 |
 |
Steve Gilliard, 1964-2007
It is with tremendous sadness that we must convey the news that Steve Gilliard, editor and publisher of The News Blog, passed away June 2, 2007. He was 42.
To those who have come to trust The News Blog and its insightful, brash and unapologetic editorial tone, we have Steve to thank from the bottom of our hearts. Steve helped lead many discussions that mattered to all of us, and he tackled subjects and interest categories where others feared to tread.
Please keep Steve's friends and family in your thoughts and prayers.
Steve meant so much to us.
We will miss him terribly.
Like Cartoons, Politics Defies Logic
Via TBogg recently, the behind-the-curve wingnuts are all fired up over the immigration bill.
So fired up in fact, that gol-dernit!, they're gonna use teh google to impact their officeholders stance on said bill:
"Last year, I organized the Rightroots effort to raise more than a quarter of a million dollars for Republican candidates in the last 3 months of the election. This year, if this amnesty bill passes, I'm going to organize a group of blogers to raise money for any viable primary challengers to pro-amnesty Republicans in the Senate. I'm also going to offer those candidates my services, pro-bono, as a consultant, to try to get their names out in the blogosphere. On top of that, I'm going to hunt down every single piece of dirt I can find on the pro-amnesty Republicans and I'm going to release it in the blogosphere. Put another way, if you're a Republican Senator up for reelection in 2008 and you vote for amnesty -- and you face a viable primary challenger -- I've got two words for you,
Scorched Earth."
Except...as pointed out in comments by our own Julia of Sisyphus Shrugged:
"and Google, who rewrote their algorithms last year specifically to combat linkbombing, are never going to notice."
I believe it was Driftglass who I first heard say, "these people could f*ck up a two car funeral". If you want to understand why the top-down style of the wingnuttosphere is the abject failure it is, bass-ackwardness such as this is proof positive of Drifty's point. So by all means, my dear C-cuppers and cheerleaders, fire up your Amigas and Lisas and have at it. Do try to not give the hamster powering your beige boxes a heart attack, though.
Oh, and while nibbling at your cheetos, enjoy this little cartoon break.
And in the spirit of bi-partisan disgust, this week's craven bullsh*t on our side will not go uncommented on. Fill up a bowl of Congress Crispies, my fellow lefties.
Life was so much simpler when we were a bunch a' cartoon-watching kids, wud'n it? :(
-- Lowermanhattanite
In African folklore, there are many different tales...stories of proud kings, and haughty warriors. Mischevious children, and wise beasts of the plain.
Sadly, most of that folklore has been filtered, and peeled, and torn away by the peculiar, yet powerful institution of slavery--leaving us, several generations hence, with precious few of those stories told by the "village griot" from our points of origin in the Motherland.
But one hardy character from many of those tales of yore stays with us to this day, and that is the character of...The Trickster. Be he Anansi (from West Africa), or Ti Malice (via Haiti's African ties), or perhaps the most familiar to us Americans, the crafty, Br'er Rabbit (later refined by the broader culture into the supremely infamous trickster Bugs Bunny)--we know his modus operandi. Seemingly "in trouble", or in peril from his enemies, he manages, via a smart mouth and quick wits to not only manage escape, but to often put his pursuer/attackers in the "trick bag", leaving them to look foolish, or with their rabbit trap laughably sprung on themselves.
Ol' Br'er Rabbit came to mind recently in a big way via this um..."near-story".
"Civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who led the charge to have radio host Don Imus fired for making racially insensitive remarks, is now under fire for a comment about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.
During a debate on religion and politics at the New York Public Library with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation."
On the campaign trail in Iowa Wednesday, Romney fired back, calling Sharpton's comment "terribly misguided."
"It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners," Romney said. "I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make."
Asked if he thought Sharpton is a bigot, the former Massachusetts governor said, "I don't know Rev. Sharpton. I doubt he is personally such a thing. But the comment was a comment which could be described as a bigoted comment.
"Perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but the way it came out was inappropriate and wrong."
Now, post-Imus, it's pretty clear that a boatload of scalp-hunters on the right were been itchin' for a fistful of the rotund Rev's bone-straight locks. And damned if this story wasn't just the angle that members of the crimson-neck-tocracy were looking for.
"We gotcha' bo-way! Gotcha but good this time. An' we gonna have us an ol' pic-a-nic whilst you kick n' twitch too! Sheee-*t! Somebody call Ah-mus n' Bernie, so's they can work th' grill, jes' fer irony's sake."
