Holy crao! These are two little girls! THEY got married? Jeez, Santorum was right.
R. Maheras September 2, 2011 - 12:02 pm
Don’t get mad at the messenger, MOTU, but as someone who has spent 30 years in and around the U.S. military, the goal of racial harmony is not the exclusive property of liberals.
That’s a liberal myth, in my opinion.
According to a comprehensive Military Times survey back in 2004, “53 percent of active-duty personnel described themselves as either “very conservative” or ‘conservative,’ compared to 40 percent of the general population. By contrast, seven percent said they were ‘liberal or very liberal,’ compared to 20 percent of the general population.”
The survey also indicated that “Nearly four out of five military personnel said they believed racial and ethnic minorities are treated more fairly in the military than in civilian life, while two-thirds said they believe members of the US military have higher moral values than the civilian population.”
In other words, there are few (if any) sectors of society where minorities enjoy the widespread leadership and personal growth opportunities as they do in the U.S. military — an organization that is lopsidedly conservative.
Over the course of my lifetime, I worked about nine years in the civilian sector at about eight different places. All but one were in the Chicago area, a Democratic bastion where about 58 percent of the population is non-white and about 51 percent is female. Yet in all of those years, I had one black boss, no hispanic bosses, and two female bosses. Pretty piss-poor percentages, don’t you think?
By contrast, in the Air Force, only abot 27 percent of the population is non-white and only about 19 percent are female, yet during my 30 years associated with the USAF, I worked for many, many black, hispanic or female senior leaders or supervisors — more than I can count, as a matter of fact. Oh, yeah, and every one of those minorities or women made the identical amount of money as their peers. That’s not the way it works in the civilian sector. In Chicago, for example, the median pay for men is about $35,000 a year, while for women it’s $30,000 a year.
From my experience, the difference between the two worlds is not just striking, it’s a sad commentary about the state of equal opportunity in the civilian sector — especially in places that are allegedly “progressive.”
MOTU September 2, 2011 - 12:17 pm
R,
All due respect my friend, you just may be right, but…
I’d wager achieving racial harmony is on the top ten things on the list for a better America in a Liberal agenda.
The GOP? No.
Rick Oliver September 2, 2011 - 12:38 pm
I was going to write a scathing diatribe about the how the tea party is the the new party of old white guys, but it turns out I’m wrong.
For whatever reason that poll makes me feel better about the Tea Party. That said, those on the extreme right of the party still scare me.
What scares me even more is the blatant refusal of many Tea Party leaders to denounce them.
Rick Oliver September 2, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Who are the Tea Party leaders? As I said in a comment on Mike’s column, the Tea Party has been hijacked by the extreme religious right. All the candidates playing to Tea Party crowds are vying for the Republican nomination, and clearly they believe the way to woo the Tea Partiers is to play up the most extremist views.
MOTU September 2, 2011 - 3:37 pm
Rick,
To me, ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Right who does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from Tea Party extremists are leaders by omission.
John Tebbel September 2, 2011 - 5:18 pm
You can’t tell from the picture, but they’re lesbians.
“To me, ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Right who does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from Tea Party extremists are leaders by omission.”
.
By the same token, do you insist that ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Left does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from left wing extremists–say, the rioters in Britain, or the thugs who show up whenever the World bank has a meeting, or Andre Carson claiming that some members of congress want to see African Americans “hanging on a tree” –are leaders by omission?
R. Maheras September 2, 2011 - 5:44 pm
Reg — Geez! Paul McCartney looks like a teenager in that video!
Must’ve been the soft focus…
mike weber September 2, 2011 - 10:32 pm
Well, it was twenty-nine years ago.
OTOH, ever hear of a band called Big Daddy?
(No – not “Big Daddy Kane”. These guys were on Rhino…)
Big LIes: Starbucks smashing rioters have anything to do with America’s demonized middle of the road progressives that Newt and Norquist taught their flock to call leftist. Just like their obstructionist plutocracy is now “conservatism.” I can’t wait to see how Barry Goldwater hands it to them in hell.
Carson is right, racism among white folks is what we call a “rebuttable presumption.” She knows which of her colleagues were once part of White Citizens’ Committees even if we don’t
Bill Mulligan September 3, 2011 - 7:55 am
“Carson is right, racism among white folks is what we call a “rebuttable presumption.” She knows which of her colleagues were once part of White Citizens’ Committees even if we don’t”
Guilty till proven innocent, ah, the modern liberal.
Andre Carson, whatever else he may be, is almost certainly not a “she”. If indeed he knows the names of congressmen and senators who want to lynch black people he should expose them by name…otherwise he is a coward and a fraud in the proud tradition of Joe McCarthy and his unnamed list of communists.
Of course, to people like Carson and his sympathizers, the end more than justifies the means. They don’t see that they are likely to end up with McCarthy on history’s ash heap.
Rene September 3, 2011 - 8:56 am
Bill –
Forget the British rioters. What about the Norway shooter? A hardcore Conservative guy that killed lots of kids, and what’s the Right’s response?
