Should a Supreme Court Nominee’s Sexuality Matter?
May 14th, 2010
(1025 views )
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: Mike Q [Visitor]
Her gender doesn’t matter. Her sexuality doesn’t either, if she can keep it in check. (Words have meaning.) Just so long as she’s not this century’s version of a Margaret Thatcher. I was reminded recently of Thatcher’s particularly sludgy jingo, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Isn’t every “you” one of the “other people?” Does it actually make any logical sense, from the words, the suggestion in Thatcher’s comment that if you spend only your own money solely on yourself that you’ll apparently never run out of money, but that if all citizens chip in their share into a public account, this money and all the rest of our money, somehow, disappears, reappearing perhaps as Cadillacs for all of Reagan’s “welfare queens?” The answer to this question is no, of course it makes no sense. To people not steeped in paranoid conservatism, that is. The words as they stand are pure confused suggestion, manipulative innuendo, kept deliberately unparsable so that simpler people can’t see that her comment is crap.
In experiments, chimps always fail to overcome the urge to point to the larger number of prize treats, even after seeing repeatedly that this action sends this larger number to another chimp, leaving the smaller number to itself. However, after learning to understand numerals, the chimp will point to the smaller value numeral so that it gets the larger number of treats. In the first situation, it’s the chimp’s primitive “lizard brain” that drives her illogical action, while in the second situation, the use of symbols allowed more rational thought. The kinds of verbal sludge conservatives use act on the primitive brain, not on the rational brain.
Thatcher didn’t have the honesty or integrity to say something clear and rational, but it’s nothing less than I’d expect from her. She did more than most politicians of the twentieth century, along with her pal Reagan, to savage the public good in aid of reasserting a state of oligarchy by the rich and privileged. To accomplish this she had to use sludge words.
You know, like “freedom.” I have yet to see a conservative define what he means when he uses that word. A pre-Civil War conservative knew he was free when he could look upon his slaves and see that, since these inferiors are clearly the slaves, then I must be the superior, the free man, he figured. Not that a conservative was evil for thinking this, in his view, anyway. He read his Bible, where he found justification for keeping slaves. He loved his family, and hardly ever whipped his darkies. Surely this made him a good man.
Post-Civil War conservatives, still called Bourbons, though they were no longer able to maintain the lifestyle of aristocrats on plantations, took on the role of –as they called themselves- “Redeemers”. To re-establish blacks as inferiors, so that whites could feel superior and luxuriate in the feeling of freedom this gave them, was seen as a crusade of redemption of white freedom, inspired by God. Conservatives took every political office they could, and wrote law after law (Jim Crow variety) to re-establish white supremacy, even reaching into the US Supreme Court in the Plessey case. (Separate but equal mandated the separate part, but not the equal part. A community that said that it could not afford to build a second school or swimming pool just for blacks didn’t have to. Ergo, separate but equal basically meant blacks were shut out of society. Way to go, superior white Christians!) They cut government spending at all levels, but especially for public education, yet they imposed poll taxes. And they levied taxes on farm supplies that would hit the poor farmer the hardest. Lowering taxes for the rich and raising them for the poor sounds just like conservatives today.
What does freedom mean today, to the modern conservative (if that’s not too oxymoronic)? You must tell all the bondage freaks out there, who don’t want their freedom, what it is they’re missing. Is freedom these days something to do with money? Like having more of it than inferior people? And not having to share any of it with them? That’s it, I betcha. If so, then the conservative’s freedom is still about domination, just like it always was, and not at all about a state of grace. “Each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage.” (Rudyard Kipling)
In studying apes and humans, it looks rather surely that humans were able to achieve civilization, while apes did not, because of selection for increased prosocial cooperation. Apes can learn for themselves, but they don’t deliberately teach. One seeming drawback of this quasi-hive-mind is that humans are prone to imitate what we’re taught even when we have the capacity to see that what we were taught was invalid, while apes will dismiss what they were taught if they can discover it’s invalid information. But we nevertheless benefit more from heightened prosocial interactions such as teaching than what we lose by sometimes being slaves to what we were taught, or by sometimes being viewed as “socialistic.”
Fundamentalists see art as blasphemy, science as heresy, civilization’s culture as hedonism. Burn the books, they say, except for one, and of that read only the cruel parts that subordinate people. The exalters of hierarchy place the wealthy and the white up there with their pal, God, while “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” There’s no power, no superiority, no exceptionalism, without a mass of inferiors to compare exalted status to.
But who would embrace inferior status, without sludge words that bypass reason and go straight for the lizard brain?
So, Mrs Kagan, if you think and speak honestly, you’ll be OK, whatever your gender or your sexuality.
In experiments, chimps always fail to overcome the urge to point to the larger number of prize treats, even after seeing repeatedly that this action sends this larger number to another chimp, leaving the smaller number to itself. However, after learning to understand numerals, the chimp will point to the smaller value numeral so that it gets the larger number of treats. In the first situation, it’s the chimp’s primitive “lizard brain” that drives her illogical action, while in the second situation, the use of symbols allowed more rational thought. The kinds of verbal sludge conservatives use act on the primitive brain, not on the rational brain.
Thatcher didn’t have the honesty or integrity to say something clear and rational, but it’s nothing less than I’d expect from her. She did more than most politicians of the twentieth century, along with her pal Reagan, to savage the public good in aid of reasserting a state of oligarchy by the rich and privileged. To accomplish this she had to use sludge words.
You know, like “freedom.” I have yet to see a conservative define what he means when he uses that word. A pre-Civil War conservative knew he was free when he could look upon his slaves and see that, since these inferiors are clearly the slaves, then I must be the superior, the free man, he figured. Not that a conservative was evil for thinking this, in his view, anyway. He read his Bible, where he found justification for keeping slaves. He loved his family, and hardly ever whipped his darkies. Surely this made him a good man.
Post-Civil War conservatives, still called Bourbons, though they were no longer able to maintain the lifestyle of aristocrats on plantations, took on the role of –as they called themselves- “Redeemers”. To re-establish blacks as inferiors, so that whites could feel superior and luxuriate in the feeling of freedom this gave them, was seen as a crusade of redemption of white freedom, inspired by God. Conservatives took every political office they could, and wrote law after law (Jim Crow variety) to re-establish white supremacy, even reaching into the US Supreme Court in the Plessey case. (Separate but equal mandated the separate part, but not the equal part. A community that said that it could not afford to build a second school or swimming pool just for blacks didn’t have to. Ergo, separate but equal basically meant blacks were shut out of society. Way to go, superior white Christians!) They cut government spending at all levels, but especially for public education, yet they imposed poll taxes. And they levied taxes on farm supplies that would hit the poor farmer the hardest. Lowering taxes for the rich and raising them for the poor sounds just like conservatives today.
What does freedom mean today, to the modern conservative (if that’s not too oxymoronic)? You must tell all the bondage freaks out there, who don’t want their freedom, what it is they’re missing. Is freedom these days something to do with money? Like having more of it than inferior people? And not having to share any of it with them? That’s it, I betcha. If so, then the conservative’s freedom is still about domination, just like it always was, and not at all about a state of grace. “Each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage.” (Rudyard Kipling)
In studying apes and humans, it looks rather surely that humans were able to achieve civilization, while apes did not, because of selection for increased prosocial cooperation. Apes can learn for themselves, but they don’t deliberately teach. One seeming drawback of this quasi-hive-mind is that humans are prone to imitate what we’re taught even when we have the capacity to see that what we were taught was invalid, while apes will dismiss what they were taught if they can discover it’s invalid information. But we nevertheless benefit more from heightened prosocial interactions such as teaching than what we lose by sometimes being slaves to what we were taught, or by sometimes being viewed as “socialistic.”
Fundamentalists see art as blasphemy, science as heresy, civilization’s culture as hedonism. Burn the books, they say, except for one, and of that read only the cruel parts that subordinate people. The exalters of hierarchy place the wealthy and the white up there with their pal, God, while “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” There’s no power, no superiority, no exceptionalism, without a mass of inferiors to compare exalted status to.
But who would embrace inferior status, without sludge words that bypass reason and go straight for the lizard brain?
So, Mrs Kagan, if you think and speak honestly, you’ll be OK, whatever your gender or your sexuality.
Permalink 05/14/10 @ 16:24
Comment from: Kathy [Visitor] 
Blowback: Why They Try to Bomb Us
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/blowback_why_they_try_to_bomb_us_20100513/
By David Sirota
Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe.
Imagine that in this alternate universe, a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using onboard missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors.
Now imagine that when you read the newspaper about this ongoing bloodbath, you learn that the foreign nation’s top general is nonchalantly telling reporters that his troops are also killing “an amazing number” of your cultural brethren in an adjacent country. Imagine further learning that this foreign power is expanding the drone attacks on your community despite the attacks’ well-known record of killing innocents. And finally, imagine that when you turn on your television, you see the perpetrator nation’s tuxedo-clad leader cracking stand-up comedy jokes about drone strikes—jokes that prompt guffaws from an audience of that nation’s elite.
Ask yourself: How would you and your fellow citizens respond? Would you call homegrown militias mounting a defense “patriots” or would you call them “terrorists”? Would you agree with your leaders when they angrily tell reporters that violent defiance should be expected?
