Thu 15 Nov 2007
Ted over at RRR doesn’t want to talk about racially insensate comments from those in his party. He has spelled out the criterion for addressing comments.
What they fail to notice is that when George Allen made his utterance, he was a United States Senator up for re-election and a possible candidate for President, this woman is an obscure politician whose highest office will be the Louisiana State Senate.
Two words Ted – Joe Biden! Next you are going to say he doesn’t fit into your criterion above because he may not run for the senate again in 2008.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
So Ted responded to your question about why he didn’t cover the state senator and your reply has nothing to do with the state senator but instead shifts the topic to Joe Biden. Interesting tactic, but are you really prepared to start a blogging war over which party’s candidates are more racist/sexist/left-handed etc.? Or is the point to gloat that he didn’t respond when he doesn’t take your bait?
While we at it, why didn’t you cover the state senator’s remark until after Michelle Malkin did? What were you waiting for?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I did not respond about the Democrat candidate in Louisiana because I am just trying to follow Ted’s criterion.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I hate to rain on your parade guys, but I criticized Joe Biden for his statements about South Asians. I linked them in the post, as a matter of fact.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
PWND!
good one Ted.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
First off Ted we do not mean to pick on you. Since you have the state’s leading Democratic blog we hold you up as the example.
I think Senator Biden’s comments about people from India was rather mild. I think his comments about test scores in Iowa vs. D.C. were much more inflammatory.
You have a great blog and are much more sane than many in your party but pardon us if we missed your story on the Senator’s theories about test scores in regards to the “percent of the population of Iowa that is African American.”
November 15th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Another poster said Senator Byrd used the “N” word on national TV. I know he is a Klansman, so that could be true. He has also never voted for a black judge at any level, not just at the SCOTUS, but also the appellate courts.
He also compared the Boy Scouts to the Klan.
Any condemnation of Byrd?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Chad– if you looked anywhere beyond rightwing talk radio and the RW blogosphere, you’d find lots of articles and interviews in which Senator Byrd has been quoted as saying those views he held were wrong and reprehensible, and it’s something he doesn’t mind apologizing for over and over.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
One thing I was shocked to discover within the last two years is that the Ku Klux Klan got its start from Southern Democrats right after the Civil War as a means of terrorizing African Americans and Republicans. Wikipedia gives a good write-up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_klux_klan
November 16th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Who was the first female in Congress. The first black? What party were they from?
November 16th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Republicans who find greatness in the bigotry of Ronald Reagan have hypocrisy has their foundation. Reagan was a Democrat who reregistered as a Republican, mostly in protest to the civil rights reforms of the Democrats.
Imagine any current GOP candidate (claiming to emulate Reagan) posing with a racist symbol while kicking off a national political campaign.
Here is the bigoted Ronald Reagan posing with a ‘lawn jockey’ in Look Magazine in 1966.
http://www.bartcop.com/rr-jockey.jpg
I do not think that Tedski is a hypocrite for not exposing the vile racism of both Democrats and Republicans, as most of the racism tends to originate from white folks who consider themselves superior to others. Is that a story?
Racism is prominent in a large percentage of whites, regardless of political affiliations.
Ronald Reagan is an exemplar of racist coding, and he is the gold standard of GOP and DEM hypocrisy.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:09 am
A blunt, non-politically correct observation:
Let’s acknowldedge one eternal fact i.e. Man, at his base, is a tribal animal. That’s what culture is all about!
Anything else is pompous, self-righteous, guilt-spreading b.s.!
And in my 60* years, I’ve observed that the people tossing around the “racist” epithet at others, are the last to app;y their publicized stances to their personal lives.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Hey DSW– right after all those Southern Democrats started getting pissed off with the Democratic leadership pursuing civil rights legislation, which party did they hop to? Sure Strom Thurmond started his long career in the Democratic party, but where did he go once he realized his repugnant views were no longer acceptable?
And, I know you’re not dumb enough to believe that either party is today exactly what each party was a century ago.
One last thing: you would actually have had a reason to post about racism and Tedski had Senator Byrd (or an actually prominent Democrat) made a racist statement he refused to apologize for, and Tedski made a post about how Byrd was courageous for not bowing to “politically correct thought police” (to use one of the right’s favorite meaningless catchphrases).
November 16th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Rodney King best summed up the morass of our cultural hypocrisy with his quote for the ages.
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?”
We have a horrible foundation of indigenous genocide, slavery, bald land grabs, and now wars of aggression. American racism and bigotry is nonpartisan and chronic. Without addressing the hypocrisy of white notions of superiority, we will never ‘get along.’
November 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
There are only two stats you need to know to determine a nation’s moral goodness: how many people are trying to get in and how many are trying to get out.
Despite Charles’ Amerika is evil postings, the fact is he is here and probably 95% of the world’s desire the American green card.