“Oh, he wasn’t really a Conservative/Christian/One of Us.”
“I disagree with his methods, but his ideas are GOOD!”
“He was motivated by hatred of Muslims, so it’s Muslim’s fault after all!”
“Those kids were asking for it, getting teenagers to a left-wing political camp is brainwashing!” (As opposed to getting teenagers to some Evangelical Church or Youth Christian Group, I suppose)
“The Lefties are loving this, aren’t they? Bunch of vultures, using this tragedy for political gain.”
Sorry, Bill. But as far as tragedies go, the Right’s response has been far more shameful than the Left’s, even more when you consider that the Rioters in England aren’t mass murderers, like Norway’s Tea-Party-By-Any-Other-Name Dude.
Rick Oliver September 3, 2011 - 9:20 am
The left denounces the right. The right denounces the left. Apparently we have become a binary political country, where you are labeled as belonging to either one extreme or the other.
Look at the overall record. The “left” brought us higher taxes and a certain amount of government intrusion into our lives, along with child labor laws, work place safety rules, environmental regulation, and food and drug safety regulation.
The “right” brought us higher taxes and a certain amount of government intrusion into our lives, along with…umm…help me out here.
And if “Democratic party” means “left”, then both the “left” and the “right” brought us “free trade”, which ruined our economy.
To quote a famous Republican on this Labor Day weekend:
“Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration.”
Abraham Lincoln
Bill Mulligan September 3, 2011 - 9:27 am
I think you would have to present a little bit of evidence to support a charge like Ander’s Breivik being a “Tea-Party-By-Any-Other-Name” dude. Other than the simple calculation of not liking Tea Partiers and not liking mass murderers and therefore conflating the two. Which would be like calling President Obama “Chavez (or Castro or Lenin) by any other name”. Which I’m sure some right wingers do but why on earth would you emulate them?
Personally I do NOT prescribe to the opinion that one must always apologize or condemn the actions of other people just because they may agree with you on some small or even major point. And most of the people who say they do…don’t., because they almost never do it when some crank on THEIR side does something wrong and they usually take umbrage at even the suggestion that they are in any way linked to said crank.
So I don not expect any of my friends on the left to have to prove their bona fides by endlessly apologizing for the crimes of those who pervert their philosophies…but if they are going to play that muggs game against others they will be expected to do the same.It’s a dopey game but if you play it you might as well follow the rules, yes?
(And, as an aside, even if those unattributed quotes were real and not your interpretation, 5 examples…or 500…could not be considered “the right’s response” by any serious person. I know people like to believe their political opposites are a small insignificant number but it just ain’t so.)
Bill Mulligan September 3, 2011 - 9:41 am
Rick, I’m with Lincoln. I only we lived in a country where people with a cgood idea and the desire to work at it didn’t have so many obstacles put in their place. Ignore the stories that make the news, like lemonade stands being shut down by cops or some guy being fined $90,000 for selling $200 worth of rabbits. For every one that makes the news there are probably hundreds that don’t. Why do we need permission to sell legal goods? This is something both party’s should champion. Of course, the Big Boys probably LOVE making it tough for the little guys and they are the ones dropping big money on their favorite politicians so I’m not holding my breath.
For those espousing class envy let them heed another Lincoln quote–“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
Rene September 3, 2011 - 3:16 pm
Bill, I think it is healthy to doubt your own ideology. And it’s deeper than just apologizing or condemning those who commit crimes while sharing some of that ideology. It’s facing what they’ve done, understand it, accept it, and start being more on your guard so that you won’t repeat it, and you won’t even support someone or some course of action that might lead to repeating it.
It’s important that the left “accepts” Chavez and Castro, and even more obvious monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot, as lessons of what may go wrong. I don’t like it when they weasel out of it. I also don’t like it when the right weasels out about Hitler and Breivik or even tries to assign them to the left.
It’s healthy to accept that your “side” can do monstrous things. So that not doing them again is seen as the more important thing.
Bill Mulligan September 3, 2011 - 3:34 pm
Except I don’t really think that Stalin is an example of the left or Hitler an example of the right.
If you want to assign responsibility why aren’t socialists forced to take the blame for National Socialism. Oh, it wasn’t the kind of socialism they believe in? Just so.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc etc all prove the same lesson–let a sociopath get in power, allow any means of removing or limiting their power to be eliminated, have no freedom of press or thought–basically allow the government to become all powerful– and it will always end in tears. Every time.
Having engaged with you at PAD’s forum enough times to know you are a serious man whose opinions should be considered carefully I’m willing to chalk up the occasional overstatement to humor and/or the passion of the moment (and heaven knows I will almost certainly need the same consideration at some point). But really, calling Breivik a tea party by any other name dude is a bit beyond reasonable discourse.
Rick Oliver September 3, 2011 - 4:52 pm
Stalin and Hitler are great examples of fascism. Neither one was any kind of socialist. Hitler was, however, a great proponent of capitalism, which kept his war machine humming along…for a while.