Fortunately, most Americans don’t have to worry about these queries in their own lives. But how we answer them in a hypothetical thought experiment provides us insight into how Pakistanis are likely to be feeling right now. Why? Because thanks to our continued drone assaults on their country, Pakistanis now confront these issues every day. And if they answer these questions as many of us undoubtedly would in a similar situation—well, that should trouble every American in this age of asymmetrical warfare.
Though we don’t like to call it mass murder, the U.S. government’s undeclared drone war in Pakistan is devolving into just that. As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.
“Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders,” David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. “But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed.”
Making matters worse, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has, indeed, told journalists that in Afghanistan, U.S. troops have “shot an amazing number of people” and “none has proven to have been a real threat.” Meanwhile, President Barack Obama used his internationally televised speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner to jest about drone warfare—and the assembled Washington glitterati did, in fact, reward him with approving laughs.
By eerie coincidence, that latter display of monstrous insouciance occurred on the same night as the failed effort to raze Times Square. Though America reacted to that despicable terrorism attempt with its routine spasms of cartoonish shock (why do they hate us?!), the assailant’s motive was anything but baffling. As law enforcement officials soon reported, the accused bomber was probably trained and inspired by Pakistani groups seeking revenge for U.S. drone strikes.
“This is a blowback,” said Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. “This is a reaction. And you could expect that ... let’s not be naive.”
Obviously, regardless of rationale, a “reaction” that involves trying to incinerate civilians in Manhattan is abhorrent and unacceptable. But so is Obama’s move to intensify drone assaults that we know are regularly incinerating innocent civilians in Pakistan. And while Qureshi’s statement about “expecting” blowback seems radical, he’s merely echoing the CIA’s reminder that “possibilities of blowback” arise when we conduct martial operations abroad.
We might remember that somehow-forgotten warning come the next terrorist assault. No matter how surprised we may feel after that inevitable (and inevitably deplorable) attack, the fact remains that until we halt our own indiscriminately violent actions, we ought to expect equally indiscriminate and equally violent reactions.
David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/blowback_why_they_try_to_bomb_us_20100513/
By David Sirota
Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe.
Imagine that in this alternate universe, a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using onboard missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors.
Now imagine that when you read the newspaper about this ongoing bloodbath, you learn that the foreign nation’s top general is nonchalantly telling reporters that his troops are also killing “an amazing number” of your cultural brethren in an adjacent country. Imagine further learning that this foreign power is expanding the drone attacks on your community despite the attacks’ well-known record of killing innocents. And finally, imagine that when you turn on your television, you see the perpetrator nation’s tuxedo-clad leader cracking stand-up comedy jokes about drone strikes—jokes that prompt guffaws from an audience of that nation’s elite.
Ask yourself: How would you and your fellow citizens respond? Would you call homegrown militias mounting a defense “patriots” or would you call them “terrorists”? Would you agree with your leaders when they angrily tell reporters that violent defiance should be expected?
Fortunately, most Americans don’t have to worry about these queries in their own lives. But how we answer them in a hypothetical thought experiment provides us insight into how Pakistanis are likely to be feeling right now. Why? Because thanks to our continued drone assaults on their country, Pakistanis now confront these issues every day. And if they answer these questions as many of us undoubtedly would in a similar situation—well, that should trouble every American in this age of asymmetrical warfare.
Though we don’t like to call it mass murder, the U.S. government’s undeclared drone war in Pakistan is devolving into just that. As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.
“Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders,” David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. “But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed.”
Making matters worse, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has, indeed, told journalists that in Afghanistan, U.S. troops have “shot an amazing number of people” and “none has proven to have been a real threat.” Meanwhile, President Barack Obama used his internationally televised speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner to jest about drone warfare—and the assembled Washington glitterati did, in fact, reward him with approving laughs.
By eerie coincidence, that latter display of monstrous insouciance occurred on the same night as the failed effort to raze Times Square. Though America reacted to that despicable terrorism attempt with its routine spasms of cartoonish shock (why do they hate us?!), the assailant’s motive was anything but baffling. As law enforcement officials soon reported, the accused bomber was probably trained and inspired by Pakistani groups seeking revenge for U.S. drone strikes.
“This is a blowback,” said Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. “This is a reaction. And you could expect that ... let’s not be naive.”
Obviously, regardless of rationale, a “reaction” that involves trying to incinerate civilians in Manhattan is abhorrent and unacceptable. But so is Obama’s move to intensify drone assaults that we know are regularly incinerating innocent civilians in Pakistan. And while Qureshi’s statement about “expecting” blowback seems radical, he’s merely echoing the CIA’s reminder that “possibilities of blowback” arise when we conduct martial operations abroad.
We might remember that somehow-forgotten warning come the next terrorist assault. No matter how surprised we may feel after that inevitable (and inevitably deplorable) attack, the fact remains that until we halt our own indiscriminately violent actions, we ought to expect equally indiscriminate and equally violent reactions.
David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.”
Permalink 05/17/10 @ 00:12
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
“The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Isn’t every “you” one of the “other people?”...
The words as they stand are pure confused suggestion, manipulative innuendo, kept deliberately unparsable so that simpler people can’t see that her comment is crap...In the first situation, it’s the chimp’s primitive “lizard brain” that drives her illogical action, while in the second situation, the use of symbols allowed more rational thought. The kinds of verbal sludge conservatives use act on the primitive brain, not on the rational brain…”
“To accomplish this she had to use sludge words. You know, like “freedom.” I have yet to see a conservative define what he means when he uses that word..."-Mike Q
Sludge words that act on primitive lizard chimp brains and not the rational brain? Your comment is quite humorous but completely inaccurate and I believe the exact opposite.
All intelligent writing uses words in sentences to express thoughts. The individual words do not matter. What matters is what the author is trying to express by using certain words. Take for example Dickens. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” This makes no sense to the lizard brain but the intelligent rational brain says, “I get it, the title is A Tale of Two Cities”. In addition, when we put too much emphasis on the words or symbols themselves instead of what is being expressed, we completely confuse the meaning. A classical example would be the very funny Abbott and Costello routine, “Who’s on First .“ The primitive chimp brain would fall right into the trap of thinking “who” was his name because it would be concentrating on the words or symbols instead of the real meaning.
So Thatcher was not being sludgy but was expressing a very rational thought. Of course, a chimp would not understand it but any human would, if they were open to the truth. Thatcher was using a clever way of stating that Socialism eventually fails because if YOU believe in it, it’s because YOU are most likely benefiting from it. Benefiting not by your own individual means but by the means of OTHERS who are supporting YOU with their own money that will eventually run out, if Capitalism is replaced with Socialism. You may not believe that way but it does not make it irrational.
More irrational to me are those that only see things as black or white both literally and figuratively. Of Course, anyone could see that slavery or false imprisonment is not freedom. What is harder for some people to see is the grey areas. Such as; forced to hand over your money (unfair taxes), forced to speak a certain way (politically correct), forced to be silent about your religious or patriotic beliefs (Christian and American traditions), forced to buy health care (Obamacare), and so on, are assaults on our freedoms.
It is ridicules to think that if someone were to take away somebody’s else’s freedom, that it makes that person, entity or government free or more free. Freedom is always defended because everyone in their natural state is free. The only way you lose freedom is if someone or something more powerful tries to take it from you.
So my definition of freedom is simply to be able to live ones life naturally, without infringing on someone else's right to live naturally.
The words as they stand are pure confused suggestion, manipulative innuendo, kept deliberately unparsable so that simpler people can’t see that her comment is crap...In the first situation, it’s the chimp’s primitive “lizard brain” that drives her illogical action, while in the second situation, the use of symbols allowed more rational thought. The kinds of verbal sludge conservatives use act on the primitive brain, not on the rational brain…”
“To accomplish this she had to use sludge words. You know, like “freedom.” I have yet to see a conservative define what he means when he uses that word..."-Mike Q
Sludge words that act on primitive lizard chimp brains and not the rational brain? Your comment is quite humorous but completely inaccurate and I believe the exact opposite.
All intelligent writing uses words in sentences to express thoughts. The individual words do not matter. What matters is what the author is trying to express by using certain words. Take for example Dickens. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” This makes no sense to the lizard brain but the intelligent rational brain says, “I get it, the title is A Tale of Two Cities”. In addition, when we put too much emphasis on the words or symbols themselves instead of what is being expressed, we completely confuse the meaning. A classical example would be the very funny Abbott and Costello routine, “Who’s on First .“ The primitive chimp brain would fall right into the trap of thinking “who” was his name because it would be concentrating on the words or symbols instead of the real meaning.
So Thatcher was not being sludgy but was expressing a very rational thought. Of course, a chimp would not understand it but any human would, if they were open to the truth. Thatcher was using a clever way of stating that Socialism eventually fails because if YOU believe in it, it’s because YOU are most likely benefiting from it. Benefiting not by your own individual means but by the means of OTHERS who are supporting YOU with their own money that will eventually run out, if Capitalism is replaced with Socialism. You may not believe that way but it does not make it irrational.
More irrational to me are those that only see things as black or white both literally and figuratively. Of Course, anyone could see that slavery or false imprisonment is not freedom. What is harder for some people to see is the grey areas. Such as; forced to hand over your money (unfair taxes), forced to speak a certain way (politically correct), forced to be silent about your religious or patriotic beliefs (Christian and American traditions), forced to buy health care (Obamacare), and so on, are assaults on our freedoms.
