Roger and Me
 |
| You will lose you mind when cousins aren't two of a kind |
"All these folks worried about erasing history when the Confederate statues come down will be thrilled to learn about the existence of books."
Jamil Smith
Historians inform us that in most instances, Roger Brooke Taney was a pretty good jurist. He was also a bit ahead of his time with respect to the subject of the "peculiar institution" of slavery - at least in his youth. When, as a young man, he inherited a plantation filled with human beings living in unrewarded bondage, he gradually set them free via a process that was known as "manumitting". He even provided a pension for the older ones who had no hope of finding manual labor out in the world. That would seem to me evidence of a decent human being. Not many former slave owners were as kind and as generous as that. The overwhelming majority of elderly slaves were left to fend for themselves in a dangerous and hostile world. So far, so good.
His position on the Supreme Court was unprecedented for a few reasons: Appointed by President Andrew Jackson in 1836, he was the first Catholic to serve on that bench. He was also one of the longest-serving. When he died in October of 1864, he had been there for almost twenty-nine years. Roger Taney should have an honored place in American history, but he does not. And the reason for this is the horrible fact that he authored what is - beyond a molecule of debate - the worst Supreme Court decision in the history of this nation. Wait, it gets weirder than that (at least for my purposes). Are you ready for this?
I'M RELATED TO THIS KNUCKLEHEAD!
There's not much history on my father's side of the family. As far as anyone can tell, they were just a bunch of drunken Irishmen fleeing the potato famine in the 1840s. It's a different story as far as my mother's side is concerned. Placed on the branches of my maternal family tree are to be found the doctor who set the broken ankle of John Wilkes Booth late on the night he murdered Abraham Lincoln (Samuel Mudd), a signer of the Declaration of Independence (Charles Carroll), the founder of the state of Maryland (Lord Baltimore) - and a number of other people - some praiseworthy; some outright rascals. Put me in the "rascal" category if you wish.
Taney, like so many of my ancestors, was from the state of Maryland. Although he didn't resign from the court at the outbreak of the Civil War, he was decidedly pro-confederacy. He was such a thorn in Lincoln's side that, for a time, the president considered jailing him. When Cousin Roger died suddenly a month before the election of 1864, Honest Abe made no public comment, which was probably just as well. Apparently Lincoln - one of the most amiable men ever to live in the Executive Mansion - detested Roger Taney with a passion.
The decision that completely destroyed the legacy of my distant cousin involved a case that was called, "Scott v. Sanford". Dred Scott was a slave who was transported by his "owners" to the "free" state of Illinois and sued for his freedom. For over a decade, his case slowly moved its way up the court hierarchy until it finally reached the Supremes in 1857. The justices voted - seven to two - that Scott had no right to freedom. Even by the unenlightened standards of the day, it was an appalling decision. Most historians believe that it was the spark which would ignite the war between the states four years later. One of the nine, Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, was so completely unnerved by the decision, that he resigned from the court in disgust. Good for him.
To make matters quite worse, Taney decreed that a slave owner could take his "property" into the territories, and he furthered the notion that, black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." As a fellow Catholic, Cousin Roger should have known better. Honestly.
In a bittersweet coda, shortly after the decision was announced, Scott's "master" (in this case a woman) chose to set him free, He had less than a year to enjoy that freedom, dying on September 17, 1858 at the age of fifty-nine.
Flash forward one-hundred and fifty-nine years later, in an act that would have given Dred Scott a decided flash of schadenfreude, the governor of the state of Maryland, Larry Hogan, ordered that the statue of Taney, which had prominently sat in front of the statehouse at Annapolis since 1870, be removed. Governor Hogan understands all-too-well that America is entering a Brave New World where causes like white supremacy have no place in the cultural melting pot that the United States is supposed to be. America is changing, and, like all mass changes in history, a significant segment of the population are not taking this inevitable social evolution very well - as was evident by the riot in Charlottesville, Virginia a week ago today. Someone remarked on television late last night that no Jewish kid should be expected to attend Adolf Hitler High School. Why can't we treat our brothers and sisters who are the descendants of slaves with the same respect?
Let's replace the statue of Roger Brooke Taney with one of Dred Scott. That works for me!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
SUGGESTED READING:
With Malice Toward None
by Stephen B. Oates
By far, the best one-volume biography of Lincoln ever written.
Taney, like so many of my ancestors, was from the state of Maryland. Although he didn't resign from the court at the outbreak of the Civil War, he was decidedly pro-confederacy. He was such a thorn in Lincoln's side that, for a time, the president considered jailing him. When Cousin Roger died suddenly a month before the election of 1864, Honest Abe made no public comment, which was probably just as well. Apparently Lincoln - one of the most amiable men ever to live in the Executive Mansion - detested Roger Taney with a passion.
 |
| Dred Scott |
To make matters quite worse, Taney decreed that a slave owner could take his "property" into the territories, and he furthered the notion that, black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." As a fellow Catholic, Cousin Roger should have known better. Honestly.