Rene September 3, 2011 - 5:27 pm
Yeah, I was out of line about Breivik, sorry about that. The Tea Party hasn’t ever resorted to physical violence, as far as I know.
Mao was a sociopath, but he exploited left-wing ideology to attain power, and he had (and still has!) lots of sympathy from leftists who really should have know better. So people should always be on their toes.
Rene September 3, 2011 - 5:35 pm
R. Maheras: “Don’t get mad at the messenger, MOTU, but as someone who has spent 30 years in and around the U.S. military, the goal of racial harmony is not the exclusive property of liberals.”
I agree. But I still think Liberal methods of achieving racial harmony are preferable. The Army imposes discipline, rigid hierarchy, and somewhat standardized behaviour. As long as you act like a soldier, dress like one, fight like one, it doesn’t really matter what is the color of your skin.
But organizing civilian society more along the lines of the military would be too big a price to pay for the ending of racism. A free society will always have its share of racism, but that is the breaks.
Bill Mulligan September 3, 2011 - 7:02 pm
I agree that anyone praising Mao had better just be ignorant of his atrocities. Most on the left aren’t Mao fans, in my experience. You do see a few though and it boggles my mind. How anyone could hang a poster of Mao is beyond me; they would never dream of putting up on of Hitler or Stalin but somehow Mao doesn’t have the same stigma. Is killing tens of millions of Asians not as serious a crime as murdering Europeans?
I think there does seem to be a bit of divergence in how the left and right treat dictators. Too many conservatives are willing to tolerate right wing totalitarians if they serve a purpose and too many on the left just deny the fact that leftist dictators are as bad as they are. In the long run it’s best not to get to cozy to these monsters–especially in today’s world they seem to be coming to no good end and when they do it would be nice to be able to look their former victims in the eye.
MOTU September 3, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Bill wrote,
‘By the same token, do you insist that ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Left does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from left wing extremists–say, the rioters in Britain, or the thugs who show up whenever the World bank has a meeting, or Andre Carson claiming that some members of congress want to see African Americans “hanging on a tree” –are leaders by omission?’
Yes. Hate and fear speech is not a GOP exclusive.
Case in point, when Jessie Jackson made that ‘jaime town’ remark I was appalled and said so. I took a lot of heat from many Black people.
My stance after being called an Uncle Tom and sell out? Fuck it-Jackson AND those who thought the remark was justified were WRONG. Those Black leaders who said nothing against the remark were in effect agreeing with it.
A few years ago I took another blow from assholes when I wrote an piece on the Duke Lacrosse team rape allegations. I wrote that I did not think they were guilty and people should not rush to judgement. There were some on the left (like the DA) who refused to consider that those kids were anything but guilty.
Turned out those students had their lives ruined and the girl was proven to be a lair. Even AFTER that some on the left said she was ‘confused’ and had a ‘mental illness’ WTF?
She LIED. I call a spade a spade and YES pun intended.
Going along with something just because it’s the position of ANY party or group is the text book definition of ignorant stupid sheep.
I’m not that guy.
Bill Mulligan September 4, 2011 - 6:35 am
And that, my friend, is why no matter how far apart we may be on a particular issue or opinion, I will keep on reading this site. I’d rather spend time with people of integrity I disagree with than an echo choir of agreement from people who like to have their opinion dished out them. Or base everything they think on a reactionary knee jerk equation of “If my opponent says X, I shall say Y.”
Living just a short drive away from Dirham we lived through the duke lacrosse scandal and believe me, it was even worse than they reported it. I would never send my kids to Duke or any other school that has adopted the increasingly popular stance of treating some accusations as something that will be decided by amateur lawyers on an assumption of guilt. “Rebuttable presumption” as some would say.
Though I might disagree with one thing you said–I don’t know that the (now ex) DA Mike Nifong is necessarily on the left. His insistence on going after the kids even when evidence was beginning to pile up that they had done no crime may have been motivated not by ideology but a desire to get re-elected. Wouldn’t be a the first time someone posed as a friend to black people while no doubt giggling behind their backs.
While I generally don’t like to see people brought down low I’ll make an exception in this case–the lacrosse kids will hopefully be alright but Nifong has ruined his own life to a degree that will be almost impossible to overcome. There’s some real justice in that.
George Haberberger September 4, 2011 - 3:00 pm
MOTU,
I saw the title of this post a couple of days ago and clicked on it. The point was obvious. Liberal = tolerance and of course then the inverse would be conservative = intolerance. There were no comments and I didn’t feel compelled to tilt at windmills so I ignored the indignation rising in my gut.
Checking back a few days later and I see a rather spirited discussion with the always-impressive R. Maheras and Bill Mulligan making the case that blanket statements often have veracity commensurate with their simplicity.
Mr. Maheras made the point that the military is much more tolerant and a source of equality than the civilian world. Yet the people of the military identify as conservative or very conservative.
