The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    tmccarthy0's picture

    Misrepresenting Liberty: Private Property Rights, Oppression and Ron Paul

    By tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:41pm |

    Try to leave this place a little better than when you got here.

    I can't remember if it was the debate this morning or last nights debate when Ron Paul blurted out; "I'm for Liberty!" I hate it when politicians deliberately talk in slogans and sound bites. But leave it to Ron Paul to have that as his slogan, and it was certainly different than every other Republican at their 38th debate.

    Let's face it Ron Paul is an old style demagogue who covers his demagoguery in a pseudo-legal analysis of our Constitution. Now I am no legal scholar, but neither is Dr. Ron Paul, and I am pretty sick of that guy, because I think as a civilization we have moved beyond the glib analysis that all rights stem from property rights. Let me just say, even John Locke himself, if he were living, would have moved beyond such a limiting anti-progressive view of how humans organize and distribute power, seriously! He was a bigger thinker than that, as evidenced in his writing. We most certainly have evolved past 1787, and that is a good thing. You can see from Paul's beliefs he doesn't believe we should have evolved past that time.

    I have some serious questions for Ron Paul supporters, how is it you can tolerate a guy who makes claims like: "Lincoln shouldn't have fought the Civil War, he should have simply purchased those slaves from slave owners". Does anyone else see how fucked up that is, in that it indicates he believes people can legitimately be owned by others, and you must purchase them to set them free.  To a person who has lived in the 20th and now 21st century, that line of reasoning makes no sense. It also occurs to me how little sense it makes to continually second guess past events, and make specious claims about what should have been done at that time. Pretty easy to talk shit like that, when it's irrelevant since the Tardis isn't available and even that Hitler thing kind of backfired on the good Doctor. Seriously, Ron Paul does the same thing when he talks about WWII, but here is the deal, who cares, he didn't get to make that decision, this kind of half-assed I could have done it better, BS should be unacceptable to  a sentient being. How anyone can take that seriously leaves me incredulous. If Barack Obama said shit like that, he would  be living next door to Alvin Green in South Carolina. Sorry, but it's a fact.

    It isn't just that he hangs with the likes of Alex Jones either, but that certainly doesn't make him more appealing to a woman, a minority or a normal person who doesn't revel in hatred.

    Unfortunately, Ron Paul's own beliefs and statements make me believe if Ron Paul could he would return us to an era where oppression was wrapped in the guise of  the catch-all phrase "property rights". I don't think that should be acceptable once again.

    Ron Paul is wrong morally and probably legally when it comes to his glib pronouncement that the Civil Rights Act destroyed privacy.  What on earth does Ron Paul mean by that? He is basically saying business owners have the ultimate right to discriminate, because only they have the right to make decisions about what happens on their property? Answer this please Paululons,  can a civil society exist if we all were to simply shrug our shoulders and say; "oh well, if that cafe owner refuses to allow black people into that restaurant, no biggie we will just move on to the next restaurant" "Or oh well, too bad you can't use that bathroom or that hospital or go to that school". Come on, we all know those are dog whistle statements which are used to attract a certain kind of voter.

    Ron Paul also said this: "[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." But we need to critically unpack that statement.Is he really sure about that? He is saying of course integration wasn't worth it, but let's look around us people, I'd say it was totally worth it, we  have many many gains in the past 40+ years, and many things have changed in the attitudes of the majority of Americans. These things are good, and I think it was totally a worthwhile cause, just as it was worth it to integrate aka mainstream all kinds of students, as exposure to difference leads to tolerance and the ability to live together, more peacefully. Ron Paul is wrong, things are better, how on earth can he not see that?

    It kind of bugs me though that so many people are willing to throw women and minorities under the bus for that kind of dude. Seriously, this guy is at best a relic, at worst he believes as women, we continue not to be full members of society and we are unable to make decisions for and about our own bodies. He is not a civil libertarian in the truest form as he favors government legislation that limits our access to health care. What right does he or anyone else have to intervene in a conversation we might be having with our personal physician?  I don't necessarily want to have the abortion argument, but my opinion is this, it simply isn't your business what goes on between a woman and her physician. You don't have to like it, you can believe it is against god or whatever, but since we are not a theocracy then you don't get a say in our bodies.

