget who offhand) a prominent SS privatization cheerleader among the Chicago crew? Another piece on his website, Debtor Nation is worth a look, & CP ran another one just this weekend. Anyway:

Modern governments are not politically able to simply default on their debts–at least, not debts owed to their own bondholders in their own currency. The problem has to be solved through “the marketplace.”

The simplest solution is to get people voluntarily to swap their government bonds–or in today’s case, their Social Security entitlements–for stocks that then can be permitted to fall in price, once the investment no longer is the government’s responsibility.

For this to occur, it is necessary to prime people to expect that stock prices will rise sharply. They have to see fortunes being created in a new speculative run-up, and their imaginations as to a glorious new future need to be piqued.

. . .

The financial sector is looking at these funds like a shark that sees nice juicy prey swimming in the water. They would love to get their hands on Social Security and Medicare funds to manage, at a 2% fee. Even just 1% this would amount to tens of billions of dollars annually, not including the speculative gains that could be made on the turbulent market run-up.

Chile in the mid-1970s was a dress rehearsal for the immense management fees that the large financial conglomerates could rake off from privatizing Social Security.

. . .

This brings us to the scenario for privatizing Social Security. If the system’s gigantic holdings of government bonds are sold off (with the Federal Reserve Bank supplying the funds to monetize the requisite credit) and put into the stock market, this rush of funds is going to push up stock prices. It will inflate the new bubble that is being promised, which will be called a “recovery.” Stocks will be pushed up for a few years as more paycheck withholding is channeled into Social Security than out-payments are made to retiring Baby Boomers, the Big Generation born right after World War II.

. . .This bubble is a symptom of the madness of crowds mainly to the extent that it is a psychologically orchestrated disinformation program.

The same thing is happening in almost every country. The Fed’s policy of lowering interest rates is a precondition for reviving popular hopes for a Bubble and suckering voters to approve Social Security privatization. Starting a new bubble will set the public up for the rip-off the financial sector is hoping will make the 2000s as nice for it as the 1990s were.

. . .

The large financial conglomerates are using their economic gains to break down public regulatory power so as to transfer economic control and resource allocation into their own hands. Yet their objective is simply to pursue the short-term trading gains, not to see savings invested in fixed capital formation.

To promote deregulation, financial lobbies and their academic public relations spokesmen have rewritten economic history. In so doing, they have turned it upside down. The result is a caricature of government regulation, whitewashing the universally bad experience of privatization’s failures. A rosy Walt-Disney picture of the future is painted to convince the population to relinquish its existing government protections and sign them over to the new planners.

If you want to see America’s future under these new conditions, you might want to look at Russia’s experience since 1991, where the Washington Consensus had a free hand.

. . .

Of course there are alternatives. But the free-market boys have been able to foreclose serious discussion by acting as censors of any such discussion. It seems therefore that today’s individualistic free-market philosophy is not compatible with a free market in ideas. This is a byproduct of the financial sector’s rise to dominance. It is what I referred to above when I spoke about the parasite taking over the host’s brain as well as diverting nourishment to feed itself and its progeny.

. . .

about 80 percent of capital gains are real estate gains. The real estate sector tries to camouflage itself as new technology entrepreneurs, representing its tax cuts as benefiting mom-and-pop family businesses developing new products. But capital gains other than real estate only account for 20 percent of the tax.

This makes the term “capital gains” a euphemism for land-price gains. . . .

In 1930 real estate accounted for 80% of state and local revenues nationwide. Today this ratio is down to about 17%. The fiscal burden has been shifted off property owners onto labor. . . . What used to be welcomed as a postindustrial society thus is lapsing back into the pre-industrial rentier economy.

. . .

Every hyperinflation in history, especially in the Germany of the 1920s, stemmed from the government’s being painted into a debt corner and trying to inflate its way out of debt. This is what Adam Smith himself noted when he observed that no government in history ever had repaid its debts, although some had pretended to do so, i.e., by inflating prices.

The same observation could be made of private-sector debt as well. The question that needs to be asked today concerns just how America is going to avoid paying its debts, and how other countries are not going to pay their own public and private debts?

It looks like the debts to labor will be wiped out in order to preserve the “sanctity” of debts owed to the wealthiest layer of the population. Obligations to pension funds and social Security and medical insurance and life insurance will be wiped off the books, in order to pay a small number of rentiers–the class that Mr. Bush has made exempt from inheritance taxes, lowered capital gains taxes for, and reduced income taxes on. His policy is essentially one of “Big fish eat little fish.”