In your next post you admit that he may be right but still insist that achieving racial harmony would be on a list of the top ten things of a liberal agenda and not on the GOP. Why? People comprise the GOP; usually conservative people like those in the military. And agendas, liberal and conservative, do not just appear fully formed from the brow of Zeus.
Presuming the position and motivation of conservatives as anti-racial equality is arrogant and misguided. But I am happy to read that you called out Jesse Jackson on his anti-Semitic comment and kept on open mind in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Why not keep an open mind on rest of the time?
MOTU September 4, 2011 - 3:00 pm
Bill,
I also hope the lacrosse kids will be alright but the odds are stacked against them unfairly even after being vindicated. Those kids were going to one of the best schools on the planet. Chances are the type of companies they will be looking to join are Fortune 500 and the like.
Today’s background checks are not just to check references and confirm your degree. Today’s background checks look for anything and everything which may cause a company ANY issues in the future.Unless those kids go into Gangster Rap those allegations regardless of the outcome will pose will problems.
BTW-even when we are miles apart on things-I always look forward to a Bill Mulligan post and hope I’ll be reading them for many a moon.
Bill Mulligan September 4, 2011 - 5:46 pm
Aww garsh….(blush). Two compliments from 2 different men of insight and good taste. I deserve cake.
And you are right about the background checks…I worry (and nag my students relentlessly) about how much we put out on the web. Kids post stuff on their facebook page that would make any employer think twice about hiring them, if only for legal reasons. Kids complaining about the opposite sex in the usual teen overstatement, if someone sees that and employs them and there is an incident later…
If my job was not so secure I would probably be a lot more reluctant to put out political opinions. I guess I could use a pseudonym but I think you lose a lot of points when you do. I’ve personally seen people taken out of consideration in part because they were perceived as conservative and I have no doubt it happens to liberals just as often.
One thing I wanted to get back to though–while it’s gratifying to hear you were your own man and took positions you believed in even in the face of peer criticism (though you do not strike me as someone who holds that in any kind of mortal terror) you should not feel in any way OBLIGATED to do so, just because some of the people involved share your pigmentation. I think that attitude is part of the reason why the Duke case lasted long after any sane person would have realized what was up. Too many members of minority groups have bought the idea that any crime committed by a member of that group reflects badly on them and thus they try to insist on that person being innocent in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.
I never saw a white person worry that if Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty people might think they were also cannibals.
And yeah, I know there are people who ARE happy to try to make one guilty person emblematic of a whole group but the proper reaction to that is to take on that attitude, not buy into it and give them the opportunity to add a refusal to accept reality to their list of racial flaws.
Which is my long winded way of saying I don’t hold anything against anyone who did not comment on the Duke case or Jackson’s stupid remark. If I did I would have to hold myself to that standard and I’d be forever commenting on the near infinite stupidity that comes from people who may be ethnically, philosophically, etc-ally, related to me.
Its certainly fair to go after the people who defend the indefensible, especially when they are being hypocritical about it.
MOTU September 4, 2011 - 8:35 pm
George wrote,
‘Presuming the position and motivation of conservatives as anti-racial equality is arrogant and misguided. But I am happy to read that you called out Jesse Jackson on his anti-Semitic comment and kept on open mind in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Why not keep an open mind on rest of the time?’
George, I paint the GOP with a broad brush I’m aware of that,most times it’s done in over the top satire.However I’ve also in all seriousness said many times that I know the vast majority of the party are not racist, gay hating, slave owners.
But-when people on the Right go nuts-they GO nuts and I’m sure you will agree their are some in the party that beg to be called out.
Bill Mulligan September 5, 2011 - 5:41 am
I think people on the right are judged differently than people on the left. Continuing something Rene and I discussed–if a right winger has a poster of Hitler on his wall or even just collects nazi memorabilia, he can pretty much kiss his political career goodbye. If a left winger has a Mao poster…it is not worthy of mention. Now one of those guys is a brutal totalitarian mass murderer…and so is the other.
My point is that idiocy on the left seems not to be as career ending as idiocy on the right. Where I may part with many of my conservative friends is that I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing for conservatives. Yeah, it means our idiots may get the boot while those idiots on the other side get to stay…but is that so bad a thing?
So I say, welcome those who go after conservatives who f*** up. In the long run it will make the movement stronger, if only by discouraging f*** ups. And don’t be in a hurry to demand equal treatment of left wingers–wouldn’t it have been more fun to still have Weiner twisting in the wind? Wait, that didn’t come out right…
Martha Thomases
September 2, 2011 - 6:58 am
Because looking forward beats looking back.
Mike Gold
September 2, 2011 - 11:28 am
Holy crao! These are two little girls! THEY got married? Jeez, Santorum was right.
R. Maheras
September 2, 2011 - 12:02 pm
Don’t get mad at the messenger, MOTU, but as someone who has spent 30 years in and around the U.S. military, the goal of racial harmony is not the exclusive property of liberals.
