Wattree's picture

    About the Value and Excellence of Jazz

    By Wattree on Tue, 04/01/2014 - 11:21am |

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

     

    About the Value and Excellence of Jazz 

    The tendency to believe that people with lighter skin have more value than others is a direct result of the mis-education of the masses. From the time we start school we’re taught that anyone who has ever achieved anything whatsoever, had a cogent thought that benefited humanity, or contributed to the intellectual journey of mankind was White - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Certainly someone had to be thinking in other parts of the world other than White folks, but according to our educational institutions, that wasn’t the case. That fact has contributed greatly to White feelings of superiority, and the acceptance of same by many Black people, and people of other cultures.
    .
    I stumbled upon that fact by accident, but the reason I know it is true with near certainty, is because when I was a very young child, I was falling victim to the very same mind-set, but fortunately, my father was a jazz fanatic, and he introduced me to jazz and the jazz culture before I was ten years old. As a result, all of my heroes were jazz artists, and I measured the relative value of people by how well the music of their various cultures stood up to the musical intellect and style of Charlie Parker. Since I have yet to find any culture that has, that gave me a strong sense of cultural value and pride.
    .
    That’s why it’s so important to raise our kids with a strong sense of cultural pride. As a direct result of my lifelong attitude in that regard, I’ve never felt the least bit self-conscious about competing with my White counterparts on an eyeball-to-eyeball basis, and I’ve always prevailed. And there’s a very simple reason for that as well - because you are what you think.
    .
    There’s actually no difference between people, but the ones who tend to prevail are those who BELIEVE they are superior. That accounts for why so many White people call me arrogant (at least those who are out of touch) - because I tend not to know “my place.” But the fact is, I know my place very well - on top - not because I was anointed by God to be on top because I'm a Black man - anyone who thinks like that is a fool - but because I work very hard to become the best individual that I can be. Life is not about WHAT you are, but WHO you are; your character, your knowledge, and your willingness to pursue and nurture both.

    .
    Thus, I never try to prove myself to White folks. I make sure they have to prove themselves to me, and the same goes for everyone else. Don't merely bring me your receipt from Harvard and expect me to accept you as an intellectual: "Congratulations on your accomplishment. Now show me what you got. Can you play 'Parker's Mood' or have a scheme to cure cancer? Okay, well at least play 'Misty' for me."
    .
    Is that arrogant?  Maybe, but it works for me. 
    .
    A Swingin' Affair
    .
    I
    Was told as a child
    Blacks had no worth,
    Not a nickel’s worth of dimes.
    I believed that myth
    ‘Til Dex rode in
    With his ax
    In double time.
    .
    His
    Horn was soarin’,
    The changes flyin’,
    His rhythm right on time;
    My heart
    Beat with the pleasure
    Of new found pride, knowing,
    His blood
    Flowed through mine.
    .
    Dex
    Took the chords
    The keyboard played,
    And danced around each note;
    Then shuffled ‘em
    Like a deck of cards,
    And didn’t miss a stroke.
    .
    B minor 7 with flatted 5th,
    A half diminished chord,
    He substituted a lick in D,
    Then really began to soar.
    .
    He tipped his hat
    To Charlie Parker,
    And quoted
    Trane with Miles,
    and then paid his homage to
    Thelonious Monk,
    In Charlie Rouse's style.
    .
    He took
    A Scrapple From The Apple,
    Then went to Billie’s Bounce,
    The rhythm section, now on fire,
    But he didn’t budge an ounce.
    .
    He just
    Dug right in
    To shuffle again,
    This time
    A Royal Flush,
    Then lingered a bit
    Behind the beat,
    Still smokin’
    But in no rush.
    .
    Then he
    Doubled the time
    Just like this rhyme,
    In fluid 16th notes,
    tellin’
    Charlie and Lester,"your baby boy, Dexter’s,
    On top of the
    Bebop you wrote.
    .
    Wailin’
    Like a banshee,
    This prince of saxophone,
    His ballads dripped of honey,
    His Arpeggios were strong.
    .
    Callin’ on his idles,
    Ghost of Pres’
    Within in the isles,
    Smiling at his protege,
    At the peak of this new style.
    .
    His tenor
    Drenched of Blackness,
    And all the things we are--
    Of pain, and pleasure,
    And creative greatness
    Until his final bar.
    *****************************

     

     Why I Love Being Black
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-i-love-being-black.html

     
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]

    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    . 
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Ta-Nehishi Coates is playing a similar tune over at the Atlantic. His piece focuses on White Supremacy. He notes the depth of study one has to do to fathom the depth of the problem. The banks bilked Blacks. The housing industry robbed Blacks. The GOP gerrymanders neighborhoods and actively suppresses votes. The GOP block on the Supreme Court insures that corporations and wealthy individuals can override individuals in electing candidates.

    GOP legislators actively try to kill Blacks by cutting food and education programs. The GOP tries to break the spirit by using Paul Ryan who promotes White Nationalist Charles Murray of "The Bell Curve" fame. Ryan calls Blacks "lazy" while producing a budget that takes more food out of the mouths of babes. 

    We should note that the gerrymandering, vote suppression, denial of healthcare, education funding and food programs is not challenged by Ron Paul. Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. They are all the same.

    The White Supremacists have declared war. We can no longer ignore Ryan's ties to Charles Murray. We have to remember that old coot Ron Paul is a racist who would legalize drugs and take food out of the mouths of babes. Rand Paul says that he would stop drones but deny women the right to control their bodies and then act to starve their newborns.

    Do we lose anything by rejecting the Supremacists? No. Ron Paul got no meaningful legislation passed. George Soros gave money to support marijuana legalization in several states. We have to remember how much we risk when we give these people any credit.

    A credible argument can be made that Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are not Supremacists. However, the actions they take are ones the Supremacists love. Barry Goldwater integrated the lunch counters of his Arizona department stores. Goldwater supported the ability of stores owner's to refuse to serve Blacks. Goldwater would gladly take your money, he just wouldn't have your back when you left the store with less money.

    Martin Luther King Jr noted that while Barry Goldwater may not be a racist, Goldwater was willing to court the racists to win votes. I think the right thing to do is not to shop at Goldwater's. I won't be shopping with Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan.

    Thanks for this post. I think you will enjoy Coates' take on things.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 10:59pm

    We have to remember how much we risk when we give these people any credit.