It is ridicules to think that if someone were to take away somebody’s else’s freedom, that it makes that person, entity or government free or more free. Freedom is always defended because everyone in their natural state is free. The only way you lose freedom is if someone or something more powerful tries to take it from you.
So my definition of freedom is simply to be able to live ones life naturally, without infringing on someone else's right to live naturally.
Permalink 05/17/10 @ 11:17
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
"Imagine that in this alternate universe, a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using onboard missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors." - Kathy
This analogy only works if they lived simililar to us, where the people and the government are in control. Where certain extremist do not violently force their way of life and culture on the innocent of their own country, as well as invade, kill and try to kill the people of other countries.
Perhaps, if we lived that way here we would welcome in the Drones from countries that believed in Democracy as a way to battle these aggressors and preserve the lives of the innocent in the long run that oppose them and have no way to stop them.
This analogy only works if they lived simililar to us, where the people and the government are in control. Where certain extremist do not violently force their way of life and culture on the innocent of their own country, as well as invade, kill and try to kill the people of other countries.
Perhaps, if we lived that way here we would welcome in the Drones from countries that believed in Democracy as a way to battle these aggressors and preserve the lives of the innocent in the long run that oppose them and have no way to stop them.
Permalink 05/17/10 @ 12:02
Comment from: Mike Q [Visitor]
"What matters is what the author is trying to express"
To me, what matters is what the reader thinks is intended. Bush II's speechwriters put in Biblical quotes that were pretty much meaningless in any literal sense, but which struck an emotional chord with the evangelicals in his base,-not by necessarily being particularly apropos, but by the suggestion that he was one of them, and wants them to follow him just because of that. Reagan's "tough on crime" phrase was INTENDED to be understood by his base as meaning "tough on blacks."
To you, these code words and phrases are "what the author is trying to express." They're a sort of verbal secret handshake, though, not intended to be clear and unambiguous to everyone so that everyone could understand the words as they stand, but rather are intended to be a wink and a nod to the brotherhood.
My first sentence at the top of the page distinguished gender and sexuality. They are not the same. Saying that "the individual words do not matter" makes sense only to those who WANT to use only loaded, coded, deceptive language. "When we put too much emphasis on the words or symbols themselves instead of what is being expressed, we completely confuse the meaning." What can confuse the intended meaning is NOT using plain, unloaded language, failing to be discriminating in the meaning of the words as they stand. Understand, I DO appreciate poetry, which communicates in the very same way. But poetry's bypassing of literal, sequential logic centers has as its aim the seeding of beauty, poignance, insight. Politicians' intent in bypassing logic is to further reinforce his agenda. It's not art, it's chicanery.
To me, what matters is what the reader thinks is intended. Bush II's speechwriters put in Biblical quotes that were pretty much meaningless in any literal sense, but which struck an emotional chord with the evangelicals in his base,-not by necessarily being particularly apropos, but by the suggestion that he was one of them, and wants them to follow him just because of that. Reagan's "tough on crime" phrase was INTENDED to be understood by his base as meaning "tough on blacks."
To you, these code words and phrases are "what the author is trying to express." They're a sort of verbal secret handshake, though, not intended to be clear and unambiguous to everyone so that everyone could understand the words as they stand, but rather are intended to be a wink and a nod to the brotherhood.
My first sentence at the top of the page distinguished gender and sexuality. They are not the same. Saying that "the individual words do not matter" makes sense only to those who WANT to use only loaded, coded, deceptive language. "When we put too much emphasis on the words or symbols themselves instead of what is being expressed, we completely confuse the meaning." What can confuse the intended meaning is NOT using plain, unloaded language, failing to be discriminating in the meaning of the words as they stand. Understand, I DO appreciate poetry, which communicates in the very same way. But poetry's bypassing of literal, sequential logic centers has as its aim the seeding of beauty, poignance, insight. Politicians' intent in bypassing logic is to further reinforce his agenda. It's not art, it's chicanery.
Permalink 05/17/10 @ 14:15
Comment from: Ben [Visitor]
Should a Supreme Court nominee’s sexuality matter? No, they should stop wasting time with trivial points like this, and attack that which makes or breaks a supreme court nominee's credibility and candidacy.
Permalink 05/17/10 @ 14:59
Comment from: Tom [Visitor]
.. Her sexuality means NOTHING to me its about qualification and the constitution!
.. BTW Who is questioning her sexuality? I have not heard 1 elected offical or anyone of *substance* question her sexuality! Who is talking about this?
.. I think this is a BIG PHONEY partison issue that some are using to divert attention instead of looking at her track record and qualifications!
.. Thats THE REAL issue ladies and gents!!! / of story!!!!
.. BTW Who is questioning her sexuality? I have not heard 1 elected offical or anyone of *substance* question her sexuality! Who is talking about this?
.. I think this is a BIG PHONEY partison issue that some are using to divert attention instead of looking at her track record and qualifications!
.. Thats THE REAL issue ladies and gents!!! / of story!!!!
Permalink 05/17/10 @ 19:18
Comment from: ghon [Visitor]
Sounds like the old Geroge Bush/Dick Chaney diversion tactic. Look GLBTS are in the country. They'll ruin families. Yadda Yadda Yadda. NO IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT! Ahhhh anyone realize that there used to be a consitution and it proved equality for all? Now stop if I'm wrong, but don'e GLBTS people pay taxes too? Now if I pay taxes I personally want all my rights and prviledges no matter my sexuality or I want a BIG REFUND! Oh that's right GWB overlooked that like his phoney republican cronies. No a nominees sexuality shouldn't matter unless it gives him or her a tax break. Lets' stop the nonsense now.
ghon
ghon
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 13:19
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
Mike Q- "To me, what matters is what the reader thinks is intended. Bush II's speechwriters put in Biblical quotes...Reagan's "tough on crime" phrase was INTENDED to be understood by his base as meaning "tough on blacks...Politicians' intent in bypassing logic is to further reinforce his agenda. It's not art, it's chicanery."
Yes it is true, politicians have an agenda and like salesmen and lawyers they will add or subtract details and even twist logic in order to succeed with their goal.
Ironically, your statements are doing the same thing, with a pointed bias against those on the right. You point out adding biblical quotes as something so subversive. When there are many more things that most people would feel are much worse. Certainly, you realize this tactic is not exclusive to the right. Obama is notorious for this in his speeches.
Your statement about Reagan goes even beyond political tactics to that of complete nonsense, in my opinion. There is a supposition in your statement that the “intended” message to voters is he would be tough on blacks and that is something voters would approve. Yet most voters I believe, think “tough on crime” means more security. This raises a legitimate question: When would tough on crime EVER mean tough on crime? I suppose for those with a bias, the answer is not “when” but “who” is the one saying it.
Yes it is true, politicians have an agenda and like salesmen and lawyers they will add or subtract details and even twist logic in order to succeed with their goal.
Ironically, your statements are doing the same thing, with a pointed bias against those on the right. You point out adding biblical quotes as something so subversive. When there are many more things that most people would feel are much worse. Certainly, you realize this tactic is not exclusive to the right. Obama is notorious for this in his speeches.
Your statement about Reagan goes even beyond political tactics to that of complete nonsense, in my opinion. There is a supposition in your statement that the “intended” message to voters is he would be tough on blacks and that is something voters would approve. Yet most voters I believe, think “tough on crime” means more security. This raises a legitimate question: When would tough on crime EVER mean tough on crime? I suppose for those with a bias, the answer is not “when” but “who” is the one saying it.
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 17:41
Comment from: robert [Visitor]
Something to ponder:
Senate Committee Should Question Elena Kagan On Issues Relating To Church-State Separation, Says Americans United
May 10, 2010 Watchdog Group Calls On Judiciary Committee Members To Ascertain Nominee’s Views On Key Religious Liberty Issues
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on her views concerning a range of church-state issues.
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/05/senate-committee-should.html?utm_source=au%2Bhomepage&utm_medium=homepage%2Bbanner&utm_campaign=Featured%2Bon%20homepage
Senate Committee Should Question Elena Kagan On Issues Relating To Church-State Separation, Says Americans United
May 10, 2010 Watchdog Group Calls On Judiciary Committee Members To Ascertain Nominee’s Views On Key Religious Liberty Issues
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on her views concerning a range of church-state issues.
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/05/senate-committee-should.html?utm_source=au%2Bhomepage&utm_medium=homepage%2Bbanner&utm_campaign=Featured%2Bon%20homepage
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 17:51
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
QUESTION: Who gives a darn about Elena Kagan period?
What about the Euro? Why should we be allowing the Federal Reserve to use our money increasing our national deficit to lend to the IMF who will profit on both ends of the Greece bailout? Who are the principals behind the IMF? What nerve do they possess to try to insinuate that we must pay up our debt when they just borrowed from us to make their deal. Will every day Americans be able to collect the full benefits of the interest that they are attempting to charge Greece on that decade long payment schedule that doubles the cost of the loan over that period of time?
Just asking- relevant questions.
What about the Euro? Why should we be allowing the Federal Reserve to use our money increasing our national deficit to lend to the IMF who will profit on both ends of the Greece bailout? Who are the principals behind the IMF? What nerve do they possess to try to insinuate that we must pay up our debt when they just borrowed from us to make their deal. Will every day Americans be able to collect the full benefits of the interest that they are attempting to charge Greece on that decade long payment schedule that doubles the cost of the loan over that period of time?