That’s a liberal myth, in my opinion.
According to a comprehensive Military Times survey back in 2004, “53 percent of active-duty personnel described themselves as either “very conservative” or ‘conservative,’ compared to 40 percent of the general population. By contrast, seven percent said they were ‘liberal or very liberal,’ compared to 20 percent of the general population.”
The survey also indicated that “Nearly four out of five military personnel said they believed racial and ethnic minorities are treated more fairly in the military than in civilian life, while two-thirds said they believe members of the US military have higher moral values than the civilian population.”
In other words, there are few (if any) sectors of society where minorities enjoy the widespread leadership and personal growth opportunities as they do in the U.S. military — an organization that is lopsidedly conservative.
Over the course of my lifetime, I worked about nine years in the civilian sector at about eight different places. All but one were in the Chicago area, a Democratic bastion where about 58 percent of the population is non-white and about 51 percent is female. Yet in all of those years, I had one black boss, no hispanic bosses, and two female bosses. Pretty piss-poor percentages, don’t you think?
By contrast, in the Air Force, only abot 27 percent of the population is non-white and only about 19 percent are female, yet during my 30 years associated with the USAF, I worked for many, many black, hispanic or female senior leaders or supervisors — more than I can count, as a matter of fact. Oh, yeah, and every one of those minorities or women made the identical amount of money as their peers. That’s not the way it works in the civilian sector. In Chicago, for example, the median pay for men is about $35,000 a year, while for women it’s $30,000 a year.
From my experience, the difference between the two worlds is not just striking, it’s a sad commentary about the state of equal opportunity in the civilian sector — especially in places that are allegedly “progressive.”
MOTU
September 2, 2011 - 12:17 pm
R,
All due respect my friend, you just may be right, but…
I’d wager achieving racial harmony is on the top ten things on the list for a better America in a Liberal agenda.
The GOP? No.
Rick Oliver
September 2, 2011 - 12:38 pm
I was going to write a scathing diatribe about the how the tea party is the the new party of old white guys, but it turns out I’m wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
MOTU
September 2, 2011 - 1:21 pm
Rick,
For whatever reason that poll makes me feel better about the Tea Party. That said, those on the extreme right of the party still scare me.
What scares me even more is the blatant refusal of many Tea Party leaders to denounce them.
Rick Oliver
September 2, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Who are the Tea Party leaders? As I said in a comment on Mike’s column, the Tea Party has been hijacked by the extreme religious right. All the candidates playing to Tea Party crowds are vying for the Republican nomination, and clearly they believe the way to woo the Tea Partiers is to play up the most extremist views.
MOTU
September 2, 2011 - 3:37 pm
Rick,
To me, ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Right who does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from Tea Party extremists are leaders by omission.
John Tebbel
September 2, 2011 - 5:18 pm
You can’t tell from the picture, but they’re lesbians.
Reg
September 2, 2011 - 5:25 pm
This says it all…
http://youtu.be/TZtiJN6yiik
Bill Mulligan
September 2, 2011 - 5:26 pm
“To me, ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Right who does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from Tea Party extremists are leaders by omission.”
.
By the same token, do you insist that ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Left does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from left wing extremists–say, the rioters in Britain, or the thugs who show up whenever the World bank has a meeting, or Andre Carson claiming that some members of congress want to see African Americans “hanging on a tree” –are leaders by omission?
R. Maheras
September 2, 2011 - 5:44 pm
Reg — Geez! Paul McCartney looks like a teenager in that video!
Must’ve been the soft focus…
mike weber
September 2, 2011 - 10:32 pm
Well, it was twenty-nine years ago.
OTOH, ever hear of a band called Big Daddy?
(No – not “Big Daddy Kane”. These guys were on Rhino…)
mike weber
September 2, 2011 - 10:34 pm
Huh. I thought i put a link in that last comment.
Try this: http://tinyurl.com/4yqahn2
John Tebbel
September 3, 2011 - 5:46 am
Big LIes: Starbucks smashing rioters have anything to do with America’s demonized middle of the road progressives that Newt and Norquist taught their flock to call leftist. Just like their obstructionist plutocracy is now “conservatism.” I can’t wait to see how Barry Goldwater hands it to them in hell.
Carson is right, racism among white folks is what we call a “rebuttable presumption.” She knows which of her colleagues were once part of White Citizens’ Committees even if we don’t
Bill Mulligan
September 3, 2011 - 7:55 am
“Carson is right, racism among white folks is what we call a “rebuttable presumption.” She knows which of her colleagues were once part of White Citizens’ Committees even if we don’t”
Guilty till proven innocent, ah, the modern liberal.
Andre Carson, whatever else he may be, is almost certainly not a “she”. If indeed he knows the names of congressmen and senators who want to lynch black people he should expose them by name…otherwise he is a coward and a fraud in the proud tradition of Joe McCarthy and his unnamed list of communists.