    We risk even more when we refuse to give credit where credit is due. Then we look like fools who can't see the reality staring us in the face or lying partisan hacks. We lose credibility when we are perceived as fools or liars spinning for our sides. When we lose credibility in this way we cannot change minds. To win the battles we're fighting we must change minds and change votes. Just a small shift in votes can lose us the senate or win us both the house and the senate. That's just not going to happen if those on the fence see us as fools or lying partisan hacks and therefore ignore our arguments.

    Giving credit where credit is due also helps us in policy arguments. The fight against the Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance are less convincing if we try to fight them from the left. But if we point out that the Supreme Court is eviscerating a large part of McCain's life work we have a much better starting argument. It has the added advantage of being true.

    We're simply not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind with the obvious lie that republicans and conservatives are always wrong and totally evil. If we acknowledge the few times they do something good our arguments about the many times they are bad have much more credibility.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 4:47am

    I realize that you will never understand. You are not under the direct attack. You may not be aware of all that is going on, Obama has tried to reach across the aisle and been rebuked. Opinions of the voting public will change as Obamacare kicks in. Opinions will change as women realize that they will be under attack by any of the likely Republicans running for office, Ryan is not going to change the focus of his budget. McCain and Graham won't change wanting to bomb, bomb, bomb everything. Bill Clinton tells Democrats to run towards Obamacare, not towards the non- existent GOP plan.

    Can you point out a plan supported by the majority of the current Congressional GOP candidates in Congress that you consider viable? I'm not talking about an isolated person, what viable plan do you support that the majority of House and Senate Republicans are ready to vote for today.

    If I am a political hack you are a dupe. By the way, did you ever find data that Buckley ever backed up his support for marijuana legalization in a manor similar to George Soros?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 6:34am

    By the way, did you ever find data that Buckley ever backed up his support for marijuana legalization in a manor (sic) similar to George Soros?

    Jeez what is it with you and Wattree? Can you just not stand it if someone doesn't reply to one of your comments? What's next, you going to follow Wattree's example and write a whiny blog, "I Asked Ocean-kat a Question and He Didn't Answer." This is so puerile.

    The reason I ignored your comment and question is I thought it spectacularly stupid. Imo it was self evident it was stupid so I decided to not waste time responding. Every thread has to end sometime, I gave you the last word which should have made you happy. But you're insistent that I answer your question so I'll waste my time and oblige.

    There are many ways people can support change. The three main ways is to give money, volunteer time and energy to engage in protests, and, if one has a platform and a microphone that gives one an audience, to educate and change minds through the media. Not many have that platform, we dagbloggers don't. Our audience is too small to change many minds. But people like Buckley, Melissa Harris Perry, Krugman, O'Reilly et al have that platform and audience and subsequently influence the minds of many people.

    I like Melissa Harris Perry. She has a platform and a mike and she uses it well. She's often hosted panels supporting liberalization of drug laws. I couldn't care less if she does or doesn't support NORML with a check. She also speaks frequently about voter suppression. I don't expect her to also send money to support the people at the NC Moral Monday protests. What is she supposed to do, look at her program each night and send someone a check to prove she's serious about what she said that night on her TV show?

    Just as I don't look at Soros and tell him money isn't enough. I don't ask him to prove his commitment by writing an Op-ed for the NYT. I don't tell the Moral Monday protestors that their activism is fine but they also have to contribute money to the cause to prove their commitment. Each person plays the role that best fits their abilities. Melissa Harris Perry, Buckley, et al strength lies in the platform and mike they hold and their ability to influence people, move the debate forward, change minds. I couldn't care less if  they donate money to the issues they speak on.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 2:06am

    What rational plan or bill sponsored by the GOP are the Democrats suppressing. What GOP plan would you have Democrats support?


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 7:55am

    There are memes put out by media and politicians that get gobbled up as truth. Paul Ryan's budgets are as worthless as Herman Cain's . Ryan is the GOP gold standard for budgetary issues, Cain is viewed as a buffoon. They both are worthless.

    You say Ron Paul and William F Buckley shifted opinion. You admit that you have no data to support that statement. You have an opinion not a fact. I can demonstrate that George Soros contributed to successful political campaigns supporting Marijuana legalization You say that Buckley and Paul gave Conservatives cover to support easing drug laws. Can you simply name these Conservatives? Can you name the legislation that these converted Conservatives have brought up in the GOP controlled House?

    I think that you have an opinion not supported by any facts. I don't see how Buckley or Ron Paul put themselves at any financial or political risk. Buckley remained wealthy and the National Review thrived. Ron Paul ran for the Presidency and has cult status.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 10:05am

    You admit that you have no data to support that statement. You have an opinion not a fact.

    Well yes, of course. I admit that because I'm not a partisan hack spinning for my team. I engage in honest dialog here. There is also no data to support that any MSNBC pundit has changed anyone's mind. But you'll never admit that.

    I think its self evident that when major news pundits speak it changes minds.Not everyone and not totally but some. I believe that Melissa Harris Perry, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and others speak they influence and change people's thinking. They are not nearly as famous as Buckley and  likely have less influence. I'd bet that more people have read or seen a debate with Buckley advocating drug legalization than even recognize the name Melissa Harris Perry. Perry, Hayes, and Maddow are also mostly speaking to the choir telling them what they want to hear which marginally lessens their influence. I think that's unfortunate since I disagree with almost every thing Buckley supports except drug legalization.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 4:50pm

    You really are a dupe.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 7:22pm

    But if we point out that the Supreme Court is eviscerating a large part of McCain's life work we have a much better starting argument. It has the added advantage of being true.

    I think I see where you're going with this, and I might agree if times were different. But who on the right do you think cares that they're eviscerating "McCain's life work"? They hate McCain for that work (I assume you mean campaign finance reform). They hated him when he ran for president.

    Without getting into details and pros and cons, let's talk about the ACA. AFAIK, the ACA was an entirely Republican, conservative idea. Backed by Dole, Gingrich, implemented by Romney, hatched by Heritage. On that basis alone, the GOP should have greeted Obama's proposal as a major bipartisan concession, proof that he wanted to work with them across the aisle and could see things from their side genuinely.

    But what did we get?

    In this atmosphere, I don't think anyone changes anyone's mind. The best we can hope for is that reality changes people's minds. The recoil of the dumbness and fecklessness of their proposals changes their minds. Losing changes their minds.

