'You're a buncha Racist White Men...and You All Look Alike Too'

[Coot]

In a tirade worthy of Maxine Waters, Florida representative Corrine Brown tried to rip Assistant Secretary of State, Roger Noriega, a new ass over the situation in Haiti.
<BR>

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown verbally attacked a top Bush administration official during a Washington briefing on the Haiti crisis Wednesday, calling the president's policy on the beleaguered nation ''racist'' and his representatives ''a bunch of white men.''
Her outburst was directed at Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega during a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill. Noriega, a Mexican-American, is the State Department's top official for Latin America.

Brown sat directly across the table from Noriega and yelled into a microphone. Her comments sent a hush over the hourlong meeting, which was attended by about 30 people, including several members of Congress and Bush administration officials.


Noriega later told Brown: ''As a Mexican-American, I deeply resent being called a racist and branded a white man,'' according to three participants. Brown then told him ''you all look alike to me,'' the participants said.
Read Brown's comments (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022604/met_14923147.shtml), some of the more entertaining stuff in the news.

[Plunge]

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown shows what a racist she is. From the Miami Herald (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8040153.htm):

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown verbally attacked a top Bush administration official during a briefing on the Haiti crisis Wednesday, calling the President's policy on the beleaguered nation "racist" and his representatives "a bunch of white men."

Her outburst was directed at Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega during a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill. Noriega, a Mexican-American, is the State Department's top official for Latin America.

...

Noriega later told Brown: "As a Mexican-American, I deeply resent being called a racist and branded a white man," according to three participants.

Brown then told him "you all look alike to me," the participants said.

This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable! Anyone with that kind of attitude should be removed from office. Period. At the very least, she should be censured. This wasn't some offhand remark or a tasteless joke that can be explained away. Even her spokesman's 'clarification' is ridiculous.

"I think it was an emotional response of her frustration with the administration," said David Simon, a spokesman for the Jacksonville Democrat. He noted that Brown, who is black, is "very passionate about Haiti."

Sorry, that doesn't forgive her remarks in the slightest. Completely reprehensible.

[Plunge]

Okay, who posted this first, you or me??? :)

Probably you, *sigh*.

[Advocat]

"I resent being... ...branded a white man"... hmmm, so to be called a white man is to be "branded", and therefore implicitly a bad thing, eh? Sure, no racism being shown by either of the quoted politicians.

[ethics]

Scratch the surface, and guess what you will find? While firing will apply a band aid, it is not a long term solution to racism (of any kind).

Quite frankly, I don't know if racism can be eliminated, or even minimized until we are visited by aliens.

[Sierra Mike]

What an ass...but I did like Noriega's response!

After her comments about white men, Noriega said he would ''relay that to [Secretary of State] Colin Powell and [national security adviser] Condoleezza Rice the next time I run into them,'' participants said. Powell and Rice are black.

You see? It's always about race with blacks. They play the card like no other. Even supposedly educated leaders can't resist the urge to resort to debasing vitriol. Yes, yes, please, let's hand out more affirmative action monies, it's the only way out of this. :eek:

SM

[ethics]

Threads merged. :)

[Necore]

Sorry, that doesn't forgive her remarks in the slightest. Completely reprehensible.I wonder what would happen to the Commander in Chief if he called her a ni...oops... I'm sorry... the 'N' word.Brown then told him "you all look alike to me," the participants said.Oooooohhhh kaayyy. :lol:

[Sir Joseph]

Notice how the article went on to say that at a later meeting with the Black Caucus no mention was made of this.
I strongly urge a Black member of Congress to get on the House floor and censure her. To do otherwise will just confirm what many here believe about Blacks and their racist attitudes towards others.

I wonder what Joseftu has to say about this.

[cdw]

The House ethics committee said Thursday that Rep. Corrine Brown exercised "poor judgment" and created "substantial concerns" in her connections to an African businessman. But the panel said its inability to reach key witnesses led it conclude that no rules or laws were broken.

African businessman Foutanga Dit Babani Sissoko had provided lodging to the Florida Democrat in his luxury Miami condominium and his chief financial officer had given a $50,000 Lexus sedan to Brown's daughter.



Seems Ms. Brown has a few difficulties with proper behavior. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/21/ethics.brown.ap/

[Coriolis]

This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable! Anyone with that kind of attitude should be removed from office. Period. At the very least, she should be censured. This wasn't some offhand remark or a tasteless joke that can be explained away. Even her spokesman's 'clarification' is ridiculous.

"I think it was an emotional response of her frustration with the administration," said David Simon, a spokesman for the Jacksonville Democrat. He noted that Brown, who is black, is "very passionate about Haiti."

Sorry, that doesn't forgive her remarks in the slightest. Completely reprehensible.

I think this sums it up nicely.

[cdw]

I just called her washington office and registered my concern and disgust. :)

[Violet1966]

Sounds to me like a bunch of racism or whatever it's called, byt the woman. I don't think it was wrong when the man said branded. He was trying to make her aware of her insult, because if she obviously was talking that trash, she wasn't thinking clearly or was used to speaking that way. I consider this an insult and a racist one at that. And just what entitlement does any one *insert politically correct term not used in ignorance because not all shades of brown are African as we know*, person have, if not Haitian, to call this a racial issue anyway? I see this as a government issue in Haiti and relating to Haitians, so why didn't she just call him anti Haitian or inhumane based on his not wanting to help people...not a color of people????

[Copzilla]

Trouble with this whole scenario will be the response by her constituency. I'll bet anything it will be explained away, because "you have to be black to understand", and she'll be reelected.

[joseftu]

I wonder what Joseftu has to say about this.Thanks for asking, but I don't think there's anything to wonder about. I agree with what Plunge said. "Completely reprehensible." Ms. Brown should be ashamed of herself.

[Copzilla]

Thanks for asking, but I don't think there's anything to wonder about. I agree with what Plunge said. "Completely reprehensible." Ms. Brown should be ashamed of herself.Should be...

What do you think should happen to her, punitively?

[IamZed]

Quite frankly, I don't know if racism can be eliminated, or even minimized until we are visited by aliens.Your right. We have to have somebody to hate.

[Plunge]

Her Apology (http://www.news4jax.com/news/2875881/detail.html)

"It was a heated exchange. I apologize," Brown told Channel 4's Jim Piggott Thursday morning. "It wasn't meant to be a racist comment. I was speaking of the delegation that came over from the State Department. They brought no females; no one of color came over in that group. Based on the presentations, it was totally insensitive to the government of Haiti."

No, it wasn't meant to be racist. She's just mad a bunch of white men were there. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Stonehawk]

Precisely.....what does having no females in the delegation have to do with being sensitive to the government of Haiti's needs? Why do you need to be colored (any color) to be sensitive to the needs of other people?

Bleh....shoot all politicians, let God (or your choice of assorted deities)sort 'em out (or more likely, throw them all out)...

Take care

Jerry

[cdw]

She really doesn't get it, does she. *sigh*

[ethics]

She is not only a racist, she is also a sexist.

[joseftu]

Should be...

What do you think should happen to her, punitively? I think an official censure would be appropriate. If she represented me, which I'm glad she doesn't, she'd certainly lose my vote (if she ever had it). How much farther can a punishment for words really go? Do you want her flogged? :Aria: ;)

[Techie2000]

Should be...

What do you think should happen to her, punitively?She should get voted out of office in the next election. Also the media should feel free to publicly humiliate her via quotation. Otherwise, nothing. She may be a moron, but the first amendment gives her the right to be a moron, and the people of Florida gave her the privilidge of serving as their senator. The media's job is to report the facts, and let the people decide what they think. If the house has any official recourse, may as well add that too.

[Sierra Mike]

Her apology sucks balls, and is nothing but a self-serving lie.

SM

[cdw]

sucks balls

Well, only because that's all that was offered. :lol:

[mikepd]

So she gets thrown out of office (which I think will never happen) and all she will do is rant on how she was abused as a scapegoat for the failings of others.

It is always someone else's fault with people like this, never themselves. They did not send any females, no one of color, no one under 30, the time was wrong, the weather was bad, the words were wrong, always something other than themselves.

If they had to admit it was themselves that would be to admit they were capable of error and such flaws must never be allowed. Weakness is unpardonable as they must not only be equal but better than whites and if female better than males.

God forbid the concept of everyone just being human and some having more talent than others take hold. Blow their entire philosophy right out of the water.

