People love to blame Lyndon for all kinds of things, whether it was his fault or not, but here's one you can pin on him and nobody else.
"Hunker" is a term derived from Old Norse "huka", which the Vikings brought to Scotland. Its original meaning was to "squat or crouch". The Oxford English Dictionary even describes how to do it:
"squat, with the haunches, knees, and ankles acutely bent, so as to bring the hams near the heels, and throw the whole weight upon the fore part of the feet.”
The advantage of this position is that you’re not only crouched close to the ground, so presenting a small target for whatever the universe chooses to throw at you, but you’re also ready to move at a moment’s notice.
Somehow, in the great Southwest, "down" got added to the mix and the meaning slightly expanded to include "hide or take shelter". Maybe that came from the Alamo.
So in the '60s, Lyndon began saying that he was "hunkered down" in Mississippi and Birmingham, and "hunkered down" in Viet Nam and that his whole "Great Society" program was "hunkered down" all over the country. Since the press loved Lyndonisms, "hunkered down" "went viral", as we say today.
But I wouldn't necessarily blame the press for all of the problem. After all, the mayor of New Orleans just yesterday warned the local citizens to "Hunker down" for Isaac. Maybe the press was just doing its job in accurately quoting a public official.
Since "hunker" meant to squat, "down" was the only direction available, so the addition of down was redundant. I guess that after Isaac has passed, the folks in New Orleans can then "hunker up".
Some (not Pat Robertson) have suggested that the biblically named Isaac is Yahweh's judgment upon the Republican convention. If so, he is showing a rare even handedness, in that, if Isaac follows the most likely path, it will dump a good bit of rain upon Charlotte just before the Democratic convention opens there.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap…For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." King James Bible, 1611
when I owned property on the coast, the media always said we on the beaches were "bracing" since it was June 1, start of the season. Never mind there was rarely if ever a cloud in the sky. My arms got very tired from "bracing" so much I couldn't even hold a fishing rod. Serious business that.
I am alarmed as a citizen of Winston-Salem that our city council chose not to tell the federal court the truth it now possesses about the Silk Plant Forest investigation ("City won't support retrial," Aug. 11). The issue is not the council's view about Kalvin Michael Smith's guilt or innocence. It is how our government handles factual information.
Today this case tests the core values and beliefs that guide our government, and the trust we citizens place in that government. What future do we seek for ourselves and our children here in Winston-Salem?
A culture is a collection of stories that are shared, like the air we breathe. These stories often go unnoticed and unscrutinized, yet their impact can be enormous.
For thousands of years it was unquestionably permissible to own slaves, particularly if they were of a different race or tribe. And women were subservient to men. But eventually facts, not myths, inform the culture if the society is to survive. That principle is the foundation of all popular government and all democracies. It dates to the due-process clause of the Magna Carta and was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The reality that our city council cares so little about facts and due process should shock every citizen.
It is always government's role, the city council's in this case, to provide protection for all its citizens, especially when truth the government possesses can correct an injustice of that government's own making.
THE REV. WILLARD BASS Winston-Salem
"Irony meter"
Really?
That's all I can think after reading Dena Barnes' guest column, "Women for Mitt" (Aug. 23).
Really? The party of "You lie, you socialist, communist, fascist, foreign-born Nazi who pals around with terrorists" — the party of "we're going to block every proposal, every nominee, everything you do, and our highest priority is to limit you to one term, and we'll accomplish that if we have to burn the country down" — is going to claim that President Obama is divisive? The party of "We're going to start two wars and give tax breaks to millionaires and pay for them all with loans from China" thinks Obama has failed in his fiscal responsibilities?
And Mitt Romney, whose commercials purposely misrepresent his opponent — Romney, whom independent fact-checkers say has lied about Obama's stance on the economy, welfare and many other issues — that's the candidate who is "committed to staying above the fray, running an issues-based campaign"?
If I had an irony meter, this column would break it.
Of Paul Ryan, President Obama said, "He's a good man. He's a family man. He's a very articulate spokesman for Governor Romney's vision."
Joe Biden said, "By the way, I think Mitt Romney's a fine family man. I believe he's driven by what he believes."
So, tea-party favorite and senatorial candidate Rep. Todd Akin, whose views on women's health and whose legislative priorities fall directly in line with Republican orthodoxy, reveals himself to be an ignorant troglodyte. Who could have known?
JAMES McGRATH Yadkinville
"OK"
The writer of the letter "Placing blame" (Aug. 18) writes: "President Obama did not get Osama bin Laden. He had everything set up for him before he took office. The Navy SEALs, CIA and other intelligent agencies should get the credit. All he had to say was, 'OK.' "
"All he had to say was, 'OK.' " But, apparently, that's not all he said.
Adm. Bill McRaven, head of the U.S. Special Operations command that was on the ground to take bin Laden out, told Politico's Josh Gerstein: "At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden of this operation, that made the hard decision. … This isn't about politics. This is about a commander in chief who I have the opportunity to engage with on a routine basis. … The president asked all the right questions. …The president gave me ample time to prepare once the conversations were through."
He told Time magazine that Obama "was really everything the American public would expect from their national leadership. …The president was at all times presidential. I would contend he was the smartest guy in the room. He had leadership skills we'd expect from a guy who had 35 years in the military."