    For example, they've tried to repeal the ACA 50 times and have failed. Some are getting the message that they're starting to look like buffoons, especially inasmuch as they don't have a replacement. Inasmuch as there are record sign-ups. Inasmuch as they are now facing constituents who won't like it if their insurance is snatched away. McConnell, for one, is in a bind on this.

    Same thing with blocking the the debt ceiling raising. It was a losing hand. They played it until the last card, and they lost most of their chips. No one convinced them to stop pursuing the wrong strategy with a bad proposal. Reality did.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 6:58pm

    Thanks. There is no rational group in the GOP to convince. You cannot name a bill that the GOP would put forth that is worthy of support. The GOP Senate candidate in Kentucky attends a rally supporting cock-fighting. The GOP Senate candidate in Mississippi attends rallies with White  Supremacists. He will win the Senate seat in Mississippi. If either man said the sky was clear, I'd grab an umbrella.

    Democrats should not talk about the good idea some wingnut has. You don't win anything by telling people about the good ideas of your opponent. You win by saying how you disagree with your opponent. 

    There is a book "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" detailing how Republicans and Democrats worked on the Civil Rights Act. Times Are different. Northern  Republicans provided the votes needed to get the bill passed. Southern Democrats voted against the bill. The GOP was the party of a Lincoln, that is no longer true. Barry Goldwater, one of the 6 Republican Senators to vote against the Civil Rights bill, became the GOP stand-bearer. Then followed Nixon's Southern Strategy. Then Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. 

    You were hard-pressed to change the minds of Southern Democrats. Instead of changing heir views, the Southern Democrats left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican supporting State's Rights, Barry Goldwater.

    We have seen this play out before. 


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 8:26pm

    I agree with much you've posted but I'm not talking about changing how the politicians in congress act but how we change who is in congress. This is a continuation of a thread on another blog. As I said there, Just a small number of swing votes can determine if the democrats lose the senate or if we gain both the house and the senate.

    There are still moderate republican voters out there who are doing almost the same thing I am. They're voting for republicans that are too conservative for them as the least bad candidate. I'm voting for democrats that are too conservative for me as the least bad candidate. What we need to do is change the minds and the votes of enough moderate republicans, independents, and swing voters.

    You're talking about reality, so am I. I know moderate republicans. Many of them liked McCain. Convincing them that the Supreme Court and the republican party has moved far to their right will help to move them left. Pointing out that McCain Feingold is the law the court ruled against can help. I have libertarian friends who don't want to throw their vote away on a no chance loser candidate. You're not going to convince them to go with the democratic candidate by refusing to acknowledge that Ron Paul is good on drug policy. Or that Rand Paul is good on curtailing  NSA surveillance.

    If we start from where they are at and give credit where credit is due i.e. acknowledge reality, maybe we can move enough votes into the dem column and not lose the senate this year. Maybe in the future gain the house. If we refuse to acknowledge reality and try to pretend that republicans and libertarians are totally evil with absolutely no redeeming qualities we look like fools and partisan hacks and lose credibility.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 11:53pm

    Republicans who voted for Obama in 2012 did not hear him support issues laid down by the Paul's . The voted for Obama in spite of the drones and the drug war.

    The Republicans had seen his performance in office when they cast there 2012 votes. The ones who voted in 2008 did not require Obama to go overboard in recognizing Republican accomplishments. All they required was that Obama did not come across as a far Left Liberal and could explain what he wanted to accomplish. Obama telegraphed that he would be willing to work with the GOP. This was the same message that Obama delivered in 2012. 

    I don't think we will hear Hillary pointing out the positive things that Rand Paul proposes, especially if he is her opponent. I doubt that Biden or any other Democratic President will follow your advice. At the end of the day the choice will be between a Left of Center Democrat and a Republican who will have run to the far Right to gain votes in the Republican Primary voter. The Republican will then have to run towards the Center after the Primaries to be viable in the fall.

    The Democratic candidate needs to be considered ready to work with the GOP but provide voters with a clear outline of what she/he wants to accomplish. The candidate can lay out their own platform and let the moderate Republican choose between The Democrat and the wingnut.

    The moderate Republican will make the same choices that they made in 2008 and 2012. Rand Paul is vying to be a Presidential candidate acknowledging something positive, especially now, gives the moderate Republican an excuse to consider Rand Paul more seriously.

    Democrats have the "advantage" of being the ones willing to compromise with Republicans. There is no need to praise Ron Paul unless the goal is to elect more a Republicans.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 12:45am

    That's a pretty funny link to James the blogger. I don't think James is a authoritative source for information on the reasons republicans voted for Obama. But if I assume he's a trusted authoritative source, a list of endorsements of Obama by a few republicans is not relevant data for the reason republicans voted for Obama. But funniest of all, you've just spent a massive amount of time to forward the proposition that endorsements by famous conservatives have absolutely zero effect influencing people or changing minds. Now you're offering a link whose sole purpose is to list endorsements of a few famous conservatives in order to influence the minds of other republicans to convince them to vote for Obama.

    The ones who voted in 2008 did not require Obama to go overboard in recognizing Republican accomplishments.

    Frankly I don't know what those republicans required. But Obama certainly spent a lot of time recognizing republican accomplishments. Especially praising Reagan. Many liberals felt he when way overboard praising Reagan. I'd wonder how you felt about that but I already know. Obama yea, whatever he does is always right.

    You know, my posts weren't about how Presidential candidates should act but how we lower level democrats and democratic pundits should act. So your post, as usual, in nothing but series of non sequiturs. But to address your off topic attempt at obfuscation, I do think Hillary or Biden or others will "take my advice." In fact they already do. I have no doubt that both would attack the Supreme Court decisions on campaign reform and mention McCain positively in that context. Hillary and Biden are know for having collegial relations with their senate colleagues and Hillary is especially know as having a warm friendship with McCain.

    Assuming Hillary comes out in favor of marijuana legalization, which I think is at best maybe 45% possible, I could see her praising Ron Paul. If some libertarian reporter asked, "Ron Paul has fought for marijuana legalization for 60 years. What is your position on this?" I could easily see her saying, "I applaud Ron Paul for coming out early on this issue, The country is ready for marijuana legalization and I support it."