[Copzilla]

I think an official censure would be appropriate. If she represented me, which I'm glad she doesn't, she'd certainly lose my vote (if she ever had it). How much farther can a punishment for words really go? Do you want her flogged? :Aria: ;)
I'm thinking caning would be good... ;)

I agree with you, censure is appropriate. But I'm sure she will only regard it as "Whitey screwing with a black woman".

Lots of work to do, but it has to be both sides of the coin.

[yazdzik]

Dear friends,

How many here have ever been to Haiti? Whilst I find the woman to be over the top, I can well say that the administration shows not the vaguest understanding for any culture other than its own.

I cannot help but think she says in that situation many things that many think, but few would have the courage to say. To say that Bush is a racist is hardly even stating the obvious. He represents a world of values that is as far from modern ideals of ethical tolerance as can be. We live in a world where passionate declamation is castrated into political correctness, but, in the end, the great arguments of yesteryear are no more for this very reason.

I should be very happy to tell Mr Bush, to his face, in public, that he is a bigot, he has foresworn his oath, and represents a majority whose values the very constitution prohibits from being enacted into law. Was she rude? Perhaps, but it is this attacking of a person's passionate assertion of what is, in fact, palpably true, because it is politically untenable, that we in this thread deplore, while demanding in the election thread that people stand for something.

I applaud passionate argument.

I make as warm an argument for the constitution as others for the bible, and would not then assert that they should tone down their lusty voices, as long as in the end law prevails. If more politicians attacked, as would have been the norm in even a USSC hearing fifty years ago, the sheer pompousness of those who hold views they know cannot be attacked for fear of breeching modern political correctness.

Bush is the ultimate representative of a fifties sitcom, and man whose hatred of all that is different from him deserves to be attacked, loudly, passionately, to his face.

That we no longer have the balls to demand, rather than fear, warm rhetoric is a sign that our love of open debate is prostituted to need for comfort. Let any man create comfort, ease, and remove the need to think and act, this man will be our leader.

Someone should scream into a microphone. To argue that Patrick Henry's harangue was over emotional diatribe is to piss upon the graves of those who died to make us free. Yet, were one candidate even so much as to utter, "Better to die as free men than to bow the knee, even unto the almighty," he would not be certified for election, but Bellevue.

Damn modern times, and modern mores.

She feels something strongly enough to speak it, for a people who have suffered things that few here have seen, and knows that Bush cares but for his cronies, and the Leave it to Beaver world where niggers and fags should be the butt of jokes, where the niggers need to be integrated into the white man's world if they want to be part of it, where godless communism was an easy enemy, and all real americans knew that the best way to keep order was to use force, and abolish law.

Funny, the one minority he seems to tolerate has, inherent in its culture, a yet more repressive moralism, yet further separated from Jefferson than even his own.

To say that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell do not all look alike to me is disingenuous. They are only different on the outside, sort of like inverted canapés. Different cheeses on the outside, crackers on the inside.

When I was young, respect meant the abilty to have passionate argument, then go for a beer afterwards. Apparently, we now live in such fear of feelings, that only pap and pablum feed our minds and souls.


Frankly, I wonder by what superficial analysis Rice is anything but a white man from the fifties suburbs.

She looks a lot like June or even Bud to me.

I wish with all my heart for politeness in our world. If the teen on the Brooklyn roof had been taught to say, "Good evening, officer," when he passed a cop, he would still be alive, and a cop would still be with his family.

But, in the end, if we fear conflict, we shall all end up dead on a rooftop.

The Bush administration policy on Haiti is as racist and ignorant as the rest of the man's ill-founded diatribe. It represents a world view more appropriate for a half-literate small town politician than the leader of the free world.

Still, "Mr Bush, you are a racist bigotted ass," has more class, and I suppose, in the end, the woman is, like the man she loathes as deeply as I do, a product of a world where we cannot argue heatedly without catastrophe.

We churn and ferment inside, until the pressure from the heat is so great we explode, with one weapon or another. A chief-of-police friend of mine says he misses the good old fistfights in bars, where politics would get heated, and people would get banged up a bit, the cruisers would come, break it up, send the bleeding home to go to work the next day friends again. Now, he says, because we cannot throw a punch, eventually we blow up the office. Silly?
When we lived in a world of torrid debate in the Senate, and bar fights on the corner, there was, in reality, less violence.
Was Patrick Henry politically correct? Did he speak softly, remembering the time and place of his argument?

I stand with him: calling as loud as a trumpet in the night:
give me liberty or give me death.

Corinne, right or wrong in her facts, did what she was elected to do, to show the president and his band that they merely execute the laws passed by congress, and are not leaders, but executives.

Until the president is a figurehead again, the weakest political power in the world, we shall never be the strongest nation.

Who was I talking about again, Putin or Bush?
What executive would dare deflect pointed criticism by claiming his office was higher than that of other elected officials? My god, I am senile, Bush works for the government, no more no less. Putin is a Tsar. No, I have it wrong again, Bush thinks he outranks a congresswoman, no, that cannot be right, he must have read the constitution, he is not he leader, but the executive, no, how many Russian cabinet members, or is it American cabinet members are left?

He will be re-elected, of course, since Americans want a royal family.

As Sister Ephraim taught me in first grade, "God grants in one way or another all our wants. Wish then for good."

God may indeed grant us a royal family. He too is an ass.

All good wishes,
Yazdzik

[Sir Joseph]

Am I allowed to say what an idiotic post that was or is that
a) against the rules.
b) going against the Yazdzik fan club?
I've said this several times before that I believe that many people start saying "great post Yaz" just because they don't have the patience to sit and read the whole post.
Your post was just another hate Bush fest, but more importantly, it showed your ignorance of foreign affiars and showed YOUR bigotry.

[Coot]

Martin, I am genuinely shocked at your epistle. While I haven't been to Haiti, I have been to the other half of the island and I can tell you it is nothing like what is portrayed as Haitian (and likely true). Even Dominican Republicans cast uneasy derision on Haiti. To cast the bushies as racist over this issue, is itself over the top. And in truth smacks of racism as it comes across as Haitians being incapable of creating a state and caring for themselves. Aristide is only in power because of U.S. intervention during the Clinton administration. What kept Aristide in power were substantial sums of welfare payments to Haiti. Aristide could then skim, the people could be kept at subsistence level and the island was largely quiet. Bush simply shutoff the welfare spigot and has turned refugees back.

You so blithely spout Patrick Henry, yet isn't what the Haitians are currently doing the very symbol of that spirit? You're awfully quick to pull the racist trigger over this, yet what Bush did is simply allow a space to be created for the people of Haiti to express their political will and social conscience.

People have and are going to die in this. They are proclaiming 'Give me liberty or give me death'.

Perhaps the French, as former masters of this half of the island, will step in and put an end to it...much like they've done in all their other former colonies.

[Stiofán]

Wow Martin. I won't be popular after this, since people around here tend to fawn over your posts, but that last one was a load of crap. It is of course your opinion, and as such is as valid as any of ours, but a bunch of name calling hate filled words as I've read in some time. If you're unable or unwilling to see the racist statements this woman made, so be it. I can't assign her such lofty ideals as you however. To me she's just a mean spirited bigot, so I guess you and I will have to disagree on this one.

[Necore]

Dear friends,

How many here have ever been to Haiti? Whilst I find the woman to be over the top, I can well say that the administration shows not the vaguest understanding for any culture other than its own.

I cannot help but think she says in that situation many things that many think, but few would have the courage to say. To say that Bush is a racist is hardly even stating the obvious. He represents a world of values that is as far from modern ideals of ethical tolerance as can be. We live in a world where passionate declamation is castrated into political correctness, but, in the end, the great arguments of yesteryear are no more for this very reason.

I should be very happy to tell Mr Bush, to his face, in public, that he is a bigot, he has foresworn his oath, and represents a majority whose values the very constitution prohibits from being enacted into law. Was she rude? Perhaps, but it is this attacking of a person's passionate assertion of what is, in fact, palpably true, because it is politically untenable, that we in this thread deplore, while demanding in the election thread that people stand for something.

I applaud passionate argument.

I make as warm an argument for the constitution as others for the bible, and would not then assert that they should tone down their lusty voices, as long as in the end law prevails. If more politicians attacked, as would have been the norm in even a USSC hearing fifty years ago, the sheer pompousness of those who hold views they know cannot be attacked for fear of breeching modern political correctness.

Bush is the ultimate representative of a fifties sitcom, and man whose hatred of all that is different from him deserves to be attacked, loudly, passionately, to his face.