In a bittersweet coda, shortly after the decision was announced, Scott's "master" (in this case a woman) chose to set him free, He had less than a year to enjoy that freedom, dying on September 17, 1858 at the age of fifty-nine.
 |
| T'ain't no more Taney |
A few right wing publications today are criticizing the Democrats for not advocating the renaming of public places in West Virginia bearing the name of the late Senator (and former KKK member) Robert Byrd. I offer an exasperated sigh and a much-needed lesson in American history:
Yes, the Democrats were - at one time - the party of the racist Dixiecrats. For over a century most southerners could not bear to align themselves with the party of "that bearded bastard that freed our slaves". Then in 1964 and 1965 respectively, President Johnson passed into law the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. Within less than a decade, all of those racist Southern Dems fled the party like frightened little mice.
 |
| Robert Byrd |
POP QUIZ: Which party did they flee to? Which party welcomed them with loving and open arms?
Ironically, Byrd was one of the few who didn't leave the Democrats. That's because he renounced his Jim Crow roots (decades before his death) in several painful and public mea culpas. His conversion to light cannot be dismissed as mere political expediency; West Virginia's African American population has never been noticeably large. He deserves to be publicly honored.
Robert Byrd overcame.
The political heirs of the Dixiecrats claim that the mass migration to the GOP in the sixties and early seventies was simply about economics, that it had nothing to do with race. Bullpippy! It had EVERYTHING to do with race.
There are no statues of Hitler anywhere on this troubled planet, and yet our historical knowledge of him has not been "washed away". We know about him today just as they will know about Robert E. Lee a century from now. A statue is not a history lesson. It is a remembrance of honor. Lee was an officer in the United States army, educated at West Point, who led a counter army in war against the government he had sworn allegiance to. In that ensuing war, 624,000 human beings were slaughtered. Where I come from, Bobby Lee would be labeled "a terrorist"; Where I come from, he would be disparaged as "a traitor". He killed more people at Gettysburg than Osama bin laden killed on September 11, 2001.
Should Lee be remembered? Absolutely.
Should Lee be honored? Absolutely not.
Ironically, Byrd was one of the few who didn't leave the Democrats. That's because he renounced his Jim Crow roots (decades before his death) in several painful and public mea culpas. His conversion to light cannot be dismissed as mere political expediency; West Virginia's African American population has never been noticeably large. He deserves to be publicly honored.
Robert Byrd overcame.
The political heirs of the Dixiecrats claim that the mass migration to the GOP in the sixties and early seventies was simply about economics, that it had nothing to do with race. Bullpippy! It had EVERYTHING to do with race.
 |
| Robert E. Lee |
Should Lee be remembered? Absolutely.
Should Lee be honored? Absolutely not.
Let's replace the statue of Roger Brooke Taney with one of Dred Scott. That works for me!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
SUGGESTED READING:
With Malice Toward None
by Stephen B. Oates
By far, the best one-volume biography of Lincoln ever written.
posted by Tom Degan @ 6:03 AM
38 comments
38 Comments:
It is amazing how slavery was "constitutional" for so many years. Ah, the power of wealthy white conservative Southerners.
Their evil legacy of racism still breeds hate that festers in the Nazis and Klan. The whole point of confederate statues is to intimidate blacks and assert white power in the South.
To say otherwise is to embrace treason as their proud "white heritage".
We have so many white conservatives today who side with Trump and David Duke in blaming counter protesters equally for the violence. If not racists, they are idiots.
Just as their comments in past threads here document their hate, let's make sure their Nazi/Klan sympathies are recorded in history books for any possible survivors of our broken democracy to understand.
LOL "Robert Byrd"
Sober up ole guy.
Major Clucky.
As has been explained to you before, Byrd was KKK for about a year, then spent the next 40 denouncing it.
He's not President, he's been dead for years.
Must you ALWAYS deflect to irrelevant unrelated nonsense?
Shall we bring up Tim MC Veigh, a conservative, "born again Christian" white supremacist? He's unrelated to this topic as well.
How about the guy who drove a car through the crowd in VA killing a young girl? Byrd wasn't even there. HE'S related, as is Trump, the "leader" who sides with the domestic terrorists.
Try to stay on subject OK?
Tom Degan: "There are no statues of Hitler anywhere on this troubled planet, and yet our historical knowledge of him has not been 'washed away'."
"Police said the U.S. national is under investigation for violating German laws prohibiting Nazi symbols and that they are still seeking the passer-by for causing personal injury, according to the Associated Press.