    One thing I'm absolutely sure of. Her response to the question will not be, "Ron Paul is a vile racist. He edited a newsletter with racist articles. He also supports businesses discriminating against minorities. Therefore he gets no credit for supporting marijuana legalization even though I support it now." She won't say that because she's not a totally fucking braindead idiot and if she supports marijuana legalization she would want libertarian votes. Contrary to your beliefs, insulting people is not the best way to get their votes.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 5:39pm

    Most Republicans oppose legalizing marijuana. The Libertarian wing supports legalizing marijuana and the Paul's. Paul only provided cover to those who already agreed with him. Paul is preaching to the choir.

    If Hillary runs, she will not be praising anything any Paul has said. She will point out that both Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would be outcasts in the modern GOP.

    You are politically naive.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 8:52pm

    Hillary will never praise republicans and I'm naive to think so? Yeah, I keep naively remembering things I read. This is what I mean by giving credit where credit is due. Something you are ideologically incapable of doing. But you should stop projecting your extreme partisan hackery onto others. Especially when its demonstrably false. It just makes you look foolish.

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) praised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for his willingness to break with his party on the issue of global climate change but insisted she would go further than her potential Republican presidential rival.

    "I've actually worked with Senator McCain on this issue," Clinton said in response to an audience question during an event on the grounds of Haverford College this afternoon. "I commend him for breaking ranks with Republicans [and] for even talking about this issue and taking it seriously."

     

    "Leadership is incredibly important.  Leaders have to be active in stepping in and sending messages about protecting the diversity within their countries.  And frankly, I don’t see enough of that, and I want to see more of it.  I want to see more of it, and we did see some of that in our own country.  We saw Republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that really have no place in our politics," Clinton said.

    Clinton was referring to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who condemned Bachmann's letter on the Senate floor.

     

    "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know that Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

     

    I would think even you would remember that last quote. It was such a big deal in the primary. Not that I always agree with Hillary's praise of McCain but she was mostly accurate in her analysis of Obama during the 2008 primary.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 10:29pm

    Naive again 

    Hillary was praising McCain to slam the credentials of  the man she was battling one-on-one, Barack Obama. I link to blogger mrdaveyd ,who is a person with opinions just like you. He provides support for his statements. Once it is Democrat versus Republican, there will be verbal aggression against the GOP opponent..

    Democrats have the default perception of being willing to work across the aisle.  Can you name the Democratic candidate who continuously berates the GOP who is a possible contender for the Presidency?  Can you name the non-Libertarian Republicans who used Ron Paul as cover to switch their views on legalization?  Can you name the instances where reporters have asked Democrats to praise Ron Paul?

    In direct Conversations with Conservatives, most readily admit the shortcomings of their party, yet they remain hard-wired to vote for the GOP. They cite that the GOP is more financially responsible despite evidence to the contrary. Moderate Republicans want background checks but will still vote for the pro-NRA 100% scoring, background check opposing, GOPer. Some crossed the aisle and voted for Obama in the last two cycles. The Democratic votes were mostly against GOP crazy than against  the drones and marijuana wars. As a group, they realized that the GOP did race-baiting, but that did not sway their votes. The GOP crazy scared some enough that they voted for Obama.

    Did some of your moderate Republicans vote for Obama? Was the voter really because somebody said something nice about a Republican, or did they just get fed up with the current GOP?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 12:00am

    "Hillary was praising McCain to slam the credentials of  the man she was battling one-on-one, Barack Obama "

    Wrong again. Hillary has often praised or acknowledged the accomplishments of McCain both long before and after the primary.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/clinton-defends-abedin-praise...

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended her own top State Department aide Huma Abedin against charges that Abdein had ties to radical Islam — saying that those attacks have "no place in our politics."

    "Leadership is incredibly important.  Leaders have to be active in stepping in and sending messages about protecting the diversity within their countries.  And frankly, I don’t see enough of that, and I want to see more of it.  I want to see more of it, and we did see some of that in our own country.  We saw Republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that really have no place in our politics," Clinton said.

    Clinton was referring to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who condemned Bachmann's letter on the Senate floor.

    "I link to blogger mrdaveyd"

    Ah, now I see the problem. You're clueless because you're wasting your time reading dumb ass bloggers like Davey and jimmy. Try reading a real news source and you won't constantly look like an ignorant fool.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 1:05am

    Both Hillary and Bill are very good at praising their opponents, whether they're preparing to cut their knees out from under or form a coalition of unlikes. They don't much burn bridges - you never know whose help you'll need in the future, even people who voted to impeach him.

    As for Hillary's relationship with McCain, I imagine it's genuinely warm, not just a matter of convenience. She does get along well with colleagues, and they were in the Senate together for a number of years and know each other well.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 1:27am

    Both Hillary and Bill are very good at praising their opponents, whether they're preparing to cut their knees out from under or form a coalition of unlikes.

    I agree. Some pundits see that as a character flaw but I think that sort of cut throat politics is the only way to get things done in our current state. Of course I only admire that behavior  when it passes legislation I like. When it passes laws I don't like I find that sort of deviousness deplorable.wink


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 2:16am

    It's a 2-way street. Of course if the lane going their way is under construction quite a bit, doesn't make me no nevermind.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 5:12am

    I see what you're saying.

    More later, maybe.

    A lot depends on finding an effective way out of the current impasse.

    I'll have to think about this:

    Convincing them that the Supreme Court and the republican party has moved far to their right will help to move them left.

    I believe that many of them already believe the GOP has moved too far to the right.

    It might have to be a "left" that isn't calling itself "left" and doesn't have any of the telltale signs of being left.

    Obama is an instructive example here to some degree. This guy is a centrist with a slight tilt leftward. He should have been the poster child for "common ground."

    There are places for some common ground, e.g., on NSA surveillance, but it may be shaky ground once one puts forward solutions.

    IOW, we may all agree that NSA spying is bad, but once we start talking about "what to do about it," I'm not sure.

    Anyway, writing too far after my bed time...


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 10:57pm

    I believe that many of them already believe the GOP has moved too far to the right.

    Yes, you have to start with fertile ground. But how do you make that final push to get them to make the change and vote for a dem?

    I work as a caretaker for a camping/historical site. I avoid the tea party visitors and the hard core conservatives but often talk politics with libertarians and moderate republicans who show up.  One long story short example. I've been sitting around the campfire talking with three libertarians who show up several times a year to camp, fish, and hunt. After two years I've finally convinced them to vote for the democrat. They still claim to be libertarian but I've pointed out that there often is no libertarian candidate to vote for and if there is he can't win.