    Ron Paul isn't just against abortion he is also against birth control.  He made the claim that "Greater Access to birth control makes a mockery of Christianity". Is this really a guy who should be getting 20% of any electorate anywhere? How is this possible?

    So officially Ron Paul was once the sponsor of a bill to outlaw Roe V Wade, in his eyes we simply don't have the same rights as men to make decisions about our lives. He makes the excuse of course that states should get to determine what individual rights a woman has over her body and essentially allows a state to determine what kind of medical discussions a woman is allowed to have with her physician.   It rubs me the wrong way though, I just don't get how this guy has so many hard core followers?

    Some people seem to think that Ron Paul is entirely different than your run of the mill Bircher, but he isn't. Don't ever forget that. Ron Paul doesn't know what liberty is and if you vote for him, you are voting for that.

    Crossposted @ TheAngriestLiberal

    Comments

    Not only was the Civil Rights movement not worth it because it angered whites, but the slaves were not worth the Civil War either. Blacks caused the Jim Crow laws and protesting for Civil Rights angered whites as well.

    Ron Paul is no different then the rest of the whitebread GOP candidates. Blacks are concerned about the economy, unemployment, housing discrimination in it's new form of foreclosures, and voter suppression. The Republicans, including Ron Paul, address blacks as welfare recipients and drug offenders. The GOP black platform is racist.

    The reason that the black vote goes to Democrats is that blacks do not wish to interact with politicians and voters who lump blacks together as shiftless and lazy. The reason that blacks tend to lump all Republicans together as unappealing is because Republicans lump blacks together as problems.

    There is an old joke about the first slaves arriving on US soil. One slave mumbles a complaint about his capture to another slave. The slave ship captain barks. "What's wrong with you? You've only been in this country for five minutes and you're complaining already!"

    Blacks know the code words. Black know the anger behind the code words. Some whites feel a loss of rights since there are black organizations whereas white organizations could not exist. The National Medical Association, National Bar association, etc. should just fold their tents now that formerly discriminatory organizations have integrated. The leadership of the black organizations should just step down and start working from scratch in the new integrated organization. That seems fair (snark). Of course the black organizations might be given a transitional period. How about counting the duration that the newly integrated organization had to freely discriminate as the length of time the black organization has to fold. Now that really seems fair.

    The arguments made today are merely variations on the arguments made in the past. Black slaves should just have waited. Freedom would come eventually. Of course, for other things including creating a new economic structure that actually penalizes Wall Street for misdeeds cannot be done soon enough. Blacks are not important.

    Blacks should have waited for Jim Crow laws to be abolished. Peoples hearts would have softened eventually. No need for the government to get involved in private commerce. The free market would have worked... eventually.

    Mitt Romney = Newt Gingrich = Rick Perry = Ron Paul = Ronald Reagan = Richard Nixon = Barry Goldwater.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 3:25pm

    Hey rmrd, as you know, I agree with what you've written.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:24pm

    "Does anyone else see how fucked up that is, in that it indicates he believes people can legitimately be owned by others, and you must purchase them to set them free."

    ​Does anyone else see how an educated person can't read the Constitution and American History and understand that ownership of slaves was "legitimate" in 1860? You're welcome to say Sharia law is illegitimate as well, but if in Riyadh, I recommend you cover up and don't drive.

    ​And by not understanding that ownership of people - slaves - was the supreme law of the land in 1860, you likely miss the fact that anyone who owned that "legitimate" property was likely to fight to retain that investment.

    Given that the Civil War killed 600,000 people from both north and south, and had huge costs for both sides, along with lingering grudges and racism for 100 years after, it might be worth considering that purchasing slaves and freeing them would have been a cheaper, more humane and more effective solution.

    It's hard to see that a century of share-cropping and hard labor in northern mills was the Mecca blacks sought, even though a huge improvement on life under slavery. And it's hard to see that the slaughter of 600,000 in one of the world's sickest wars was an act worth rejoicing, however much the justice of seeing southern racists suffer and slaves freed.