That we no longer have the balls to demand, rather than fear, warm rhetoric is a sign that our love of open debate is prostituted to need for comfort. Let any man create comfort, ease, and remove the need to think and act, this man will be our leader.

Someone should scream into a microphone. To argue that Patrick Henry's harangue was over emotional diatribe is to piss upon the graves of those who died to make us free. Yet, were one candidate even so much as to utter, "Better to die as free men than to bow the knee, even unto the almighty," he would not be certified for election, but Bellevue.

Damn modern times, and modern mores.

She feels something strongly enough to speak it, for a people who have suffered things that few here have seen, and knows that Bush cares but for his cronies, and the Leave it to Beaver world where niggers and fags should be the butt of jokes, where the niggers need to be integrated into the white man's world if they want to be part of it, where godless communism was an easy enemy, and all real americans knew that the best way to keep order was to use force, and abolish law.

Funny, the one minority he seems to tolerate has, inherent in its culture, a yet more repressive moralism, yet further separated from Jefferson than even his own.

To say that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell do not all look alike to me is disingenuous. They are only different on the outside, sort of like inverted canapés. Different cheeses on the outside, crackers on the inside.

When I was young, respect meant the abilty to have passionate argument, then go for a beer afterwards. Apparently, we now live in such fear of feelings, that only pap and pablum feed our minds and souls.


Frankly, I wonder by what superficial analysis Rice is anything but a white man from the fifties suburbs.

She looks a lot like June or even Bud to me.

I wish with all my heart for politeness in our world. If the teen on the Brooklyn roof had been taught to say, "Good evening, officer," when he passed a cop, he would still be alive, and a cop would still be with his family.

But, in the end, if we fear conflict, we shall all end up dead on a rooftop.

The Bush administration policy on Haiti is as racist and ignorant as the rest of the man's ill-founded diatribe. It represents a world view more appropriate for a half-literate small town politician than the leader of the free world.

Still, "Mr Bush, you are a racist bigotted ass," has more class, and I suppose, in the end, the woman is, like the man she loathes as deeply as I do, a product of a world where we cannot argue heatedly without catastrophe.

We churn and ferment inside, until the pressure from the heat is so great we explode, with one weapon or another. A chief-of-police friend of mine says he misses the good old fistfights in bars, where politics would get heated, and people would get banged up a bit, the cruisers would come, break it up, send the bleeding home to go to work the next day friends again. Now, he says, because we cannot throw a punch, eventually we blow up the office. Silly?
When we lived in a world of torrid debate in the Senate, and bar fights on the corner, there was, in reality, less violence.
Was Patrick Henry politically correct? Did he speak softly, remembering the time and place of his argument?

I stand with him: calling as loud as a trumpet in the night:
give me liberty or give me death.

Corinne, right or wrong in her facts, did what she was elected to do, to show the president and his band that they merely execute the laws passed by congress, and are not leaders, but executives.

Until the president is a figurehead again, the weakest political power in the world, we shall never be the strongest nation.

Who was I talking about again, Putin or Bush?
What executive would dare deflect pointed criticism by claiming his office was higher than that of other elected officials? My god, I am senile, Bush works for the government, no more no less. Putin is a Tsar. No, I have it wrong again, Bush thinks he outranks a congresswoman, no, that cannot be right, he must have read the constitution, he is not he leader, but the executive, no, how many Russian cabinet members, or is it American cabinet members are left?

As Sister Ephraim taught me in first grade, "God grants in one way or another all our wants. Wish then for good."

God may indeed grant us a royal family. He too is an ass.

All good wishes,
Yazdzik:boo: :boo:
He will be re-elected, of course...:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,

That I feel Bush is far more dangerous to the US than Saddam ever was is hardly secret.
Whatever the congresswoman's motives, her right to cuss out the president it guaranteed by the first amendment.
That in this the political theory is that loving jesus and hating him are of equal legal value and equally protected ought to be obvious, just as Sir J hates me because I believe that the founding of Israel was an illegal pandering to base superstitions. I still believe an apology to the Palestinians for our role in the debacle and a statement of absolute neutrality in the arab israeli conflict would be of benefit to the US. We acknowledge neither jaweh nor allah nor jesus, and our constitution prohibits us from so doing, irrespective of the popular support for such an action. That means Sir J will always find me anathema, and what makes America great is his ability to celebrate pesach while I teach my kids that a god who kills babies is a son of a bitch, and the torah is a nasty piece of ugly things than people do to hurt one another.
This is why we live here, that all philosophies, however repugnant one to the other are equal.

George the garbage collector and George the president are both government employees, no more no less. In Europe, this would not be so. They are entitled to the same amount of respect, no more no less.

There is, in my opinion, no compassion or kindness without equality, and thus, while I bear Mr Bush no personal animosity, I detest, openly and with as fervent a belief in my rectitude as a rational belief in the equal probability of my error that he is a menace to the country, because he wants his religious beliefs to become part of law.

I do not care if the Jews want another temple, or the Arabs want to destroy, as long as it does not affect my life.
As to Haiti, it is one of the places I go during my absences from the boards here, for reasons that are not relevant to my opinions upon the political situation there.

I take no opinion on Bush's Haitian policy, as it is too complex to develop even in a Martin length post. That does not mean however that I disbelieve for a moment that Bush favours a white christian culture being made not part of society's mores, but statute. For this I despise him.

The Bill of Rights exists to create first and foremost strict limitations to the contract between state and citizen. Our government rules only by contract, no different in essence than hiring a cleaning woman. Even a hint that the state exists because of divine right is contrary to that contract, which explicitly disavows any inference of religion in civil law.

Just as we must live with the fact that we brutally murdered the natives here to gain land, and try to do the best we can, the arabs ought to live with the rather nasty business of first England then the UN stealing their land. It was not right, but it is, and just as I see no reason to demand my ancestral estates from Poland, since we were last landed before the world war, and it is too long ago, the palestinians should make peace. But this is also a long way from saying that Zionism is anything other than a selfish land grab. Sir J will always find me evil, because I detest the torah, stoning woman, prohibiting masturbation, hell, I am unwilling to give up pasta carbonara, even if it would save my soul. In the US the torah is just another book, equal in the eyes of the law to Hustler. That is what makes this country great.

Sir J can pray and I can masturbate and the state prefers neither.

If absolute tolerance of the behaviour of others, as long as it hurts none is hateful, I am hateful. I am happy to have a church, temple, and whorehouse next to each other, and debate, drink, eat with all of them.

I oppose the weakening of the consitution into an ever burgeoning democracy because, in the end, one will be chosen to outrank others.

The excuse for the holocaust was government orders, "My boss told me to tatoo the arm." We need to have learnt by now that the only good government is the weakest one possible, and one where state and religion are absolutely separated, and all men, regardless of belief sexuality race are equal in every way. For this reason we have the Bill, that when the majority wants to have the commandments be the law, the constitution says no.

It is much harder to live in a land where the law provides only basic protection against loss of life or property, and creates no moral code, but only in such a land will real compassion arise, where those who love god, and those who hate god, where those who like beer and those who believe that alcohol is satan's work, those who like modesty and those whose adore sensuality are all equal. Where the orthodox jews, christians and moslems may condemn homosexuality, and the state will never prohibit its practice, that land is free.

I do not hate Bush. I hate everything he stands for, a believe in a modern techno democracy rather than a constitutional republic conracted among men, ignoring god.
In every land but ours there is a belief that those who live there live there by some sort of divine right to homeland. Here, we, free men contract with a state to do a few things, and when the state tries to do more, the courts intervene. Prohibit abortion because god hates killing babies? No legal basis, sorry. Ban conrtoverisal books? Not a chance.

Tell me I cannot tell Bush to his face he is a enemy of the law? Protected.

Does Corinne know what the hell she is talking about? Probably not. Should she, and every other American have the right to harangue the president? Without question.
The queen is a person whom the subjects respect, the president a public servant hired to do job, no more. He is paid by men, to obey the laws of men.

If this is hateful, then I am hateful.

Shedding blood for oil was wrong, the war in Iraq was sheer folly. We cannot bring peace to the mid-east, the moslems on religious principle will hate a country with freedom to expose tits . As long as they keep their principles on their land, let them be modest and worship their god. To allow ourselves to drawn into the role of international cops, when we ourselves have not yet developed a truly tolerant society is bizarre, in my opinion. That makes me hateful. To assert that Jerusalem was never meant to be part of Israel makes me anti-semitic, I suppose, although historically, this is true, just as my teaching my kids that the teachings of jesus were ignorant in terms of modern psychological theory must make me a christian hating bigot.
It does not. I think jesus was full of shit, but have not the slightest inclination to deprive others the right of worshiping him. Just as long as they grant me the same right to ignore him.