But then, a funny thang happened on the way to the media lynching.
It never took off. Didn't get any steam. It went up as nicely as one a' those old unmanned test rockets that we launched into a thousand pieces just off the pad at Canaveral back in the day. Except, this attempted "story" was the modern day version of those vintage "flopniks".
So, just what happened exactly?
Enter "Br'er Rabbit", ya'll. The next graf in the CNN story is where the bunny trap goes all to sh*t.
"Sharpton said his remarks were being taken out of context and that he was responding to an attack by Hitchens, who, he said, had charged that the Mormon Church supported segregation until the 1960s."
It's where Anansi cackles while escaping the hungry bird. Where the cigar explodes in Elmer's face.
Where Br'er Rabbit dashes off into the briar patch, and Br'er FOX (yeah, as in network) and Bear stands there looking at the viewer as their faces morph into jackass heads. You see, Sharpton's comment was a pointed one. A mean dagger jab, leaving a seemingly superficial flesh wound to Romney. But nobody noted the poison on the dagger's tip until Mitt, and the few in the media who backed him, tried to walk around and crow afterward while going after Sharpton. The poison hit the bloodstream but good, then. And that poison was the FACT that Romney's Mormon faith was an especially despicable supporter of naked racism until fairly recent years in American history. In fact, the stuff was baked right into their good book.
Dig on these fun bits of Mormon teaching:
2 Nephi 5:21
21 "And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."
3 Nephi 2:14-15
14 "And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;"
Moses 7:22
22 "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."
There's all kinda fun stuff like that in Mormon scripture, and thankfully, there has been "something" of a repudiation of a lot of that blatant f*cking racism in their tracts, and the exclusionary racism within the sect itself, but old habits die hard, and that nutty belief in the whole less-than-their-brethren "Children of Cain and Ham means n*ggers" sh*t still has if not legs--quiet cat feet still tip-toeing around in the group. It wasn't actually "disavowed" until sometime in the mid-seventies when under pressure, post-Civil Rights gains, a "new" revelation from God was revealed to the Mormon hierarchy that treating Black folks like compost was now uncool in The Lord's eyes. It sounds loopy, but hey, you can look it up.
And this is why the story died. Because once Mitt, and his "C-Cupped" sycophants on the right instinctively yelped about that mean ol' Black man calling Mitt's *ss out, it was gonna open an ugly--no, not ugly, but a hideous, hatchet-faced pandora's box of questions about Romney's faith that nobody wanted to really f*ck around with. Seriously. Rev. Al's statement was a dual-fuse time bomb. You react to the initial incendiary flash--then you walk over to the device thinking that's it--all done, and then it explodes in your face. Br'er Rabbit to a "T", sucking you in, setting you up, thinking you've got him...and then you're f*cked. And Sharpton knew exactly what he was doing, too. Keeping it totally real, I'm pretty damn sure he has a "THEM!" -sized bug up his *ss about Mormonism's lateness to the equality dance--as a lot of Black folks who know about it do-- the talented, but crazy-*ss Gladys Knight notwithstanding. And his tweaking of Romney had a heapin' helpin' of the ol' "Oh please, please don' throw poor me inna dat briar patch, ya'll" to it. Pull that hook out, and you set a razor-sharp barb that'll f*ck you up as you try to remove it.
And once the media outlets that rushed to his aid realized what they'd signed onto--and trust me, they will run with "big" stories totally half-*ssed.-- they somehow snatched their hand off that live, toasty third rail and quickly found some other sh*t to amuse themselves with. Mitt's buddies in the wingnuttosphere, tone-deaf as an ear-infected Malkin doing karaoke to Aretha songs, of course are still apoplectic over Sharpton's "slur". Dim-witted as usual, to the nth degree and unable to realize why the story's radioactive half-life is something they maybe shouldn't d*ck around with. But what do you expect from the likes of lunatics who promote interning an entire ethnic group in concentration camps, or goofed about Katrina victims as hell descended upon them? So on they prattle, fighting, thrashing and setting the hook deeper in their gullet. as their slightly smarter co-corts in the MSM slip away into the briny deep, lip torn, but alive nonetheless.
And off in the distance, you can hear a hare...a chunky, slick-maned, hare laughing to beat the f*cking band as he scoots on down the road, after having been tossed into the briar patch of handling racism-- the most familiar place in the world to him.
"Ha, ha, ha, ha! I told you, Brer Bear, you shouldn't pay attention to what I said because us rabbits was born in the briar patch."