OK...apparently former Defense Secretary Gates' STF up suggestion won't work. This "talk too much by too many in the wrong places" finds its seed in only one thing: A Republican Commander-in-Chief is simply expected to get this done, par for the course nothing more. A Democrat counter part, well now THAT becomes a matter of doubt, waffling in and out of of type cast...because the party ideology has defined the man for decades now. Hence the breathless surprise and elation at Mr Obama acting against the party "type cast". Like Gates said "STFU".
African American Gold Medalist, Gabby Douglas, is a victim. Although Ms.Douglas lived with a white family in Iowa, who coddled her to the point that she won a gold medal in the Olympics, she's playing the 'race' card.
Sport announcers irritate me with: "New York is up by 8 games, looks like they hold their destiny in their own hands at this point," or the quintessential "That kid has a bright future ahead of him."
Add sportswriters to that mix, also. But, I agree re sports announcers. They started going downhill long ago, when someone intoned that a team on fourth down and in its own territory was in a "punting situation."
But, I'll give pols the edge overall, particularly for euphemistic BS. And the business world has spawned some awful jargon as well. When I worked at American Express, an excellent company otherwise, I called the lingo AmExSpeak: "Step out of the box," "going forward," "who is going to own this?" Barf.
In the tech world, we "repurpose" code and devises that we want to take in a different direction as well as "new up" objects in code. The most barfable slogan for me was either Office Max or Office Depot with "A better way to office" :p When, oh when did nouns become verbs?
Of course no racism exists on the right...shame on me for even entertaining such a preposterous thought. In fact, the real racists are people like me who have the gall to suggest that such a thing still exists:
Nope, several reasons, including the one to which you allude, but also the other side's frequently ascribing opposition to Administration policies as being based on racism. The race card is all too easily and conveniently played by the left.
The high African-American preference for President Obama, who is African-American, is also race-baced.
Ask yourself, if over 90% of white Americans voted for McCain in 2008, and for Romney in this years election, wouldn't the liberal, mainstream media be screaming racism?
Why then does everybody, and especially the media, give African Americans a pass on their voting patterns?
It's clear to me, and most thinking Americans, that African Americans are far more racist than whites.
Of course, you'll never get the liberal media to say that, because it's politically incorrect.
It is also part in fact that for 200 years, the white Democrat has never let the black man go. By one institution or another and by any means necessary, the white Democrat will never ever ever let black people go. The Democrat establishment will never let one of their indentured victim groups be exposed to any opposing political ideas for very long without flying in a surrogate quickly to repeat again the satndard version of "old time religion" which is strictly Democrat narratives built on Democrat narratives. Blacks will eventually free themselves as younger members with better educations rise to power. But in the meantime, the white Dem will tell blacks to stand up, put up, now shut up every two years and be happy with "good government".
Speaking of race, MSNBC carefully omitted covering speeches by minority speakers at the RNC. Televising such would have conflicted with the networks' talking heads assertions that R's are racists.
Racism goes way beyond choosing one color over another. It's rooted in the belief that one race is superior to all others, therefore any member of a race other than the "superior" one that manages to get ahead only got there with "help" from the "superior" race or due to some policy that "gave" it to the person, since that person, being "inferior" could not possibly achieve it on his own merits. On this forum, only La Sombra and Bob (although being gay isn't as readily apparent as being Latino, the lack of acceptance is palpable in this society) can say what it's actually like to walk around everyday as a minority and be prejudged wherever you go. For a black to vote for another black for POTUS for reasons of color is to recognize that black candidate has walked in the shoes as a black and thus recognizes all of the barriers that exist and have had to be overcome to reach that level. This is something we as whites never have to deal with.
Is this why the blacks who vote R are savaged so badly....even by whites who have never "walked in the shoes"? The over the top reaction with fury of this magnitude tells something quite differently. It comes from fear of losing something.
Since I'm not black, I obviously can't say for sure, but my hunch is that it has to do with a perception that blacks who go the R route are giving up their "blackness" (in other words acceding the fact that being black makes them inferior) and "going white' in order to get ahead. What they would be afraid of losing would be their identity as a black person with a black culture. I do wish we had a black person on this forum, because as I said, I'm really just speculating.
I know but we can learn from recent past events. Not a question that needs answering here, but I have alway wondered--just what is "black culture" since here in America we have only one culture--American.
It would be the same as if you as a white Christian moved to someplace like Saudi Arabia. In order to get ahead in that society, you would have to adopt some of the social mores of Arabic Muslims in order not to be seen as inferior (or an infidel). You couldn't just be your normal white Christian self and be readily accepted in that society.
"here in America we have only one culture--American." The "American culture" is really difficult to define, ww. The vast majority of countries are very homogenous when it comes to race, religion and culture, whereas the US readily welcomes immigrants from all over who bring their religion and culture with them. If you were to hang around a major city's China Town for a few months, then hang around with blacks for a few months, would you witness the same culture? Our tastes in food, music, sports, religion as well as our attitudes towards life and what we emphasize as being important are shaped by our surroundings and rooted in our self-identity. I'm not sure I can say that my culture is the same as an Inuit who lives in Alaska although we are both US citizens.
The culture is often difficult to define, that is why an Arabian, a Serbian or a Mexican can come here and be an American....he is free to do so. I can't go to one of those countries and be "one of them"--only an American living there and that is all. All of those traits you mention are part of one's ethnicity, which is what we are...multi ethnic, not multi cultural. If we do become multi cultural, then we are done for as America. Walls will be built within borders and borders will be built within borders and soon enough guns will start blazing.
I have done an immense amount of traveling in my life and have come to appreciate the uniqueness of American culture--we are exceptional, self reliant fiercely individualistic among many more unique qualities. E Pluribus Unum.