Just asking- relevant questions.
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 18:33
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
ISRAEL BANS NOAM CHOMSKY FROM ENTERING THE WEST BANK TO GIVE LECTURE TO PALASTINIANS- ... SO HE PRESENTS LECTURE BY VIDEO
Tue May 18, 12:39 pm ET
BIR ZEIT, West Bank (AFP) – Renowned Jewish-American scholar and activist Noam Chomsky, who was barred from the West Bank by Israel earlier this week, on Tuesday delivered a lecture to Palestinian students by video link from Jordan.
Around 100 students packed into a room at Bir Zeit University near the West Bank city of Ramallah to watch the lecture, delivered by live-link from the Jordanian capital, Amman.
Chomsky had been due to give the lecture in person on Monday, but was stopped from entering the West Bank at the Israeli-controlled crossing from Jordan.
After hours of questioning by border officials, Chomsky's passport was stamped with "Denied Entry" and he was sent away.
Israel's interior ministry insisted the incident was a "misunderstanding" and said the 81-year-old professor had not been blacklisted, while a senior government source described the situation as "a total cockup".
Although Israeli officials insisted he would be permitted to cross the border, Chomsky discovered on Monday there was no "official" guarantee he would be allowed in, so he decided to give the lecture by video link, the Haaretz daily reported.
Speaking to the paper about his lengthy interrogation at the border, Chomsky said he was told: "Israel does not like what you say."
Preventing him from entering the West Bank was "tantamount to boycotting Bir Zeit University," said Chomsky, who opposes a general boycott on Israel.
He told the paper that Israel's behaviour reminded him of that of South Africa in the 1960s, when it realised it was already considered a pariah, but thought it would resolve the problem with better public relations.
Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the US Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a prominent critic of US foreign policy. He has also frequently spoken out against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
SO MUCH FOR THE FUTILE ATTEMPTS OF THE FEEBLE MINDED.
Whoever said, that our bosom buddy ally ever learned anything about tolerance or freedom of speech. Has anyone been noticing their gradual metamorphosis into a totalitarian "aparteid state"?
ISRAEL BANS NOAM CHOMSKY FROM ENTERING THE WEST BANK TO GIVE LECTURE TO PALASTINIANS- ... SO HE PRESENTS LECTURE BY VIDEO
Tue May 18, 12:39 pm ET
BIR ZEIT, West Bank (AFP) – Renowned Jewish-American scholar and activist Noam Chomsky, who was barred from the West Bank by Israel earlier this week, on Tuesday delivered a lecture to Palestinian students by video link from Jordan.
Around 100 students packed into a room at Bir Zeit University near the West Bank city of Ramallah to watch the lecture, delivered by live-link from the Jordanian capital, Amman.
Chomsky had been due to give the lecture in person on Monday, but was stopped from entering the West Bank at the Israeli-controlled crossing from Jordan.
After hours of questioning by border officials, Chomsky's passport was stamped with "Denied Entry" and he was sent away.
Israel's interior ministry insisted the incident was a "misunderstanding" and said the 81-year-old professor had not been blacklisted, while a senior government source described the situation as "a total cockup".
Although Israeli officials insisted he would be permitted to cross the border, Chomsky discovered on Monday there was no "official" guarantee he would be allowed in, so he decided to give the lecture by video link, the Haaretz daily reported.
Speaking to the paper about his lengthy interrogation at the border, Chomsky said he was told: "Israel does not like what you say."
Preventing him from entering the West Bank was "tantamount to boycotting Bir Zeit University," said Chomsky, who opposes a general boycott on Israel.
He told the paper that Israel's behaviour reminded him of that of South Africa in the 1960s, when it realised it was already considered a pariah, but thought it would resolve the problem with better public relations.
Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the US Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a prominent critic of US foreign policy. He has also frequently spoken out against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
SO MUCH FOR THE FUTILE ATTEMPTS OF THE FEEBLE MINDED.
Whoever said, that our bosom buddy ally ever learned anything about tolerance or freedom of speech. Has anyone been noticing their gradual metamorphosis into a totalitarian "aparteid state"?
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 18:44
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
"Why should we be allowing the Federal Reserve to use our money increasing our national deficit to lend to the IMF who will profit on both ends of the Greece bailout?"
The real question is, if we are in debt how is it we are able to lend any money at all? This is the point of groups like the Tea Party. Words like "no", "self sacrifice", "can't afford", "responsible spending" and so on, does not exist in government anymore. We are not on a run away train, Conductor Obama and the rest of the spenders are driving us off the track because they simply refuse to stop spending.
The real question is, if we are in debt how is it we are able to lend any money at all? This is the point of groups like the Tea Party. Words like "no", "self sacrifice", "can't afford", "responsible spending" and so on, does not exist in government anymore. We are not on a run away train, Conductor Obama and the rest of the spenders are driving us off the track because they simply refuse to stop spending.
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 20:32
Comment from: robert [Visitor]
John,I caught an interview given by Amy Goodman on this subject with Mr Chomsky it was very interesting.
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 20:52
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
The globalists are hellbent on setting in stone laws and agendas that will forever marginalize citizens to a new status lower than the illegals who are serving their purposes of bankrupting all of us- as nothing more than wage slaves... mindless, broke, brain idled with pharmeceuticals and marginal.
A collateral damage that they can easily live with as they rebuild their coffers for their oasis HQs in Dubai.
We the people cannot remain silent in these next few months. you must have your voices heard before they pass that banking regulations bill that leaves out global equities and holdings. Neither Kerry nor Dodd are willing to even consider removing their blanket immunitys. Obama is playing the same Bush DOD slush fund, shuffling the decks game with our money and defenses in Afghanistan.
With the constant drone of mass medias talking heads Mexico's illegals will continue to drain whatever is left of our states budgets. To date all of the states harboring the most illegals finds themselves totally underwater and unable to meet their budgets. California, NY, NJ, Florida, Arizona are all shining examples of the Fed not acting on the behalf of its citizens. Don't listen to any Dem tauting fines as being a fair settlement to citizens who have suffered the loss of a job, a house or standard of living. Only the government and their hacks will see any of the benefit from any of those fines that are levied. the payment of those fines will never balance the books for states or municipalities and you will still be on the hook to make up the difference.
---------------
Jobless recovery is no recovery at all. Make your voices heard somewhere before the Kerry- Lieberman propostition or the dodd bill is passed or rest assured that we will be sucked down the drain along with Europe and the Euro within this decade.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE BALANCES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT JOBS BEGIN TO OUTNUMBER THOSE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?
More...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=percentages+of+jobs+private+sector+versus+government+employees
A collateral damage that they can easily live with as they rebuild their coffers for their oasis HQs in Dubai.
We the people cannot remain silent in these next few months. you must have your voices heard before they pass that banking regulations bill that leaves out global equities and holdings. Neither Kerry nor Dodd are willing to even consider removing their blanket immunitys. Obama is playing the same Bush DOD slush fund, shuffling the decks game with our money and defenses in Afghanistan.
With the constant drone of mass medias talking heads Mexico's illegals will continue to drain whatever is left of our states budgets. To date all of the states harboring the most illegals finds themselves totally underwater and unable to meet their budgets. California, NY, NJ, Florida, Arizona are all shining examples of the Fed not acting on the behalf of its citizens. Don't listen to any Dem tauting fines as being a fair settlement to citizens who have suffered the loss of a job, a house or standard of living. Only the government and their hacks will see any of the benefit from any of those fines that are levied. the payment of those fines will never balance the books for states or municipalities and you will still be on the hook to make up the difference.
---------------
Jobless recovery is no recovery at all. Make your voices heard somewhere before the Kerry- Lieberman propostition or the dodd bill is passed or rest assured that we will be sucked down the drain along with Europe and the Euro within this decade.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE BALANCES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT JOBS BEGIN TO OUTNUMBER THOSE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?
More...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=percentages+of+jobs+private+sector+versus+government+employees
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 22:13
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
JOBS YOUR CONGRESS SAYS AMERICANS WONT DO-
Spain’s Jobless Find It Hard to Go Back to Farm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/world/europe/16spain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Spain’s Jobless Find It Hard to Go Back to Farm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/world/europe/16spain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 23:26
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
ANOTHER $54BILLION GONE WITHOUT A TRACE. THE IMF LENDS OUR MONEY AT AN INTEREST RATE THAT THE GREEK WORK FORCE REFUSES TO PAY-
Greeks blame "hedge funds" for their woes and demise. Do not dismiss that fact or factor because "hedge funds and derivatives remain in the domain of the global equities who will utilize SWFs and foreign treasuries to manipulate markets in ways that only "they" can compete.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100517/tbs-uk-eurozone-4210405.html
Greeks blame "hedge funds" for their woes and demise. Do not dismiss that fact or factor because "hedge funds and derivatives remain in the domain of the global equities who will utilize SWFs and foreign treasuries to manipulate markets in ways that only "they" can compete.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100517/tbs-uk-eurozone-4210405.html
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 23:27
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Beck was right! The censors will not allow any pertinent about the recent *MF loan past their filters.
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 23:42
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Caspian: how do you use that tiny world method to transpose a post the way Sir Wm does.
Permalink 05/18/10 @ 23:44
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
I'll get back to that topic another day- when i do, fit it in between the last posts and this one.