    We'll debate economic policy and never agree but when they say NSA and Rand I say, yes I wish there were more dems like Rand Paul on surveillance. Or I'll say yes Ron Paul is great on pot legalization. But Wyden and Udall etc. Police abuse of power is one of his big issues and he finally said he would vote democratic because, while not libertarian, they are better than republicans on police abuse and civil liberties and changing the make up of the Supreme Court might help. It would not have happened if I hadn't quite honestly acknowledged that Rand is good on NSA surveillance and Ron is good on drug policy.

    Its possible to treat libertarians and republicans with respect and acknowledge the few good points. Then move some of them into the dem column due to the craziness of the current tp based republican party. If more of us and more democratic pundits did that, again, its only a small number of swing votes that make the difference between losing the senate or controlling both houses of congress. It seems so obvious to me I can't understand why there is any debate about it. Simply give credit where credit is due.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 1:50am

    This is an interesting example, I agree.

    If you can change minds this way, it's a no-brainer.

    In my experience, things don't stay so one-issue focused, and libertarians, in my experience, don't think that Democrats have a better record on NSA issues.

    So perhaps it depends on the individual you're asking them to vote for.

    I myself would find it hard to vote for Paul because I agree with him on one or two issues. For a number of reasons.

    But if someone isn't two ideologically fixated, a real conversation can take place and minds can be changed.

    I change my mind frequently, or at least question whether I'm right.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 10:59pm

    I do find that most "regular" people respond well when you take what they're saying seriously. Meaning, you entertain their thinking without put downs or snark or name calling. Asking for clarification of their views is a good starting point. Taking their arguments seriously doesn't mean you have to agree with them, and most people don't require you to agree with them.

    There's probably much more common ground as long as you don't slide into ideological terminology, but can stay with language that appeals to broadly shared values.

    For example, even if someone is against homosexuality, he can grok that a person would want to marry someone he loves and find it hard to accept being prevented from doing so.

    No one likes the law ruling his intimate life, so this might be a second point of agreement. Getting agreement on these points might not turn someone in favor of "gay marriage," but it would soften up the ground and buff away from the strangeness and "ick factor" of the idea. So instead of talking about "gay marriage," a concept that now carries a lot of emotional baggage, you might want to talk about these other points where agreement is possible.


    by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Mon, 04/07/2014 - 4:33pm

    The theme that Progressives or Democrats have to play nice with moderate Republicans and Independents is a common one. Can you point to a Democratic legislator who doesn't to this? Dennis Kucinich reached across the aisle to Ron Paul. Barney Frank reached across the aisle to Ron Paul. 

    When Rand Paul went on his 23-hour filibuster, the media raised him to superstar status. He graced the cover of Time. No legislator is calling Rand Paul a racist. No media personality is calling Rand Paul a  racist. Rand Paul is a front- runner for the GOP Presidential candidate. 

    Medias went overboard in predicting that Obamacare would not meet its goals. Media takes Ryan's budgets seriously. The idea that Republicans are overly criticized does not stand up to scrutiny. I think people are hard-wired to vote for the GOP.

    What pathology exists to explain why someone supports background checks and marijuana legalization but votes for a candidate with opposing views rather than the Democrat who supports those goals? 


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 10:45am

    Started to read Coates. LOTS to dig into.

    The Souls of Black Folks was one of the most profound books I read as a young adult.

    The image of the "color line," in particular, has stayed with me.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 8:42pm

    Coates, Harris-Perry and Maddow have made my life more hectic. They refer to books and articles that I have missed, my reading list grows constantly. I appreciate their views. Coates is a voracious reader and keeps me on my toes trying to read a portion of his sources. Harris-Perry provides access to voices rarely heard on television. They provide an education.

     

     


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 10:01pm

    I don't understand why you write this stuff:

    The tendency to believe that people with lighter skin have more value than others is a direct result of the mis-education of the masses.

    Racism has existed for thousands of years, perhaps since the beginning of time.

    Vikings weren't tracing their history back to the Greeks as they assualted these less-blond tribes across the sea, nor do I expect it played a big role in Portuguese taking over African and Arab lands, Pharoahs commandeering black slaves to build pyramids or work the salt mines, or English armies assembling for crusades to the Holy Land.

    A better thesis to pursue is "racism is one of several basic emanations of human egotism and favoritism towards their own - person, culture, region, tribe". It really doesn't take a lot of "mis-education" for people to think "my family/religion/kingdom/band good, everyone else's sucks".


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 3:51am

    From Dictionary.com

    rac·ism  [rey-siz-uhm]  Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2.
    a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3.
    hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
    Origin: 
    1865–70;  < French racisme.  See race2 , -ism
     
    Related forms
    rac·ist, noun, adjective
    an·ti·ra·cism, noun
     
    Racism should not be considered normative. In fact, extreme racism might be a true mental disorder. Racism may be a factor in causing mental illness in some of its victims. Earlier onset and higher levels of hypertension in Blacks may be due in part to racism. A NYT story reported both sides of the issue. A study from Johns Hopkins noted that Black who focused on the impact of race on their lives had higher levels of hypertension.
     
    Racism is not making a statement like "Black Is Beautiful" or "Kiss Me I'm Irish". The impact of racism is to destroy the spirit of those deemed inferior.

    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:09am

    "Racism should not be considered normative. In fact, extreme racism might be a true mental disorder. "

    Uh, the 2 aren't exclusive - racism can be normative and a mental disorder. Egotism is a huge problem - but very common. Or maybe a huge problem because it's very common.

    Anyway, the masses don't need a lot of education to be racist - they come by it pretty easily on their own.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 5:12pm

    Racism should not be normative. Racism can be normative when there is institutionalized racism.

    Institutionalized Racism
    “Differential access to the goods, services and opportunities of society by race. Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes legalized, and often manifests as inherited disadvantage. It is structural, having been codified in our institutions of custom, practice and law, so there not be an identifiable perpetrator. Indeed institutional racism is often evident as inaction in the face of need.”
    Source: Jones, C.P. Levels of racism: a theoretic framework and a gardener's tale. American Journal of Public Health. 2000 Aug; 90 (8):1212-5.
     

    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 5:48pm

    Well, tell them to say 10 Hail Mary's, take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.

    Children shouldn't fight, countries shouldn't wage war, policemen shouldn't take bribes, fools shouldn't fall in love...