In other words, my hatred, if that word please the forum, of Bush is based upon the fact that he does not wish to recognise the need for a limitation upon the power of the state to promote religion. His duty when faced with even god demanding that we worship him is to tell god that such a law is prohibited.

I do not hate christians any more than I hate jews. But wanting either group to have moral authority over my family is unnecessary, as the constitution protects me from that.

I do not wish Bush ill. I would surely like a scholar and gentleman as president, and I surely believe as well that the meeting time of congress should be limited to three months of the year, and the president should merely sign a few papers, launch a boat or two, and visit Washngton every now and again.

More than that is more dangerous than a barnyard of bin Ladens.

Tell the world we are neutral, and, if unattacked, we shall trade, bearing none ill will, and wishing to be left alone to continue our great experiment, a land where all men are equal, so that all men can be kind.

Bush wants a theocracy and my kids to read the bible.
He is no less my enemy than bin Laden.

There are ten amendments and ten commandments. The former are works of genius, the latter a crock of shit, used to control people by a lunatic who had no other way to unify a nomadic tribe, a power hungry madman who knew, as did Hitler, that a puritanical state where sex is highly controlled, and there is one god, and fear of his wrath will keep the people in line. So, as far as Moses and Hitler being alike, I have to say, I am too close to the topic of the death camps to enjoy dialogue on either bloke. Scaring people into order is not the activity of a civilised man, and, the ten commandments are so far removed from reason that the are in my opinion, evil.

That makes me hateful?

My reminding everyone that the USSC demanded they be removed makes me hateful?

A political belief that neutrality and rationality, and the absolute right of americans, whether right or wrong to address any other american openly frankly, and warmly pursuant to the constitution makes me vile, then I stand condemned.

Bush is an asshole, who loves god more than the constitution. He is a danger to me and my family. Sir J is not. He can never make it so, until Bush abolishes the constitution, that I cannot drive in Williamsburg in my convertible with my wife and daughter in bikinis.
But that day is coming, when the new puritanism will destroy this land.

Jefferson, Marshall, and the founders knew well, first hand, how brutal the puritans were, the canings, the stocks, the murders.

They are no less dangerous now. There is no difference between claiming god hates fags than god hates kikes. I suspect that Sir J will be very sad when the state baptises his kids by force, but there is no substantive legal difference between saying the christian tradition demands heterosexuality and then baptism.

Pardon me, while I go teach my kids that they do not have to listen to me because I happened to fuck their mother, but because I am reasonable and compassionate.

Pardon me while I go teach my kids that if god is a jealous god, he ought to seek help.

Pardon me while I state that I want neither a president who cannot tell the truth that blow jobs are legal, nor another one who wants to prohibit them because of the pentateuch.

If saying Bush is a tyrant and Clinton a felon is spouting hate, then reason is hate.

If saying that forcibly taking land from anyone anywhere anytime, wether by man or god, is wrong, then reason is hate.

If saying that all men are equal, and none has the lawful right to impose, nor does the majority have the right to impose, religious preference on anyone makes me hateful, then I am hateful.

As my son's principal said, "Jefferson never lived in New York, and the whole consitutional government has no relevance in the world of terrorism, and the mid-east conflagration."

Still, I stand by the constitution, and for that reason stand by my original post, that right or wrong, the woman in question not only has the right to vilify the president, but, if it be her sincere belief, however misguided, the obligation so to do.

Yazdzik

[joseftu]

The Bush administration policy on Haiti is as racist and ignorant as the rest of the man's ill-founded diatribe. It represents a world view more appropriate for a half-literate small town politician than the leader of the free world.

Still, "Mr Bush, you are a racist bigotted ass," has more class, and I suppose, in the end, the woman is, like the man she loathes as deeply as I do, a product of a world where we cannot argue heatedly without catastrophe.
I found this, like all of Martin's post above (as usual with his posts, even when I disagree with him, and here I don't) to be perceptive, precise, and completely accurate.

I found this: I've said this several times before that I believe that many people start saying "great post Yaz" just because they don't have the patience to sit and read the whole post. To be insulting to all of us.

[cdw]

I'm confused. What has your dislike of Bush got to do with Ms. Brown and her display of bad behavior? Sure she gets the right to behave and speak like a jackass. I would prefer then that she isn't representing anyone. Her behavior and inability to express herself in a way that might actually get her opinion across ABOUT THE ISSUE, without attacking anyone personally, which is SUPPOSED to be part of the skills she has to do her job, IMO, makes her a poor stateman. That has nothing to do with Bush...it has to do with her. You are right...she has every constitutional right to be an ass and do her job inadequately. We have every right to call her on it. And that is what we have done here.
By the way, I think you attribute much too much power to the President. :)

[ethics]

Am I allowed to say what an idiotic post that was or is that
a) against the rules.
b) going against the Yazdzik fan club?
I've said this several times before that I believe that many people start saying "great post Yaz" just because they don't have the patience to sit and read the whole post.
Your post was just another hate Bush fest, but more importantly, it showed your ignorance of foreign affiars and showed YOUR bigotry.
I've highlighted what it is against.

SJ, I like you, but your ad-hominems have GOT to cease. I am getting seriously tired of them.

[Stonehawk]

Now that everyone is all riled up....how bout we all go have a beer (or other drink of choice) and come back friends :)

Here's to some of the best and brightest we have to offer, all here, all talking amongst ourselves (good or bad)....

Stay safe all (been a hair-raising day already, and it is early)...

Jerry

[Sierra Mike]

Damn it, Jerry, you're a white guy and look like BDD.

Now that's an insult!

SM

[ethics]

Martin,

While I appreciate a rant --and excuse me if I label it a rant, for that is what it is--on Bush, I wonder what this have anything to do with this woman's racism in her statements? Unlike you, she wasn't seeking within a person, and stating that they looked all alike based on their policies. She specifically pointed out their skin color and their gender and THAT, my friend, is what this thread is all about.

If you want to rant on Bush, by all means, others do it here as well, and with similar pontification, but I'd like to hear your views on the specific issue presented in the original post of this thread?

[jfcjrus]

Hey, come on folks!
If we all agreed on an issue, this would be a pretty boring outpost on this Internet, eh?
I think the more diverse the opinions, the better, as long as we maintain some semblance of decorum.

I realize this won't be popular, but lately, I've seen an awful lot of pretty snide remarks about someone not viewing an issue the way many would like.
There have been some pretty cheap shots, in my opinion.

Debate, counter, illustrate lack of knowledge, don't post a response...all fair.
Badmouth, put on ignore, deride ...not what I expect, at GA.
But, I probably achieved ignore status a long time ago.

btw, I do agree with Yaz's thoughts that Ms. Brown has a 'right' to express whatever she wants.
As do I.

And, from what I've read (not knowing her personally), I'd have to conclude she's a racist.
She might have a good point with the issue regarding the situation in Haiti, but she blew it by her lack of statemanship skills.
In this complicated world, if you want to get something done, if you want to effect change, you must know how to play the game (as much as you might hate it!).
Flying off the handle, although perhaps satisfying, simply won't get the job done.
As much as her constituants may like her, they might concider her effectiveness in implementing their desires, due to this event.

Just my opinion.
(ignored, or otherwise) ;)

Regards,

[Copzilla]

I'm confused. What has your dislike of Bush got to do with Ms. Brown and her display of bad behavior? Sure she gets the right to behave and speak like a jackass. I would prefer then that she isn't representing anyone. Her behavior and inability to express herself in a way that might actually get her opinion across ABOUT THE ISSUE, without attacking anyone personally, which is SUPPOSED to be part of the skills she has to do her job, IMO, makes her a poor stateman. That has nothing to do with Bush...it has to do with her. You are right...she has every constitutional right to be an ass and do her job inadequately. We have every right to call her on it. And that is what we have done here.
If we still had thumbs... :thumbsup:

She was a jackass racist, and we said so. That she was a jackass racist against some politicos Martin doesn't agree with doesn't make her less a jackass racist. Defense of her right to say what she did requires a defense of our right to condemn what she said.