"It is also part in fact that for 200 years, the white Democrat has never let the black man go. By one institution or another and by any means necessary, the white Democrat will never ever ever let black people go."
Black folk can make up their own minds...more might vote Republican if the GOP offered more compelling solutions to problems in the black community. And it also might help if they stopped playing to white racial fears, which they've been doing since Barry Goldwater.
Believe me...everyone knows what the birther thing was really about. Or when Rick Santorum said he wanted to teach "blah people" to earn their own money, or when Romney said of his speech to the NAACP, if they "wanted free stuff, vote for the other guy."
You'd have to be a total rube not to see what's happening.
There are more compelling solutions from the R side---just not more compelling pandering. The same solutions available to any minority group that wants to apply them. A compelling solution might also include Washington not "helping" with so many dependency programs.
Ideas don't have to revolve around rich people. How about this: finish school, don't get pregnant or cause anyone to get pregnant, don't mess with drugs or with anyone who does. Those things alone will put most people well on the way and can apply to anyone.
"Speaking of race, MSNBC carefully omitted covering speeches by minority speakers at the RNC. Televising such would have conflicted with the networks' talking heads assertions that R's are racists."
Interesting that this has not been reported in any legitimate media, only the usual right wing sites. And a couple of them are reporting that Fox News left out most of the same speeches. So what does that prove?
Well and good, but a lot of that needs to be done within the Black community. Having a bunch of old, rich, white Republicans condescend to you and tell you you're morally deficient would go over like a lead balloon...as it should.
And the problems you list I might add, are not particular to African-Americans.
No, they are not. But, to note that the incidence of problems is higher in some areas elicits the usual whines and screams of "Racism!" from the Perennially Indignant, conveniently ignoring problem and shifting the blame. Or you get a nonsensical comment from our own Walter Marshall that different cultural norms be taken into account in order to reduce the number of school suspensions for his constituents. I still await an explanation of what cultural norms he was talking about.
I suggest that Eldridge Cleaver's remark that "If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" might be taken to heart by more than just Cleaver's original targets. Phony cries of racism and overwrought indignation aren't part of the solution.
Good afternoon folks! LTE 1: Not much to add to the last paragraph. Awesome summation. The system was designed to make it easier for the guilty to go free than for an innocent to go to jail for a reason.
LTE 2: Didn't think Ms. Barnes' guest column would go unanswered. Flamethrowers have existed on both sides for as long as the republic has been around. The difference is that the opposing sides learned how to compromise in the past to get things done, whereas today, compromise is seen as defeat, so both sides have elements that would rather see the country go down a sink hole than make the necessary compromises to do what needs to get done.
LTE 3: I would like to say this LTE is rubbish, but the R's approved platform unfortunately backs Mr. McGrath's contention that Rep. Akin's views are in line with current R orthodoxy.
LTE 4: If everything had been set up to get OBL before Obama ever took office, then why did GWB not issue the green light? Good response from Mr. Turner.
Obviously, what wasn't set up was OBL's location. Had that been known, GWB would have issued the order, I am sure, as would have his dad, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, et al, under similar circumstances, except Willard Clinton, who had a pre-WTC shot at him, and turned it down.
To be fair, Clinton did order Tomahawk missiles fired at al Qaida training grounds in Afghanistan, but the members dispersed just before the order was given. Many members of Congress thought Clinton was doing a "Wag the Dog" by starting up war in Afghanistan to make up for his womanizing troubles. Looking back, I don't think anyone in Congress or the Clinton administration took OBL seriously as a threat until very late in Clinton's 2nd term. GWB's administration apparently didn't either as recalled by Clinton's staffers who reported GWB's team scoffing at the warnings over OBL in favor of the dangers imposed by Saddam Hussein.
"The high African-American preference for President Obama, who is African-American, is also race-baced."
I'm sure the President's candidacy in 2008 energized the black vote...they were excited that one of their own, a minority that has been enslaved and systematically discriminated against, had a shot to be the leader of the country. That doesn't mean that they're anti-white bigots. I'm sure some Mormons will vote for Romney because of his religion, but that doesn't mean they're anti-Christian.
Some of us think that the election of the first black president was a very big deal. I'm sorry you disagree.
Arthur, where in hell did you get that? I have said several times that I think it is good that America grew up enough to elect a black President.
My point is that race-consciousness goes both ways. Period. Yes, black voters were energized, and no, I did not take their voting for Obama as being anti-white.
Racism also goes both ways. I cite folks like Jackson, Waters, Lee, McKinney, Farrakhan, Wright, and Sharpton as examples.
Where the hell did I get that...Stab, I remember you recently posted something to the effect of:
"If a white person voted for someone because they are white, they would be a racist. Many black people voted for Obama because he is black. What does that make them?"
If I misquoted you, then please correct me. You started down an analogous line of reasoning with:
"The high African-American preference for President Obama, who is African-American, is also race-baced"
But the fact that you equated a white voter who votes for someone just because they are white with a black voter who might be voting for the first time because he's voting for the first black president...it leads me to believe that you don't get it.
Black people were marginalized from before the founding of this country, and we're still dealing with the incidental effects of that discrimination to this day. DuBois nailed it when he said that "the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of color line". It's not surprising to me therefore that Obama's campaign motivated a lot of Black people to vote, and that they stay loyal to him out of recognition of what he represents.