_________________
Don't bother with John Kerry his office will not even talk to you about that Kerry- Lieberman joke that sets up all of your favorite defectors such as Cisco Systems(China) etal as the ultimate benefactors of his climate bill.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=Corporate+sponsors+of+the+Kerry-+Lieberman++bill
"...Senator Kerry has admitted that the bill was written in close consultation with the companies and industries to be regulated, including the Edison Electric Institute and major oil companies. Kerry recently remarked “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” referring to BP, Conoco Phillips, and Shell. This process could only be considered “ironic” by someone unacquainted with the history of special interest lobbying in Washington, D.C.
“Cap and trade regulation, far from disciplining the energy sector, is poised to become one of the greatest wealth transfers from consumers to private corporations in the nation’s history,” said Ebell. “General Electric, Exelon, BP, Goldman Sachs, and Duke Energy will make out like bandits because of provisions they have written. That’s not democracy or capitalism. It’s political corruption and crony capitalism.”
As public awareness of what cap and trade would cost American consumers has grown, the bill’s sponsors have responded not by amending their proposals, but by trying to fool the public with shifting terminology. Senator Kerry at one point renamed gasoline taxes “linked fees.” Sen. Lieberman remarked in April he was dropping the phrase “cap and trade” in favor of “emissions reduction targets,” going so far as to joke about the in-name-only difference by asking a reporter “Remember the Artist Previously Known as Prince?”
“Lieberman is not the only one playing word games,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. On-again, off-again co-sponsor Lindsey Graham recently said in an interview that he no longer considers the Kerry-Lieberman legislation either a cap-and-trade bill or a global warming bill because “There is no bipartisan support for a cap-and-trade bill based on global warming.”
“So, because climate alarm and cap-and-tax are no longer polling well, Graham now pretends he can change the bill’s nature simply by rebranding it."
http://cei.org/news-release/2010/05/11/kerry-graham-lieberman-bill-huge-payoff-big-business
_________________
Don't bother with John Kerry his office will not even talk to you about that Kerry- Lieberman joke that sets up all of your favorite defectors such as Cisco Systems(China) etal as the ultimate benefactors of his climate bill.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=Corporate+sponsors+of+the+Kerry-+Lieberman++bill
"...Senator Kerry has admitted that the bill was written in close consultation with the companies and industries to be regulated, including the Edison Electric Institute and major oil companies. Kerry recently remarked “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” referring to BP, Conoco Phillips, and Shell. This process could only be considered “ironic” by someone unacquainted with the history of special interest lobbying in Washington, D.C.
“Cap and trade regulation, far from disciplining the energy sector, is poised to become one of the greatest wealth transfers from consumers to private corporations in the nation’s history,” said Ebell. “General Electric, Exelon, BP, Goldman Sachs, and Duke Energy will make out like bandits because of provisions they have written. That’s not democracy or capitalism. It’s political corruption and crony capitalism.”
As public awareness of what cap and trade would cost American consumers has grown, the bill’s sponsors have responded not by amending their proposals, but by trying to fool the public with shifting terminology. Senator Kerry at one point renamed gasoline taxes “linked fees.” Sen. Lieberman remarked in April he was dropping the phrase “cap and trade” in favor of “emissions reduction targets,” going so far as to joke about the in-name-only difference by asking a reporter “Remember the Artist Previously Known as Prince?”
“Lieberman is not the only one playing word games,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. On-again, off-again co-sponsor Lindsey Graham recently said in an interview that he no longer considers the Kerry-Lieberman legislation either a cap-and-trade bill or a global warming bill because “There is no bipartisan support for a cap-and-trade bill based on global warming.”
“So, because climate alarm and cap-and-tax are no longer polling well, Graham now pretends he can change the bill’s nature simply by rebranding it."
http://cei.org/news-release/2010/05/11/kerry-graham-lieberman-bill-huge-payoff-big-business
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 00:04
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
I guessed right, again. It was the *MF component that set off the censors.
"Who knows what vile thoughts lurks in the hearts of greedy men?
"Who knows what vile thoughts lurks in the hearts of greedy men?
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 00:10
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
"Beck was right! The censors will not allow any pertinent about the recent *MF loan past their filters."
John, a while back I said you talk like Beck. About a year ago I saw his show where he traced out the federal reserve, NWO, Woodrow Wilson. a lot of what you have been saying. Some of his TV props and the way he presents his views are quite funny and entertaining. On the other hand, if most of what he says is true, he is probably one of the greatest messengers of our time, albeit disguised as an entertainer. The truth will be revealed to all in time.
John, a while back I said you talk like Beck. About a year ago I saw his show where he traced out the federal reserve, NWO, Woodrow Wilson. a lot of what you have been saying. Some of his TV props and the way he presents his views are quite funny and entertaining. On the other hand, if most of what he says is true, he is probably one of the greatest messengers of our time, albeit disguised as an entertainer. The truth will be revealed to all in time.
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 00:28
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
“So, because climate alarm and cap-and-tax are no longer polling well, Graham now pretends he can change the bill’s nature simply by rebranding it."
John, that has been the game for quite a while now:
Health care reform, Insurance reform.
Economic stimulus package, jobs bill.
Global Warming, climate change.
Illegal alien, undocumented worker.
ACORN, ACCE.
Lying, mis-spoke.
We have to pass the bill to know what’s in the bill, Victory for the American people.
Much of Politics is a name game, filled with lies and trickery to reach an objective.
John, that has been the game for quite a while now:
Health care reform, Insurance reform.
Economic stimulus package, jobs bill.
Global Warming, climate change.
Illegal alien, undocumented worker.
ACORN, ACCE.
Lying, mis-spoke.
We have to pass the bill to know what’s in the bill, Victory for the American people.
Much of Politics is a name game, filled with lies and trickery to reach an objective.
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 00:56
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
-------------
LET THE BUYERS BEWARE!!!
Over the past decade the *3 lettered bank bankrupted several countries by calling in their loans earlier than the term that was originally set. (*In other words the it can do the same thing that THE GOLD-MANS did betting against repayment.) Only this time on a much larger scale. *This time it could wipe out whole nations and pull us in along with it.
-------------
LET THE BUYERS BEWARE!!!
Over the past decade the *3 lettered bank bankrupted several countries by calling in their loans earlier than the term that was originally set. (*In other words the it can do the same thing that THE GOLD-MANS did betting against repayment.) Only this time on a much larger scale. *This time it could wipe out whole nations and pull us in along with it.
-------------
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 06:05
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
More about the *MF and its scurrulous business practices...READ THE NEXT PASSAGE
"The *MF still gets its money - indeed, the MDRI enables it to collect on some of its most dubious claims, in full, through the mechanism of trust funds set up by wealthier countries and the World Bank. But after 25 years of keeping almost 100 countries on a "debt treadmill" - *structural adjustment loans leading to more poverty and debt, leading to more structural adjustment loans - the *MF has lost its leverage to maintain that cycle with some of the most vulnerable ones. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, given the infiltration of finance ministries with former *MF and World Bank employees, few countries avail themselves of this opportunity. Most already have signed onto new, restrictive programs with the *MF and/or World Bank by the time the MDRI is finalized."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/209/43104.html
------------
***Fears Intensify That Euro Crisis Could Snowball-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/business/global/17fear.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
"...“This bailout wasn’t done to help the Greeks; it was done to help the French and German banks,” said Niall Ferguson, an economic historian at Harvard. “They’ve poured some water on the fire, but the fire has not gone out.”
The European rescue plan, totaling 750 billion euros, is intended to head off the risk of default but would vastly increase borrowing. That could hamstring Europe’s nascent recovery.
Indeed, it was too much debt that caused the problem in the first place: a new report by the International Monetary Fund warns that “high levels of public indebtedness could weigh on economic growth for years.”
-------------
Final Analysis
IF GLOBAL EQUITIES, "THE IMF" & WORLD BANK BORROW OUR MONEY FROM THE FED AND THEY ALONE PROFIT LEAVING US OUT AS THE PRIMARY LENDERS OR INVESTERS THEN ARE ALLOWED TO MONOPOLIZE, ...BOILER ROOM, ...THEN "SHORT SELL" HUGE VOLUMES OF STOCK SUCH AS YOU ALL SAW LAST WEEK-...IN FOREIGN MARKETS AND EXCHANGES LONG AFTER WALL STREET IS CLOSED- THEN WHAT EARTHLY GOOD IS DOMESTIC REGULATION?
If you agree, call Senator Dodds office and let him know what you think about his "intentional exemptions".
------------------
Don't bother with John Kerry his office will not even talk to you about that Kerry- Lieberman scam that sets up all of your favorite defectors such as Cisco Systems(China) etal as the ultimate benefactors of his climate bill.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=Corporate+sponsors+of+the+Kerry-+Lieberman++bill
"...Senator Kerry has admitted that the bill was written in close consultation with the companies and industries to be regulated, including the Edison Electric Institute and major oil companies. Kerry recently remarked “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” referring to BP, Conoco Phillips, and Shell. This process could only be considered “ironic” by someone unacquainted with the history of special interest lobbying in Washington, D.C.