& the other day from Catherine Austin Fitts:

. . . the New York teachers and public employees invested $59 million in Bear Stearns and their investment is now worth $1.9MM, a loss of $57 million. If you look at their opportunity cost, the New York pension plans could have sold in June 2007 before reality hit mortgage market valuations at $151 per share. From that point of view, they have lost $149 per share, or $141 million

who says we don’t have a planned economy?

Reply
74. marisacat - 18 March 2008: ****Isn’t one of Obama’s econ advisors (forget who offhand) a prominent SS privatization cheerleader among the Chicago crew **** — Arcturus

that would be Goolsbee of the Nafta/Canada story fame

Reply
75. Arcturus - 18 March 2008: “f” is so close to “g” . . .

heard Fitts yesterday ob FlashPoints say that CA teacher’s lost ~80 million on BS – wonder how badly PERS & other CA pensions got hit

here’s her translation of Greenspeak:

Our efforts to centralize ownership and governance of global resources through the financial system have been successful. Now that this phase is complete, there were numerous people and institutions who were important to grow and manage the bubble, who are no longer needed. We are letting them go.

We are proceeding to consolidate control and implement new regulation through the international banking and monetary system. These decisions have been made and you will support them. If you want to be part of our team and enjoy any of the winnings, you will affirm that sweeping changes in global financial governance are in the interests of “free, healthy markets” which create “real wealth.”

Reply
76. marisacat - 18 March 2008: rah. rah. rah…. what was i saying? oh yes… rah:

DOW CLOSES UP 420 POINTS, REACTING TO BETTER-THAN-EXPECTED EARNINGS REPORTS AND THE LATEST FED RATE CUT

Reply
77. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Somewhat amusing.

Reply
78. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Tweety: This speech by obama is the most important speech on race in American history.

Reply
79. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: A future Pwoggie blogger blames the media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_lynndie_england

Reply
80. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: and you think about not posting crap cites from theological nut cases and, dare i say it, ridiculous romance novelists.

I see. So black romance novelists writing about black issues are “crap cites”. How about other black authors in other genres? Would those be “crap cites” too? And, just so I’m clear here, are all romance novelists “ridiculous” or just the black ones? If so, you’ll have to provide me with a list because I don’t read romance novels.

Reply
81. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Tweety: This speech by obama is the most important speech on race in American history.

Did it send another “thrill” up his leg?

Reply
82. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Read the speech. Aside from the pandering to AIPAC it wasn’t a bad speech. I’m also suprised that Obama and I had the same grandmother.

Reply
83. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Gosh:

Arthur C Clarke died.

Reply
84. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Lynndie England – still clueless

Reply
85. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Prepare for a deluge. What a horrible pic of her. She looks fried.

Reply
86. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: I think that when it comes to Barack Obama people have to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I’m not voting for him (or any democrat) but part of me hopes he wins. And all of me recognizes the race baiting that’s being directed against him. What’s more, he’s also being subjected to a religious test for office I don’t see a lot of white candidates going through. I didn’t see Kerry going through it or Lieberman, let along Bush.

My decision not to vote Democrat doesn’t mean I have to convince myself to dislike Obama or even hope he loses.

The fact that I’m opposed to almost everything the Israeli governmetn does doesn’t mean I can’t recognize David Duke (or Byron) as an anti-semite and a Holocaust denier.

The fact that I might be opposed to Israel because of some anti-semitism on my part of that I might not be voting for Obama because of some racism on my part doesn’t make the Democratic party or the state of Israel something to support.

The fact that I can see some of Hillary’s (and Paul Krugman’s) points doesn’t mean I don’t see her as someone willing to destroy her own party.

In the end, I hope Obama wins. But I’m not going to vote for him. That may seem odd but it’s a bit like football.

I’ll root for one team or another sometimes but am I going to buy the hat and season tickets?

Waste of money.

Why can’t people walk and chew gum at the same time?

Reply
87. marisacat - 18 March 2008: I am beyond that shred of a party. I truly don’t care who wins. And that includes McCain.

I have never seen anything but their games, pulled out periodically.

This time is no different.

LOL BTW, Charles Murray of The Bell Curve thought the speech “brilliant” (a short post to The Corner).

I saw the politics of it. They need to stauch the numbers polling as finding it/Wright has affected them negatively (see the new CBS poll).

He really wanted to leave this at 3 interviews and a post at Huffpo.

Not good enough.

Reply
88. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: I am beyond that shred of a party. I truly don’t care who wins. And that includes McCain.