[Copzilla]

Debate, counter, illustrate lack of knowledge, don't post a response...all fair.
Badmouth, put on ignore, deride ...not what I expect, at GA.
But, I probably achieved ignore status a long time ago.
You're not ignored... ;)

It's just hard to argue with your logic, mostly... :haha:

[Sir Joseph]

Just to clarify something. I never said I hate you. I never said any reason why I would. Being anti-Israel and anti-Jew are sometimes two separate things. But when you spout that Bush is more dangerous than Bin Laden or that the war was still an war for oil thing, it doesn't make me hate you. It makes me feel sorry for you. Bush can say all he wants but nothing will happen without the other two branches caring. All I can say is that your posts should be plastered all over the US with the caption of why a Liberal is a horrible choice to run the country. As for hate, your post seems to indicate that you have lots of it. Perhaps the problem is on your end. Re-reading your rant makes me wonder what type of a person can post things like that and then try to always argue point on logic and constitutionalism instead of on emotion. I also never said you were idiotic but rather your post was. It doesn't seem to have been written with any shred of logic or decency. Hating religion is fine, heck hating religion the way you do is also fine. But don't go around bashing us who don't always share your views like that. Take an example from Joseft. I don't always agree with him. I think he's too liberal for me. But most of his arguments are generally based on logic. He would never go on a rant like this. Your rant just makes people run away from your views never seeing if somewhere deep in the bowels of the rant is a point you were trying to make.

[Necore]

Whatever the congresswoman's motives, her right to cuss out the president it guaranteed by the first amendment.But notice how it's not so big a deal as it would be if President Bush were to call Marion Berry "another crackhead [INSERT 'N' WORD HERE]" or mentioned how all blacks have large noses, curly hair and dark skin and all look alike. As eloquent and well spoken as your posts are, I question as to whether or not you would be so quick to run to the President's defense on the issue.
It is much harder to live in a land where the law provides only basic protection against loss of life or property, and creates no moral code, but only in such a land will real compassion arise, where those who love god, and those who hate god, where those who like beer and those who believe that alcohol is satan's work, those who like modesty and those whose adore sensuality are all equal. Where the orthodox jews, christians and moslems may condemn homosexuality, and the state will never prohibit its practice, that land is free.With no standards or "moral code" to live by, only chaos can arise. Just because a person reaches the age of 18 or 21 doesn't make them any less childish than on their fifth birthday. They just don't have their parents (IF THEY EVER HAD ANY) standing over them constantly nagging them.

Morals aren't so bad, Martin...

<CITE>mor·al (môrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl, mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif-)
adj.

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: <CITE>moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.</CITE>
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: <CITE>a moral lesson.</CITE>
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: <CITE>a moral life.</CITE>
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: <CITE>a moral obligation.</CITE>
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: <CITE>a moral victory; moral support.</CITE>
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: <CITE>a moral certainty.</CITE>
n.

The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: <CITE>a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.</CITE>
</CITE>I don't see the first thing there about religion or God, but I do see that "a decline in public morals" is mentioned there. hmmmmmmm
I do not hate Bush.I do not wish Bush ill.then...
That does not mean however that I disbelieve for a moment that Bush favours a white christian culture being made not part of society's mores, but statute. For this I despise him.In other words, my hatred, if that word please the forum, of Bush...Bush is an asshole.He is no less my enemy than bin Laden.Okay. :crazy:

[Techie2000]

So she gets thrown out of office (which I think will never happen) and all she will do is rant on how she was abused as a scapegoat for the failings of others.Well mike, that's how the system works. It's up to the people to decide if her doing things like that is appropriate. If you don't like the words of Tim Robbins, then you can refuse to see his movies. The systems are in place for the public to reach consensus on whether or not she should be re-elected due to her actions. Maybe you think what she did was wrong and warrants her not being re-elected, I know I do, but we may very well be in the minority. Let us not forgot Mr. Strom Thurmond was continually re-elected as a senator despite his shortcomings.

[Necore]

The systems are in place for the public to reach consensus on whether or not she should be re-elected due to her actions...Not really. Marion Berry smoked crack with a whore in a hotel room and was re-elected the following year. Clinton (NOT THAT I'M DEFENDING THE PIG) smoked a cigar that an intern masturbated with and screams of "IMPEACHMENT!" rang through the halls.
...but we may very well be in the minority.Soon enough young one. Soon enough. EDIT: If we let it happen, that is.

[Techie2000]

Not really. Marion Berry smoked crack with a whore in a hotel room and was re-elected the following year. Clinton (NOT THAT I'M DEFENDING THE PIG) smoked a cigar that an intern masturbated with and screams of "IMPEACHMENT!" rang through the halls.Of course not. Those cries of impeachment were screamed mostly from Republicans. In both cases the people in question were re-elected by the majority of their constituents. If the people feel it is an issue, they can hand the politician a pink slip on election day. The system is in place, the public has the right to decide. Despite the fact that many people claim the contrary, the people voted in to office are in fact voted in due to the will of the majority of Americans that care (except for Bush Jr, and that other dude that didn't win the popular vote in Presidential elections, and those that are appointed due to death, etc.).

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,
My belief that the woman’s anger is not outside of the norm of passionate political debate stems from my own opinion that the current administration is clearly unfriendly to a strictly construed adherence to the Bill of Rights.
Allow for the moment that there are more colours than black and white, and see why even good rhetoric would, even among gentlemen allow for the comments.
I would certainly, and in spite of the current distrust of my moral character here, I can well stand upon my absolute integrity and compassion, have said similar things.
“Mr Powell, you are a cracker with black skin,” is without a doubt a clear, well-phrased, and not inaccurate description of a man whose career and fortune were made in the military industrial complex.
What is wrong with the assessment of the woman’s rage is that there seems to be an acceptance today that inequality is part of life. I believe, for better or worse, that if the Bill is taken strictly, such inequality is patently illegal. Even Bush tacitly admits this, as he knows without an amendment the courts will eventually infer the exact language of the law in cases brought under the fourteenth amendment. In the meantime, he has used those person who by accident of birth are black, hispanic, &c, to window dress an administration in tapestries of kindness whilst seeking to repress.
Any of us whose morality hinges upon constitutional freedom rather than judaeo-christian culture are deeply offended. Offense is not an issue, until the threats of different treatment for different people be posed. I have made the argument too many times that puritanism is cruel. The woman in question may have flipped, or may merely have been using extreme and bitter irony to attack what in fact is probably the only realistic policy. If the real issue is the need to prevent hundreds of thousands of impoverished refugees, why does the administration just not say so? Her anger stems from years of abuse of the office of the president, from the adventurism, perjury, and sheer games that ruf refers to. I should hope that no one considers “playing the game” a morally desirable approach to running the state. She was angry that ten of thousands will die. She sees precisely that the current administration is about money and power. I would go so far, as a colour blind viewer, to say that I too cannot tell the players apart. If mom and pop america who finance the campaign, and provide the power base want something, even something the constitution forbids, it is within the moral purview of the current administration to act consistent with political need, rather than constitutional idealism. This being so, I can well share her disgust at the reality that we would happily “free the Iraqi people,” not a bad goal in itself, for their oil and stability in the mid-east, but allow the fourth lunatic is as many generations to rule, then allow a coup when it is for our own convenience.
As late as 1977 there were death camps in Haiti, where dissidents were hung on fences, while their wives and children were starved to death in front of them. Kept alive with saline and alert with stimulants, they were allowed to die only after witnessing the death of their families.
I, as well as Bush, see no easy practical alternative to the tragedy which is Haiti. But to rein in emotions when billions are spent to mitigate the stupidity of a malformed mid-east policy decades old, is more than a kindly old fart can expect of a person.
She was mad, mad as hell, and the very same freedom that gives us the chance to ridicule her is hers to attack the president. In the US, he has no rank higher than any other citizen. The belief that courts will somehow step in, as in 1973, and the president faced with a constitutional crisis will resign seems nowhere in the emotional makeup of this administration. She sees power, the power of the massive machine of men of like ideas making an efficient govnermnet, and reacts. I merely point out that her anger is understandable, her right to express incontrovertible, and her basic grasp of the Ozzie and Harriet morality of the wealthy country club, anti-intellectual, and religious fanatical is probably not too far from the mark.
That there is nothing really to be done changes not a moment the anger.

As to my own immorality, since it has become an issue:

My rules are simple:
1. If an act be kind, it is good.
2. The freedom of the individual requires we tolerate all differences which do not result in genuine harm, and allow free expression of any idea no matter how repulsive to us personally.

