It's like facial recognition technology: if the features match up, you conclude, "It's the same guy." Any programmer will tell you: don't trust to the infallibility of software.
Anyone who has ever tried to get through one of those automatic phone tree thingies in search of a real person to solve the problem that precipitated the call will say the same.
So it is with the match between the force that drove us to Civil War more than a century and a half ago, and the force that has taken over the Republican Party in our times. See what I mean? The very slightest adjustment and it'll match the force that led to Thermidor and the Terror and the metric system. The Napoleonic wars may be upon us again.
In both cases, we see an elite insisting on their "liberty," by which they mean the freedom to dominate. Worth noting: This jamoke was graduated from Harvard, the Comedy Central of the elites, from which nearly every elite who seeks to dominate discourse as well as individual freedom and choice matriculated. One man's liberty is another man's ruined lawn.
Tarooh! Taroo-oo-oo-ooh! 'Ware the fox hunt coming through!
With Citizens United, in our times, the corporatists have declared that their "freedom of speech" gives them the right to buy our elections, unfettered by any concerns about the rights of the average citizen to have an equal say in their government. Citizens United was actually about freedom of speech, in which freedom of speech won a rare victory with the black robed Mandarins who ruled in its favor, which is intolerable to terminal fascists such as Andy.
Back in the 1850s, the slaveholders insisted that their "liberty" meant that they had the right to take their human "property" anywhere in American territory, an insistence that swept aside the previously respected concerns of millions of their countrymen that there be regions of the country free of slavery. At issue was whether the states were (sovereign) states or provinces of a central government. Slavery was a symptom, not a cause. The politix of the period were pretty intricate, but it was Democrats--the same Dems we have now--versus the newly born Republican Party.
In both cases, the use of the structures of American democracy was combined with a contempt for the democratic values that inspired our founders. Just like you and your fellow fascists are doing. Look into the mirror much, do you? Never having read the Federalist Papers, much less contemporary documents, the author can make the values that inspired our founders whatever he pleases.
Nowadays, the Republicans have made a national effort to pass voter ID laws to address a non-existent problem of voter fraud-- a campaign that is itself a fraud whose transparent intent is to disenfranchise the vulnerable whose champions are the Republicans' opponents. To claim that voter fraud is non-existent in an age of 100%+ turnout in multiple areas, with people being jugged periodically for voting multiple times, is simple fraud. E pur se muove.
Back in the years leading up to the Civil War, the slaveholders banned the distribution of anti-slavery writings, and sometimes suppressed anti-slavery talk by violence. Just as Citizens United sought to, and did resolve, to permit anyone to combine their resources to advertise their views.
In both cases, the elites driving the polarization of the country justified their dominance by distorting, in belittling ways, the humanity of those they sought to exploit. "That's the guy!"
Today's Republicans talk about the 47 percent, the half of the country they characterize as "takers," even though many of those 47 percent work multiple jobs just to make ends meet; and these Republicans vote to strip them of unemployment benefits, at a time of massive joblessness, in the mistaken belief that only desperation will get these lazy people to work. I think Republicans actually are talking about the 47 percent who did not vote for Barky.
Back in the time of the Slave Power, the slaveholding class declared they were doing their black slaves a favor to discipline them into an ethic of work; freeing them would be cruel, the masters claimed, because those blacks were inherently too lazy and incompetent to survive on their own.
In both cases, the idea of compromise became a dirty word, as the inflamed insistence on getting everything one's own way took hold of the inflamed side.
Today's Republicans do not seek compromise, and the dynamics of the party are such that anyone who works toward compromise is demonized and run out of office by challenge from the more extreme, uncompromising wing of the party. Some Republicans do not seek to compromise on principles, and in fact seek out compromise from the left, which is never forthcoming.
Back in the years leading up to the Civil War, the South's insistence on the unfettered expansion of their domain led to the overturning of the great Missouri Compromise, which had held the nation together for more than thirty years fracturing of the peace that instigated the return to the political arena of Abraham Lincoln, and set the nation on course to a bloody civil war. Shazam!