Of course, to people like Carson and his sympathizers, the end more than justifies the means. They don’t see that they are likely to end up with McCarthy on history’s ash heap.
Rene
September 3, 2011 - 8:56 am
Bill –
Forget the British rioters. What about the Norway shooter? A hardcore Conservative guy that killed lots of kids, and what’s the Right’s response?
“Oh, he wasn’t really a Conservative/Christian/One of Us.”
“I disagree with his methods, but his ideas are GOOD!”
“He was motivated by hatred of Muslims, so it’s Muslim’s fault after all!”
“Those kids were asking for it, getting teenagers to a left-wing political camp is brainwashing!” (As opposed to getting teenagers to some Evangelical Church or Youth Christian Group, I suppose)
“The Lefties are loving this, aren’t they? Bunch of vultures, using this tragedy for political gain.”
Sorry, Bill. But as far as tragedies go, the Right’s response has been far more shameful than the Left’s, even more when you consider that the Rioters in England aren’t mass murderers, like Norway’s Tea-Party-By-Any-Other-Name Dude.
Rick Oliver
September 3, 2011 - 9:20 am
The left denounces the right. The right denounces the left. Apparently we have become a binary political country, where you are labeled as belonging to either one extreme or the other.
Look at the overall record. The “left” brought us higher taxes and a certain amount of government intrusion into our lives, along with child labor laws, work place safety rules, environmental regulation, and food and drug safety regulation.
The “right” brought us higher taxes and a certain amount of government intrusion into our lives, along with…umm…help me out here.
And if “Democratic party” means “left”, then both the “left” and the “right” brought us “free trade”, which ruined our economy.
To quote a famous Republican on this Labor Day weekend:
“Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration.”
Abraham Lincoln
Bill Mulligan
September 3, 2011 - 9:27 am
I think you would have to present a little bit of evidence to support a charge like Ander’s Breivik being a “Tea-Party-By-Any-Other-Name” dude. Other than the simple calculation of not liking Tea Partiers and not liking mass murderers and therefore conflating the two. Which would be like calling President Obama “Chavez (or Castro or Lenin) by any other name”. Which I’m sure some right wingers do but why on earth would you emulate them?
Personally I do NOT prescribe to the opinion that one must always apologize or condemn the actions of other people just because they may agree with you on some small or even major point. And most of the people who say they do…don’t., because they almost never do it when some crank on THEIR side does something wrong and they usually take umbrage at even the suggestion that they are in any way linked to said crank.
So I don not expect any of my friends on the left to have to prove their bona fides by endlessly apologizing for the crimes of those who pervert their philosophies…but if they are going to play that muggs game against others they will be expected to do the same.It’s a dopey game but if you play it you might as well follow the rules, yes?
(And, as an aside, even if those unattributed quotes were real and not your interpretation, 5 examples…or 500…could not be considered “the right’s response” by any serious person. I know people like to believe their political opposites are a small insignificant number but it just ain’t so.)
Bill Mulligan
September 3, 2011 - 9:41 am
Rick, I’m with Lincoln. I only we lived in a country where people with a cgood idea and the desire to work at it didn’t have so many obstacles put in their place. Ignore the stories that make the news, like lemonade stands being shut down by cops or some guy being fined $90,000 for selling $200 worth of rabbits. For every one that makes the news there are probably hundreds that don’t. Why do we need permission to sell legal goods? This is something both party’s should champion. Of course, the Big Boys probably LOVE making it tough for the little guys and they are the ones dropping big money on their favorite politicians so I’m not holding my breath.
For those espousing class envy let them heed another Lincoln quote–“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
Rene
September 3, 2011 - 3:16 pm
Bill, I think it is healthy to doubt your own ideology. And it’s deeper than just apologizing or condemning those who commit crimes while sharing some of that ideology. It’s facing what they’ve done, understand it, accept it, and start being more on your guard so that you won’t repeat it, and you won’t even support someone or some course of action that might lead to repeating it.
It’s important that the left “accepts” Chavez and Castro, and even more obvious monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot, as lessons of what may go wrong. I don’t like it when they weasel out of it. I also don’t like it when the right weasels out about Hitler and Breivik or even tries to assign them to the left.
It’s healthy to accept that your “side” can do monstrous things. So that not doing them again is seen as the more important thing.
Bill Mulligan
September 3, 2011 - 3:34 pm
Except I don’t really think that Stalin is an example of the left or Hitler an example of the right.
If you want to assign responsibility why aren’t socialists forced to take the blame for National Socialism. Oh, it wasn’t the kind of socialism they believe in? Just so.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc etc all prove the same lesson–let a sociopath get in power, allow any means of removing or limiting their power to be eliminated, have no freedom of press or thought–basically allow the government to become all powerful– and it will always end in tears. Every time.
Having engaged with you at PAD’s forum enough times to know you are a serious man whose opinions should be considered carefully I’m willing to chalk up the occasional overstatement to humor and/or the passion of the moment (and heaven knows I will almost certainly need the same consideration at some point). But really, calling Breivik a tea party by any other name dude is a bit beyond reasonable discourse.