“Cap and trade regulation, far from disciplining the energy sector, is poised to become one of the greatest wealth transfers from consumers to private corporations in the nation’s history,” said Ebell. “General Electric, Exelon, BP, Goldman Sachs, and Duke Energy will make out like bandits because of provisions they have written. That’s not democracy or capitalism. It’s political corruption and crony capitalism.”
As public awareness of what cap and trade would cost American consumers has grown, the bill’s sponsors have responded not by amending their proposals, but by trying to fool the public with shifting terminology. Senator Kerry at one point renamed gasoline taxes “linked fees.” Sen. Lieberman remarked in April he was dropping the phrase “cap and trade” in favor of “emissions reduction targets,” going so far as to joke about the in-name-only difference by asking a reporter “Remember the Artist Previously Known as Prince?”
“Lieberman is not the only one playing word games,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. On-again, off-again co-sponsor Lindsey Graham recently said in an interview that he no longer considers the Kerry-Lieberman legislation either a cap-and-trade bill or a global warming bill because “There is no bipartisan support for a cap-and-trade bill based on global warming.”
“So, because climate alarm and cap-and-tax are no longer polling well, Graham now pretends he can change the bill’s nature simply by rebranding it."
http://cei.org/news-release/2010/05/11/kerry-graham-lieberman-bill-huge-payoff-big-business
"The *MF still gets its money - indeed, the MDRI enables it to collect on some of its most dubious claims, in full, through the mechanism of trust funds set up by wealthier countries and the World Bank. But after 25 years of keeping almost 100 countries on a "debt treadmill" - *structural adjustment loans leading to more poverty and debt, leading to more structural adjustment loans - the *MF has lost its leverage to maintain that cycle with some of the most vulnerable ones. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, given the infiltration of finance ministries with former *MF and World Bank employees, few countries avail themselves of this opportunity. Most already have signed onto new, restrictive programs with the *MF and/or World Bank by the time the MDRI is finalized."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/209/43104.html
------------
***Fears Intensify That Euro Crisis Could Snowball-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/business/global/17fear.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
"...“This bailout wasn’t done to help the Greeks; it was done to help the French and German banks,” said Niall Ferguson, an economic historian at Harvard. “They’ve poured some water on the fire, but the fire has not gone out.”
The European rescue plan, totaling 750 billion euros, is intended to head off the risk of default but would vastly increase borrowing. That could hamstring Europe’s nascent recovery.
Indeed, it was too much debt that caused the problem in the first place: a new report by the International Monetary Fund warns that “high levels of public indebtedness could weigh on economic growth for years.”
-------------
Final Analysis
IF GLOBAL EQUITIES, "THE IMF" & WORLD BANK BORROW OUR MONEY FROM THE FED AND THEY ALONE PROFIT LEAVING US OUT AS THE PRIMARY LENDERS OR INVESTERS THEN ARE ALLOWED TO MONOPOLIZE, ...BOILER ROOM, ...THEN "SHORT SELL" HUGE VOLUMES OF STOCK SUCH AS YOU ALL SAW LAST WEEK-...IN FOREIGN MARKETS AND EXCHANGES LONG AFTER WALL STREET IS CLOSED- THEN WHAT EARTHLY GOOD IS DOMESTIC REGULATION?
If you agree, call Senator Dodds office and let him know what you think about his "intentional exemptions".
------------------
Don't bother with John Kerry his office will not even talk to you about that Kerry- Lieberman scam that sets up all of your favorite defectors such as Cisco Systems(China) etal as the ultimate benefactors of his climate bill.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=Corporate+sponsors+of+the+Kerry-+Lieberman++bill
"...Senator Kerry has admitted that the bill was written in close consultation with the companies and industries to be regulated, including the Edison Electric Institute and major oil companies. Kerry recently remarked “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” referring to BP, Conoco Phillips, and Shell. This process could only be considered “ironic” by someone unacquainted with the history of special interest lobbying in Washington, D.C.
“Cap and trade regulation, far from disciplining the energy sector, is poised to become one of the greatest wealth transfers from consumers to private corporations in the nation’s history,” said Ebell. “General Electric, Exelon, BP, Goldman Sachs, and Duke Energy will make out like bandits because of provisions they have written. That’s not democracy or capitalism. It’s political corruption and crony capitalism.”
As public awareness of what cap and trade would cost American consumers has grown, the bill’s sponsors have responded not by amending their proposals, but by trying to fool the public with shifting terminology. Senator Kerry at one point renamed gasoline taxes “linked fees.” Sen. Lieberman remarked in April he was dropping the phrase “cap and trade” in favor of “emissions reduction targets,” going so far as to joke about the in-name-only difference by asking a reporter “Remember the Artist Previously Known as Prince?”
“Lieberman is not the only one playing word games,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. On-again, off-again co-sponsor Lindsey Graham recently said in an interview that he no longer considers the Kerry-Lieberman legislation either a cap-and-trade bill or a global warming bill because “There is no bipartisan support for a cap-and-trade bill based on global warming.”
“So, because climate alarm and cap-and-tax are no longer polling well, Graham now pretends he can change the bill’s nature simply by rebranding it."
http://cei.org/news-release/2010/05/11/kerry-graham-lieberman-bill-huge-payoff-big-business
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 06:18
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Thank You- Noam Chomsky ...for teaching the nuances of linguistics and the form of disguised intentional double talk in your book THE LINGUISTICS OF CULTURAL DESPAIR.
Those who are still bamboozled by party platforms and their self serving politics would do themselves a great amount of good by reading it and improving their recognitions of how they are being herded like non-thinking animals, into regurgitating mindless soundbytes that not so curiously work against your own interests.
Once you know who the various operations work and who they ultimately work for, you can never be fooled again.
Those who are still bamboozled by party platforms and their self serving politics would do themselves a great amount of good by reading it and improving their recognitions of how they are being herded like non-thinking animals, into regurgitating mindless soundbytes that not so curiously work against your own interests.
Once you know who the various operations work and who they ultimately work for, you can never be fooled again.
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 06:37
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Thank You- Noam Chomsky ...for teaching the nuances of linguistics and the form of disguised intentional double talk in your book THE LINGUISTICS OF CULTURAL DESPAIR.
Those who are still bamboozled by party platforms and their self serving politics would do themselves a great amount of good by reading it and improving their recognitions of how they are being herded like non-thinking animals, into regurgitating mindless soundbytes that not so curiously work against your own interests.
Once you know who the various operations work and who they ultimately work for, you can never be fooled again.
LOVE THY NEIGHBORS- AS YOU LOVE YOURSELVES.
The charitable act of PAYING for the fish given to a starving man to stave off his hunger, is only eclipsed by TEACHING that man how to fish so that he can save himself.
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR "KNOWLEDGE" OBTAINED BY THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF A SOLID EDUCATION!
Those who are still bamboozled by party platforms and their self serving politics would do themselves a great amount of good by reading it and improving their recognitions of how they are being herded like non-thinking animals, into regurgitating mindless soundbytes that not so curiously work against your own interests.
Once you know who the various operations work and who they ultimately work for, you can never be fooled again.
LOVE THY NEIGHBORS- AS YOU LOVE YOURSELVES.
The charitable act of PAYING for the fish given to a starving man to stave off his hunger, is only eclipsed by TEACHING that man how to fish so that he can save himself.
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR "KNOWLEDGE" OBTAINED BY THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF A SOLID EDUCATION!
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 06:46
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
In plain English that means- "we can pay a little in taxes to educate our children and re-educate ourselves now...
...or pay forever for the demise of our nation over the remaining course of our entire existance."- Spirit
...or pay forever for the demise of our nation over the remaining course of our entire existance."- Spirit
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 06:52
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Newsflash! Today-
Former Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill emphasizes that "unless banking re-regulations are applied across the board to global entities the same way as they pertain to the domestic financials we will collapse the dollar and the US economy." - Bloomberg TV (all day long)
Former Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill emphasizes that "unless banking re-regulations are applied across the board to global entities the same way as they pertain to the domestic financials we will collapse the dollar and the US economy." - Bloomberg TV (all day long)
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 07:38
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Newsflash! Today-
Former Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill emphasizes that "unless banking re-regulations are applied across the board to global entities the same way as they pertain to the domestic financials we will collapse the dollar and the US economy." - Bloomberg TV (all day long)
Economists across the spectrum concur.
------------
A streetwise in the ways of *MF and World Bank Germany, that is now on the hook for the Greek bailout, bans "short sells". Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! At least somebody is listeneing and taking the appropriate actions.
Will you take a little of your time to get banking committee members to reign in the global equities, the IMF, and World Bank before its too late?
END THE "TOO BIG TO FAILS"- RIGHT NOW!
Former Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill emphasizes that "unless banking re-regulations are applied across the board to global entities the same way as they pertain to the domestic financials we will collapse the dollar and the US economy." - Bloomberg TV (all day long)
Economists across the spectrum concur.
------------
A streetwise in the ways of *MF and World Bank Germany, that is now on the hook for the Greek bailout, bans "short sells". Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! At least somebody is listeneing and taking the appropriate actions.
Will you take a little of your time to get banking committee members to reign in the global equities, the IMF, and World Bank before its too late?
END THE "TOO BIG TO FAILS"- RIGHT NOW!
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 07:49
Comment from: John--- [Visitor]
Newsflash! Today-
Former Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill emphasizes that "unless banking re-regulations are applied across the board to global entities the same way as they pertain to the domestic financials we will collapse the dollar and the US economy." - Bloomberg TV (all day long)
Economists across the spectrum concur.