In both cases, the powerful elite in the grip of that destructive force refused to accept that in a democracy sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and sometimes you have to accept being governed by a duly-elected president you don't like. But enough about the Democratic elites... Being duly elected means your power is necessarily limited, which this current president and his allies do not accept, just like your description of slaveowners..
Today's Republicans have done everything they could to nullify the presidency of Barack Obama, whom the American people duly elected twice. Like no other opposition party in American history, they have refused to accept the temporary minority status to which American voters have consigned them. Blocking the president from performing the function for which the people hired him has been their top priority. As the Democrats had done during Dubya's term, your side will do should another Republican gain the White House. There's nothing horrifying here. Obstruction is the game of the game under the Hastert rule of legislating.
Back on the eve of the Civil War, the Southerners -- who had disproportionately dominated the upper echelons of the national government from the time of its founding -- considered the election of Abraham Lincoln an intolerable insult, and promptly made a unilateral decision to break apart the Union; they then raised an army to defend that decision, rather than accept the outcome of the democratic process and regroup for the next election. Under a civil democratic rule, you still have the right to oppose policy at every turn you can. It's called civil rights. Election of anyone doesn't mean that the game ends there and then, and you have to accept edicts. The game just changed, and you and your fellow fascists do not like that part of it. I won't accept the edicts of a fascist anymore than you would of a Republican. And I am cool with that.
As with facial recognition, the configuration of the features tells us, "This is the same ugly thing, come back again." Same owner, too, as it turns out.
In my upcoming series, "Press the Battle," I will be expanding on the ways in which disturbing patterns match up between these two eras. In those later postings, it will also be explained how it is that such patterns can endure and re-emerge in a cultural system over the course of generations. Good for you. I will be waiting patiently to trash it.
Suffice it to say for now that, in its re-emerged form, this pattern or force or spirit has retained its destructive nature. Back in the mid-19th century, it broke the nation apart and gave us a nightmarish Civil War. And in our times, it is damaging everything in American civilization that it can reach.
#1
considered the election of Abraham Lincoln an intolerable insult, and promptly made a unilateral decision to break apart the Union
Interestingly, the author sees the voting of eleven [of 34] State legislative bodies as a unilateral action. History might take exception with that statement.
After the unpleasantness, there were 36 states, although many in the failed confederacy would not regain representation for many years, with Georgia being evicted a second time. Opportunist gerrymandering as a 'spoil of war' so to speak. Federally appointed judges are now firmly in place to help things along and prevent States from overreach. [insert tongue I cheek]
These former confederate states (not yet readmitted by 1868) did not participate in that election. In 1870 Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia were readmitted. Others were as follows, with qualification:
July 24th 1866 -Tennessee is the 1st.
June 22nd 1868 - Arkansas is the 2nd
June 25th 1868 - Florida is the 3rd
June 25th 1868 - Alabama is the 4th
June 25th 1868 - Louisiana is the 5th
June 25th 1868 - North Carolina is 6th
June 25th 1868 - South Carolina (who started it all) was 7th
(June 25th 1868 - GEORGIA FIRST readmitted)
December 22nd 1869 - Second reconstruction for Georgia began ! (Kicked OUT !)
January 27th 1870 - Virginia is the 8th
February 23rd 1870 - Mississippi is the 9th
March 30th 1870 - Texas is the 10th
Mar. 30, 1870 - The 15th Amendment is added to the Constitution.
GEORGIA READMITTED AGAIN -July 15th 1870 - Georgia is the 11th and last. Always the bad boy, Georgia went through Reconstruction twice!
The United States government has never recognized the right of states to secede and considers the states to never have left the union during the American Civil War. Eviction by Washington yes; individual State legislative departure....never. The states were required to agree to Reconstruction before being permitted to send representatives to Congress again. Difficult to refuse, when voting rights, martial law, and food are used as weapons.
#2
Well B he does not know history - other than "if we had socialism back then we would not have all this evil shit now" and "if we get socialism now all the evil shit will stop"
It's a good fisking but clueless writer will never see it, even if he/she does, will not absorb the lesson. Still, you do what you can....