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 10:01am

    Your posts on issues of race provide nothing of value. Fortunately there are people in society who try to improve the situation rather than accept the status quo. Racism homophobia and misogyny should not be acceptable norms. 


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 11:53am

    "Your posts on issues of race provide nothing of value." - when you become arbiter of value, I'll panic.

    "Fortunately there are people in society who try to improve the situation rather than accept the status quo." - Lord give me the strength to change what I can, accept what I can't and the wisdom to know the difference?

    "Racism homophobia and misogyny should not be acceptable norms." - and prostitution should not be tolerated, et al, et al. Should I find a way to come back in a millenium, I'm sure all of life's ills and human character flaws will have been ridden from earth.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 3:35pm

    Your posts come across as the sad old man yelling for kids to get off his lawn. Life is passing the bitter guy by.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 6:52pm

    Whatever - yours come across as someone who hasn't smiled in a few decades, and hasn't veered out of the racially offended self-pity/self-aggrandizing bubble in just as long.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 2:49am

    However, you are kinda right - I used to try writing funny entertaining comments - with you discussions are about as thrilling as deciding whether to slash my wrists lengthwise or side-to-side. Doom, gloom, and by the way did I say I love Obama?

    Where you're wrong is that you have a packaged viewpoint that can apply to most anyone you talk with, and you either 1) circle back to the same old stories or 2) if it's not going your way you ask some irrelevant question so you can eventually revert to #1.

    That your chats with OceanKat have gone exactly the same way as with me should give you pause. But it won't.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 3:07am

    Both you and ocean-kat are broken records.your response to Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Professor Gates, the UCLA law students, Slavery, the Civil War, etc are predictable. You responses to anything that Wattree writes is predictable. You repeat the same arguments.

    Ocean-kat opines that Ron Paul gave cover for Conservatives to support legalizing marijuana. Conservatives have the lowest percentage support for legalization. Young people show up when Ron Paul is speaking on a college campus. Young people show up when Melissa Harris-Perry speaks. The young people come believing that marijuana should be legalizing. Harris-Perry is described as speaking to the choir. Ron Paul is providing cover. It is a double-standard.

    Whenever there is an attempt to discuss race. You come in with your diver sting crap. You want to talk about Slavery on some distant isle rather than the pathology here in the United States because we have to talk about what White folks did. Thus discussions of why religious organizations like the Baptists and Methodists split over the issue of holding slaves,  a host of discussions are stunted because of you.

    Current grievances  are discussed, you are dismissive. Thus you tell others to forget about fighting voter ID checks. You tell people to be satisfied with a Florida prosecutor who appears to be incompetent.

    Your responses are predictable. You do not live in the US. All you have are your get off my lawn rants. You have no impact. Ohio legislators are working on a voter's bill of rights while you continue your predictable posts. Life is moving past you.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 8:55am

    "Both you and ocean-kat are broken records" - alarming coming from a serial apologist for Wattree who keeps churning out the same 3 columns over and over - "I love being black", "West/Smiley leave Obama alone", "only blacks can understand how great jazz is".

    Paragraph #2 - what isle? you mean pointing out the other 90% of slavery in the Americas?  I never mentioned Methodists, may have noted the origins of Southern Baptist once - irrelevant? ( I think a lot of southern blacks are Baptists, no?)  Are you saying you would have babbled on even *MORE* if I hadn't distracted you? feel like we dodged a bullet

    Paragraph #3 - we said ID checks on voting were difficult to dismiss logically (logic not being one of your favorite rhetorical tools) - similarly, you decide a prosecutor's incompetent because a verdict went against him - your usual tactic of praising only winners vs. those fighting the odds or doing the groundwork.

    Paragraph #4 - actually I have a much nicer life than you, including location. Good luck with Ohio - was never on my radar. If you're having an impact, it's probably with someone desperate for attention - nice of you to help out the needy.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 12:45pm

    Predictable jumble.  Predictably dismissive. 

    I know that your life is not better than mine because you feel the need to reflect on things here, while I care nothing about where you might live. Obviously Ohio was not on your radar, it confirms that you are out of touch. You give opinions not based on facts.

    You were arrogant enough to babble on about Thurgood Marshall being Rosa Parks' lawyer. Even when presented with facts, you babbled on. When it comes to issues of race, you have zero credibility. You do provide amusement, however.

    I still see the angry old guy yelling about his lawn. You have no idea of what is going happening on the ground in Ohio or the rest of the United States. Your current perceptions are build upon the electrons flowing around the Internet, not from direct experience. 


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 1:02pm

    "Obviously Ohio was not on your radar, it confirms that you are out of touch." - to the people of Brazil, I'm quite in touch - depends on what I want to talk about - Buckwheat state, not so much.

    "You were arrogant enough to babble on about Thurgood Marshall being Rosa Parks' lawyer. " - yeah fine, Marshall handled the case at the Supreme Court that Parks' case started. You know what I mean, and the difference is irrelevant to what I was discussing, but you like winning on little quibbling points if you can't make a substantive point

    "I still see the angry old guy yelling about his lawn. " - great, go rent the movie, or perhaps buy it to save a few bucks

    "Your current perceptions are build upon the electrons flowing around the Internet, not from direct experience." - of course - like you're running around to all these battleground states getting direct experience? You so clever. Half our talks have been about West and Smiley, or Trayvon or Henry Louis Gates or Paul Ryan - did you meet any of these people, go to a lecture? were you in Trayvon's neighborhood? or you just saw something on Youtube/internet like everyone else? Do I need to live in America in some black neighborhood to toss out some stupid shit like "racism shouldn't be normative"?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 2:51pm

    More worthless babble.

    You are deceitful. You argued that Thurgood Marshall was her lawyer. Then after being called out you reverted to your dismissive state and said that you didn't care about the lawyer. You use diversion when faced with facts. You bring nothing to the discussion. Stop bothering me if your life is so great. I'm headed out to enjoy mine. You can rant in response if you must.

    We are truly fortunate that you have zero impact in the United States.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 3:22pm

    Since you insist, let's remind the context of the Thurgood Marshall statement:

    Snowden is offering to help another country against the United States. Those who note a Brazil is a "nice country" might double check the racial history of the country.

    Snowden goes beyond informing the American people about the NSA outrageous surveillance program. 

