RUTROW.org is a political discussion blog. Please read the annoying legalese on the " About" page.
|
By Carl Weetabix, on January 16th, 2012 Via Digby:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
- Lee Atwater, as quoted in “The Two-Party South”, 1981
That was my dad. He treated blacks well (and wouldn’t consider doing otherwise), he’d slap you if you said the n-word, he would howl if you ever called him a racist, but even to the child that I was, the subtext was obvious – it was “those blacks” that were the problem. No, he didn’t say “those blacks”, it was just the things he yelled at on the television that said it all.
While I don’t think my dad actually meant to be racist, sadly as the quote shows there was a cynical effort to manipulate people like my dad. We’re still paying for it today.
UPDATE:
This deserves another quote, which is a sad reflection on both Republicans and the South. After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Johnson was to have said:
“We have lost the South for a generation”
and he was not wrong, nor would the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, take the high road and ignore the opportunity. Thus began the “Southern Strategy“.
By Carl Weetabix, on January 10th, 2012 Why are the quotes necessary around “tortured” here?:
I should note that I actually do know the answer to that question, they're using it as shorthand for the word "alleged", however quotes like this have dual meanings - and more often it's used sarcastically to diminish the claim of the object in quotes (eg: Fox news is a good source of "truth").
I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill, but given how the media treats non-westerners in interviews and the like, I have a hard time entirely dismissing that the use of quotes isn't significant.
UPDATE:
Again, interesting use of quotes:
Regardless of who the guilty party is, it would be hard to argue that it isn't terrorism, except of course that it was done to brown Muslim people who we consider our enemy.
By Carl Weetabix, on January 9th, 2012 I always find it interesting where the term “accused” gets used or not in the news. For instance, this grab from the NYT:
Don’t get me wrong – I’m more than dubious of the charges myself (and certainly completely against the punishment). Still, he wasn’t just “accused” – he was found guilty (albeit by a compromised process). If it were an American court that little word, “accused”, would be missing.
Anyway, I just find it interesting. Sometimes even in American courts when someone is found guilty one wants to preface the outcome with “accused” too. Certainly that would apply to anyone tried in our kangaroo courts military tribunals.
By Carl Weetabix, on January 4th, 2012 I have more to say on Ron Paul later, but this thought came to me today:
Essentially what Ron Paul and Liberarians of similar ilk want to do is reverse the outcome of the Civil War. No, I don’t mean that they want to bring back slavery (though I think some do hold at least quasi-racist views), instead I mean that they want to reverse the primacy of Federal versus state law.
The southern position at the time of the Civil War was that state law should have primacy over Federal law. Now certainly there are reasonable arguments why this should be and much of the early U.S. legislative history was spent arguing over this issue, however in regards to the Civil War the argument, like it is mostly now, it was self-serving. State’s rights supporters wanted, and do want, the primacy of state law because they know that state law will either reflect or is easier to manipulate to reflect, the viewpoints which they already hold. So in the case of the Civil War, slavery advocates knew that state primacy would preserve slavery, whereas Federal primacy would not.
As now, I think the issues came first and state primacy came second. That is, state primacy was glommed onto as a method to promote ideas that already existed rather than state primacy being the initial and/or primary concern. That’s not to say that people didn’t care or come to care (it’s amazing how caring for one thing can convince you to care about another), but I do not believe that then, nor now, states rights were really the egg that yielded the chicken.
Certainly this isn’t true of the average Republican today, many of which claim Libertarian or “Tea Party” roots – Gingrich happily went to Federal court to dispute Virgina’s primary laws just as Bush supporters happily had the Supreme Court intervene in Florida’s election in 2000. Few Republicans decry the Federal “Defense of Marriage” act, or when say Federal law stomps (or tries to stomp) California drug or emissions laws.
In short, for most, “states rights” is a canard – a useful tool to be discarded when it doesn’t suit.
That said, I’m not sure the same applies to Ron Paul or true libertarians. I do believe Ron might argue that California has the right to set its own drug laws etc. Still I’m not sure he would be as enthusiastic though if there were a wave of laws protecting abortion issued throughout the states.
Personally, as messy as it is, I think there’s a balance. It would be nice to say “state law” or “federal law” always rules supreme, but as with much of what makes America great, it’s an ugly process of finding what works best.
By Carl Weetabix, on January 2nd, 2012 Ran into this David Sedaris link/quote about “undecided voters” in the comment section over at Digby (credit to “victoreador”):
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
Hilarious.
To note this was in regards to the 2008 election, but it still holds I think.
UPDATE:
You know now that I think of it – I’m pretty undecided myself this year so maybe the joke is on me!
By Carl Weetabix, on January 2nd, 2012 Reading the comment section of a recent post by Glenn Greenwald (very much worth reading), it appears that the latest deification has switched from Obama to Ron Paul, which led to this comment by yours truly:
I get that people love Paul and even why, but there seems to be a dangerously naive amount of trust here, in the same way there was for Obama. Paul is a politician, not the messiah, and if you look at him as anything less than a profoundly flawed human being, who like all candidates, you should support only with serious reservations, then I think you need some interspection.
This isn’t particular to Paul – like some sort of twisted “serial monogamy” we move from candidate to candidate deluding ourselves that “this time” we’ve found the perfect one. This one will be honest and real and not let us down – but they all do. In fact I would argue we have set up the system for failure – anyone who can seemingly live up to the perfection we demand of our presidents, will have to be a fake, because no one who’s real could live up to our twisted demands. Our vetting process essentially filters for sociapths and other inhuman freaks.