Balancing those two is hard, but in a puritanical society, neither is possible. My distaste for the god of abraham jesus and muhammed is that he seems to prefer some people to others, and does not honour the first amendment. If the torah is to be believed, he had sufficient power to part the seas, and, it is illogical, therefore, to presume he could not have simply saved the israelites with no harm to the aegyptians.
In short, love and love alone is my personal morality, and in order to live this, only a constitution as restrictive of majority power as ours will prevent some folks from allowing personal morals from becoming statute. One can only love in freedom.

For what it is worth, I am angry too. I have tried to teach my children that the strong should always yield to the weak, and that there is almost no situation in which there is a moral use of power, that love and compassion, not competition and toughness are the barometers of civilised man.

So, while I am happy to engage in an OT discussion of why the ten commandments are evil, following the morals set forth supra, suffice it to say, I am as angry as the congresswoman, for reasons many of you seem to find unfathomable. Complexity may not be user friendly, but paradoxical, dichotomous, and even conflicted thinkers are still human, and one often learns more from Conrad than Emerson(and often not ;) )

Politics is politics - the failure to prosecute vigorously anti-trust law is political rather than constitutional in nature, and I may disagree but the policy incites no fear. Support for Israel being the “good guy” seems to me to be anti-rational, and I deeply resent my children’s lives being placed in danger because the christians think god gave israel to the jews. The ILECs killed the CLECs. These do not offend the core of my being. Putting politics above the constitution offends the marrow of my soul. No political issue ever makes me angry. That is give and take of democracy. Constitutional issues, on the other hand, stir the fires of the deepest hell in my heart. The seriousness of constitutional issues cannot be overstated. Else, we have unlimited power in the hands of the majority. We know well that unlimited power anywhere is always a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam, even, did not have weapons of mass destruction, he was one.

I am angry, even as Sir J would say, hateful, because politicians lie. It is unnecessary. It is
unkind.

I was attacked, strangely enough, in the German press for what appears to be the the opposite reason. I said, and loudly, that tattooing and gassing people was not the "fault of Himmler, and everyone on down the line just followed orders." People, real people, the kind of blokes we meet at the pub wrote numbers tattooed onto human flesh onto clipboards, and shut the doors to trains “for the east.” It is, however, the same issue, individual responsibility. Whether Borg or Burgher, the collective can never replace the conscience of the man. The excuse that the state has power as of right to control its citizens is no more than a rationalisation that allows people to do evil. Only a weak government is a safe one.

This is the danger of nationalism, homelands for people who “feel” they belong, germany for hte germans, god given lands, and so forth. Passion will sway reason, and the love for the homeland overrides the reasonable need for honesty and fair practice in relationships. Attachment to a place rather than an ideal can too easily lead to war.

It is rational to demand that the government use its power only to assert more equality, even against the will of the many, else the collective may err unchecked by reason. The Bill gives us the possibility to demand that all morality has sole provenance in the individual, and the contract is thus enforceable, as each is without reservation equal to the other. We should not ban adult stores next to schools, but encourage them. Our children should realise that in this land the whore and the bishop have the same value, the same rights.

Irrational? Congress shall make “no” law. Jefferson was thus irrational - “no” is as absolute a word as exists. I am sorry my presence offends, but it is the ability to offend, the ability to tell one’s sergeant, “ I will not turn that handle, sir,” that makes us us.

In our land morality must remain solely between a man and his god, and all actions causing no harm may cause what offence they may. I try, as hard as possible, to be polite, within that necessary framework of demanding that the government provide its primary purpose, to protect freedom.

Freedom under our law is not exactly the freedom of the community, but of the individual, and it is this dichotomy which renders our land chaotic. This is not a negative thing, but with no support for the gods from the feds, it is up to the individual not to do what his inner voice forbids. This means that life as an American is the hardest, most noble undertaking a man can take. It means we look at ourselves with an honesty unshielded by cultural cliché, and accept that others will not see us the same way we see ourselves.

I have lived to see the almost absolute triumph of power over reason, the belief that we should perhaps allow less limitation upon our government to provide greater physical safety and moral comfort. The power is now really in the hands of the people, and, I suspect like the Athenians, any Socrates would be murdered for offending the gods and leading our youth astray. So be it. I have usually been the voice of reason, and then attacked because reason does not allow for imposition of moral sentence. Now, I, too, am angry, angry at the death of the world I knew, not by the hands of terrorists, but by our compromising our ideals to protect ourselves.

Perhaps Monticello was too long ago and too far away.

I shall go away now, but remember that the Bill of Rights is what allowed us to be kind without being forced to adhere to the force of cultural peer pressure. Perhaps it was too hard to sustain in a world where we all live in ghettoes.

I live in a white rich ghetto, there is a spanish ghetto north of here, jewish ghettoes, black ghettoes, park avenue corridor where jew and christian of similar fear of the poor create a truly weird ghetto. Nowhere today is a place where the flaming queen lives next to the Baptist accountant with the orthodox jew down the street, and they all gather together to argue, in loving community. Perhaps that was the dream world in which I happened to live for a short while, and the reality is still the odd feeling of being on the train in Atlanta, where where I got on, only white folks were with me, then, at an almost palpable wall, I became the only white face on the train.

Maybe Leon is right, as he said elsewhere that racism will never end unless we are visited by aliens. If that does not explain the woman’s rage, then I have no where else to start.

Whether she knows much or nothing about Haiti, unless Leon too is wrong, her anger is justified. I wonder how the average Scots advocate would fare in a small town american trial. The wild wit of the English or scots courtroom I suspect would shock the local judge, serious, frowning at the wicked assertion of Powell’s pallour. Perhaps I was mistaken, hearing in the printed word the high flown wit of the english judge, or perhaps I am so deeply swayed by the prevalence of racism, the polarity in our country today, that I sympathise with her anger so deeply, I no longer care if she be rude.

But for sure, I believe her to be right - I cannot, for the life of me, tell the dark skinned crackers from the light-skinned. If this kind of humour raises hackles instead of smiles, we have already lost our battle with fear.

I do not assert she is correct in her foreign policy assessment. I utterly understand the frustration with a group of people who want to return to a world that many of us fought against, the world of country clubs, people “knowing their place,” and the tacit acceptance that, although the constitution forbade puritanism, we, americans, under god, wink, wink, believe in it as the only way to live. Congress will make any law we damn well tell it to.

So I accept and sympathise with her anger. I am too tired to fight anymore. I would make a poll, how many want a strict construction of the US Bill of Rights, leaving morality to the individual, but, in the end, I fear knowing what I now surmise would sadden me yet more.

She was pissed at a group of heartless power mongers. She for her reasons, I for mine.

Her children will be called nigger, mine reviled because they are “different,” but in the end, the scant comfort I have left to my sorrow is the pin my daughter wore a year or two ago, “No blood for Oil.” She had the courage to fight, to risk losing her freedom, her scholarship, her friends to stand when they had gone home, to be counted, and to express, one small thirteen year old, with a pale blue coat, her own anger at a world where fear had taken hold of reason.

I suspect that from my reception here, the usual, “How could you let your daughter do that?” America means hating Saddam, and standing behind the army, and power. Ah, power, the source of all evil. In a small town, she would have been ostracised. This too makes me angry, but, then, I am apparently full of hate because I do not believe in a god who chooses one people over another, or want to see religion in the government, or have morals legislated. In short, I mistrust power. No, like Marshall, I believe that it needs to be curtailed and limited.

Might has never made right, but it has made even me angry.

So I sympathise with a woman losing her temper at people who laugh at those who are weak, at those who use their skin colour to say, “Look at me, I am a Mexican in the Bush administation, I have my piece of the pie.”

I guess most of all, like the pigs and men in Animal Farm, I can tell none of them apart. Neither Kerry nor Bush will send the National Guard to the steps of the University in Alabama. The one major use of the federal government that is most dear to my heart, the enforcement of freedom, against those who want conformity, died a long time ago. Kerry is Bush, with probably slicker lies, but in the end, where is the man who will stand and say, that we can still demand from every citizen that the law of the land, however much it offend, will be honoured? Who will lead us to see that those who hate blacks will cheerfully have them as neighbours, that those who believe sex is dirty will smile at the hooker on the corner, that those who fight for civil rights greet every cop on the beat with open arms?

No one disagrees that she had the right to express herself. Few will still understand why she is so angry.

I at least can sleep knowing my own anger is neither irrational, full of hate, nor unexpressed.

I hope Leon is wrong about racism, I am angry because I fear him to be right.