The Nazi salute — the right arm straight and angled slightly up, palm down — was used as a greeting and a way of expressing devotion to Adolf Hitler under the Third Reich. Germany outlawed the salute after World War II, along with Holocaust denial and other symbols and signals associated with the Nazis. A conviction can carry a prison sentence of up to three years, although courts often impose fines instead."
These are the kinds of laws and restrictions that should be imposed on those who publicly display the Confederate flag in this country, and just as Germany has outlawed symbols and signals associated with the Nazis, glorifying and memorializing those who committed treason by advocating and committing secession from the United States should be put to an abrupt end.
Mozart, it's very evident when Chuck "Majormajor" Morre (aka, "Michael Stivic", "ArchieBunkerNYC", and at least one other) is backed into a corner. That's when his various manifestations go into at least one of several methods of distraction, projection, inductive reasoning or jumping to conclusions.
There's really no rational thought behind his feeble attempts, and never has been. As Dave Dubya has mentioned on several occasions, his belief-system is based purely on his loyalty and reverence to cult-style groups and individuals that arouse his most deep-seated negative emotions. He's a follower; a good infantry soldier who will jump when told to jump, scream when told to scream, and will hate with all the voracity of a starving man deprived of minimum subsistence. He the quintessential representative of Trump's base -- those who Hillary Clinton coined his "deplorables".
Being a danger to a civil and open society, and a stain upon the most basic of rights of dignity for every man and woman, he and his kind must be thwarted at every turn and every opportunity. He must not have a say, for his words only disparage the search for truth and the honor of all living creatures.
Resist and reject...always!
Mozart,
If you had read Tom's latest post earlier, you would have seen Tom used the wrong picture for Senator (D) (KKK) Byrd, hence my comment. Try to stay current.
DOV FISCHER
American Spectator
8/18/17
August 18, 2017
The media get exercised when President Trump does not parrot their scripts, but they never minded that Barack Obama would not call out leftist rioters and violent leftist organizations by name. As inner cities would burn, with innocents
watching their life savings go aflame as mobs would burn down their
inner-city stores in cities from Baltimore to Ferguson, the Obama
Administration avoided planting blame or naming hate groups. When a
Jihadist murdered Americans serving our nation faithfully at Fort Hood,
Obama attributed the murders to “workplace violence.” Obama never could
articulate the term “Radical Islamist terrorist,” as though he were Lou
Costello fearing what would happen to him if he said “Niagara Falls.”
When Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by her own former supporter, a
mentally ill clinger who had backed the Democrat, the media blamed the
violence on Republicans like Sarah Palin. When Rep. Steve Scalise was
shot, and others were wounded, by a Bernie Sanders supporter who had set
out to kill Republicans, the media avoided pinning blame on a left ideology and overheated rhetoric of leftist hate. But when the President
of the United States rightly excoriated law-breakers and thugs on all
sides of a street conflagration, he came in for a torrent of media
abuse, forcing even level-headed bystanders to take cover.
Will JG join his fellow liberals when they rip down Jefferson's statue or will he be it's "Guardian"?
Major Clucky Stivic.
Is it even remotely possible that you can stop DEFLECTING and stick with the actual subject? Trump is President (well...not exactly but he holds the title for the next few months) TRUMP supports the KKK and they support him.
You can call people that fight AGAINST discrimination "hate groups" all you want, but you'd think we could all get together on NAZIS being bad can't we?
Apparently, Trump can't seem to make that adjustment, seeing as how the KKK Helped get him selected. He had ONE CHANCE to denounce these clowns, and he couldn't do it without saying "bad people on BOTH SIDES. No Donnie, the bad people are the NAZIS, GOOD people oppose them.
Hey Clucky, I don't know what "Toms latest post earlier" means, and NO ONE wants to tear down any statues of PATRIOTS. Only those that committed TREASON by taking arms against the USA. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Oh, and Clucky, Obama refused to cal ISIS "ISLAMIC terrorists because he didn't want to give them credibility by connecting the to REAL Muslims.
And it was the Three stooges that did "Niagra Falls" long before Lou Costello. Gabby Giffords was shot by a nutcase CONSERVATIVE (and several "good" people with guns did nothing)
The shooting at the ballgame was a nutcase who wouldn't have even HAD access to guns other than the GOP pandering to the NRA lobby.
Oh and T. Jefferson never took up arms against the USA did he? So why remove the statue of a PATRIOT?
Come on man, can you TRY to stay on subject so we don't have to teach you HISTORY as well as current events?
Obama called terrorists "violent jihadists" and terrorists. He even ordered the death of bin-Laden. Racist white Americans still demanded Obama use the term designated by racist white Americans. The they spewed hate at the Black Guy for not using the term of their choosing.