To equate them with a white person who votes based on race just isn't right. All the presidents save one have been white men...if I vote for someone just because he is white, it's not because I'm excited about what white men have had to overcome in this country, or how far we've come. Chances are, it's because I'm a racist asshole.
I mean no disrespect, it's just the way I see things.
Arthur, I mean no disrespect, either, when I tell you that the tired admonition "You just don't get it" merits word watch standing. That out of the way, I do get your argument re blacks and President Obama. But please note the title: he is President, an indication that the marginalization is narrowing. I report to a black woman who reports to a black woman. The head of American Express is a black man (I met him, born to lead he was). Also note that Obama indeed energized a lot of whites, too, a sign of increasing electorate maturity.
So, oh yes, the quotes are mine, and perhaps rendered with some trigger happiness on my part, but neither should have been taken as not recognizing the importance of electing someone besides a middle-aged white guy in a suit.
As for marginalization, some of that is maintained by the Perennially Indignant who decry any mention of dysfunction in certain segments of society, instead citing racism or bullcrap about cultural norms. I note that however I differ with President Obama on things, I credit him for avoiding that weaselly low road.
Credit where it's due: never thought I'd find common cause with OWS, but I find myself in agreement with them and approving of their protests regarding the Westboro Baptist Church. OWS protesters confronted the surpassingly bigoted WBC members in Tampa, where both groups have been demonstrating at the RNC. The encounters have been nonviolent, though expressive.
If OWS wishes to occupy WBC, I will make an exception in my defense of private property rights.
In the wake of 9/11, Bush II proclaimed Osama Bin Laden to be “Public Enemy Number 1.” The entire Afghanistan adventure was based on a single purpose, to find Osama Bin Laden and the others responsible for 9/11 and, as Bush II put it “Smoke them out of their holes.”
Early on in the operation, we had hard intelligence on where Bin Laden was, down to house level. This would have been the time to send a cruise missile or a SEAL team; instead, Bush II sent an armored regiment, which, of course, was spotted miles away and Bin Laden escaped to Tora Bora, where he vanished.
In February, 2002, at a press conference, Bush II said: “Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”
Why the sudden loss of interest? Because they were already planning the invasion of Iraq, and Cheney had realized that if Bin Laden was caught, they would have a very difficult time convincing the American people that Iraq mattered, because it didn’t.
In 2006, Bush II confirmed his earlier statement to Fred Barnes, editor of the conservative “Weekly Standard: “Bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” In effect, the Bushites had no further interest in the former “Public Enemy Number 1”.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama criticized that decision and promised to get Bin Laden. In June, 2009, he ordered CIA chief Leon Panetta to to create a detailed operation plan for finding the Al Qaeda leader and to ensure that we have expended every effort.
Because the trail had long since gone cold, that took some time. But in August, 2010, Panetta reported that C.I.A. analysts believed that they had pinpointed bin Laden's courier, a man in his early thirties named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. Kuwaiti drove a white S.U.V. whose spare-tire cover was emblazoned with an image of a white rhino. The C.I.A. began tracking the vehicle. One day, a satellite captured images of the S.U.V. pulling into a large concrete compound in Abbottabad.
It took several months to confirm that Osama Bin laden was living in the compound. In December, 2010, the President ordered Panetta to begin exploring a military strike on the compound. Panetta met with Admiral Bill McRaven and told him to develop a range of options. By the end of April, the plans were fully developed and the final confirmation of Bin Laden’s presence had been made. The President selected the riskiest option because it was also the most certain one, and because he had full confidence in the Navy SEALs.
Bush II had nothing to do with the finding or killing of Osama Bin Laden. The military did not find Bin Laden; the CIA did. Admiral McRaven’s Special Ops Command carried out the mission. It was entirely fitting that the President of the United States announced the outcome. Too bad that too much was said at that time, but it’s over.
In August, 2011, the “New Yorker” magazine published the full and truthful account. Many lies have been told since. If you want to believe the lies, that is your business. The “New Yorker” is the best magazine published in the US and its fact checkers are the most thorough anywhere.
Blame it on LBJ.
ReplyDeletePeople love to blame Lyndon for all kinds of things, whether it was his fault or not, but here's one you can pin on him and nobody else.
"Hunker" is a term derived from Old Norse "huka", which the Vikings brought to Scotland. Its original meaning was to "squat or crouch". The Oxford English Dictionary even describes how to do it:
"squat, with the haunches, knees, and ankles acutely bent, so as to bring the hams near the heels, and throw the whole weight upon the fore part of the feet.”
The advantage of this position is that you’re not only crouched close to the ground, so presenting a small target for whatever the universe chooses to throw at you, but you’re also ready to move at a moment’s notice.
Somehow, in the great Southwest, "down" got added to the mix and the meaning slightly expanded to include "hide or take shelter". Maybe that came from the Alamo.
So in the '60s, Lyndon began saying that he was "hunkered down" in Mississippi and Birmingham, and "hunkered down" in Viet Nam and that his whole "Great Society" program was "hunkered down" all over the country. Since the press loved Lyndonisms, "hunkered down" "went viral", as we say today.
But I wouldn't necessarily blame the press for all of the problem. After all, the mayor of New Orleans just yesterday warned the local citizens to "Hunker down" for Isaac. Maybe the press was just doing its job in accurately quoting a public official.
Since "hunker" meant to squat, "down" was the only direction available, so the addition of down was redundant. I guess that after Isaac has passed, the folks in New Orleans can then "hunker up".