Anyway, even if Paul by chance is “the one”, a healthy dose of cynicism is useful to keep you eyes open and ensure your leader of choice stays on the straight and narrow. After all, the worst transgressions in history have been enabled time and time again by the self-deluded blindness of “true believers”.
Seriously, I believe we (and I have been guilty too) are really looking for a new messiah or the next “King Arthur” or something. Not only are these fantasies (at least in human figures), but it necessarily diminishes the import of our role (the body politic) in framing the future. Yes, a good leader can be a catalyst for change, but in the end it is “we the people” who really make that change happen.
Given our independent “rags to riches” Galtian mentality, it’s not surprising we’re looking for non-existent superheroes while diminishing the importance of the collective (“individualism” is as American as “apple pie” after all). However we miss something in this, by making some into heroes while the rest of us remain their pliant lieges (or “parasites” as Ayn Rand would call us), we effectively form a different sort of non-individualist collective: that as the role of “sheep”.
UPDATE:
Here’s a comment made to an NYT op-ed about Ron Paul:
[blah, blah, blah - good stuff about Ron Paul] … The difference with Ron Paul vs the other candidates Obama included is he will ACTUALLY do it. The others will simply nip around the edges. That is not what we need now, we need a serious plan we need Ron Paul.
So obviously I edited the supposed “good stuff” out here, but the author of this comment, and I see a lot like this one, absolutely and uncategorically believes Paul “will actually do” what he says. There is no credulity.
If Paul isn’t scary, certainly his followers who seem to live in a world of absolute certainty, are.
Permalink By Carl Weetabix, on December 30th, 2011 From my iGoogle feed:
It’s true that Ron Paul technically doesn’t “represent the mainstream” (though sadly he represents a large number of Republicans), but I don’t like this technique – to marginalize someone by essentially saying they aren’t “one of us”.
It’s used all the time to marginalize the left – to claim their views are “fringe” and “radical”. It raises the worst mob mentality – the xenophobic “popular kids” technique of degrading “outsiders”.
Most particularly though it completely avoids any true policy argument – the arguments are dismissed with the person (Paul in this case). While I strongly disagree with Paul on many points, one thing I can say for him is he has points to argue – he is able to actually discuss real policy.
I think it does us a disservice that we can’t talk about the issues, even if I would find many of Paul’s points entirely disagreeable. It represents another example of dumbing down politics.
By Carl Weetabix, on December 23rd, 2011 Via Glenn Greenwald (quoting I believe this DoD article):
“As difficult as [the Iraq war] was … I think the price has been worth it, to establish a stable government in a very important region of the world”
- Leon Panetta
With “friends” like these, who needs enemies.
Seriously, what a wanker. None of his kids were maimed or killed in this thing, so what does he care? Just once I’d like to see someone in this level say, “It wasn’t worth it,” because they always seem to be “worth it” – how else can we justify the endless war machine that profits them so much.
Anyway, read Glenn’s article, he lays out well why saying such is complete claptrap (and, in my opinion, why the Obama administration should be ashamed of itself for letting this be voiced).
UPDATE:
By the way – this is no reflection on the troops. I’m very sorry that they served in a counter-productive war. They didn’t deserve to. Saying the war was stupid and pointless does not diminish their sacrifice that was made in the name of loyalty, patriotism, and protecting the country. What it diminishes is the assholes, and I do mean assholes, who squandered their lives, health, and in some cases futures on what can only be termed a “war of choice”.
That many were killed and many more wounded (not even counting the hundreds of thousands of innocents on the other side), is crime against humanity perpetrated against them. Those who started and continued this thing, should pay here, not the poor men and women in the trenches who, as Glenn points out who, “gave so much, for so little”.
By Carl Weetabix, on December 22nd, 2011 Regarding the democratic crisis in Hungary (via NYT):
“In the short term it seems reasonable to take out the brakes from a car, it appears to go faster. The problem is when the first curve appears and you need them.”
- Peter Hack, a law professor at the Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest
This is enormously applicable in the United States as well, where the movement to “straight pipe” executive power grows stronger each year (eg: extra-judicial assassination of Americans, indefinite detention, Military Tribunals, use of the “State Secrets” act, etc.). It always seems a good idea until it isn’t, or to quote Glenn Greenwald:
“That, of course, was precisely the rationale long offered by the neocon Right to justify the radical, transparency-free powers of detention, surveillance and militarism seized by the Bush administration: maybe these powers could theoretically be abused one day by a Bad Leader, but right now, we have a good, noble, Christian family man in office who only wants to Keep us Safe, so we can trust him. That has now been replaced by: maybe these powers could theoretically be abused one day by a Bad Leader, but right now, we have a good, noble, urbane, progressive Constitutional scholar and family man in office who only wants to Keep us Safe, so we can trust him“
By setting precedent it’s just a matter of time until some really heinous abuse finally occurs (actually many of us already think that’s happened, but since it has only happened to “those people”, that is brown Muslim people, let’s be honest – we just don’t care as much). Someday “good Christian whites” will also be the target and then it will probably be too late (and I am sure there will be plenty at the time who will continue to say then, “maybe these powers could theoretically be abused one day by a Bad Leader, but right now…“).
Which leads to the admittedly somewhat overused final quote, but it fits:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Martin Niemöller
By Carl Weetabix, on December 21st, 2011 Tack on:
|
|