Obama did include Ft. Hood as an act of terrorism. Racist con-servatives will always lie to smear the hated Black President.
Deranged or alienated individuals -- often U.S. citizens or legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.
So that’s the current threat -- lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates; threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad; homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism.
Now racist authoritarian white con-servatives goose-step behind their racist president.
"Both sides" didn't wave swastikas and scream racist hate slogans in Charlottesville.
"Both sides" didn't kill and main innocent Americans in Charlottesville..
"Both sides" haven't gunned down Americans in churches.
"Both sides" haven't exploded truck bombs at a federal building.
Major and his cult never could articulate the term Radical Right Terrorist.
In fact, they are terrorist sympathizers, unconcerned for the victims they blame, as they equate them with their racist Nazi killers.
Chuck "Majormajor" Morre: "Will JG join his fellow liberals when they rip down Jefferson's statue or will he be it's 'Guardian'?"
No.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't a treasonous betrayer of the United States of America. Jefferson Davis, along with Robert E. Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, P. G. T. Beauregard, Samuel Cooper, Joseph E. Johnston and others, were. Just as Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi fascists aren't memorialized through statues or other symbols in Germany, and haven't been since the end of WWII, these leaders of the Confederate States of America should never have been venerated or given status as war heroes.
I suspect that white supremacist sympathizers, such as yourself, believe otherwise.
He was a slave owner. Remove all statues of former slave owners isn't that the battle city of the radical left? Anything that celebrates slave owners.
Since there were slave owners who signed the Constitution, should it be torn up and replaced?
"these leaders of the Confederate States of America should never have been venerated or given status as war heroes." You forgot to add that they were all Democrats.. some legacy.
"white supremacist sympathizers" is anyone who disagrees with you. One of your better deflections but still a ridiculous twisting of all logic to fit your radical liberal position.
When all else fails use one of the 12 Rules for Radicals, you've got nothing else. Like labeling your opponent racist. I say you are a socialist traitor. Prove you aren't.
...leaders of the Confederate States of America should never have been venerated or given status as war heroes. I suspect that white supremacist sympathizers, such as yourself, believe otherwise.
Major just had his arse handed to him. Time for Stivic and Bunker to the rescue.
Cultists only bring up statues of Jefferson and Washington because their cult's Dear Leader first made the stupid assumption.
I wonder if Major followed his brilliant Dear Leader's example and looked at the eclipse?
LOL!
JG,
NO, you will not join your fellow liberals when the demand the tearing down the statue of Slave owner Thomas Jefferson
or
NO, your fellow liberals will not demand the tearing down the statue of slave owner Thomas Jefferson?
How does Chris Columbus fit in, your fellow liberals are demanding his statues be removed? Does he get a pass like Jefferson?
JG,
For a guy who, incredibly, still believes 9/11 was an inside job, you should not throw stones at anyone else's belief system. Your incoherent ramblings about 9/11 sound like someone who fell a few stories and landed on his head.
"He must not have a say, for his words only disparage the search for truth and the honor of all living creatures." ~ J.G.
Wow. Even if you believe all of the accusations you ascribe to Majormajor, (and I am sure you do) I think even your namesake would be deeply chagrined at the thought of curbing his 1st amendment rights to free speech. After all, the purpose of that right is to protect speech, most especially political speech, which others might find offensive. There is no need to have a "right" to protect speech with which everybody agrees.
Also, if you are truly searching for truth and honor, shouldn't all sides and thought be considered in the coming to conclusions of what truth and honor really is? Even those negative aspects should be viewed when so searching. Truth when some of the data is not applied may lead one astray from truth. That is how we end up with despicable laws like the ACA or ascertain scientific theories to be natural laws, like anthropogenic global warming. Having only part of the facts does not lend one to always finding "truth".
Further, even if Majormajor's speech and motives were precisely as you characterized them, is it not better to have racist and hateful speech out in the open and known instead of hidden behind closed doors to fester? For the record, I certainly don't believe that Majormajor is a racist, but then I have been accused of being one too because I don't tow the far left line with my talking points either. I guess it is far easier for some to demonize and name call then actually consider contrary data than one's own when considering what is true.
JG I agree 100% about Major Clucky Stivic. He's like a guy I work with. Anytime someone comments on something stupid or corrupt Trump does, this guy says "But Hillary...but Obama...but..."
He NEVER addresses the actual issue. I called him major Major once and the look he gave me was not QUITE "who is that". ;)
I know it's not Clucky though, because this guy had a JOB.