Posted by: Bov Flimbers ||
09/04/2014 4:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why is it that only leftists believe that we elect an absolute dictator whose policies cannot be questioned when a Democrat ends up winning but a servant who must compromise when a Republican is victorious?
Where was his article like this one when Bush was president and the left was savaging him at a level far greater than the center/right have ever attacked Obama?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/04/2014 5:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I would add that in my adult lifetime, the Democrats have made a legitimate compromise on an issue of substance exactly three times:
1. Clinton signing NAFTA
2. Clinton signing a Republican welfare reform bill
3. Clinton signing a (mostly) balanced Republican budget
So in 30+ years, Democrats have compromised exactly three times.
Every single other time they have defined compromise as Republicans coming 98-100% of the way towards the Democrat position. Thousands upon thousands of bills.
This is the real "contempt for democratic values" which the author attempts to assign, wrongly, to the center/right.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/04/2014 6:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...I suppose it would be impolite to point out to this gentleman that the Slave Power was overwhelmingly Democrat....
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/04/2014 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Go ahead Mike. Author award-winning author, political commentator, talk radio philosopher, and teacher Dr. Andrew 'the Bard' Schmookler would probably enjoy slipping away for a quick diaper change.
#7
Democrats were the ones who started a war after losing an election, and they were the ones who turned to violence again after the war. They ejected the legally elected representatives, threatened the lives of anyone who didn't vote Democrat, then instituted laws to guarantee they'd not face political competition for most of a century.
Today they're no different. Their ideas are so horrible they have to lie and stifle anyone who tells the truth about them; their politicians are universally corrupt and ignorant. Just read the quoted piece to get an understanding how much they hate the thought of other people being allowed to speak to the people.
The Democrats (and, sadly establishment Republicans) minimize Ted Kennedy -- who was not just a murderer, but also a traitor. He attempted (at the least) to coordinate with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan; the communications between them was uncovered after the Cold War.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/04/2014 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
With Citizens United, in our times, the corporatists have declared that their "freedom of speech" gives them the right to buy our elections, unfettered by any concerns about the rights of the average citizen to have an equal say in their government.
Not to be confused with unionists who have in fact bought elections (right Mr Reid) unfettered by any concerns about the rights of the average citizen to have an equal say in their government. Best President and gaggle of Senators union money can buy!
Yep I was wondering when someone would mention that unions would have to be banned too.
Although "our" imbecilic author would probably invoke the "exception cos I like what you're saying" rule.
#11
Central falsehood: advertising buys elections. It may influence them, but it's not that foolproof, nor is it guaranteed to fool enough people, given that the internet can and will provide alternate channels for info, that's the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. If you are worried about low information voters then that is a different issue.
the only way to buy an election is to buy the votes and pay off the voters. So this guy is starting with a lie at the core of his argument.
#16
Seriously, though, I don't know why this writer is so worried as long as these "corportists" continue to support candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney.
#17
The usual attack approach of the left. Basically, this guy has turned the Republicans into the slavers (Democrats) of the pre-Civil War. This is not a particularly good approach to take since the slavers were the Democrats and KKK.
The left is a one-trick pony, no matter how you dress it up. Their approach is to castigate, excoriate, and demonize their opponent. In general, if there is not something that is true, then they make it up (as was done with Mitt Romney). They elevate themselves by demonizing their opponents. They blame their opponents for what they do. A good example is what Debbie Wasserman tried to pull off with Governor Walker today. Essentially, she was trying to make Walker out as a Neanderthal woman-beater by describing him as someone who was dragging women around by their hair. Some of the more stupid will respond to this.
Three lines of attack by the left are (1) you're stupid, (2) you're mean, and (3) you're corrupt if you don't agree with them. Usually, they end up calling their opponent a racist, anti-Semitic, a sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamaphobe, ya'll be put in chains, etc.--whatever isn't what they define as PC. Some stupid people will respond to the latter also. These people are the most tyrannically-minded of people.
Don't wrestle in the mud with pigs as they like it--if you have to wrestle with them, figuratively let them have it quickly and emphatically.