Some (not Pat Robertson) have suggested that the biblically named Isaac is Yahweh's judgment upon the Republican convention. If so, he is showing a rare even handedness, in that, if Isaac follows the most likely path, it will dump a good bit of rain upon Charlotte just before the Democratic convention opens there.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap…For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
King James Bible, 1611
Interesting etymology.
DeleteI wonder if Isaac will have any rain left for Charlotte, since it is dawdling over LA and MS, drenching large parts of both states.
Or perhaps it's really Isaac the Bartender from The Love Boat:
DeleteHurricane Isaac
when I owned property on the coast, the media always said we on the beaches were "bracing" since it was June 1, start of the season. Never mind there was rarely if ever a cloud in the sky. My arms got very tired from "bracing" so much I couldn't even hold a fishing rod. Serious business that.
DeleteSince a sea breeze is often described as bracing, you were bracing for the bracing breeze.
Delete"Our core values"
ReplyDeleteI am alarmed as a citizen of Winston-Salem that our city council chose not to tell the federal court the truth it now possesses about the Silk Plant Forest investigation ("City won't support retrial," Aug. 11). The issue is not the council's view about Kalvin Michael Smith's guilt or innocence. It is how our government handles factual information.
Today this case tests the core values and beliefs that guide our government, and the trust we citizens place in that government. What future do we seek for ourselves and our children here in Winston-Salem?
A culture is a collection of stories that are shared, like the air we breathe. These stories often go unnoticed and unscrutinized, yet their impact can be enormous.
For thousands of years it was unquestionably permissible to own slaves, particularly if they were of a different race or tribe. And women were subservient to men. But eventually facts, not myths, inform the culture if the society is to survive. That principle is the foundation of all popular government and all democracies. It dates to the due-process clause of the Magna Carta and was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The reality that our city council cares so little about facts and due process should shock every citizen.
It is always government's role, the city council's in this case, to provide protection for all its citizens, especially when truth the government possesses can correct an injustice of that government's own making.
THE REV. WILLARD BASS
Winston-Salem
"Irony meter"
Really?
That's all I can think after reading Dena Barnes' guest column, "Women for Mitt" (Aug. 23).
Really? The party of "You lie, you socialist, communist, fascist, foreign-born Nazi who pals around with terrorists" — the party of "we're going to block every proposal, every nominee, everything you do, and our highest priority is to limit you to one term, and we'll accomplish that if we have to burn the country down" — is going to claim that President Obama is divisive? The party of "We're going to start two wars and give tax breaks to millionaires and pay for them all with loans from China" thinks Obama has failed in his fiscal responsibilities?
And Mitt Romney, whose commercials purposely misrepresent his opponent — Romney, whom independent fact-checkers say has lied about Obama's stance on the economy, welfare and many other issues — that's the candidate who is "committed to staying above the fray, running an issues-based campaign"?
If I had an irony meter, this column would break it.
Of Paul Ryan, President Obama said, "He's a good man. He's a family man. He's a very articulate spokesman for Governor Romney's vision."
Joe Biden said, "By the way, I think Mitt Romney's a fine family man. I believe he's driven by what he believes."
Yes, sure, very divisive.
Someone needs to give "Women for Mitt" a mirror.
WENDY MARSHALL
Winston-Salem
"Revelation"
DeleteSo, tea-party favorite and senatorial candidate Rep. Todd Akin, whose views on women's health and whose legislative priorities fall directly in line with Republican orthodoxy, reveals himself to be an ignorant troglodyte. Who could have known?
JAMES McGRATH
Yadkinville
"OK"
The writer of the letter "Placing blame" (Aug. 18) writes: "President Obama did not get Osama bin Laden. He had everything set up for him before he took office. The Navy SEALs, CIA and other intelligent agencies should get the credit. All he had to say was, 'OK.' "
"All he had to say was, 'OK.' " But, apparently, that's not all he said.
Adm. Bill McRaven, head of the U.S. Special Operations command that was on the ground to take bin Laden out, told Politico's Josh Gerstein: "At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden of this operation, that made the hard decision. … This isn't about politics. This is about a commander in chief who I have the opportunity to engage with on a routine basis. … The president asked all the right questions. …The president gave me ample time to prepare once the conversations were through."
He told Time magazine that Obama "was really everything the American public would expect from their national leadership. …The president was at all times presidential. I would contend he was the smartest guy in the room. He had leadership skills we'd expect from a guy who had 35 years in the military."
All I have to say to that is, "OK."
PHIL RONALD TURNER
Winston-Salem
OK...apparently former Defense Secretary Gates' STF up suggestion won't work. This "talk too much by too many in the wrong places" finds its seed in only one thing: A Republican Commander-in-Chief is simply expected to get this done, par for the course nothing more. A Democrat counter part, well now THAT becomes a matter of doubt, waffling in and out of of type cast...because the party ideology has defined the man for decades now. Hence the breathless surprise and elation at Mr Obama acting against the party "type cast". Like Gates said "STFU".
DeleteWhat a surprise!?
ReplyDeleteRev. Willard Bass, an assistant minister at 'GREEN St Methodist Church, joins the judicial moron parade.
Again, leave courtroom activities to the professionals, and keep your radical, liberal, racist, comments to the pulpit at GREEN St. Methodist Church.
It just never stops.
DeleteNote: Information obtained as to the job status of Rev. Bass was gleaned from the internet.
DeleteDo you know him too, Rush? You seem to know everybody, at least in the tiny confines of W.S.