I am old now. When I look back over this life I see that amerika has just as much racism and fear as anyplace else in the world. Perhaps we have more. I say a lot that I'm part of the solution and not part of the problem. The Civil War, the legacy - if you can call it that - of slavery is beyond understanding and it of course totally evil. I do not now and never have understood why the indoctrination that our youngsters receive in "school" is a good thing. Slavery is just wrong under ALL and ANY historical and/or philosophical frame. amerika is really full of that stuff and regardless of passions, etc. I for one am sick of the lies. Our herstory needs to truthfully told about. Thanks for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
"As has been explained to you before, Byrd was KKK for about a year, then spent the next 40 denouncing it."
Wow. Amazing. The above is clearly from a delusional person attempting to revise history and to pretend Byrd had his "St Paul" moment, even after using the phrase "White Niggers" on national TV in 2001. Because he was a powerful Democrat in the Senate, the race card was put in the closet next to his racism.
PC Dave, are you happy ESPN is pulling chinese american Robert Lee from broadcasting a football game in Virginia?
"All of that said, damn the racists, neo-Nazis, fascist authoritarians, and... the violent antifa movement."
Will liberals say the same thing?
"All of that said, damn the racists, neo-Nazis, fascist authoritarians, and... the violent antifa movement." Can DD say the same thing? Mr. Paine and I have.
The German fascists/Nazis of the 1930's prevented the speech of those they disagreed with, tore down statues they didn't like, and burned books they found offensive.
How is that any different than the actions of current liberals?
I find it ironic that Dave would tell anyone they "need a lesson on history, and current events, as well."
Major wants me to say "damn the racists", while calling me a racist?
Clever fellow, amirite? He's got me the there. I have to wonder what "racist" means to him?He thinks Trump's birtherism can't possibly be racist.
“ ...damn the racists, neo-Nazis, fascist authoritarians, and... the violent antifa movement."
Note the attachment of “violent” to the least violent group mentioned. Someone has a bias favoring the Trump supporters here.
Let me help for moral and reality grounding. “Damn the property destruction by the antifa, and damn the hate, and long history of deadly violence, from the Trump supporting racists, neo-Nazis, and fascist authoritarians.”
There. All fixed.
So if Nazis, racists, and fascist authoritarians all hate liberals...And nobody hates liberals like our Major does...
Hmmm.
Weak DD, very weak. The actions of today's liberals mirrors those of the Fascist/Nazis in Germany towards those they oppose.
Prove you are not a racist.
T. Paime: "I think even your namesake would be deeply chagrined at the thought of curbing his 1st amendment rights to free speech."
Possibly, and probably. Unlike loyalists to cults and other factions, like you and Chuck Morre, and although I have great respect and admiration for the great body of work and thoughts and ideas of Thomas Jefferson, I'm still an individual with my own opinions and ideas. From that perspective, I will never allow or concede that neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, ideologues -- or any others who smear and hate based upon the color of someone's skin, their ethnicity, gender, their country or continent of origin, or their sexual preferences -- have a right to first amendment protections. Because these are characteristics each is born into -- without choice -- nobody has the right to express their hatred towards them without limitations.
"Also, if you are truly searching for truth and honor, shouldn't all sides and thought be considered in the coming to conclusions of what truth and honor really is?"
Not when others ignore the obvious because of their own ideology or irrational ideas, or base their thought around ideas such as profit over people.
"Having only part of the facts does not lend one to always finding 'truth'."
Such as the purported "truth" of the Bible...or the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church?
"Further, even if Majormajor's speech and motives were precisely as you characterized them, is it not better to have racist and hateful speech out in the open and known instead of hidden behind closed doors to fester?"
No, since he chooses his behavior and who he chooses to hate.
For the record, I certainly don't believe that Majormajor is a racist..."
Not a surprise to me. Birds of a feather...
If you think Trump's history of years of birtherism, refusing rentals to blacks, declaring a judge unqualified due to his Mexican parents, buying an ad urging the death penalty for the Central Park Five (and still declared them guilty after they were exonerated.), claiming "blacks are lazy by nature", do not show any hint of racism, YOU just might be a racist.
"Possibly, and probably. Unlike loyalists to cults and other factions, like you and Chuck Morre, and although I have great respect and admiration for the great body of work and thoughts and ideas of Thomas Jefferson, I'm still an individual with my own opinions and ideas. From that perspective, I will never allow or concede that neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, ideologues -- or any others who smear and hate based upon the color of someone's skin, their ethnicity, gender, their country or continent of origin, or their sexual preferences -- have a right to first amendment protections." ~ JG
I see. So first amendment protections of free speech should only be granted to those whom agree with you... I got it.
This is an exceptionally dangerous mindset that has become ever more prevalent among the indoctrinated and/or uneducated fringe left. Even though I stand beside you in denouncing hate and racism, it is still the right of others to have and voice their opinions, even if they are misguided, foolish, or vile. When it becomes a problem, as Thomas Jefferson so stated, is when their actions, "pick my pocket or break my leg".