[SA News] whopping 95 percent of respondents to a BBC straw poll have said that they think multiculturalism in Britain is a failure. The poll was taken yesterday morning during the BBCs Saturday Morning Live show, and asked Is multiculturalism working? Just 5 percent said Yes; 95 percent said No.
Breitbart Londons James Delingpole was a guest on the show. During the discussion of the results, he said: I think the thwacking great majority in that poll says it all. The multicultural experiment in Britain has failed totally and people have finally realised how much it has failed. Rotherham was just one example; were seeing cases all around the country. It has been a disaster. I think that this is going to be the turning point. Appears to be a growing awareness here in the States as well.
#1
This is a huge message - for 50 years the beeb has been the mouthpiece of the "multiculti POMO PC message" snd this is the Saturday Morning show (think "The View" if you are US) with all the grannies and early riser fams getting ready for a nice weekend - I am amazed these results were even disseminated
OK it's a poll. Beeb will ignore coz they have always known whats best for you. Stil....Brits really just want to be Brits, if you immigrate, hey welcome, here's the guidebook, pay attention and don't get stroppy - but do NOT ram your 3rd world shit down our throat, even with the compliance of the elected elites and the media organs. There's a tipping point - with rotheram it may have just been crossed.
Posted by: Bov Flimbers ||
09/04/2014 4:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
actually the multiculturalism policy is working for immigrants of Sikh and of Russian Orthodox and of Buddhist faith
there is just one religion that makes the policy fail
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/04/2014 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Multiculturalism does not work.
Melting pot only works if all ethnicities buy into the same culture. The US went from being a melting pot to a salad bar and it doesn't work as well.
h/t Jerry Pournelle
...So there you have it. The situation in Ukraine is the product of the machinations of the Moscow madman, and his circle of ex-KGB macho men. It is Russias fault. The bloodshed in Ukraine, its fragmentation, its region-shaking instability all of it can be laid at Russias feet.
[Washington Post] The word of the day is herky-jerky, which is a polite way of saying erratic.
And which, I regret to report, is a fitting description of President B.O.'s handling of immigration. And, I regret even more, a metaphor for his stumbling stewardship.
To recap and add perspective: The country's immigration policy is broken, with 11 million undocumented immigrants forced to live in the shadows. That this situation endures is the fault of House Republicans who, captive to a gerrymandered, cable-inflamed populace that greets every reasonable solution with cries of "amnesty," have rejected any comprehensive solution.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/04/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
[DAWN] THE political turmoil in Islamabad seems to have eclipsed all other crises in the country. Amongst these is the religious krazed killers' assault on education in Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... , which is gaining ground. A school in Turbat, district Kech, was torched by an outfit calling itself 'Al Jihad' late on Monday. The forces of Evil left pamphlets in the area warning people not to send their children to English-medium schools and to only educate them at madressahs. The principal of the targeted school has said he had been receiving threats from unknown individuals for several months. This is far from the first incident of its kind in Balochistan. A school was set on fire by unknown assailants in Panjgur a few days ago while a number of educational institutions were attacked in the same district in May. At that time, a group calling itself Al Furqan al Islami had grabbed credit for the violence; then, too, the forces of Evil had issues with the teaching of English, while they also railed against coeducation. The attacks led to the lengthy closure of schools in the area while a number of parents reportedly relocated to Quetta and Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... so as to continue their children's education.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/04/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.
There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won't...find it in the Koran or the Hadiths.
If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.
You can't...find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.
You won't...find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won't...even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won't...find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.
Moderate Islam isn't...what most Muslims believe. It...what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.
#6
Moderate Islam - when they're vastly out numbered and out gunned and know that if they dared do what Mohammad did and preached they'd all end up 10 feet under.
#7
That there is a moderate Muslim is questionable. This author has raised this question in a well-stated way. If one thinks back to 911, there were many Muslims cheering in the streets of Muslim cities across the globe.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Ag, ja hy dik'd it up again did he? Thanks for the correction Ship. 
[Washington Post] The word of the day is herky-jerky, which is a polite way of saying erratic.
I blame faulty decision making tools. 
