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 [...]]]> 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“.

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 [...]]]> 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!

I get that people love Paul and even why, but there seems to be a dangerously naive amount of [...]]]> 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.

“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 [...]]]> 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”.

“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 [...]]]> 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

“To know what goes on in the mind of a rogue trader – and that of every reckless gambler – it helps to be a bird-watcher. The yellow-eyed junco is a type of sparrow found in Mexico [...]]]> Stealing verbatim from Brad Delong (quoting from John Gapper’s “How To Be A Rogue Trader” probably via this):

“To know what goes on in the mind of a rogue trader – and that of every reckless gambler – it helps to be a bird-watcher. The yellow-eyed junco is a type of sparrow found in Mexico and the southern USA. Thirty years ago, three evolutionary biologists at the University of Arizona carried out a series of experiments with seven yellow-eyed juncos that had been caught in the south-east of the state.

“The experiments were designed to test the birds’ gambling instincts, and the results were intriguing. One bird at a time was placed on a perch in an aviary 3.5 metres from two dishes covered with paper so that it could not spy the contents. The bird was trained to realize that if it flew to the first dish, it would always find two millet seeds to eat; if it flew to the second, it couldn’t be sure of what it would contain. Half the time, there would be four seeds, and half the time there would be none. The biologists were trying to discover how much risk the juncos would take in foraging for food – their main activity in the wild. Mathematically, the two choices were identical since a 100 per cent chance of two seeds was the same as a 50 per cent chance of four….

“In the first experiment, the birds were kept hungry for an hour and then allowed to start choosing dishes, with the seeds being replenished every thirty seconds. This meant that, whichever one they chose, they would get plenty to eat unless they were very unlucky. The juncos responded by being risk averse: in nineteen out of twenty-five cases, they chose the sure thing – the dish with two seeds – rather than risk finding nothing.

“Next, the birds were starved for four hours, and the seeds were replenished only every minute. That tipped the birds into what the scientists called ‘a negative net energy budget’ – gaining two seeds each time they made a choice would not provide enough food to satisfy their hunger, and ultimately to keep them alive and enable them to reproduce. The birds responded by flying to the other dish instead. Facing loss, they started to gamble.

“The scientists, led by Thomas Caraco, now a biology professor at the State University of New York, concluded that ‘juncos in nature will generally avoid risk unless they face difficult energetic stress’. In other words, they will choose the safe option for feeding – the closest natural equivalent to financial traders making money – unless they find themselves in danger, either through hunger or because it is chilly and they face a cold night requiring reserves of energy.

“The choices are instinctive rather than intellectual, and they make evolutionary sense for the species. ‘Facing the possibility of starvation, animals are willing to gamble on the “strike-it-rich” policy of risk-prone foraging,’ writes Barry Sinervo, a professor of ecology at the University of California. ‘Some foragers will have a string of bad luck and starve. Some will have a string of average luck and still starve. However, there will always be those lucky few that experience a string of good luck. It is those lucky few that survive and pass on genes to the next generation’…”

- John Gapper, “How To Be A Rogue Trader”

To note, I don’t exactly love nor condone the starving of birds for science…

(god knows the stupid people need help).

Second, here’s the money quote:

“Here’s what I need you to do: Stay informed, know the facts because stupid people are ruining America.”

Third, and finally, everyone agrees that “stupid people are ruining America” we all just disagree about which [...]]]> First, I think this headline is hilarious:

(god knows the stupid people need help).

Second, here’s the money quote:

“Here’s what I need you to do: Stay informed, know the facts because stupid people are ruining America.”

Third, and finally, everyone agrees that “stupid people are ruining America” we all just disagree about which stupid people are ruining it. I mean, who doesn’t think “stupid people are ruining America”. My suspicion is from the day we won independence people have been thinking “stupid people are ruining America”.

Of course we always think that the “stupid people” are those people, not us.

Truth is though, “We have met the stupid, and he is us.” All of us, and I do mean all of us, share blame here (though yes, some more than others). It takes a village…

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. [...]]]> Joseph Stiglitz via Digby:

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

- Joseph Stiglitz

- David Javerbaum

“Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; [...]]]> Adam Smith via Krugman regarding banking regulation:

“Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.”

Following the same logic in theory the prohibition against murder, theft, or rape are similarly a “violation of natural liberty”.

The point is, a civil society is going to have lots of provisions that in theory violate “natural liberty”. So it’s not a question between a totalitarian intrusive government and a completely “free” libertarian government, it’s a sensible middle ground.

Yes, it does want to favor freedom over control, but when an individual liberty greatly threatens society, some sacrifices are in order.

Of course, and this is a completely fair point, “Who decides what greatly threatens society?”

This is an enormously sticky point. The fact is it’s probably something that will never be entirely fixed in stone and will have to be constant conversation through the life of the union. Just as the balance of “freedom of the press” and “state security” are always at constant struggle, so will the balance of freedom of the few to protection of the many.