My wife helped thousands of Haitian and West African immigrants get into this country. Every immigrant just gushed about wonderful and open-minded Americans are. And they were shocked about how whiney and self-loathing many of its citizens were.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Tedski and Mrs. Ha-ha-ha, you never answered if Byrd using the n-word is bad?
You can also look up Michael Steele and how the Dems threw oreo cookies at him. Or google and Condi Rice and Colin Powell, not too mention the condescending comments made about Clarence Thomas. How about JC Watts and the ad about “this boy representing you in Congress.” We could go on…
David Duke is not a member of the Klan, so I guess you two are supportive of him. I do not trust Duke nor Byrd.
So are you comfortable with someone equating the Boy Scouts with the Klan?
Here’s the story on Byrd:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/
November 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Ouch Chad. I hear that thwacking of Ted up here in Prescott.
The Reagan story was debunked long ago. That’s the liberal hate machine. Of course they fail to mention Jimmy Carter’s blantant appeal to racism in 1976 and earlier when he ran for Gov.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
“There are only two stats you need to know to determine a nation’s moral goodness: how many people are trying to get in and how many are trying to get out.” -Chad
Huh?
I am a little confused as to how you have come to such a conclusion. The behavioral economist argument would be:
(1) People are rational
(2) Rationality necessarily entails a desire to maximize your utility
(3) Assuming no information problems, people will move to where they can maximize their utility
(4) therefore the countries that people move to are countries which are most efficient at maximizing individual agents utility.
Ok, fair enough argument; and *probably* correct. But I think your statement then entails an assumption Chad: Availability of utility maximization = moral goodness.
So let’s extend moral goodness and assume that it can be attached to Corporations (”corporatism”- let’s assume it’s true for a second). If this is in fact the case, does this mean that Delaware is morally superior to Arizona because more companies want to incorporate (”move”) there? I would say no, but Chad, I think you will have to say yes. To me this seems an absurd result.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Racism is more ignorant than evil. America is certainly only as good as its deeds.
We do some good, and we do some bad. But we have chronic problems that are the legacy of our darker corners of history.
Bigotry and racism ebbs and flows, as do notions of American superiority and exclusiveness.
I support an America that brings back the Bill of Rights,habeas corpus, and the dignity of being a laborer working for the promise of our Constitutional government.
Are we there yet?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Frank — you are confusing legal entities with people. People are moving to Arizona and other red states from the big government blue states. Its in the census dept numbers. People vote with their feet and they like the standard of living that comes with a relatively free market economy. Big government punishes the middle class, so people are leaving the big government, blue states.
As for Delaware, on paper, their laws encourage corporations to locate there. So corporate entities, which may or may not include people and physical presence, file their papers in Delaware.
Both examples prove my point from a “behavorial economics” point of view.
My point about moral goodness was a response to Charles’ Amerika comments. We are not perfect now, never have been, but if we were as bad the left-wing nuts say we are, why do millions, if not billions, of non-whites dream of coming here?
How come there are no stories of Americans fleeing in dingy rafts to Cuba or sneaking across the border to Mexico?
The answer is simple: America’s free-market, capitalist democracy provides the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Charles — I should point out my grandparents came from Cuba. They could a thing a two about a true dictatorship.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Bush is too incompetent to be a dictator.
Even Franco’s dictatorship provided health care and social security.
Our embargo of Cuba institutionalized Castro, and Cuban health care keeps the old bastard alive.
The GOP prefers a dog eat dog governance to anything resembling a dictatorship.
That said, we are still number one in incarcerating criminals. So maybe we can cobble a police state out of the ruins of Bush’s lack of governance for the people.
If Bush wanted to be a decent dictator, he would nationalize the steel and petroleum industries, like our trade partner China.
But he will privatize to the point of pseudo-anarchy. Toll roads, anyone?
November 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Using a K in America is not how Americans spell. We are better than that.
Can you imagine the lions of Arizona conservatism attacking Tedski for not pushing a GOP racism thread?
Would Barry Goldwater, Ev Meacham, Fife Symington or Jane Hull attack Tedski for such trivial nonsense?
How far the mighty have fallen.
In America, we actually like our neighbors. We are not an cartoonlike episode of ‘24,’ but a nation of diversity and conflict.
Real conservatives know how to spell and respect honest discourse.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“The answer is simple: America’s free-market, capitalist democracy provides the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.”
Right, I mostly agree. The point was this: does that comment, assuming it is 100% true, mean that America is also the most morally good nation as well?
If you think something being most desirable for people to possess (residency in the U.S.) makes something morally superior than something that is less desired, you have a truly screwed up view of morality. People being rational actors within a free-market system does not mean that the country with the best free-market system = best country when it comes to morals. For example, is Playboy morally superior to a magazine that has lesser subscription sales (say Time magazine) because it is more desired by people within the marketplace? Assuming you say no, then it must be something OTHER than it’s desirability in the market that determines moral goodness. IN the same way, it is something OTHER than people coming in or out of a country that determines its moral goodness.