Neither do I but I don’t think it’s a necessarily bad thing that Obama’s gotten this far.

There’s obviously a negative side to it. Obama can be used as the liberal, black face for the empire.

But there’s also a potentially radicalizing moment which is this: However moderate, however polished, a black man running for president is (to people like Rush Limbaugh) still a nigger.

A lot of blacks and white liberals (especially young white liberals) can be radicalized by watching it.

And it’s not going to be pretty any way. If he doesn’t get the nomination, that means the secret Muslim slur worked. If he does, that means McCain’s going to turn the race baiting up even more.

But anyway, the message is clear. If THIS guy is too black to be president, no black has a chance.

What it means, in the end, is that “The Ballot or the Bullet” is still the most important speach on race ever given in America. And maybe even Obama will see that after awhile.

Reply
89. melvin - 18 March 2008: 83 — I put up Clarke’s last public message, from his birthday in December. It is worth watching imho.

Reply
90. marisacat - 18 March 2008: And it’s not going to be pretty any way. If he doesn’t get the nomination, that means the secret Muslim slur worked. If he does..

oh please. What it will mean is what it means for EVERY POLITICIAN. He did not deal with it well. And I surely do see that.

From allowing the Wright stuff to hang fire for a year, after disinviting him to the announce. It was cowardly then and cowardly in retrospect. This is coming up now, in this way, as Obama ducked it over and over.

Wright’s comments on the call he received from obama are googleable.

AND what Obama fully skipped today was at least opening the door to stopping the muslim slams by devoting a graf or two to that and why IT IS OK TO BE MUSLIM. It is OK to be named Hussein, all sorts of people in many communities are named Hussein in this country, as well as al Husseini

And not have it be jsut one more reason to collect apologies.

Reply
91. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Agree on Ballot and the Bullet.

Too radical (meaning real) for Obama, however.

Reply
92. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: IS OK TO BE MUSLIM. It is OK to be named Hussein, all sorts of people in many communities are named Hussein in this country, as well as al Husseini

Unfortunately at this moment in history, it’s simply not OK to be a Muslim.

But even so, I would never be made to explain why it’s OK to be a Muslim because I’m white. Obama shouldn’t have to explain why it’s OK to be a Muslim.

Hillary should. McCain should. We all should, but not Obama above the rest of us.

Reply
93. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Unfortunately at this moment in history, it’s simply not OK to be a Muslim IN THE USA.

Reply
94. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: The fact that we’re even talking about Obama being a secret Muslim in context with his radical Christian pastor is also surreal.

Clearly there’s a religious test in this county that even I wouldn’t pass (because I’m not an evangelical).

Reply
95. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Charlie Rose Face Plants To Save His MacBook Air

Reply
96. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: I’ve looked at the MacBook Air.

Not much smaller than the MacBook. It’s a status symbol, something corporate executives can whip out of their briefcases.

But I’m poor. My 5 year old IBM G40 has to last another 5 years.

Reply
97. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Obama shouldn’t have to explain why it’s OK to be a Muslim.

Well, there was a portion of his speech in which he referred to pastors, priests and rabbis. No imams included. I think that was most likely a politically-calculated decision. OTOH, maybe it just didn’t cross his mind. Either way, the absence was obvious, to me at least.

Hillary should. McCain should. We all should, but not Obama above the rest of us.

I don’t think it’s just his burden but this was a speech about religion as well as race.

Reply
98. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: I don’t think it’s just his burden but this was a speech about religion as well as race.

An inadequate speech is better than no speech.

Why hasn’t Hillary stood up and said “look I still want to win the nomination but this fake controversy about Jeremiah Wright is racebaiting bullshit”?

Reply
99. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: The question (in a very general sense – beyond qualifications and experience etc) the media has been asking is whether America is ready for a black president. My question is whether Democrats are ready for a black president. I’m not sure about the answer to that.

Reply
100. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Well, there was a portion of his speech in which he referred to pastors, priests and rabbis. No imams included.

Why did Howard Dean back down on the Palestinian “even handed” issue?

Once again, CLEARLY it’s not OK to be a Muslim or an Arab in the United States at this time.

Muslims and gays are the two groups it’s perfectly acceptable to attack.

Reply
101. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Why hasn’t Hillary stood up and said “look I still want to win the nomination but this fake controversy about Jeremiah Wright is racebaiting bullshit”?

I have no idea. When it broke she had “no comment”. What’s she said about it since then?

An inadequate speech is better than no speech.