Thus, the tale ends the way you remember it...with a bouncy, knowing, and winking nod to it's modern-day refinement. :)
-- LowerManhattanite
Grog: "A Tale of Three Republicans"
Three: different, yet alike
Thanks to Grog for this great first post - THANKS G!
Or "Why have they voted for Democrats since 2004 and how might they vote
in 2008".
I have three friends, I've known one since 1979, one since around 1992,
the third since 1995. Since 2004, they've voted for Democrats, to
varying degrees. Recently, I was able to sit down and talk to them
about their votes, why they've changed them and how they see 2008
playing out.
What they say might surprise you.
First, what do these three have in common? All characterize themselves
as stereotypical late Boomer Republicans in that they are socially
liberal, fiscally conservative. All three are white, college educated
and are associated with the federal government either as employees or
are working for contractors who are defacto gubmint subsidiaries. All
three have children. All three live in lily white suburbs, albeit in
vastly different locations and all have children in grade school. All
are between 45-51. And all voted for Republican Presidential candidates
since the first was eligible to vote in 1976, with some exceptions which
I'll outline below.
And all three regret the day they voted for the Worst President Ever.
And all three rue the fact that the Republican Party that they tended to
vote with all their adult lives is not what they want it to be.
Lemme start with the most recent friend. He lives in a lily white St
Louis suburb (aren't they all) and is a typical pointy-haired,
mid-manager type at Boeing. Unlike the other two, he's also a "pro-gun"
person but not out there on the fringes. He owns guns, likes to target
shoot with them but isn't one of these "we all need the right to bear
bazooka" types. Recently on a car ride back east with him and another
friend (who is a DFH like me), he floored us by asking "can you believe
that 30% of this country still supports that moron in the White House?"
I was floored. He went onto say that last year in the MO Senate
campaign, he voted for McCaskill! By now I was glad I was sitting down.
And this from a guy who had voted for No-Talent when that craptacular
piece of party hackdom was his Congressman. But my friend was appalled
not only by No-Talent's unceasing loyalty to a White House run by crooks
and incompetents, but also by his hard move to the right wing
Christopath side of the Party. And this from a guy who voted for the
Worst President Ever both times! And voted Republican for Preznit back
to 1980.
Next up, the middle friend. He's retired Army and during his last tour
of duty, worked in Darth Cheney's office! Yup, the stories he can tell.
Every bad thing you've heard about cherry picking intelligence, having a
policy set in place and the facts be damned and a woeful ignorance of
the world as it existed in 2003, well, he'll confirm it. He lives in
the DC area and works for a contractor. In 2000, he states he made the
biggest voting mistake of his life by voting for Nader. He at least saw
thru the Dry Drunk but couldn't bring himself to vote for Gore,
primarily because of how Gore campaigned. So, he voted for Nader.
Oops. He voted for Kerry in 04 and obviously voted for Webb for Senate
in 06. He's seen first hand what the neocons have wrought, not only on
this country, but the world and his party. And like the first friend,
he's scared to death by the Christopaths and crooks running the party.
Finally, the last, and oldest friend. He's a Marine reservist who works
for....an intelligence agency. Like the middle friend, he bemoans the
total lack of talent and skill that's being "recruited" into his agency.
No longer are people prized for their analytical skills, instead, they
hire lots of journalism majors and tell them to mostly just compile
"facts" into reports. Just like the Washington Stenographer Corps has
been doing for the better part of a decade now. This friend voted Repub
until 1992 when he voted for Perot. But he voted for Dole in 96 and
Dumya in 2000. I don't think he voted for a Presidential candidate in
04, that's how irked he was with both sides of the equation. He voted
for Webb in 06 and still apologizes to me for voting for the Worst
President Ever. He never imagined things would get this bad.
There you have it. Three very disgruntled voters who tend to vote
Republican. But when asked about how they'll vote in the Presidential
election next year, the answers surprised me.
All three consider the current Republican candidates not worth voting
for. They have various reasons from how many of them represent the
Reich Wing of the party, sorry, they've seen how that group has fucked
things up here for the last six years. McCain is viewed as too old and
too pandering. Ghouliani is well, Ghouliani, in other words, they
recognize him for the nutcase that he is. The rest? Waaaaay too
socially conservative for their tastes. None brings even a glimmer of
liking from these guys.
But what they have to say about the current field of Dems was
surprising.
Friend #1, the one who didn't really bail on the party until last year,
is probably the most open-minded of the three. He'd consider voting for
Clinton and is willing to give her, and everybody else on the Democratic
side, a fair shake. An amazing reaction given how Clinton is viewed by
many people and the media spin that continues to fuel that perception.