Love,
Martin

Since I shall peek in for a few days more, while on the off topic of things that martin cannot understand, why do people not use their own given names when writing here? It seems to be another convention of mass thinking, that if everyone knows who everyone else is, none could express himself freely. Would the community mock those who speak their peace?

[ethics]

Since I shall peek in for a few days more, while on the off topic of things that martin cannot understand, why do people not use their own given names when writing here? It seems to be another convention of mass thinking, that if everyone knows who everyone else is, none could express himself freely. Would the community mock those who speak their peace?
I am known as what you see here, nothing else.

I will reply to the rest of your message when I have more time. There's a few things above that are, if you will excuse me, OUT there. The remark on Himmler is incendiary and will need elaboration.

[joseftu]

suffice it to say, I am as angry as the congresswoman, for reasons many of you seem to find unfathomable.
Many, but not all! Although, as I said, I think Brown's expression was inappropriate for the context and situation, and although I don't completely agree with her about the reasons for the administration's Haiti failings (racism plays a part, yes, but it's not the whole story), I can certainly fathom her, and your, anger.

I shall go away nowI hope not, Martin. I've missed your posts, and I think your voice is needed here.

Joe

[jfcjrus]

... why do people not use their own given names when writing here? It seems to be another convention of mass thinking, that if everyone knows who everyone else is, none could express himself freely. Would the community mock those who speak their peace?
Sir,
Your recent posts have been, to me, thought provoking.
I'm still digesting the thoughts you've conveyed, before I attempt a response.
(I'm getting up there in years and am pretty opinionated, so I need more time than most, to evaluate things. :) )

Meanwhile, I do hope you've not been discouraged in posting your thoughts here, at GA.
I, for one, am very interested to hear your particular slant on events, whether I agree with you, or not. ;)

And, for what it's worth...
I, personally, believe that this <i>WORLD-WIDE</i> Internet can be a nasty place where various scumbags might start bugging you if they know your real name; hence my use of a nickname.
If that lessens my credibility with you, then please PM me.
I respect you enough to give you my real name.

Regards,

[cdw]

I use my real first name until recently used my full name. I removed the last name and changed my sign in name because sometimes I speak about personal situations and feelings about work....that I wouldn't share with people at the job. Since it is easily searched through google, I changed the handle. Most if not all of us identified our real first names at least in a thread a while back.

[ShinyTop]

When I first started posting in forums I used my name but, like cyd, I was posting occasional thoughts about work and being employed by a company that would fire one for negative comments I changed my screen posting name.

[IamZed]

My real name is Greg Connolly. Greg is one more letter than Zed. When my hands worked real well I used to chat. I found the shorter your name, the more response you got. Simple.

[yazdzik]

I am known as what you see here, nothing else. Quite frankly, I don't know if racism can be eliminated, or even minimized until we are visited by aliens.

I will reply to the rest of your message when I have more time. There's a few things above that are, if you will excuse me, OUT there. The remark on Himmler is incendiary and will need elaboration.

Sorry, Leon, missed the quotation marks around the Himmler quote(different keyboard setup in windows….aaargh!) It certainly changed the meaning - now repaired.

Dear Friends,

It is a really interesting phenomenon, what we call in German "kriegshuld," “war guilt.” My quote is a rough and slightly bitter translation of the even more bitter mockery of the great middle class wash up in Germany, "Himmler is allein d'ran shuld; wir waren nur soldaten." Literally: Himmler alone is guilty, we were only soldiers. "Soldiers" in this sense refers not just to military, but bureaucratic functionaries. In other words, the usual excuse for the holocaust participants was that they had no choice but to do their "job." This became important in the eighties as the baby-boomers grew up, demanding that they as Germans be relieved of the feelings of guilt for the actions of their parents. There was, and in many ways, still is, an anti-german feeling in Europe that hamstrings the EU, although by now, it is passing. I certainly do not believe in visiting the sins of father upon the children, especially because I do not really believe in sin. Therefore, I believe that carrying forward guilt and retribution is puerile. Nonetheless, the original rationalisation does not survive scrutiny. Hitler was not, at first, the elected majority leader, but, because of immense popularity there was no opposition to his becoming bundeskaenzler. The sad reality appears to be that the mass opinion was precisely that he was the man for germany at the time. Parallel to today: no candidate coming out against the “kill fags” amendment could hope to be elected. The plurality of those who want Bud and June back in living black and white is too great.

The Bill of Rights is intended to protect against the power of such a plurality. Bush tacitly states that between the will of the people and an archaic constitution, the will of the people is, in the modern world, the supreme law. In short, he uses popular support of religious fervour to effectively overturn Marbury. Judges do not make law, but the do, by judifical review, prevent even an overwhelming majority from making law, however popular, that is dissonant with constitution.

In my researches for the theatre pieces of the thirties, one of the most shocking things was actually that in the cold grey light of day, most germans would indeed have voted in favour of the death camps, and the so called conspiracy of silence is little more than a polite myth. I strongly suspect that most people knew and well approved. I stated clearly and unequivocally that a god who parts the red sea only to drown people is according to my lights evil, but for the selfsame reason, believe personally that any person differentiating politically between parteiangehoerigen and juden is rotten for the same reason. When one differentiates between aryan and jew, aegyptian and jew, white and black, gay and straight, christian and buddhist, summa summorum between any groups whatsoever, people get hurt.


Thus my drawing the rather harsh comparison between the tango of people having often said to me that the germans did nothing to the jews, rather their leaders did and the new American waltz with homogeneity and strong leadership is not entirely unreasonable. American cannot become a christian country because that would involve legal recognition of differences among followers of different sects, to wit groups. Likewise, laws to enforce morals based upon the views of one sect, no matter how great the plurality support for that sect are not only unconstitutional,but unwise.

In brief, the law may only see individuals, and each individual absolutely and without distinction based upon any ground whatsoever, equal to any other. It can only then follow logically, that courts can brook no societal or homogeneous morality or custom, as such would infer difference based upon heterodoxy or orthodoxy.


It is certainly not logically true that social homogeneity will always lead to persecution, nor have I said that. I have said, with no wriggle room, that prohibiting legal preference for homogeneity will certainly prevent it.
Had a strong independent court said that even the description of a person being jewish is inadmissible ad curiam, then the world would look rather different today.

Why then is my underwear so tight on the issue?

Why do the Islamic fundamentalist countries hate us? The usual given answer is that our culture has perverted the world. My children are free to make love, read poetry, drink wine as they please. They may marry, they may not, they may choose sensuality, they may become ascetics. As long, however, as my daughter may say, “sex is great – sure beats studying qur’an,” those exposed in a world of the internet to such opinions may in fact be “corrupted.” One of the typical harangues of the mullahs, and more importantly, the young radicals, is that our music, our culture, our lifestyle is “materialistic and lewd.” I am not at all materialistic, although I believe guilt over wealth is silly, as is all guilt, but I do believe that sensuality is one of the essential paths to happiness. Beauty is truth, truth beauty. Since I believe in no reward for goodness, fine food, fine wine, making love, good cigars, &c have no moral repulsion for me. Nor can I afford any of them.

One can certainly see the polarity – asceticism vs sensualism. The two have been at odds for millennia. The solution of the founding fathers was to assert that congress, the maker of statute, shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Simply, religion has no part in government. Why? The exegesis may be the infighting among christian sects which tore England asunder during the reigns from Henry to Elisabeth to James, but, maybe as well because, like many intellectuals, some of the leading framers were, if not exactly atheists, anti-religion. As one of my Jesuit friends always teases me, “the church spent a quarter of a million pounds to turn you into an atheist.” Thinking about that seriously, the Jesuit take on the topic is that it is better to have nine well-educated atheists and one well-educated believer than to have a faith based in ignorant superstition. As my old prefect of discipline used to say, “If the only reason you love jesus is that you cannot read plato and nietsche, we have failed.” In other words, they trusted their faith to win out in the end, and if not, they were still secure in their own beliefs. Falwell does not want to be free to practice fundamentalist christianity, he wants it to be the law of the land. The segregationists did not want their children not to play with niggers, they wanted to make sure that statute protected them by making it impossible for them so to do.