I’m not sure about that because I didn’t really think this speech was necessary, but I’m not him and I’m not his advisor.

Reply
102. wilfred - 18 March 2008: LOL, proof of what we’ve always know. Fox News is invested with vermin!

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/03/bed_bugs_at_fox.php

Reply
103. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: 100. I don’t follow what Howard Dean does – nor do I care all that much. I was never a big fan of his.

Muslims, Arabs, gays, the poor, the mentally ill…there are lots of groups it’s unfortunately ok to attack.

Reply
104. marisacat - 18 March 2008: Via The Note’s Sneak Peak:

Tivo Alert! Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran sat down for an exclusive interview with Obama in Philadelphia after his speech on race Tuesday. They discuss the speech and how his campaign plans to move forward. The interview with air on Nightline at 11:35 pm ET tonight as an American in Black and White special edition and on Good Morning America at 7:00 am ET on Wednesday.

Reply
105. wilfred - 18 March 2008: now my own typo made me laugh out loud… i guess Fox News is invested and infested!

Reply
106. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: 102.

Gawker is reporting that the offending employee has been fired.

Wow. Harsh.

Reply
107. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Muslims, Arabs, gays, the poor, the mentally ill…there are lots of groups it’s unfortunately ok to attack.

What I see about Muslims in the “mainstream” (especially on the web) is exactly the kind of stuff I see about Jews on Stormfront.

The fact that most people don’t recognize it demonstrates how deep the prejudice goes.

Hating Muslims is the new anti-semitism. Hate is a shape shifter. It’s always one step ahead of everybody’s attempts to understand it. Just when society declares one type of hate unacceptable, the shape shifter jumps into a new host body.

Kind of like a Star Trek episode……..

Reply
108. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: The fact that most people don’t recognize it demonstrates how deep the prejudice goes.

“Most people”? I don’t know about that.

(I don’t watch Star Trek. I’m obviously politically and culturally deprived.)

Reply
109. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: And I’ve gotten to the point where I just don’t like being around it. It makes people stupid. It makes me physically ill. It depresses me, whoever it’s about. When David Byron goes off on women, it literally gets me down physically. It’s a cancer, a literal physical sickness. If you’re around it, you’ll catch it.

Reply
110. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: i guess Fox News is invested and infested!

No doubt about that! 🙂

Reply
111. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: “Most people”? I don’t know about that.

If “Neokong” were posting the same genocidal crap about Jews on PFF that he does about Muslims, “Peeder” would probably bounce him, even though I think “Peeder” has a pretty long leash when it comes to Jews too.

In fact, there seems to be a bargain between various sorts of frat boys.

Frat Boy 1: Let’s kill all the Muslims.

Frat Boy 2: Shut up you Zionist Jew bastard.

Then they both go off and have a beer (and don’t get laid).

Reply
112. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: And, you’ll notice that when Obama did talk about Muslims, it was in the context of radical Islamists against Israel.

Reply
113. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: I think Neokong’s there to keep Gilroy happy. 😉

(Scary brown people and all of that…)

Reply
114. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: And, you’ll notice that when Obama did talk about Muslims, it was in the context of radical Islamists against Israel.

And he could have bashed Al Qaeda and simultaneously stood up for Muslims as a whole.

Al Qaeda’s probably blown up more mosques than the JDL ever will.

Reply
115. marisacat - 18 March 2008: As long as he accepts apologies for any use of his middle name, he has a problem, which he is choosing a passive benefit from, without dealing with it….

Today was the day. Even Sully weeks ago posted that only Obama can give the speech to try to stop that.

Blaming Hillary won’t cut it.

Obama’s speech in Ohio (I posted exceprts at the time) to Cleveland Jews was WEAK. Which over and over is the problem.

Reply
116. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Al Qaeda’s probably blown up more mosques than the JDL ever will.

Which then begs the question: how many mosques has the US military blown up/destroyed? They, just like the insurgents, know the value of killing symbols.

Reply
117. marisacat - 18 March 2008: I just read the comments to AlanSmithee’s diary at PFF.

pinche-nobraino-tejano seems to be singularly obsessed with “Marisacat”.

Poor Obama, so many constituent groups to try to please. Just not doable, I fear. nevertheless, if the party manages it, he will be getting the nom.

I just read a poll (yes they are so useless) that Floridians of the Demcratic persuasiion, one in 4 will vote R in Nov if their primary vote does not count in some way..

Most amusing election

LOL

Reply
118. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Which then begs the question: how many mosques has the US military blown up/destroyed?

Judging from the Winter Soldier hearings, lots.