Friend #2 wants "the adults to come in and take over". He's become a
big Gore fan over the last couple of years and truely hopes Gore ver 2.0
enters the race soon since he sees Gore as the only "adult" on the stage
who could provide the leadership and training needed to drag this
country out of the mess this regime has put us in. If not, Edwards is
his current pick of the Dems. What he has to say about Clinton is not
kind. Many of us will fight her tooth and nail in the primaries but in
the end, will hold our nose and vote for her. Not Friend #2. He simply
won't vote. Or find a third party candidate, remember, he voted for
Nader in 00.
Friend #3 also wouldn't vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Like
Friend #2, he's got just enough of an independent streak in him to not
vote the party line just like he did in 92 when he voted for Perot.
Aside from that, like Friend #1, he's giving the rest of the Dem field a
good look and feels there are some good candidates in there.
Although at first glance these three might look like what Kos terms
"Libertarian Democrats", they really aren't. Friends #2 and #3 have
decidely non-libertarian and certain non-neocon views of US foreign
policy, probably due to their backgrounds whereas Friend #1 doesn't
really care that much. And their domestic policy leanings are far from
even soft libertarians. Yeah, they view a lot of government as bloated,
pointless and counter-productive but they also see that government has a
vital role to play across society and value competently run government
programs and agencies as being beneficial to society as a whole. And
unlike most self-professed libertarians I've met who've used that
ideaology as mostly an excuse to trying to cut their tax payments, these
guys don't mind paying taxes if they feel what their putting into the
system is managed wisely.
So, where does this leave us? Assume for a moment that this country is
divided into 3rds, 1/3 True Believers on the Right, 1/3 like us, and 1/3
somewhere in between. My 3 friends fall into the latter group but
obviously the latter group is much more diverse than 3 white guys living
in the suburbs.
But, if Clinton is nominated, we might just lose 2/3s of that
demographic of the vote. These guys aren't looking for someone centrist
or more to the right on certain issues, they're looking for someone who
they feel will provide the leadership and vision this country needs over
the next decade and both don't see Clinton providing that. These guys
have a strong conservative streak in them and yet, they detest DLC-style
campaigns that were alledgedly designed to woo voters just like them.
ATTENTION DLC: WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Argh, I hate the whole "electability" perspective but that's just what
I'm lurching into with this diary not to mention coming right up the
line line in terms of Hillary bashing. And clearly, 3 data points do
not a trend make! Nonetheless, my three friends provide an insight as
to how a certain conservative-leaning demographic can
easily vote for a bold Democrat in 08. Two of them are
holding their breath but have also watched the Democratic Party time and
time again over their voting lifetimes end up choosing the "wrong"
candidate.
- posted by Grog
About Obama
While I find it amusing to have words and sentiments in my mouth, it's really tiresome
But before I say anything else, the idea that his "blackness" is under debate is amazingly silly. What people are debating is his fidelity to the issues and causes which have defined black America since 1954. Not his skin color. Or the silly cultural issues Debra Dickenson raised. It is a political argument. After all this is America, where anyone who looks black is black .
A: I have no particular view on Obama as a presidential candidate. I'm neutral.
B: No one man can trump the entire black political structure. If Cornell West is saying somthing you don't like, dismissing him on a personal basis is to be a fool. At this point in the campaign, he is far more highly regarded than Obama among most informed black voters. As is Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Both could doom his campaign among African Americans if they were to attack his positions and there is nothing white fans can do about it. You cannot ignore a half century of struggle because you like the new guy. Listening to their concerns is a wise political move.
I think, like most people, they are waiting to see what he will do and where he stands.
Showing contempt for them hurts Obama among black voters. Because it demonstrates the kind of whites who support him have no respect for blacks, their institutions, leaders or views.
C: What black voters want to know is will he protect their interests or will he seek to pacify them.
Is he going to push policies which help African Americans, or continue the racial and economic problems we have now under the guise of colorblindness.
D: Obama himself has admitted he must earn the black vote on the merit of his positions. Because he hasn't earned it. He has not been part of the national black community. He is a relative unknown. While I have no idea what Hillary Clinton have done to gain such overwhelming support in black America, it is there and it is real.
E: What white supporters need to understand is that his appeal to white voters causes suspicion among black voters. The daily, open contempt they express for wildly popular figures like Sharpton and Jackson, despite their support for blacks facing police brutality and other issues like Katrina, makes their sudden embrace of Obama highly suspicious.