    These glib pronouncements don't make for serious discussion. "but my opinion is this, it simply isn't your business what goes on between a woman and her physician." Right. If the physician is prescribing speedballs with a seconal chaser, or the physician is recommending blood letting and treatment with leeches, or the woman is being beaten but won't reveal her abuser, or the physician wants to abort an 8 1/2-month fetus because the woman is just no longer enthused, it's nobody else's business?

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:33pm

    The Presidential candidates are running for President, not Historian-In-Chief. The Civil war is over. If the GOP views current blacks as merely welfare recipients and drug dealers/users and don't address the voter suppression being attempted their own party then none of them are of value. If they do not come to the NAACP address economic issues rather than Newt's welfare issues, then they are even more worthless.

    Nobody who looked at the economic situation expected a rapid turn around. The auto industry was predicted to be headed underwater. There has been mild decreases in unemployment. If you look at the global economy, the US sluggishness is not surprising. If the GOP sees my only economic interest in drug deals and welfare checks, then they are not deserving of my vote.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:53pm

    This was a response to TMac, not an evaluation what candidates should say.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:03am

    I know I'm going to regret wading into this, but... um... purchasing the slaves and freeing them would not have been an ideal solution.  What would stop people from not agreeing to sell?  What would stop people, once they have sold, from acquiring new slaves and then waiting for the government to come buy them at a profit, too?  The idea was to change the law so that the whole practice would be ended.  The southern states wouldn't stand for that.  So, um, no it would not have been a good solution.

    Am I going to regret this?


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:15pm

    I have below expressed my opinion that PP is having smoke successfully  blown up his ass on the civil war thing, but to give the best spin, I suppose its along the order of "we are zoning this a no slave country, we are  forbidding any further slaves, and we are condemning via eminent domain your title in any current slaves, how much ya want?"


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:39pm

    Just think what that would do to the national debt, though! There's no way Ron Paul would be in favor of that! cheeky


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:51pm

    I'm not sure it would have worked Destor, but if the slave trade were ended (i.e. no importation), and you put a time limit on the decision to sell (as is done in most cases other of expropriation), then you'd pretty much have a workable system. 

    Can't see the Northern states just somehow digging deep and buying out the slaves though. Clearly the better option was to call it a war, quadruple the cost, bury 600,000 kids, and have a glorious story to tell at the end of it all.

    Oh wait.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:31pm

    No, I don't attack basic questions on difficult issues.

    Presumably an offer to buy out slave owners would be across-the-board, to end the practice. Certainly that would have faced resistance still - "our way of life" - but certainly a good number might have been persuaded. There were many southerners who wanted the end of slavery - Virginia's involvement had greatly decreased since the old tobacco days, and South Carolina was more a trader having the sea port.

    The abolishment of slavery still would have had huge impact on the southern economy (as well as the north, being our #1 export crop and export for refined goods), so to even discuss this seriously would be to analyze what a realistic $ figure to change minds would have been.

    But I think more important, next time we're advocating sending boats to take back Sumter or sending troops in to occupy Baghdad, can we step back and say, "this seems like a successful route, but is it really the best way of achieving our desired results?"

    A no-fly zone over Baghdad for 10 years seems stupid and wasteful and time-consuming, but compared to a disastrous war, it hit almost all its objectives with rather minimal cost (we didn't have our certainty of no WMDs until we got in inspectors, at which point we discovered we'd succeeded despite Hussein bluffing)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:11am

    And yes, the North thought the war would be over in weeks, just like the US thought Baghdad would be wrapped up in weeks. Quack quack, oops.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:18am

    Does anyone else see how an educated person can't read the Constitution and American History and understand that ownership of slaves was "legitimate" in 1860?

    That is fine, but Ron Paul didn't say such a thing in 1860,  he said it in our modern era, so you can't cover for him, because those are his words. Hindsight like that is stupid and is used to get the weird Bircher/faux constutitionalist/fundamentalist vote and nothing more. That is why those kinds of statements should be questioned and dismissed as completely and totally irrelevant to any discussion about the trajectory of our government, federalism and the like.