    If they are successful, the lawyers will be the heroes in the fight against the NSA. A larger number of people can tell you that Thurgood Marshall was an attorney in Brown V. Board then can actually name the Brown that gives the case it's name.

    by rmrd0000

    First, you took as gospel a scandalous libel against Greenwald re: Brazil posed as a mis-translation - no, he didn't offer treasonous support to Brazil.

    Second, you attacked the guy who risked his balls to reveal the extent of the US government spying program, and then said it will be the *lawyers* who will be the heroes in the NSA story.

    My retort was that Rosa Parks is much more famous to the average person than her lawyer. You give a shit about whether I said Fred Gray or Thurgood Marshall. I care about the info that Snowden revealed - not even about Snowden himself.

    Presumably you've followed the news since, and know that there's much more scandalous about US gov behavior that Snowden revealed. If not, go to www.emptywheel.net - where the Congressional reviews that Snowden's revelations prompted are discussed daily. [sorry: not many lawyer heroes on her page except her]

    And you don't actually care about whether it's lawyers or Fred Gray or whatever - you just want to change the subject so your dear Obama doesn't look bad, even if it means glossing over the huge nasty modern eavesdropping that dwarfs what Hoover used on MLK & other civil rights figures.

    So you go out into that wonderful rose-colored world of yours believing your own bullshit, but you're an apologist every step of the way and willing to play whatever issue just for the convenience of your fanboi/man-crush on Obama, whether it means cheering for more unconstitutional surveillance of US & global citizens, excusing high black unemployment the last 6 years as "it's always been that way", excusing Eric Holder's attacks on medical marijuana and then hailing him as the savior on drug sentencing laws because of a review that hasn't even taken place yet.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 4:23pm

    Another attempt to divert from your statements on Thurgood Marshall and Rosa Parks. It is identical to previous diversions.

    I do not trust Greenwald or Snowden to be objective on activities in Brazil or Russia. We will have to wait for the courts to act to stop NSA surveillance programs. It appears that what they are doing currently is considered legal.there are baby steps being taken.

    Holder has done more to change the focus of drug policy than all the AGs before him. It will take Congressional action to reschedule marijuana. I guess we should expect Holder to just bypass the legal system and not present his proposal that could effect 70% of drug offenders that he has control over to an independent panel as required by law. From your perch overseas, you are probably unaware how the legal system works in the United States. The loaned is expected to approve Holder's changes and could rule as early as this month.

    .


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 9:43am

    Interesting - a diversion that came before the topic discussed, eh?

    Effect => Cause, time runs backwards. Quite the universe you live in.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 10:06am

    You remain boring and unimportant.

    Since Ohio wasn't on you radar, the fact that Wisconsin just signed into a bill that allows "election monitors" to stand close to voters in polling places. There is an ongoing battle and you of no help.

    Rant on, I won't be responding. Your diversion isn't amusing today.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 1:57pm

    Enjoy saving Ohio and Wisconsin all by yourself.

    Maybe you can get your buds at the NSA to monitor elections for you.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 2:33pm

    "We will have to wait for the courts to act to stop NSA surveillance programs."

    Laughable - that of course is one of the reasons Snowden acted - the courts refuse to hear cases about NSA. Just a couple days ago, the court threw out a case about Awlaki's son being targeted by drones. Their attitude is they can't interfere in "security issues". But you're condemning Snowden and relying on a near impossibility to right the situation.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 4:30pm

    From your perch overseas, you are probably unaware how the legal system works in the United States.

    And I knew you'd be a dick if I disclosed any personal info. You haven't disappointed. But yes, the US used to have a legal Constitutional system when I left.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 4:32pm

    Ocean-kat opines that Ron Paul gave cover for Conservatives to support legalizing marijuana. Conservatives have the lowest percentage support for legalization.

    You post so many stupid things I just don't have time to correct them all. You've repeated this "statistical analysis" several times now. All you're showing is your ignorance of statistical analysis.

    The only way you might reveal anything about Paul or Buckley's influence would be by looking at change over time. If conservative views of support changed over a 10 year period from 10 to 13% and liberal views changed from 55% to 65% we could conclude that liberals views are changing much faster than conservative views. But if conservative support  for legalization changed over a 10 year period from 5% to 25% and liberals support went from 55% to 65% we could conclude that conservatives are changing much faster than liberals on this issue even though support is much higher among liberals. We could then hypothesize that Buckley may have had some influence effecting  that change.

    I haven't taken the time to correct you before because I assumed that the vast majority of readers have at least a basic  understanding of statistics and would immediately see your error. Its so frustrating having to waste my time teaching you the basics of a subject you should have studied in a beginning level college math course.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 3:30pm

    You haven't corrected me. You think that Progressives need to try to explain why moderate Republicans should vote for Democrats. I think this happens already. There is psychological data that suggests people's political views are hard-wired. I don't think that moderate Republicans vote for the GOP is because Progressives are mean to Ron Paul. You provide evidence of Hillary Clinton praising McCain while backhanding Barack Obama during the 2008 Primary season. You point out that Obama had some good words about Reagan. Where then are all those mean Democrats basing Republicans with good ideas?

    If conservative views of support changed over a 10 year period from 10 to 13% and liberal views changed from 55% to 65% we could conclude that liberals views are changing much faster than conservative views. But if conservative support  for legalization changed over a 10 year period from 5% to 25% and liberals support went from 55% to 65% we could conclude that conservatives are changing much faster than liberals on this issue even though support is much higher among liberals. We could then hypothesize that Buckley may have had some influence effecting  that change.

    You are the one who needs a statistics course. Small changes in small numbers create explosive percentage changes. This is why third world and second world economies have rapid growth but still may have fragile economies. There could be rapid growth of acceptance of an issue among Conservatives, but it may still be the opinions of a minority of the entire group.

    Given high underlying acceptance of an issue among Liberals, it is impossible to produce a large spike in acceptance. Statistics 101.The changes in Republican support could be independent of Buckley and represent merely old Conservatives dying out and new Conservatives who have come to accept a new concept because of societal changes independent of Buckley or Paul. An entire host of factors would have to be considered.

    It is interesting to view the impact of President Barack Obama on the acceptance of Gay marriage in the Black community. We see number shifts, but in a time period that is easier to suggest that Obama's words had a direct effect.