------------
A streetwise in the ways of *MF and World Bank Germany, that is now on the hook for the Greek bailout, "bans" naked short sells of CREEDIT DEFAULT SWAPS. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! At least somebody is listeneing and taking the appropriate actions.
Euro is plunging further, the need for European exports to pay for the IMF loan means that we will not be permitted to increase our exports. That's the yin/yang affect. "For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction."
Will you pleeeeease take a little of your time to get banking committee members to reign in the global equities, the IMF, and World Bank before its too late?
END THE "TOO BIG TO FAILS"- RIGHT NOW!
Former Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill emphasizes that "unless banking re-regulations are applied across the board to global entities the same way as they pertain to the domestic financials we will collapse the dollar and the US economy." - Bloomberg TV (all day long)
Economists across the spectrum concur.
------------
A streetwise in the ways of *MF and World Bank Germany, that is now on the hook for the Greek bailout, "bans" naked short sells of CREEDIT DEFAULT SWAPS. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! At least somebody is listeneing and taking the appropriate actions.
Euro is plunging further, the need for European exports to pay for the IMF loan means that we will not be permitted to increase our exports. That's the yin/yang affect. "For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction."
Will you pleeeeease take a little of your time to get banking committee members to reign in the global equities, the IMF, and World Bank before its too late?
END THE "TOO BIG TO FAILS"- RIGHT NOW!
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 08:07
Comment from: Caspian [Visitor] · http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar
· http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar
John
http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar
http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 09:11
Comment from: Mike Q [Visitor]
"Certainly, you realize this tactic (of emotional appeals to the base) is not exclusive to the right. Obama is notorious for this in his speeches."
Politicians try to get support, one way or another. This may not be exclusive to the right, but the egregiousness of the right's appeal to the worst in people seems inescapable. Sure, Obama is a politician, but I'd like to hear examples of some of his "notorious" emotional manipulativeness.
"Your statement about Reagan goes even beyond political tactics to that of complete nonsense, in my opinion. There is a supposition in your statement that the “intended” message to voters is he would be tough on blacks and that is something voters would approve. Yet most voters I believe, think “tough on crime” means more security."
I should have said Nixon more than Reagan. But Reagan really pushed that "southern strategy" that capitalized on racism. (Republicans Mehlman and Steele both spoke recently about the Republican Party's use of this racist strategy.) Nixon's strategist Kevin Phillips spoke of it in this way: "Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act." (which they had been trying to do) "The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites" (far greater in number than blacks) "will quit the Democrats and become Republicans."
Apologists say that voters were responding to economic concerns and appeals to law and order. But that translates to blacks or immigrants taking our jobs. It magically produces a prison population mostly consisting of what is a small minority in the general US population. Drug users, for instance, are something like 70% white, yet 60% of people in prison on drug charges are black. Blacks are 13% of the US population, they're 14% of the drug users in this country, yet 60% of the convicted users. No way this is not concerted bias. Courts won't even listen to appeals based on claims of bias without proof of deliberate intent to apply different standards to black defendents. In other words, there are very few successful appeals. Felons lose the right to vote. Several million minority felons and ex-felons, largely disposed to lean toward the Democratic Party, unable to vote,-that's an effective strategy to favor Republican wins.
As the coded phrases get exposed over the years, they have to be revised. The past several years we've had the even more vague phrase "conservative values." Sure, you'll squawk at my suggesting there could be anything unseemly about conservative values, but at least in my "pointed bias" I can suggest that the ultimate outcome of a rigorous application of these values would tend to achieve much the same as did the "southern strategy."
Politicians try to get support, one way or another. This may not be exclusive to the right, but the egregiousness of the right's appeal to the worst in people seems inescapable. Sure, Obama is a politician, but I'd like to hear examples of some of his "notorious" emotional manipulativeness.
"Your statement about Reagan goes even beyond political tactics to that of complete nonsense, in my opinion. There is a supposition in your statement that the “intended” message to voters is he would be tough on blacks and that is something voters would approve. Yet most voters I believe, think “tough on crime” means more security."
I should have said Nixon more than Reagan. But Reagan really pushed that "southern strategy" that capitalized on racism. (Republicans Mehlman and Steele both spoke recently about the Republican Party's use of this racist strategy.) Nixon's strategist Kevin Phillips spoke of it in this way: "Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act." (which they had been trying to do) "The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites" (far greater in number than blacks) "will quit the Democrats and become Republicans."
Apologists say that voters were responding to economic concerns and appeals to law and order. But that translates to blacks or immigrants taking our jobs. It magically produces a prison population mostly consisting of what is a small minority in the general US population. Drug users, for instance, are something like 70% white, yet 60% of people in prison on drug charges are black. Blacks are 13% of the US population, they're 14% of the drug users in this country, yet 60% of the convicted users. No way this is not concerted bias. Courts won't even listen to appeals based on claims of bias without proof of deliberate intent to apply different standards to black defendents. In other words, there are very few successful appeals. Felons lose the right to vote. Several million minority felons and ex-felons, largely disposed to lean toward the Democratic Party, unable to vote,-that's an effective strategy to favor Republican wins.
As the coded phrases get exposed over the years, they have to be revised. The past several years we've had the even more vague phrase "conservative values." Sure, you'll squawk at my suggesting there could be anything unseemly about conservative values, but at least in my "pointed bias" I can suggest that the ultimate outcome of a rigorous application of these values would tend to achieve much the same as did the "southern strategy."
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 11:28
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
Mike Q- Below are a couple of Obama examples. Most of the time it is there in his conversations depending on who he is addressing or trying to appease. Just today I heard Obama told reporters that he would be reviewing the Arizona immigration law to make sure it represents "traditional core American values" When has he ever been concerned about traditional values? He ran a campaign of change and seems to want to change everything traditional.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/05/the_contradiction_in_obamas_na.html
"The speech itself involved a rhetorical sleight of hand...
The gap between aspiration and application was massive -- an obvious attempt to appease Obama’s leftist base with civil libertarian and anti-Bush rhetoric while maintaining the policy tools necessary to conduct an ongoing war on terror (whatever that conflict is now called)."
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/02/26/article/cal_thomas_obamas_speech_full_of_contrasts
"There were a number of contrasts, even contradictions, in Obama's address. The president claims he will halve the deficit while substantially adding to it. He will improve schools but opposes the voucher program. He will begin pulling most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq but send 17,000 more to Afghanistan. He will "eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs," most of which were initiated by Congress and have constituencies who will be angry when these programs are cut.In perhaps the biggest contrast of all -- bordering on subterfuge -- the president claimed the budget he presents to Congress this week is "free of earmarks".
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/05/the_contradiction_in_obamas_na.html
"The speech itself involved a rhetorical sleight of hand...
The gap between aspiration and application was massive -- an obvious attempt to appease Obama’s leftist base with civil libertarian and anti-Bush rhetoric while maintaining the policy tools necessary to conduct an ongoing war on terror (whatever that conflict is now called)."
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/02/26/article/cal_thomas_obamas_speech_full_of_contrasts
"There were a number of contrasts, even contradictions, in Obama's address. The president claims he will halve the deficit while substantially adding to it. He will improve schools but opposes the voucher program. He will begin pulling most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq but send 17,000 more to Afghanistan. He will "eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs," most of which were initiated by Congress and have constituencies who will be angry when these programs are cut.In perhaps the biggest contrast of all -- bordering on subterfuge -- the president claimed the budget he presents to Congress this week is "free of earmarks".
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 14:31
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
"Drug users, for instance, are something like 70% white, yet 60% of people in prison on drug charges are black. Blacks are 13% of the US population, they're 14% of the drug users in this country, yet 60% of the convicted users. No way this is not concerted bias."
Mike Q, this does not substantiate your case of racism. Suppose drug users are 70% white. Suppose those whites are middle class suburban recreational users. Perhaps those being targeted are in the inner city, where violent crimes are more prevalent and where there are more police. I suspect there may be more minorities or more minority gangs in the inner cities as well. I suspect they are targeting the inner city because of the higher violent crime rate and not just blacks over whites.
In order to prove my suspicion we need more information. Those that were arrested, what area were they from? If they were blacks from affluent suburban neighborhoods where the whites may have out numbered the blacks, then I would agree with your assessment of bias. If they are from inner cities were perhaps blacks out numbered the whites, then they are probably just targeting high crime areas and it is not a racial thing at all. Sometimes raw numbers do not tell the whole story.
Mike Q, this does not substantiate your case of racism. Suppose drug users are 70% white. Suppose those whites are middle class suburban recreational users. Perhaps those being targeted are in the inner city, where violent crimes are more prevalent and where there are more police. I suspect there may be more minorities or more minority gangs in the inner cities as well. I suspect they are targeting the inner city because of the higher violent crime rate and not just blacks over whites.
In order to prove my suspicion we need more information. Those that were arrested, what area were they from? If they were blacks from affluent suburban neighborhoods where the whites may have out numbered the blacks, then I would agree with your assessment of bias. If they are from inner cities were perhaps blacks out numbered the whites, then they are probably just targeting high crime areas and it is not a racial thing at all. Sometimes raw numbers do not tell the whole story.
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 14:58
Comment from: Mike Q [Visitor]
MG: In those examples of Obama speeches I see political doubletalk, but where's the appeal to the ugly elements in us that I was talking about?