Up to that point, even free speech that we find offensive and vile should CONTINUE to be protected by our United States Constitution. To do otherwise is to employ the tactics of fascism for the sake of uniformity of thought, as Majormajor has implied.
Of course, what do I know? You and Mr. Dubya have obviously been hanging out in book club reading "Rules for Radicals" again. Just because I think despicable racists have a right to free speech, along with ALL Americans, does not make me sympathetic to their cause by any means, sir. It is a concept lost on Dave. I had hoped that you might be able to ascertain the distinction. Evidently not though. Cheers!
T. Paine: "I see. So first amendment protections of free speech should only be granted to those whom agree with you..."
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is also not allowed, and could be construed to be a violation of your First Amendment rights. But for the safety and protection of all, it is a criminal offense.
A publicly stated racist remark (i.e., hate speech) is another variation of a "hate crime", and equally pernicious.
Mr. Paine, the concept of "free speech" has been distorted and bastardized beyond recognition. Now money has been recognized by the Supreme Court as free speech. But you're okay with this. You're agreeable to allowing anything to be construed as free speech. Understandably, that's why you're also agreeable to corporations having the same rights under the Constitution as human persons.
"You and Mr. Dubya have obviously been hanging out in book club reading 'Rules for Radicals' again."
Nope, Mr. Paine, I haven't read it. You must have spotted it on the bookstore shelf when you bought your copy of "Rules for Reactionaries".
Once again Mr. Paine is allowing his false assumptions to form his judgments of liberals.
Just because I think despicable racists have a right to free speech, along with ALL Americans, does not make me sympathetic to their cause by any means, sir. It is a concept lost on Dave..
Mr. Paine has decided I’m too dull-witted to grasp his profound concept. Figures. Coming from one who joins Trump in blaming the death and injuries in Charlottesville on “many sides”.
When it becomes a problem, as Thomas Jefferson so stated, is when their actions, "pick my pocket or break my leg".
How many broken legs and deaths in Charlottesville does it take to awaken Mr. Paine?
Mr. Paine understands it is a crime to threaten the president. It is a crime to slander and libel. Hate speech directed towards others based on color of someone's skin, their ethnicity, gender, their country or continent of origin, or their sexual preferences should be in that group of exceptions. No harm to the republic, or to the freedom of Americans, could ensue from this distinction.
Mr. Paine dismisses the harm of hate rhetoric that leads to death. Klan and Nazi “free speech” has resulted in terrorizing and killing of many Americans.
Why should that hate speech be a protected right when “fire” shouted in a theater is not? Both are terrible lies with deadly consequences, and have NOTHING to do with the intended purpose of our First Amendment.
Our First Amendment rights are intended to allow us freedom of religion, a free press, and to gather and speak truth to power.
After years of demonizing liberals, (We have "Nazi roots" for opposing hate speech, donchaknow?) this seems to be a concept lost on Mr. Paine, evidently.
JG, I do not support racism of any sort, but people have a right to their opinions, even if we find them repugnant. Their right to espouse that opinion stops when they incite or encourage others to violence or illegal acts. That is the difference. Free speech does not protect one's right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Nor does it protect one from inciting others to illegal acts because of racism or any other reason.
Next, to further correct you, sir: I am NOT supportive of the Citizens United decision. I do NOT think corporations should be treated as persons, nor do I think unions or other special interest groups should be. Ironically, this is one of the few areas where Mr. Dubya and I have actually concurred in the past.
T. Paine: "...people have a right to their opinions, even if we find them repugnant."
True, but they do not have a right to make threatening overtures, using symbolism of a bygone era, which is what the present hate-speech and mayhem is all about.
"I am NOT supportive of the Citizens United decision."
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was just the capstone decision. It wouldn't have had the clout, nor would we be reeling from its ramifications, were it not for other affirmed corporate-person decisions by the Supreme Court starting with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (in 1886). That decision opened the door to placing corporations on the same footing as citizens (i.e., human beings) by giving them equal protection under the law and displacing democracy with corporate power and money. A host of successive decisions since that time have made a mockery of our democratic processes.
"...nor do I think unions or other special interest groups should be [treated equally under the law]."
They're not. You'd have to prove that union groups have been granted and assured the same rights that corporations have under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It just hasn't happened.
Maybe there is hope for you, yet, Mr. Paine. If only you'd wrap your mind around this one particular subject, and exhaustively research it, you'd run screaming from your so-called conservative ways and would see eye-to-eye with Dave Dubya and me on a whole host of other subjects and themes that can only be seen as emanating from this corporate personhood fictionalization.
But I know you will not. You're too comfortable in your belief systems. In a word (or five), you've chosen the blue pill.