I do see the appeal in Obama’s centrism though. I don’t think he’s just stabbing Wright in the back. I think Obama’s a genuine centrist. It’s in his blood. And I think that someone like Wright can go so far into his anger, it eats him up inside.

I noticed “David Byron” posting Holocaust Denier/Neonazi recruiting lines on PFF. And I said “is he really a neo nazi or just a leftist who’s gone off the deep end and got brain/spirit cancer.”

I think leftists do this sometimes. The more you strive to be ever ahead of the curve in your radicalism/iconolasm, the more you risk getting that brain/spirit cancer.

I think Obama probably recognizes this in his bones. I think that’s the value that centrists/conservatives have.

In some ways, it’s radical for a black man in the USA not to be a radical. It will prove a point. Once again, if THIS GUY is too black and too radical, which black American isn’t?

Reply
119. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Well, whatever happens, I’ll always have naps.

Reply
120. bayprairie - 18 March 2008: I see. So black romance novelists writing about black issues are “crap cites”.

have i not been clear enough? jesus i thought i was. let me recap. YES! the specific cite i mentioned was CRAP. it hasn’t changed its status either. its not going to improve with age.

but ive said nothing about romance novelists in the plural, and from that point on in your ridiculous comment its evident that you’re doing nothing other than making crap up. i see no need to spend time to rebut to things i’ve not said.

Reply
121. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: 120. Considering you never addressed the alleged “crap” in the black romance novelist’s post, just what was I supposed to think? You keep attacking people, not content.

Reply
122. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: And you might want to ask yourself why you think her being a “romance novelist” has any bearing on your opinion of what she’s written. Who gives a “crap” whether she writes romance, sci fi, fantasy, kids’ books or encyclopaedias? Afaik, romance novelists are still entitled to their freedom of speech in America.

Reply
123. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: kos didn’t source this in the open thread today, so I am really curious how he got this info:

“Today, the British Minister of Defense started blocking Daily Kos. When a civil servant at the agency asked why, the employee was told “security reasons”.”

can’t seem to find it on google.

Reply
124. Madman in the Marketplace - 18 March 2008: & hey, Madman! thanks for the headsup on that Drug War doc – it was pretty good (tho I wanted to edit at times for tighter focus during the 2nd hour) – & hit on a number of taboo subjects

I’m glad you liked it. He could have tightened it up, though, I certainly agree with you on that.

Reply
125. Madman in the Marketplace - 18 March 2008: Muslims and gays are the two groups it’s perfectly acceptable to attack.

Don’t forget the group worse than both … atheists.

Reply
126. wilfred - 18 March 2008: i disagree Madman.
I haven’t seen an atheist strung up in barbed wire like Matthew Shepherd or shot like that 15 year old gay kid Lawrence King at his California high school last month.

Men don’t call one another ‘atheists’ as slurs, they constantly call each other faggots. They ignore atheists, I wish that’s all they did to gay people.

Reply
127. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: 126-you go.

Reply
128. wilfred - 18 March 2008: #125 MitM, i’m referring to the US of course.

I certainly wouldn’t want to be gay or atheist is a Muslim country. But i’d rather be an atheist than a gay man in a Communist one.

Reply
129. Madman in the Marketplace - 18 March 2008: Good point my friend … I stand corrected.

Reply
130. Madman in the Marketplace - 18 March 2008: Washington Monthly:

NO MORE

No Torture. No Exceptions.

In most issues of the Washington Monthly, we favor articles that we hope will launch a debate. In this issue we seek to end one. The unifying message of the articles that follow is, simply, Stop. In the wake of September 11, the United States became a nation that practiced torture. Astonishingly—despite the repudiation of torture by experts and the revelations of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib—we remain one. As we go to press, President George W. Bush stands poised to veto a measure that would end all use of torture by the United States. His move, we suspect, will provoke only limited outcry. What once was shocking is now ordinary.
[snip]
It is in the hopes of keeping the attention of the public, and that of our elected officials, on this subject that the writers of this collection of essays have put pen to paper. They include a former president, the speaker of the House, two former White House chiefs of staff, current and former senators, generals, admirals, intelligence officials, interrogators, and religious leaders. Some are Republicans, others are Democrats, and still others are neither. What they all agree on, however, is this: It was a profound moral and strategic mistake for the United States to abandon long-standing policies of humane treatment of enemy captives. We should return to the rule of law and cease all forms of torture, with no exceptions for any agency. And we should expect our presidential nominees to commit to this idea. —The Editors

Reply
131. Madman in the Marketplace - 18 March 2008: Off to bed.