African American Gold Medalist, Gabby Douglas, is a victim. Although Ms.Douglas lived with a white family in Iowa, who coddled her to the point that she won a gold medal in the Olympics, she's playing the 'race' card.
ReplyDeletehttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/08/gym-fires-back-at-gabby-douglas-claims-of-racial-bullying/1
Sport announcers irritate me with: "New York is up by 8 games, looks like they hold their destiny in their own hands at this point," or the quintessential "That kid has a bright future ahead of him."
ReplyDeleteWell let's hope that it is ahead of him...wouldn't be much of a future if it was behind him, would it?
DeleteSports announcers irritate me in general...they sling more BS than politicians.
Add sportswriters to that mix, also. But, I agree re sports announcers. They started going downhill long ago, when someone intoned that a team on fourth down and in its own territory was in a "punting situation."
DeleteBut, I'll give pols the edge overall, particularly for euphemistic BS. And the business world has spawned some awful jargon as well. When I worked at American Express, an excellent company otherwise, I called the lingo AmExSpeak: "Step out of the box," "going forward," "who is going to own this?" Barf.
In the tech world, we "repurpose" code and devises that we want to take in a different direction as well as "new up" objects in code.
DeleteThe most barfable slogan for me was either Office Max or Office Depot with "A better way to office" :p When, oh when did nouns become verbs?
I agree re barfable slogan. That is awful.
DeleteOf course no racism exists on the right...shame on me for even entertaining such a preposterous thought. In fact, the real racists are people like me who have the gall to suggest that such a thing still exists:
ReplyDeleteRNC delegate throws nuts on black reporter.
Yes, there is racism, right and left, and lots of pandering by both sides. Innocents are few in the political arena.
DeleteYes yes...both sides do it, everybody's equally at fault yada yada, but I'd argue there's a reason that Romney is at 94% - 0% with black voters.
DeleteNope, several reasons, including the one to which you allude, but also the other side's frequently ascribing opposition to Administration policies as being based on racism. The race card is all too easily and conveniently played by the left.
DeleteThe high African-American preference for President Obama, who is African-American, is also race-baced.
Ask yourself, if over 90% of white Americans voted for McCain in 2008, and for Romney in this years election, wouldn't the liberal, mainstream media be screaming racism?
DeleteWhy then does everybody, and especially the media, give African Americans a pass on their voting patterns?
It's clear to me, and most thinking Americans, that African Americans are far more racist than whites.
Of course, you'll never get the liberal media to say that, because it's politically incorrect.
It is also part in fact that for 200 years, the white Democrat has never let the black man go. By one institution or another and by any means necessary, the white Democrat will never ever ever let black people go. The Democrat establishment will never let one of their indentured victim groups be exposed to any opposing political ideas for very long without flying in a surrogate quickly to repeat again the satndard version of "old time religion" which is strictly Democrat narratives built on Democrat narratives. Blacks will eventually free themselves as younger members with better educations rise to power. But in the meantime, the white Dem will tell blacks to stand up, put up, now shut up every two years and be happy with "good government".
DeleteSpeaking of race, MSNBC carefully omitted covering speeches by minority speakers at the RNC. Televising such would have conflicted with the networks' talking heads assertions that R's are racists.
DeleteRacism goes way beyond choosing one color over another. It's rooted in the belief that one race is superior to all others, therefore any member of a race other than the "superior" one that manages to get ahead only got there with "help" from the "superior" race or due to some policy that "gave" it to the person, since that person, being "inferior" could not possibly achieve it on his own merits.
DeleteOn this forum, only La Sombra and Bob (although being gay isn't as readily apparent as being Latino, the lack of acceptance is palpable in this society) can say what it's actually like to walk around everyday as a minority and be prejudged wherever you go. For a black to vote for another black for POTUS for reasons of color is to recognize that black candidate has walked in the shoes as a black and thus recognizes all of the barriers that exist and have had to be overcome to reach that level. This is something we as whites never have to deal with.
Is this why the blacks who vote R are savaged so badly....even by whites who have never "walked in the shoes"? The over the top reaction with fury of this magnitude tells something quite differently. It comes from fear of losing something.
DeleteSince I'm not black, I obviously can't say for sure, but my hunch is that it has to do with a perception that blacks who go the R route are giving up their "blackness" (in other words acceding the fact that being black makes them inferior) and "going white' in order to get ahead. What they would be afraid of losing would be their identity as a black person with a black culture. I do wish we had a black person on this forum, because as I said, I'm really just speculating.
DeleteI know but we can learn from recent past events. Not a question that needs answering here, but I have alway wondered--just what is "black culture" since here in America we have only one culture--American.
DeleteIt would be the same as if you as a white Christian moved to someplace like Saudi Arabia. In order to get ahead in that society, you would have to adopt some of the social mores of Arabic Muslims in order not to be seen as inferior (or an infidel). You couldn't just be your normal white Christian self and be readily accepted in that society.
Delete"here in America we have only one culture--American."
DeleteThe "American culture" is really difficult to define, ww. The vast majority of countries are very homogenous when it comes to race, religion and culture, whereas the US readily welcomes immigrants from all over who bring their religion and culture with them. If you were to hang around a major city's China Town for a few months, then hang around with blacks for a few months, would you witness the same culture? Our tastes in food, music, sports, religion as well as our attitudes towards life and what we emphasize as being important are shaped by our surroundings and rooted in our self-identity. I'm not sure I can say that my culture is the same as an Inuit who lives in Alaska although we are both US citizens.