Rick Oliver
September 3, 2011 - 4:52 pm
Stalin and Hitler are great examples of fascism. Neither one was any kind of socialist. Hitler was, however, a great proponent of capitalism, which kept his war machine humming along…for a while.
Rene
September 3, 2011 - 5:27 pm
Yeah, I was out of line about Breivik, sorry about that. The Tea Party hasn’t ever resorted to physical violence, as far as I know.
Mao was a sociopath, but he exploited left-wing ideology to attain power, and he had (and still has!) lots of sympathy from leftists who really should have know better. So people should always be on their toes.
Rene
September 3, 2011 - 5:35 pm
R. Maheras: “Don’t get mad at the messenger, MOTU, but as someone who has spent 30 years in and around the U.S. military, the goal of racial harmony is not the exclusive property of liberals.”
I agree. But I still think Liberal methods of achieving racial harmony are preferable. The Army imposes discipline, rigid hierarchy, and somewhat standardized behaviour. As long as you act like a soldier, dress like one, fight like one, it doesn’t really matter what is the color of your skin.
But organizing civilian society more along the lines of the military would be too big a price to pay for the ending of racism. A free society will always have its share of racism, but that is the breaks.
Bill Mulligan
September 3, 2011 - 7:02 pm
I agree that anyone praising Mao had better just be ignorant of his atrocities. Most on the left aren’t Mao fans, in my experience. You do see a few though and it boggles my mind. How anyone could hang a poster of Mao is beyond me; they would never dream of putting up on of Hitler or Stalin but somehow Mao doesn’t have the same stigma. Is killing tens of millions of Asians not as serious a crime as murdering Europeans?
I think there does seem to be a bit of divergence in how the left and right treat dictators. Too many conservatives are willing to tolerate right wing totalitarians if they serve a purpose and too many on the left just deny the fact that leftist dictators are as bad as they are. In the long run it’s best not to get to cozy to these monsters–especially in today’s world they seem to be coming to no good end and when they do it would be nice to be able to look their former victims in the eye.
MOTU
September 3, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Bill wrote,
‘By the same token, do you insist that ANY one in a position of national prominence on the Left does not denounce some of the rhetoric coming from left wing extremists–say, the rioters in Britain, or the thugs who show up whenever the World bank has a meeting, or Andre Carson claiming that some members of congress want to see African Americans “hanging on a tree” –are leaders by omission?’
Yes. Hate and fear speech is not a GOP exclusive.
Case in point, when Jessie Jackson made that ‘jaime town’ remark I was appalled and said so. I took a lot of heat from many Black people.
My stance after being called an Uncle Tom and sell out? Fuck it-Jackson AND those who thought the remark was justified were WRONG. Those Black leaders who said nothing against the remark were in effect agreeing with it.
A few years ago I took another blow from assholes when I wrote an piece on the Duke Lacrosse team rape allegations. I wrote that I did not think they were guilty and people should not rush to judgement. There were some on the left (like the DA) who refused to consider that those kids were anything but guilty.
Turned out those students had their lives ruined and the girl was proven to be a lair. Even AFTER that some on the left said she was ‘confused’ and had a ‘mental illness’ WTF?
She LIED. I call a spade a spade and YES pun intended.
Going along with something just because it’s the position of ANY party or group is the text book definition of ignorant stupid sheep.
I’m not that guy.
Bill Mulligan
September 4, 2011 - 6:35 am
And that, my friend, is why no matter how far apart we may be on a particular issue or opinion, I will keep on reading this site. I’d rather spend time with people of integrity I disagree with than an echo choir of agreement from people who like to have their opinion dished out them. Or base everything they think on a reactionary knee jerk equation of “If my opponent says X, I shall say Y.”
Living just a short drive away from Dirham we lived through the duke lacrosse scandal and believe me, it was even worse than they reported it. I would never send my kids to Duke or any other school that has adopted the increasingly popular stance of treating some accusations as something that will be decided by amateur lawyers on an assumption of guilt. “Rebuttable presumption” as some would say.
Though I might disagree with one thing you said–I don’t know that the (now ex) DA Mike Nifong is necessarily on the left. His insistence on going after the kids even when evidence was beginning to pile up that they had done no crime may have been motivated not by ideology but a desire to get re-elected. Wouldn’t be a the first time someone posed as a friend to black people while no doubt giggling behind their backs.
While I generally don’t like to see people brought down low I’ll make an exception in this case–the lacrosse kids will hopefully be alright but Nifong has ruined his own life to a degree that will be almost impossible to overcome. There’s some real justice in that.
George Haberberger
September 4, 2011 - 3:00 pm
MOTU,
I saw the title of this post a couple of days ago and clicked on it. The point was obvious. Liberal = tolerance and of course then the inverse would be conservative = intolerance. There were no comments and I didn’t feel compelled to tilt at windmills so I ignored the indignation rising in my gut.