That is the point I am trying to make. Now let’s apply:
“My point about moral goodness was a response to Charles’ Amerika comments. We are not perfect now, never have been, but if we were as bad the left-wing nuts say we are, why do millions, if not billions, of non-whites dream of coming here?”
Really? Because they live in a country where their potential utility is X, whereas in the U.S. their utility is X+1(at a minimum). Assuming that they are rational, they will move to where they can maximize whatever utility is to them. Now, of course, they have to factor costs into this. So, if it costs them 1 to move to America (cost of leaving friends, risk factors of getting cost, etc) then they will not move. If on the other hand, there are only .5 costs, then they will move, because they will have a net gain of .5. That doesn’t have anything to do with the inherent goodness of America as compared to other nations. Say for example it turns out that Great Britian would be X+2 (and I am NOT saying this is true, I know you like to fight strawmen Chad). Well, under your system, they are morally superior to us. However, people from Mexico will still want to come to the U.S., even though it is only X+1, because lets plug in random numbers and say that the costs for someone coming form Mexico are 2 to get to England (difficulty in actually getting there, much further, no distinct hispanic poplulation already established, etc), and still only .5, then they will still come to the U.S., because they are back at X will a move to GB, but up .5 in coming to the U.S.
There are also all sorts of problem with heuristics, in that the availability of the U.S. is much closer, everyone they know that moves goes to the U.S., etc., free rider problems that may not accurately reflect the market. We could go in circle all days about those sort of things.
So, again, America may have the most ‘freedom-loving laws’ but that DOES NOT make it inherently morally superior, which is what you were claiming.
Last, if Hillary is elected in 2008, I certainly hope that you will not complain about the job she does, because I promise you that there will be just as many people trying to get into our country while she is President. In fact, if you are so sure that she is going to do such a horrible job, that means that less people would come to our country in your theory, so you should want her! If immigration is number 1, and immigration goes down when we have a less free society (the contra-positive of your argument), then let’s get the most big government, president we can!
November 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Geez Frank. All I was saying is based on the sheer number of people who WANT to be here, America is not as bad as Charles makes it out to be. I am surprised this makes you so angry.
Let me make you madder by adding another fact.
As I noted about 6 months ago, more people are leaving Germany than immigrating to it, despite Germany’s “free” healthcare and semi-socialist economy. America beats out every EU country as the top destination for Germans. This includes german speaking Austria.
Based on that, do we need add another variable to your equation? X+1+USA, where USA is the desire to be in this country.
As for Hilary, we survived Carter and Nixon. As long as Hilary does not have us follow Europe, we will remain a strong country and the Europeans, Canadians and rest of the world can come here for quality health care and a good standard of living.
As for the definition of “morally superior”, I am basing that on the individual choices made by millions of other people to chose to in one place over another. I do not force my opinions of morality on others, hint hint…
November 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I’m not actually mad, still confused though that at the end, you still say that the definition of morality is based upon individual choices made by people as to where to live. Opportunity =! morality. Do you think that Las Vegas is one of the most morally superior cities in the U.S. because it is one of the fastest growing? http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/31/property-cities-growth-forbeslife-cx_mw_1031realestate_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=20000
November 17th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
…”America is not as bad as Charles makes it out to be.”
That’s a weak defense of your position. The point I’m making is that trying to pin the hypocrite label on Tedski for not pushing a talking point from the GOP is thin soup for a group of analysts who have gone bankrupt with their sausage making ideas.
America is much better than where the Bush regime has taken us. We are not an ‘Amerika’ nor are we the shining example that everyone who wants a car must follow.
We are better than our leaders and politicians, and our diversity is what prevents us from becoming the dictatorship that many fear.
Our embrace of many races and cultures is what has made us the shining example that the world once respected.
When Bush, Limbaugh and Cheney all trend towards the oblivion that their poll numbers suggest, then I suggest you find a more compelling strategy than calling Tedski a hypocrite for a racist DEM remark somewhere in Louisiana.
America IS much better than you portray it with strange rhetorical accusations of bias and blame.
My argument is mainstream and hopeful for a better tomorrow. The future is in finding common ground rather than smearing our fellow citizens.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Frank, the whole “sin city” thing is overrated. Nevada is much more of a libertarian, red state culture, just like Arizona (number 2 on the list).
A more appropriate comparison is San Francisco culture to Henderson or Maricopa county. The demographics speak for themselves.
Looking at it in totality — home prices, types of housing, jobs, schools, community events, parks, can you put a Christian fish on your car and not get flipped off — people choose red state America over blue states, and they choose America over Europe.
Again, I am using the rule that people chose their environment to live in, that’s how you decide the goodness or one over the other. Not that people are bad, per se.
Charles, I love your original posts of evil Republicans followed up with accusing me of “bias and blame.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You and my brother should get together. He’s a member of MoveOn.org and you two can talk about how “mainstream” you are.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
regles poker 2…
Each one of partie poker net gioco poker da scaricare come giocare poker streap poker online poker real money bonus…