How is this important to the question at hand? Look back at how the Nazis ruled. Homogeneous culture, uninhibited by a constitutional stricture demanding that only the individual and not the community establish moral code. Look at the difference between the Moslem fundamentalists and the christian fundamentalists. Do both want a society based upon their religious laws to which even those who disagree must adhere?
Why should any speech be censored? “I do not want me kid exposed to tits.” What ever happened to parenting? There is no reason to promote any kind of legal boundaries to commercial television. The marketplace will take care of it. If Joe the believer cannot get his son to prefer Wednesday night bible class dinners to Jack the hedonist’s porn potluck, why should Jack, as a matter of law be punished? It may be the common feeling, but it is outside of reason. Hucheson and Kames have written far better than I can ever upon the idea of an innate sense of right and wrong. By the time of Reid, and Witherspoon, the head of Princeton who was, of course, both the Kirkman and pragmatist, and most essentially Paine, who followed obliquely Robertson and Smith, the founding patriots saw the need of the commercial society to civilise and the need of civilisation itself to humanise. Thus, rationalism, tolerating, even loving, spiritual as well as sensual pursuits, became the law of this land. The innate sense of right and wrong would be consonant with the common weal. Man himself, irrespective of the existence of god, would feel that tolerance rather than bigotry, kindness rather than harshness, and most of all, reason rather than power would sway the rule of law. Men would contract with a government to protect the lives and property of all, from those few who, by natural inclination or reinforced reward, would take from others without consideration.

This is diametrically opposed to a government whose existence itself is derived from divine authority over the governed. Our laws protect us from those who can harm us, no more, no less. From this one derives the freedom to practice every form of self-learning from the most ascetic zen to the most sensual art. In front of our bench, the fasting of the pilgrim and the writing of the poet are of no distinction. The morality of the wine connoisseur who finds meaning in the acceptance of death through sensual delight, and the orthodox jew whose daughters cover their knees for purity are not variously weighted before our courts. The wind connoisseur must tolerate the plonk and the jew the row of girlie magazines. The law sees no greater value in either solution to the meaning of spirituality. After life, no after life, purity, hedonism, all are worthy, as long as none is hurt.

It is the definition of that hurt which stirs the the current melée. If there be a god, and afterlife, and punishment, those who are drawn into sin by the likes of me will be hurt, not here, but hereafter. It is the need of protecting ourselves not from real and present danger, but from the wrath of god which the neopurirtans wish the government to address. Little Johnny cannot find pictures of naked ladies, therefore does not jerk off, therefore is one less sin closer to damnation. The state has done a good deed in banning dirty magazines. Now, if we could only limit telly to reruns of I love Lucy, and make sure that he does not learn that some people have sex for pleasure rather than procreation, and while were are at it, smoking causes cancer, and corvairs kill bad drivers, and, and, and…..



The problem we see, way off topic of the original thread, but salient nonetheless, is that those who wish to practice the taciturn demand that the dionysian hide itself, to reduce temptation. There is no other basic reason for any regulation of any speech. Why do we bath topless in Europe and covered here? Because it is a different culture. My objection to the culture becoming law is well founded in history. Did Mary say, “I like Mass, I believe the bishop of rome should head the church, so in my chapel a priest says mass. In my cousin Elisabeth’s chapel, she believes that there is no pontiff, so she and her congregants pray themselves without interlocutor. Is the difference not beautiful? This is why England is peaceful?” Nice fantasy – the English holocausts were nicer only in that the law was wide open. “Catholicism is sin, kill priests.” “ Protestantism is heresy, kill puritans.” They did not even pretend not to kill. There were no camps in the east, heads rotted on London Bridge, guts strewn on the ground.

If a short history of England written on the sixth grade level does not convince us that the first and fourteenth amendments are the best defence against raw barbarism, or a half hour in front of the history channel does not chill our blood at the thoughts of living in a christian country, to say nothing of an Islamic republic, then I am indeed only incendiary, and so far outside of the scope of intellectual debate that my words are not only foolish but dangerous.

If on the other hand, we accept that a society can be based upon the limitation of only the most egregious affronts to person and property, and the function of society is to foster the possibility of individual happiness, then Locke’s model makes more sense than a “democracy.” By nature, unless the power of the majority is severely limited, they will rule, and woes betide him who suffers the fate of thinking for himself. Or perhaps only has a different skin colour than the majority……

Thus, the paramount importance of the two facets of our law under discussion here: the law must be morally neutral and the state must be weak, except insofar as it must mightily the observance of equality, irrespective of popularity.

Thus, any reasonable government must be dichotomous.

Thence, the moral choice of claret or water, torah or love poetry, courtesans or abstinence must be left strictly to the individual. The fear of the orthodox is that when left to choose between sensuality and purity, the choice will be for the former, removing the power of the community to enforce morality by means of guilt and peer pressure, to say nothing of fear of punishment at bar. I, for what it is worth, believe that guilt is almost never useful. I believe as well that sensuality, will always produce kinder people than purity. Fear and love are, if not mutually exclusive, as nigh on so as makes no game.

Thus, a government must rule by acceptance that its rule is reasoned and compassionate, and prefers none to the other, rather than by force. The pious mullah and the impious martin stand before the bar with only the reasoned judgement of man to interpret law. If at any time, an afterlife, a god is the giver of law, then equality is perforce nonexistent, for his worshippers will ipso facto be better than his detractors.

When a state, indeed the only state, where even the will of the majority is limited in its effect by the legal assertion of the equality of all men, irrespective of any factor whatsoever other than the taking of life or property without due process, appears to becoming less tolerant then it is not unreasonable to presume that the heterodox will become angry.

As to the practical advantage of the pre-neopuritan American system, let us return to the example of the germans excusing the murder of innocents. If the individual, not the community is responsible for his actions, and is so brought up from earliest childhood, and if religious practice is forbidden ever to enter into law, how could one have a holocaust, or even stop gay marriage? Who could found a gulag? What person would see himself above another?

Unless all people are equal in all ways, and all lifestyles are tolerated with love and compassion, we risk becoming the kind of land that is Saudi Arabia, was Germany, is becoming Russia. Racism and homophobia worked rather poorly in the third reich, and even a blush of religion’s warm glow in the law is too dangerous to freedom to accept. Moreso it is because it comforts, removes the sting of having to deal with those whose values offend our own, and in the end, we can piously say, “We save the queers from themselves.” Not too far off from “the white man’s burthen.”

To re-quote Leon, “Quite frankly, I don't know if racism can be eliminated, or even minimized until we are visited by aliens.”

This statement in and of itself excuses Brown’s outburst, irrespective of her marginal grasp of foreign policy. Arguendo it were true, it sanctifies her anger. It should incite all of us to anger, passionate, hot anger at the hypocrisy of a world where comfort and safety so far outweigh the values of reason and compassion that there are those, even in the halls of justice, whom racism or discrimination of any kind do not inflame to intemperate speech.


Yazdzik

P. S. About the names, I was just wondering why, as I have never had a nickname. (Okay, longwinded might not be too bad a choice.... ) So it is not like the old ng conventions, where back in the 33baud days people felt they could speak more freely if the boss never found out? It seems so frightfully modern and impersonal.

I am trying to see how the world has changed - I am really losing my grip, and am no longer sure why.

I shall know later today if I am going away. What a euphemism. It sounds as were I heading to Cape Cod for the weekend....
best,
M

[Fiona]

God may indeed grant us a royal family. He too is an ass.
huh?
edit: oh sorry, there was a page two :nut:

~Darla






(if you call me that I'll hurt you :P)

[Sierra Mike]

My real name is actually Stephen Moore, not Steve Moore. Sorry to have been masquerading behind a facade.

SM

[ShinyTop]

My real name is actually Stephen Moore, not Steve Moore. Sorry to have been masquerading behind a facade.

SM

I KNEW IT. FINALLY CAME OUT, DID YOU STEVE?

[Sierra Mike]

I KNEW IT. FINALLY CAME OUT, DID YOU STEVE?
Dude, what's with the CAPS?

OK, OK...I'm actually Peter North. Which is better than being, say, Ron "I'm a Hairy Hedgehog" Jeremy.

SM

[BigDeputyDog]

I use a nickname because my real name is the same as a rock group(No, Sm, it isn't The Monkees or Bubba Sparks...) and I get tired of the "Wow!! Are you the real ________ ???"

signed,
Snoop Do.... er...

BDD... :{)

[Coot]

Are you trying to tell us that your real name is Hootie Blowfish?

[Sierra Mike]

I thought it was Janet Jackson.

SM

[ShinyTop]

No, he sang Tiptoe Through the Tulips.

[yazdzik]

I suppose it would be undignified for me to change my nickname to Ron Jeremy.....

[Frodo Lives]

Ok, Ok. My real name is............George W. Bush. There, now you know. :(