The culture is often difficult to define, that is why an Arabian, a Serbian or a Mexican can come here and be an American....he is free to do so. I can't go to one of those countries and be "one of them"--only an American living there and that is all. All of those traits you mention are part of one's ethnicity, which is what we are...multi ethnic, not multi cultural. If we do become multi cultural, then we are done for as America. Walls will be built within borders and borders will be built within borders and soon enough guns will start blazing.
DeleteI have done an immense amount of traveling in my life and have come to appreciate the uniqueness of American culture--we are exceptional, self reliant fiercely individualistic among many more unique qualities. E Pluribus Unum.
"It is also part in fact that for 200 years, the white Democrat has never let the black man go. By one institution or another and by any means necessary, the white Democrat will never ever ever let black people go."
DeleteBlack folk can make up their own minds...more might vote Republican if the GOP offered more compelling solutions to problems in the black community. And it also might help if they stopped playing to white racial fears, which they've been doing since Barry Goldwater.
Believe me...everyone knows what the birther thing was really about. Or when Rick Santorum said he wanted to teach "blah people" to earn their own money, or when Romney said of his speech to the NAACP, if they "wanted free stuff, vote for the other guy."
You'd have to be a total rube not to see what's happening.
There are more compelling solutions from the R side---just not more compelling pandering. The same solutions available to any minority group that wants to apply them. A compelling solution might also include Washington not "helping" with so many dependency programs.
DeleteSomehow I don't think more tax cuts for rich folks (and if you don't like it, then stop being so lazy & stupid) is going to cut it.
DeleteIdeas don't have to revolve around rich people. How about this: finish school, don't get pregnant or cause anyone to get pregnant, don't mess with drugs or with anyone who does. Those things alone will put most people well on the way and can apply to anyone.
Delete"Speaking of race, MSNBC carefully omitted covering speeches by minority speakers at the RNC. Televising such would have conflicted with the networks' talking heads assertions that R's are racists."
DeleteInteresting that this has not been reported in any legitimate media, only the usual right wing sites. And a couple of them are reporting that Fox News left out most of the same speeches. So what does that prove?
Jesus!
Well and good, but a lot of that needs to be done within the Black community. Having a bunch of old, rich, white Republicans condescend to you and tell you you're morally deficient would go over like a lead balloon...as it should.
DeleteAnd the problems you list I might add, are not particular to African-Americans.
No, they are not. But, to note that the incidence of problems is higher in some areas elicits the usual whines and screams of "Racism!" from the Perennially Indignant, conveniently ignoring problem and shifting the blame. Or you get a nonsensical comment from our own Walter Marshall that different cultural norms be taken into account in order to reduce the number of school suspensions for his constituents. I still await an explanation of what cultural norms he was talking about.
DeleteI suggest that Eldridge Cleaver's remark that "If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" might be taken to heart by more than just Cleaver's original targets. Phony cries of racism and overwrought indignation aren't part of the solution.
Which is worse, having an old white male looking down his nose at you, or a middle aged black man doing the same thing? I find both repugnant.
DeleteStab, I wouldn't baby these liberal posters. Just tell it like it is. We've got enough people pandering to these liberal cry-babies.
Good afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: Not much to add to the last paragraph. Awesome summation. The system was designed to make it easier for the guilty to go free than for an innocent to go to jail for a reason.
LTE 2: Didn't think Ms. Barnes' guest column would go unanswered. Flamethrowers have existed on both sides for as long as the republic has been around. The difference is that the opposing sides learned how to compromise in the past to get things done, whereas today, compromise is seen as defeat, so both sides have elements that would rather see the country go down a sink hole than make the necessary compromises to do what needs to get done.
LTE 3: I would like to say this LTE is rubbish, but the R's approved platform unfortunately backs Mr. McGrath's contention that Rep. Akin's views are in line with current R orthodoxy.
LTE 4: If everything had been set up to get OBL before Obama ever took office, then why did GWB not issue the green light? Good response from Mr. Turner.
Obviously, what wasn't set up was OBL's location. Had that been known, GWB would have issued the order, I am sure, as would have his dad, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, et al, under similar circumstances, except Willard Clinton, who had a pre-WTC shot at him, and turned it down.
DeleteTo be fair, Clinton did order Tomahawk missiles fired at al Qaida training grounds in Afghanistan, but the members dispersed just before the order was given. Many members of Congress thought Clinton was doing a "Wag the Dog" by starting up war in Afghanistan to make up for his womanizing troubles. Looking back, I don't think anyone in Congress or the Clinton administration took OBL seriously as a threat until very late in Clinton's 2nd term. GWB's administration apparently didn't either as recalled by Clinton's staffers who reported GWB's team scoffing at the warnings over OBL in favor of the dangers imposed by Saddam Hussein.
Delete"The high African-American preference for President Obama, who is African-American, is also race-baced."
DeleteI'm sure the President's candidacy in 2008 energized the black vote...they were excited that one of their own, a minority that has been enslaved and systematically discriminated against, had a shot to be the leader of the country. That doesn't mean that they're anti-white bigots. I'm sure some Mormons will vote for Romney because of his religion, but that doesn't mean they're anti-Christian.
Some of us think that the election of the first black president was a very big deal. I'm sorry you disagree.
Arthur, where in hell did you get that? I have said several times that I think it is good that America grew up enough to elect a black President.
DeleteMy point is that race-consciousness goes both ways. Period. Yes, black voters were energized, and no, I did not take their voting for Obama as being anti-white.