Someone mentioned Clarke’s 90th b-day message. I included it in my little tribute up at LSF

Good night everybody.

Reply
132. wilfred - 18 March 2008: Now let’s go disagree about something really important like a movie 🙂

Reply
133. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Don’t forget the group worse than both … atheists

Depends. If they demonize the right people and cheerlead the American empire, they’re accorded an honored place at the table, eg Christopher Hitchens.

Reply
134. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: I certainly wouldn’t want to be gay or atheist is a Muslim country. But i’d rather be an atheist than a gay man in a Communist one.

Well, in the United States it depends.

As an atheist, I’d be unable to pass the religious test for high political office. But apart from politics, in the places I’ve lived (New York, Seattle, New Jersey), being an atheist has very little social stigma. I realize it’s different in small town America in the south and midwest.

As far as I know, there are no websites like LGF or Stormfront dedicated to demonizing atheists. Sure, Catholic and evangelical Christian websites say nasty things about atheists but they’re far more concerned with abortion (and Christopher Hitchens is anti-choice), homosexuality, and Muslims.

Right now, I’d say there are only two groups that it’s acceptable to demonize, gays and Muslims. And of course women. I think if you dig deep enough, sexual anxiety, whether it comes from being in the closet or just hating women tends to be the wellspring of racism as well.

A few minutes reading Stormfront is a Freudian’s wet dream.

Reply
135. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: 134. Google “atheists” & “hate” and take your pick. Exhibit A.

Reply
136. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: Then there’s “How to Spot Atheists and Report Them to the FBI” which I won’t link to. Not much different from what I know about sites like Stormfront.

Reply
137. Miss Devore - 18 March 2008: Imagine being part of a group that pisses catnip off.

T’aint no mercy there.

I’d send her all my red silk string, if I wasn’t able to predict her exact response to this comment.

Reply
138. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Stormfront is more abuzz with that “Spengler” article than anything at the moment.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/shocking-article-obamaa-black-theology-470461.html

But oddly enough, the Stormfronters seem to hate McCain more than they hate Obama.

While I am glad that many people are getting exposed to the real Obama and the venom that mainstream Black leaderships (and of course the ghetto hordes) have for Whites, I am not fooled by the Sudden interest in these truths by the Jew-controlled press. They want to scare Whites into supporting the Israel-First, pro-Amnesty scumbag McCain. Keep the heat on McCain. Dr. Duke is right— McCain is the WORST possible presidential candidate we could get in 2008! The Jews want McCain. Buyer Beware!!!!!

Reply
139. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: Then there’s “How to Spot Atheists and Report Them to the FBI”

Hmm. While normally I’m against government repression and harassing immigrants, if you’ve got the link to a web form the idea of getting Hitchens deported might just be worth it…

Reply
140. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: This is curiouser and curiouser. The David Duke crowd actually sort of grudgingly likes Obama.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/obama-sadly-only-politician-address-470495.html

While obviously political pandering, I think it’s pathetic that the only person who stands up for us Aryans in the so-called presidential campaigns is a negro. Obama is not going to win obviously (hillary zion clinton has gotten the nomination) but honestly, after a few things Obama has said I do not mind him. Obama impresses me in a couple of ways: he’s been accused of being bad for Israel, he has a black wife (not just another blonde chasing uncle tom), he pretends to see racially issues from both points of view, which no other politician does. (the jews that have them on the strings wont let them) He also admits niggers bring racism onto themselves (must be Obama’s white genes that make him so smart).

Reply
141. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: if you’ve got the link to a web form the idea of getting Hitchens deported might just be worth it…

lol…be nice now. He’s basically harmless. 😉

Reply
142. Hair Club for Men - 18 March 2008: lol…be nice now. He’s basically harmless.

Since he’s basically the guy who invented the term “Islamofascism” (or rather stole it from some dogmatic 1970s Marxists) in a sense he’s the godfather of a lot of anti-Muslim hate sites.

He was close to Paul Wolfowitz during the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

He’s anti-choice and sucked up to Cardinal O’Connor in the 1980s.

He’s a thoroughly toxic little man who should be deported.

Reply
143. marisacat - 18 March 2008: nuuuu thred

LINK

Reply
144. liberalcatnip - 18 March 2008: You give him too much power. And if all toxic little men (and women) should be deported, that’d ending up being one long list.

Reply
145. wu ming - 19 March 2008: i’d feel bad for wherever they were all deported to.

Reply