Sigh... I look at each issue on a case by case basis and then form my opinion. It is why I can look at corporate personhood issues and side with more folks on the Left than I do with otherwise more reliable allies on the right. I don't receive my right-wing talking points and strictly adhere to all of their criteria. If only everyone would so judge each issue separately.
That said, simply agreeing with you on this issue is hardly cause to think that I am going to abandon all reason and logic and start spouting the left's refrain on every issue. I don't like pills after all.
JG,
Perhaps the "blue pill" analogy was unfamiliar to Mr. Paine.
Simply put, it comes down to the choice between the facts of the Left and alternative facts of the Right.
T. Paine: "I look at each issue on a case by case basis and then form my opinion."
How noble of you. My question for you is, who doesn't? Every human being does, I would think, with the primary basis for every opinion being "How does it benefit me?", or "How does it benefit the greater good, and is it the proper thing?"
I believe your line-of-thinking and opinions follow the former, just as it does for every conservative and Republican -- and the vast majority of Democrats in this corrupt wasteland we inhabit. After all, the "mantra" of all your beliefs come down to one single word - greed - doesn't it? Isn't that the true capitalist way, after all?
"If only everyone would so judge each issue separately."
As mentioned, everyone does -- it's just that everyone bases their opinions on their own particular set of values and what's most important to them. (See answer above, and my final answer, below.)
"...simply agreeing with you on [the issue of corporate personhood] is hardly cause to think that I am going to abandon all reason and logic and start spouting the left's refrain on every issue."
In my mind you already have abandoned all reason and logic, Mr. Paine, because once one renounces corporate personhood as the legal fiction that it is, one has to start questioning all corporate malfeasance and criminal behavior that's ignored and given a pass by our elected officials. Since you don't, and see nothing wrong with corporate insiders running your government through our bought-off elected leaders, than obviously all "reason and logic" that you claim has just been thrown out the window.
That's why you and I will never see eye-to-eye on issues that aren't totally fact-based (which your side is already attempting to change with "alternative facts"). In the broader sense, your ideas of what constitute a democracy don't coincide with what I define as a democracy. You see power and money (i.e., "greed") as the primary instruments defining the term; I see complete and free human participation as the prerequisite. We're worlds apart from each other, Mr. Paine. Your worldview is the enemy of mine, and I will fight yours until either you or I are defeated.
Dave Dubya: "Perhaps the 'blue pill' analogy was unfamiliar to Mr. Paine."
Probably. No surprise.
"My question for you is, who doesn't?" ~ JG
Really? I would submit to you that a vast swath of people don't. Too many on both the left and right side of the spectrum defend every criterion of the agenda of their political ideologies. Too many folks march and protest but cannot even articulate what it is they are protesting.
"After all, the "mantra" of all your beliefs come down to one single word - greed - doesn't it? Isn't that the true capitalist way, after all?" ~ JG
Capitalism provides the greatest good for the most people in a society far beyond what socialism and communism ever could. (And I am not necessarily talking about the corrupted crony capitalism that has perverted our system here.) One simply needs to look at history and basic economics to see the truth of this. Further, we should first strive to take care of ourselves and our own so as not to be a burden on others in society. For those that CANNOT do so, we have an obligation as a civilized society to help them.
Greed is taking what you did not earn from someone else that worked hard in acquiring it and then becoming indignant when that "entitlement" is threatened. Like the great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Evidently this is a notion lost on many of my progressive friends.
"...because once one renounces corporate personhood as the legal fiction that it is, one has to start questioning all corporate malfeasance and criminal behavior that's ignored and given a pass by our elected officials. Since you don't, and see nothing wrong with corporate insiders running your government through our bought-off elected leaders, than obviously all "reason and logic" that you claim has just been thrown out the window." ~ JG
I am flabbergasted that you think I don't denounce such corporate control of our government through malfeasance and criminal behavior. I regularly write emails to Senators Lee and Hatch and the Justice Department and letters to the editor, including on such topics. I sometimes wonder, with the frequency I send them if they aren't just directed to their respective spam files.
That said, you have some caricature of me that is based on what a "conservative right winger" is in your mind and are so far from the truth of the matter that you don't even realize when you and I are actually in agreement on some issues. Further, with the hateful atmosphere poisoning our political debate these days, I suspect you and many on the far left would refuse an ally like me simply because I disagree with you on other issues important to the Left. When we cannot get along and support each other when we do find common ground, eventually we will become a balkanized nation that simply hates and mistrusts "the other side". I had hoped you were rational enough to not fall into that camp. Am I correct in assuming that you aren't?
And yes Dave, I am very familiar with the Matrix. The analogy is interesting considering the alternate reality world the far left has created or wishes to create.