    I will not engage you in the abortion argument, in my opinion, that is an issue that will always be none of your business. But you can certainly feel free to make the choice for yourself to never have an abortion.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:23pm

    I can't bring myself around to arguments like, "but it was okay in the 19th century!"  Is it too much to ask that people keep up with the times?


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:27pm

    Oh snap, yes!


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:30pm

    "... always be none of your business."

    ​How about if girl babies are being aborted at incredibly higher rates than boy babies? And the mothers don't mind? 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:27pm

    Of course you are so correct Quinn, women should also be held completely responsible for patriarchy in all its forms, including the patriarchy that imposed such social norms as boy vs girl heirs, who counts more, etc.  Stupid women.  We should not bother to change attitudes or cultural beliefs but we should take control of the Uterine Slaughterhouse to make sure that only happens when men say it can happen!


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:46pm

    You know, I'll bet that if someone took the time to rearrange all those letters you've written into completely new words, thoughts and sentences, they could find a coherent thought in there somewhere.

    Then again, a million monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:50pm

    Just chalk it up to me being a woman, you know how we are, if we'd just sit down and let the men do the fixin' things would be great!


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:02pm

    Keep hammering... you're almost there.

    Just Hamlet to go.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:06pm

    Heh. You do make me laugh Quinn, it's probably why I am still allowed into Canada.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:48pm

    Ah yes, there's never been a Chinese woman who aborted a female baby in favor of a male say to work the fields or just prestige - it's all just imposed by males, and women just sit back and enjoy it deal with it.

    Re: 1860, you were the one who said it was illegitimate - obviously most thinking humans know that in 2012 slavery is illegitimate, but that wasn't your point - you just hated the way someone could discuss history without accepting your revisionist terms. Must be a Patriarchal thing - hear that causes all history's problems.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:17am

    If the physician is prescribing speedballs with a seconal chaser, or the physician is recommending blood letting and treatment with leeches, or the woman is being beaten but won't reveal her abuser, or the physician wants to abort an 8 1/2-month fetus because the woman is just no longer enthused, it's nobody else's business?

    Oy, never figured you for a nanny-stater as far  as the er "science" of medicine is concerned

    All I can say is, if that women was me, I sure would want you off my back, Mr Prosecutor, unless I was the one bringing the complaint.

    the woman is being beaten but won't reveal her abuser

    Oh joy, a social worker trying to force me to put my man in jail because of something that happened between us when I don't want him there, "for my own good."

    leeches

    Keep up with medical innovations much, do you?

    abort an 8 1/2-month fetus

    What the heck is an abortion at 8 1/2 months? Ain't no such thing. Who's to say what the deal is when physicians induce labor early and the kid is put up for adoption? You going to start prosecuting premature births? Or doing heavy duty interrogations of still births and premature births, just to make sure the parents didn't "want" it?

    The examples you gave are just plain scary; sure wouldn't want you on my death panel..

     


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:02pm

    Libertarians are very libertarian, until they see you doing something they don't like.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:07pm

    Good One.

    Then, there was, "A Conservative is a Democrat who has been mugged."

    Possibly, "A Libertarian is a (Democrat/Republican) who......

    Or something like, Ron Paul is society's method of burning off excess methane gas, present company excluded.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:58am

    A Libertarian is a Republican who wants his marijuana legalized.


    by Donal on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:54am

    Jesus, AA. Pretty much every society that exists does an investigation/interrogation of child deaths after 8.5 months. And usually with reference to this legal thing called infanticide. There's also the sale of babies, killings of girl babies, young mothers (and fathers) getting scared and acting badly. 

    I'd be fairly scared of your society, where apparently anything at all can be done to a fetus or child.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:35pm

    Nice AA, very well said.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:02pm

    Oh joy, a social worker trying to force me to put my man in jail because of something that happened between us when I don't want him there, "for my own good."