"Suppose those whites are middle class suburban recreational users."
So, when it's known that these white suburbanites of yours are committing most of the drug crimes of possession and use, and they're pretty much left alone, while urban blacks are relentlesly policed until finally something can be pinned on them, that's not unequal treatment? If it's violent crimes that are the reason for the heavy police pressure in cities, then why are those same non-violent drug crimes that are not considered worth policing in the white suburbs such a heavy focus in the city? If it's because the city cops are there already, so they may as well collar blacks until they find one with drugs, then what is the innocent excuse for the higher percentage of black prosecutions compared to an equal number of white arrests? No, there are enough studies of unequal treatment to show that charges of racism are not glib and unwarranted, and so easy to dismiss as that.
"Suppose those whites are middle class suburban recreational users."
So, when it's known that these white suburbanites of yours are committing most of the drug crimes of possession and use, and they're pretty much left alone, while urban blacks are relentlesly policed until finally something can be pinned on them, that's not unequal treatment? If it's violent crimes that are the reason for the heavy police pressure in cities, then why are those same non-violent drug crimes that are not considered worth policing in the white suburbs such a heavy focus in the city? If it's because the city cops are there already, so they may as well collar blacks until they find one with drugs, then what is the innocent excuse for the higher percentage of black prosecutions compared to an equal number of white arrests? No, there are enough studies of unequal treatment to show that charges of racism are not glib and unwarranted, and so easy to dismiss as that.
Permalink 05/19/10 @ 18:52
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
"..where's the appeal to the ugly elements in us that I was talking about?"-MQ
Something got lost in translation. I was responding to your comment about Bush adding biblical references in his speeches to appease the evangelists. Appealing to ugly elements, not convinced of that.
"...while urban blacks are relentlesly policed until finally something can be pinned on them, that's not unequal treatment?"-MQ
It is unequal treatment between suburban and urban BUT it is only racial if urban whites are left alone while urban blacks are pursued. Just because there may be a larger number of blacks then whites in the city that does not mean race is the reason. The way to know this is to compare cities with similar crime rates where there may be a majority of whites and see if those city whites are policed the same.
Something got lost in translation. I was responding to your comment about Bush adding biblical references in his speeches to appease the evangelists. Appealing to ugly elements, not convinced of that.
"...while urban blacks are relentlesly policed until finally something can be pinned on them, that's not unequal treatment?"-MQ
It is unequal treatment between suburban and urban BUT it is only racial if urban whites are left alone while urban blacks are pursued. Just because there may be a larger number of blacks then whites in the city that does not mean race is the reason. The way to know this is to compare cities with similar crime rates where there may be a majority of whites and see if those city whites are policed the same.
Permalink 05/20/10 @ 00:46
Comment from: Mike Q [Visitor]
You're still treating the notion of racial bias in drug arrests as something purely theoretical, something that's still debatable, something that hasn't been studied in cities and suburbs all across the country. A quick google will turn up plenty of studies (some of which, unfortunately, are summaries or news clips, not original source). I mean, really, this isn't some cockamie idea I came up with. If you're living on this planet you have to know about racism. It's quite bizarre how the right lately has insisted that it's something made up by the left.
Permalink 05/20/10 @ 10:08
Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
Mike Q, most of what I write is from my own experience not statistics. When I have time I would like to examine those studies and verify what they are saying because I have very little faith in the media.
I am not in your shoes and you are not in mine, so we obviously are speaking from a different prospective. I respect where you are coming from. Do I contend there is no racism today? Of-course not. I have heard and seen things in my lifetime that I would consider racist, directed at all ethic groups. However, more often, I have seen situations where minorities are favored, in order to eliminate the possibility of discrimination.
I can say in my lifetime, I have never experienced or was aware of some deliberate effort by government to jail someone based on their race and ignore that same crime by someone else because they are of a different race. The most egregious, disgusting thing I ever witnessed, was the Rodney King incident. Clearly an abuse of police power and apparently based on race. Yet, can I say for certain had Rodney King been white in that same scenario, that the police would not have acted that way? Even if we conclude the police abuse was based solely on race, to your point, we must also conclude that the courts would have to mistreat him based on his race, which I don't see happening today.
I am not in your shoes and you are not in mine, so we obviously are speaking from a different prospective. I respect where you are coming from. Do I contend there is no racism today? Of-course not. I have heard and seen things in my lifetime that I would consider racist, directed at all ethic groups. However, more often, I have seen situations where minorities are favored, in order to eliminate the possibility of discrimination.
I can say in my lifetime, I have never experienced or was aware of some deliberate effort by government to jail someone based on their race and ignore that same crime by someone else because they are of a different race. The most egregious, disgusting thing I ever witnessed, was the Rodney King incident. Clearly an abuse of police power and apparently based on race. Yet, can I say for certain had Rodney King been white in that same scenario, that the police would not have acted that way? Even if we conclude the police abuse was based solely on race, to your point, we must also conclude that the courts would have to mistreat him based on his race, which I don't see happening today.
Permalink 05/20/10 @ 13:28
Comment from: Charlsie Yearsley [Visitor] · http://hypebeast.com/forum/member.php?u=52310
Great article
Permalink 11/13/10 @ 06:35
Comment from: Becky Singletary [Visitor] · http://www.wastedpaper.com/index.php/member/update_profile/
Nice Article
Permalink 11/13/10 @ 10:44
Comment from: buy resveratrol [Visitor] · http://buyresveratrolonline.org/
Isn't the initial commenter telling the truth or what??
Permalink 11/14/10 @ 14:21
Comment from: golf club reviews [Visitor] · http://golfclubreviewssite.com/
Nice article
Permalink 11/14/10 @ 20:37
Comment from: Elliott Bettinger [Visitor] · http://www.bpdfriends.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=2688
good job
Permalink 11/17/10 @ 13:13
Comment from: Luetta Deichmann [Visitor] · http://second.registrycleanerhq.com/
Assisted me a lot, just what I was searching for : D.
Permalink 11/26/10 @ 09:42
Comment from: mopokortti uudistus viivästyy [Visitor] · http://andreca65.zudublogs.com/uncategorized/mopo-ja-moottoripyora-erot/
I like this post, enjoyed this one thanks for posting .
Permalink 12/02/10 @ 19:05
Comment from: pikalainat [Visitor] · http://pikavippinyt.net/pikalaina-taman-hetken-parhaat-pikalainat-luoteltuna/
Regards for this post, I am a big fan of this web site would like to continue updated.
Permalink 12/11/10 @ 05:21
Comment from: Sirena Brobst [Visitor] · http://www.plan-a-diet.com/phpbb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=88753
titanic post you've obtain
Permalink 12/13/10 @ 04:19
Comment from: Danna Semasko [Visitor] · http://bitacorita.info/blossomstuteville/
You are a very clever person!
Permalink 12/15/10 @ 09:11
Comment from: 5Dimes Racebook [Visitor] · http://www.sportsbetting1stop.com/
Yo, a splendid info dude. Thnkx But I’m experiencing trouble with your rss . Unable to subscribe to it. Does anyone else facing identical RSS feed issue? Anybody who knows please reply. Thanks!
Permalink 12/15/10 @ 11:54
Comment from: Keneth Everson [Visitor] · http://www.airjesus.com/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=72694
I keep listening to the news broadcast speak about receiving boundless online grant applications so I have been looking around for the top site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i acquire some?
Permalink 12/16/10 @ 18:42
Comment from: จองโรงแรม [Visitor] · http://www.thaitravelmate.com
· http://www.thaitravelmate.com
A very helpfull article - A big thank you I hope you dont mind me writting about this article on my blog I will also link back to this post Thanks
Permalink 12/17/10 @ 10:50
Comment from: Vincent Klevjer [Visitor] · http://delta357670.co.cc
Incredible! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It's on a entirely different subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Outstanding choice of colors!
Permalink 08/16/11 @ 11:49
Comment from: dental malpractice lawyer [Visitor] · http://www.blogtext.org/spiderman866/article/598308.html?Are+You+Any+Victim+Regarding+Dental+malpractice
Just read it in a few minutes, great article!
Permalink 08/18/11 @ 04:35
Comment from: bosch 36618-02 review [Visitor] · http://onlineshoppingreview.net/love-the-bosch-36618-02-cordless-drill-read-why/
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Ie. I'm not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I'd post to let you know. The design and style look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon. Cheers Also, please visit my page http://bosch3661802.posterous.com/best-cordless-drill-review-bosch-36618-02-cor
Permalink 08/30/11 @ 00:07
Comment from: grex pin nailer [Visitor] · http://grexp650.doodlekit.com/home
Hey! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a team of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us useful information to work on. You have done a wonderful job! Also, please take a look at my site http://grexp650.co.cc
Permalink 09/06/11 @ 16:29
Comment from: ps40-2a [Visitor] · http://boschps402.terapad.com/
Hi there are using Wordpress for your site platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and create my own. Do you need any html coding knowledge to make your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated! Also, please check out my page http://boschps402.toolsreviewblog.net/
Permalink 10/13/11 @ 05:09
Comment from: Lottozahlen Samstag [Visitor] · http://www.lottozahlensamstag.info
I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the structure of your site? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or 2 pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?
Permalink 05/11/12 @ 12:00