Checking back a few days later and I see a rather spirited discussion with the always-impressive R. Maheras and Bill Mulligan making the case that blanket statements often have veracity commensurate with their simplicity.
Mr. Maheras made the point that the military is much more tolerant and a source of equality than the civilian world. Yet the people of the military identify as conservative or very conservative.
In your next post you admit that he may be right but still insist that achieving racial harmony would be on a list of the top ten things of a liberal agenda and not on the GOP. Why? People comprise the GOP; usually conservative people like those in the military. And agendas, liberal and conservative, do not just appear fully formed from the brow of Zeus.
Presuming the position and motivation of conservatives as anti-racial equality is arrogant and misguided. But I am happy to read that you called out Jesse Jackson on his anti-Semitic comment and kept on open mind in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Why not keep an open mind on rest of the time?
MOTU
September 4, 2011 - 3:00 pm
Bill,
I also hope the lacrosse kids will be alright but the odds are stacked against them unfairly even after being vindicated. Those kids were going to one of the best schools on the planet. Chances are the type of companies they will be looking to join are Fortune 500 and the like.
Today’s background checks are not just to check references and confirm your degree. Today’s background checks look for anything and everything which may cause a company ANY issues in the future.Unless those kids go into Gangster Rap those allegations regardless of the outcome will pose will problems.
BTW-even when we are miles apart on things-I always look forward to a Bill Mulligan post and hope I’ll be reading them for many a moon.
Bill Mulligan
September 4, 2011 - 5:46 pm
Aww garsh….(blush). Two compliments from 2 different men of insight and good taste. I deserve cake.
And you are right about the background checks…I worry (and nag my students relentlessly) about how much we put out on the web. Kids post stuff on their facebook page that would make any employer think twice about hiring them, if only for legal reasons. Kids complaining about the opposite sex in the usual teen overstatement, if someone sees that and employs them and there is an incident later…
If my job was not so secure I would probably be a lot more reluctant to put out political opinions. I guess I could use a pseudonym but I think you lose a lot of points when you do. I’ve personally seen people taken out of consideration in part because they were perceived as conservative and I have no doubt it happens to liberals just as often.
One thing I wanted to get back to though–while it’s gratifying to hear you were your own man and took positions you believed in even in the face of peer criticism (though you do not strike me as someone who holds that in any kind of mortal terror) you should not feel in any way OBLIGATED to do so, just because some of the people involved share your pigmentation. I think that attitude is part of the reason why the Duke case lasted long after any sane person would have realized what was up. Too many members of minority groups have bought the idea that any crime committed by a member of that group reflects badly on them and thus they try to insist on that person being innocent in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.
I never saw a white person worry that if Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty people might think they were also cannibals.
And yeah, I know there are people who ARE happy to try to make one guilty person emblematic of a whole group but the proper reaction to that is to take on that attitude, not buy into it and give them the opportunity to add a refusal to accept reality to their list of racial flaws.
Which is my long winded way of saying I don’t hold anything against anyone who did not comment on the Duke case or Jackson’s stupid remark. If I did I would have to hold myself to that standard and I’d be forever commenting on the near infinite stupidity that comes from people who may be ethnically, philosophically, etc-ally, related to me.
Its certainly fair to go after the people who defend the indefensible, especially when they are being hypocritical about it.
MOTU
September 4, 2011 - 8:35 pm
George wrote,
‘Presuming the position and motivation of conservatives as anti-racial equality is arrogant and misguided. But I am happy to read that you called out Jesse Jackson on his anti-Semitic comment and kept on open mind in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Why not keep an open mind on rest of the time?’
George, I paint the GOP with a broad brush I’m aware of that,most times it’s done in over the top satire.However I’ve also in all seriousness said many times that I know the vast majority of the party are not racist, gay hating, slave owners.
But-when people on the Right go nuts-they GO nuts and I’m sure you will agree their are some in the party that beg to be called out.
Bill Mulligan
September 5, 2011 - 5:41 am
I think people on the right are judged differently than people on the left. Continuing something Rene and I discussed–if a right winger has a poster of Hitler on his wall or even just collects nazi memorabilia, he can pretty much kiss his political career goodbye. If a left winger has a Mao poster…it is not worthy of mention. Now one of those guys is a brutal totalitarian mass murderer…and so is the other.
My point is that idiocy on the left seems not to be as career ending as idiocy on the right. Where I may part with many of my conservative friends is that I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing for conservatives. Yeah, it means our idiots may get the boot while those idiots on the other side get to stay…but is that so bad a thing?
So I say, welcome those who go after conservatives who f*** up. In the long run it will make the movement stronger, if only by discouraging f*** ups. And don’t be in a hurry to demand equal treatment of left wingers–wouldn’t it have been more fun to still have Weiner twisting in the wind? Wait, that didn’t come out right…
MOTU
September 9, 2011 - 5:00 pm
Ute,
Thank you for your kind words!