    To document whether Obama really played a role would require interviews and questionnaires. Both would have to be structure to minimize any bias that would favor Obama. Those questions would have to free to indicate that Obama had an impact, rather than being forced to accept or reject President Obama directly. The same would have to be done in the case of William F Buckley.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 5:34pm

    Buckley has argued about legalizing marijuana since the 1970s. Thre are quotes from the 1990s. Buckley died in 2008. We are the the midst  of or post the Republican "bump" in marijuana support for marijuana influenced by Buckley. 


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/07/2014 - 8:06am

    What you're saying here is you do understand the basics of statistical analysis. You do know that to measure the effect of an event you have to start by looking for changes over time and then test your hypothesis. You knew that your data didn't contain any changes over time and that it was a bullshit argument that did not prove your point. Yet you posted it anyway. And when no one called you out you posted it again and again and again knowing it was a bullshit argument because you understand statistical analysis.

    Do you see why I call you a dishonest debater? Do you see why I call you a partisan hack? Do you see why I say you'll post anything to "win" a debate?

    This is why I almost never engage in extended dialog with you. If I reply to you at all usually I'll just state my view and then drop out of the conversation, like I did when I made one comment on voter suppression and left it at that. I hate constantly having to deal with bullshit. It makes for a totally boring dialog as this dialog was boring.

    You simply have no honor or integrity and I find the type of dialog that generates uninteresting. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm serious. Why not give up the bullshit and obfuscation. No one is paying you to spin for them. Make honest attempts to engage people's best arguments with your best arguments. You're well read and knowledgeable and certainly capable of honest debate. Why not give it a try. It would make for far more interesting discussions for both the participants and the readers.

     


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 04/08/2014 - 3:46am

    For some one who does not engage in discussion with me here you are again. I laid out how one would have to go about proving that there was an Obama effect. There can be acute effects. Note that after gunfire slaughters, there is an increase in the push for background checks among the public. The cry to do something increases acutely. You ignore acute impacts which are measured all the time.

    You argue that Buckley's effect would have to be measured over time. I provide you with a timeline of Buckley's remarks about legalizing marijuana. I point out that even if we start the timeline in the 1990s we have not seen the big Conservative bump. Instead of noting the reality of my position, you name call. I find you amusing.

    Because I realize that you are confused, I take no real offense. You have a rigid position that Progressive activists and in the media need to go out of their way to be kind to moderate Republicans. You place the defect with Progressives. I place the defect with the moderate Republicans. I do not insult them, but I am honest with them. In turn, they are honest with me. 

    I known a die- hard Conservative who realized that GW, McCain and Romney were full of crap. He could not bring himself to vote for a Democrat. He would console himself talking about the enjoyment he got from the feisty Sarah Palin. He agrees with the Democratic view of immigration reform. He has supported the education of a child in Central America, but he cannot vote for the Democrat who agrees with him. We are honest with each other.

    With moderate Republicans, I note their differences with Obama. I point out where the GOP stands and where Obama stands. I point out that the GOP has no health care plan. I note that Paul Ryan's budgets harm the middle class. We have honest discussions

    Rand Paul is not a major focus of our discussions. However when discussions shift to race and the GOP, I am honest about the race-baiting I see in the GOP.  I make them aware of the sea change that occurred with Barry Goldwater and MLKs view of the man. I tell them why I disagree with Clarence Thomas, Thomas a Sowell, Allen West, Alan Keys, Michael Steele, etc. We have honest discussions. I put Rand and Ron Paul in the same category. So far, none has been shocked when told why Blacks, in general, do not support the GOP. They respect the honesty. I dispel the myth that Blacks don't vote for the GOP because Blacks want government handouts.

    You have a rigid position. You think that moderate Republicans feel under attack and won't change their votes because of the attacks. I think that moderate Republicans need to hear the truth from a Democratic perspective. I think they don't want to here praise for people in the Republican Party that has gone crazy, they  need to hear a clear, respectful reason to support a Democrat.

    Many conversations have ended with the Republican agreeing with what I said including the racial insensitivity heard in the GOP. Heck Jeb Bush gets heat from the GOP for viewing immigration as a matter of someone trying to feed there family. They know what has happened to the GOP. They will still vote for the Republican in many cases,

    You don't know statistics  and you don't know how to have civil conversations you remain confused. I truly feel sorry for you and therefore ignore your irrational attack. You don't have have the knowledge base to have a structured discussion. I forgive you. 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 04/08/2014 - 12:26pm

    To ocean-kat

    You posted

    If conservative views of support changed over a 10 year period from 10 to 13% and liberal views changed from 55% to 65% we could conclude that liberals views are changing much faster than conservative views. But if conservative support  for legalization changed over a 10 year period from 5% to 25% and liberals support went from 55% to 65% we could conclude that conservatives are changing much faster than liberals on this issue even though support is much higher among liberals. We could then hypothesize that Buckley may have had some influence effecting  that change.

    My reply included the following about Buckley.

    Buckley has argued about legalizing marijuana since the 1970s. Thre are quotes from the 1990s. Buckley died in 2008. We are the the midst  of or post the Republican "bump" in marijuana support for marijuana influenced by Buckley. 

    I hypothesized that any bump attributed to Buckley should have happened by now.

    I noted the following about Obama and acceptance of Fay marriage in the Black community

    It is interesting to view the impact of President Barack Obama on the acceptance of Gay marriage in the Black community. We see number shifts, but in a time period that is easier to suggest that Obama's words had a direct impact.
     
    I followed by by noting what would be required to prove what I said about both Obama and Buckley.
    To document whether Obama really played a role would require interviews and questionnaires. Both would have to be structure to minimize any bias that would favor Obama. Those questions would have to free to indicate that Obama had an impact, rather than being forced to accept or reject President Obama directly. The same would have to be done in the case of William F Buckley.
     
    What I posted was logical. You responded with a venomous reply
    What you're saying here is you do understand the basics of statistical analysis. You do know that to measure the effect of an event you have to start by looking for changes over time and then test your hypothesis. You knew that your data didn't contain any changes over time and that it was a bullshit argument that did not prove your point. Yet you posted it anyway. And when no one called you out you posted it again and again and again knowing it was a bullshit argument because you understand statistical analysis.
     
    Do you see why I call you a dishonest debater? Do you see why I call you a partisan hack? Do you see why I say you'll post anything to "win" a debate?
     

    Your tirade proved that you have lost your grasp on reality. You attack because I see no Buckley bump ( and you can't prove that any bump occurred). You remain confused by life.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 04/08/2014 - 4:57pm

    Latest Comments