"alternate reality world the far left"
I'm assuming I am of this "far left". Unfortunately Mr. Paine is incapable of showing where my facts are "alternate". After all, "alternative facts" was coined by a Trumpist, you know the kind that believes climate change is a Chinese Hoax, and 3 million illegals voted for Hillary, and...how many need I list here?
It is socialism that feeds the poor.
It is socialism that helps those failed by capitalism when it takes their job away.
It is socialism that provides health care for the needy and sick.
Capitalism has no conscience, no heart, and gives NOTHING willingly.
Socialism is vital for the poor, unemployed, sick, and injured victims of failed capitalism.
But capitalism is a god to the Right. For them, humans are servants of the economy, instead having the economy serve humans. The greed of the elites is seen as virtue to them. They revere the rich so much they prefer a neo-aristocracy of the rich over democracy itself.
And they will starve a hundred people in order to punish any single abuser of the system. It is who they are.
Their bitter resentments for the few leave them as cold-blooded as their false god toward the collateral damage in their war on socialized safety nets.
They will preach about compassion for the "truly needy", but guess who gets to define "truly needy"? Why, the rich and their angry white conservatives, of course.
T. Paine: "Too many on both the left and right side of the spectrum defend every criterion of the agenda of their political ideologies."
I cannot speak for the right, but from a leftist perspective every issue is interconnected. When I go into Washington to protest against ongoing war, for instance, I'm also protesting against human-induced global warming that's aided by Pentagon policies, and I'm also protesting against the so-called war-on-drugs because the U.S. government, specifically the CIA, benefits from the occupation of Afghanistan and the cultivation of poppies for illicit opioids.
"Capitalism provides the greatest good for the most people in a society far beyond what socialism and communism ever could. (And I am not necessarily talking about the corrupted crony capitalism that has perverted our system here.)"
So all you can do is defend a horribly corrupt system because it purportedly has brought greater benefit to more people than other corrupt systems? (And, yes, you are talking about crony capitalism, Mr. Paine, because that's exactly what Adam Smith's grand idea has morphed into.)
Your so-called capitalism wouldn't be quite the shining star were it not carried on the backs of slaves and profited from the stolen land of indigenous people on this continent and others. Modern day businesses require land, labor and capital to form and thrive. The costs of labor and land were never factored in, and nor were the eternal costs of pollution and the widespread diseases created by this.
Back to my answer above, today's capitalist model is killing the planet and leading us toward extinction. When I protest against global warming, I'm also protesting against the capitalism that promotes and causes it. Once again, Mr. Paine, this is why we're light years apart in our world views. I recognize the destruction and death we've caused and are continuing to create, whereas you're all for it.
"Like the great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, 'The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.'"
The problem with capitalism is it runs out of free land and labor, pollutes the air and land and water -- destroying ecosystems -- so that all that's left to eat is money. (And you can't eat money.)
T. Paine: "Evidently this is a notion lost on many of my progressive friends."
Evidently my statement (above) is lost on you.
"I am flabbergasted that you think I don't denounce such corporate control of our government through malfeasance and criminal behavior."
Then I'm surprised you're still a Republican. If it truly disturbed you, you wouldn't be. (And you wouldn't be a present-day Democrat, either.)
"I regularly write emails to Senators Lee and Hatch and the Justice Department and letters to the editor, including on such topics. I sometimes wonder, with the frequency I send them if they aren't just directed to their respective spam files."
So you still believe your so-called representatives truly have your interests in mind? They don't. Stop wasting your time.
"...you have some caricature of me that is based on what a 'conservative right winger' is in your mind and are so far from the truth of the matter that you don't even realize when you and I are actually in agreement on some issues."
You've yet to show me that side, Mr. Paine. Perhaps you need to try a little harder.
"...with the hateful atmosphere poisoning our political debate these days, I suspect you and many on the far left would refuse an ally like me simply because I disagree with you on other issues important to the Left."
That's because you continue to push the present paradigm, which clearly isn't working for the vast majority. As I've said previously, you're too comfortable in your worldview. The only way you're going down the rabbit-hole is if you're pushed. Obviously, Dave Dubya's and my nudging hasn't been enough.
"When we cannot get along and support each other when we do find common ground, eventually we will become a balkanized nation that simply hates and mistrusts 'the other side'."
Republicans and conservatives never "support each other". It's the greed-gene, I suppose. It's every man, woman, and child for themselves. How do you expect me to find common ground with that? (Hint: I don't.)
"I had hoped you were rational enough to not fall into that camp. Am I correct in assuming that you aren't?"
I'm in the camp that knows the current system is broken beyond repair, that capitalism as it's practiced is greed-based and only benefits a select few, and unless we change course and find a new heading, we're doomed as a nation and probably as a species. I'll stay in my camp. I don't mingle well with those who can't see the obvious truths.
Post a Comment
<< Home