Racism also goes both ways. I cite folks like Jackson, Waters, Lee, McKinney, Farrakhan, Wright, and Sharpton as examples.
Where the hell did I get that...Stab, I remember you recently posted something to the effect of:
Delete"If a white person voted for someone because they are white, they would be a racist. Many black people voted for Obama because he is black. What does that make them?"
If I misquoted you, then please correct me. You started down an analogous line of reasoning with:
"The high African-American preference for President Obama, who is African-American, is also race-baced"
But the fact that you equated a white voter who votes for someone just because they are white with a black voter who might be voting for the first time because he's voting for the first black president...it leads me to believe that you don't get it.
Black people were marginalized from before the founding of this country, and we're still dealing with the incidental effects of that discrimination to this day. DuBois nailed it when he said that "the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of color line". It's not surprising to me therefore that Obama's campaign motivated a lot of Black people to vote, and that they stay loyal to him out of recognition of what he represents.
To equate them with a white person who votes based on race just isn't right. All the presidents save one have been white men...if I vote for someone just because he is white, it's not because I'm excited about what white men have had to overcome in this country, or how far we've come. Chances are, it's because I'm a racist asshole.
I mean no disrespect, it's just the way I see things.
Arthur, I mean no disrespect, either, when I tell you that the tired admonition "You just don't get it" merits word watch standing. That out of the way, I do get your argument re blacks and President Obama. But please note the title: he is President, an indication that the marginalization is narrowing. I report to a black woman who reports to a black woman. The head of American Express is a black man (I met him, born to lead he was). Also note that Obama indeed energized a lot of whites, too, a sign of increasing electorate maturity.
DeleteSo, oh yes, the quotes are mine, and perhaps rendered with some trigger happiness on my part, but neither should have been taken as not recognizing the importance of electing someone besides a middle-aged white guy in a suit.
As for marginalization, some of that is maintained by the Perennially Indignant who decry any mention of dysfunction in certain segments of society, instead citing racism or bullcrap about cultural norms. I note that however I differ with President Obama on things, I credit him for avoiding that weaselly low road.
Credit where it's due: never thought I'd find common cause with OWS, but I find myself in agreement with them and approving of their protests regarding the Westboro Baptist Church. OWS protesters confronted the surpassingly bigoted WBC members in Tampa, where both groups have been demonstrating at the RNC. The encounters have been nonviolent, though expressive.
ReplyDeleteIf OWS wishes to occupy WBC, I will make an exception in my defense of private property rights.
In the wake of 9/11, Bush II proclaimed Osama Bin Laden to be “Public Enemy Number 1.” The entire Afghanistan adventure was based on a single purpose, to find Osama Bin Laden and the others responsible for 9/11 and, as Bush II put it “Smoke them out of their holes.”
ReplyDeleteEarly on in the operation, we had hard intelligence on where Bin Laden was, down to house level. This would have been the time to send a cruise missile or a SEAL team; instead, Bush II sent an armored regiment, which, of course, was spotted miles away and Bin Laden escaped to Tora Bora, where he vanished.
In February, 2002, at a press conference, Bush II said: “Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”
Why the sudden loss of interest? Because they were already planning the invasion of Iraq, and Cheney had realized that if Bin Laden was caught, they would have a very difficult time convincing the American people that Iraq mattered, because it didn’t.
In 2006, Bush II confirmed his earlier statement to Fred Barnes, editor of the conservative “Weekly Standard: “Bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” In effect, the Bushites had no further interest in the former “Public Enemy Number 1”.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama criticized that decision and promised to get Bin Laden. In June, 2009, he ordered CIA chief Leon Panetta to to create a detailed operation plan for finding the Al Qaeda leader and to ensure that we have expended every effort.
Because the trail had long since gone cold, that took some time. But in August, 2010, Panetta reported that C.I.A. analysts believed that they had pinpointed bin Laden's courier, a man in his early thirties named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. Kuwaiti drove a white S.U.V. whose spare-tire cover was emblazoned with an image of a white rhino. The C.I.A. began tracking the vehicle. One day, a satellite captured images of the S.U.V. pulling into a large concrete compound in Abbottabad.
It took several months to confirm that Osama Bin laden was living in the compound. In December, 2010, the President ordered Panetta to begin exploring a military strike on the compound. Panetta met with Admiral Bill McRaven and told him to develop a range of options. By the end of April, the plans were fully developed and the final confirmation of Bin Laden’s presence had been made. The President selected the riskiest option because it was also the most certain one, and because he had full confidence in the Navy SEALs.
Bush II had nothing to do with the finding or killing of Osama Bin Laden. The military did not find Bin Laden; the CIA did. Admiral McRaven’s Special Ops Command carried out the mission. It was entirely fitting that the President of the United States announced the outcome. Too bad that too much was said at that time, but it’s over.
In August, 2011, the “New Yorker” magazine published the full and truthful account. Many lies have been told since. If you want to believe the lies, that is your business. The “New Yorker” is the best magazine published in the US and its fact checkers are the most thorough anywhere.
You can read the entire article here: Getting Bin Laden
Even Romney's Party Yacht is registered in the Cayman Islands and flying the flag of the Cayman Islands. They held a fund raiser on it today in Tampa.
ReplyDeleteNow if you tell me John Kerry sailed his yacht down there too...well, I'm going to yell conspiracy. I know my invitation was lost in the mail.
DeleteIs it legal for an "offshore entity" to run for president?
DeleteThe yacht is on the ballot, this is Florida you know.
Delete