    Uh, can't tell if you're being facetious here, but yes, this is often the case - the victim doesn't want the abuser to be jailed both for practical reasons (the bread winner), affection, Stockholm syndrome, etc. It's in society's interest and the woman's to fix the abusive situation both because the home slavery is wrong, as well as it can lead to murder or other undesirable progression. That doesn't mean there's only one way to deal with the problem - it might be the man needs counseling, other kind of help, rather than imprisonment. But no, it's not just a matter between woman and physician if she's being beaten by her mate.

    There are abortion doctors who do savage unethical work, and we've reached some kind of compromise that abortions past 3 months are only to be done for real medical need. If a doctor is abusing that compromise - I use the 8 1/2 month abortion as an extreme to highlight, but I do mean death to the fetus, not a premature birth, thanks - then society has an interest in interfering with that malpractice. This is not just Patriarchy at play - there are a lot of free thinking women who are involved in the issue of when we think there's a real, viable, rights-enabled human in the womb. It's all somewhat arbitrary before actual birth, but I chose 8 1/2 months as a date for abortion when most thinking people would be horrified, and then you're welcome to move back down the timeline to figure out your own comfort zone for when an abortion is acceptable as a private decision between woman and physician.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:27am

    Not being facetious. I am a feminist and a solid fervent libertarian about having total control over what I do or don't do with my own body and personal relationships, pregnant or not.

    I still think you are offering offensive nanny state arguments about women that I find repellent. Unless they ask for help, or have been ruled by a judge to be mentally incompetent to handle their own life, you do not force help, it's wrong, it's treating grownups like children

    I grew up in relatively poor neighborhoods with lots of abused women and children around, babysitting for them and hearing the kids' stories, the families were always abused worse by incompetent social services butting in where they were not wanted

    The simple human dignity of self-determination in these matters is far more important than a few souls lost due to Stockholm syndrome  I don't even believe in forcing the mentally ill or developmentally disabled to get help unless they are very very bad cases.

    Furthermore, a lot the supposed "help," often isn't help at all. The most honest people in the related fields will admit how little most helpers know, and how truly difficult the task is it to get help that works. And how the person must really really want the help, or nothing good will come of it.

    As to medicine, you seem to under the illusion that that medicine is this black and white thing and they have figured the body and mind all out! I find that ridiculous! I can't imagine anyone with a wallop or two of actual experience dealing with today's medicine in crisis would think that way.

    It's changing every day! Every fucking day, with every single fucking patient it's different .What was good yesterday is bad today and vice versa. Today the majority of experts might say, based on the newest neurological research, that Terry Schiavo's brain stem is sending out significant signs of quality of life, tomorrow they will say oops, no what we saw wasn't what we thought it was

    And I stick to my contention that there is no such thing as an abortion at 8 1/2 weeks; no doctor in this country is every going to call anything that happens at that advanced fetal age abortion, no matter what happens; the recent Karen Santorum story is an excellent example It shows a lack of knowledge about the field to even suggest that anything would be called an abortion at 8 1/2 weeks

    So I see that right now they are thinking it's not good to induce labor two weeks early as many have been doing for quite some time Big deal, so what, I'm not impressed, not in the least. How much you want to bet that that protocol will be very different in 5 years? It will start this way: oh we found out that women with low blood sugar should deliver early, or we found out that depressed women's hormones are hurting their babies, oops

    There is one benefit I got from getting into this horrible discussion: I realize that I'm real happy that your social worker buds are not over telling my cousin and his wife, as well as my ex boss and friend, as well as my uncle, what to do in the decisions they are facing: between tortuous medical treatments that may kill them faster than not doing it, or may save them for a few more years in a terribly disabled condition

    I'm done on this topic, said too much too painful already, too many painful memories are being dredged up by even talking about it. (Be glad to talk to anyone on it, though, who has actually experienced current common hellish hospital activities like like powerful doctors trying to pressure one family member to convince another family member to do something that other family member, the one with the legal authority, is dead set against doing, like pulling the plug or not)


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 3:08am

    Okay, can we compromise? The "nanny state" will only worry about rape and abuse of female children until what, 14? 16? 18? and then butt out, so females of reproductive age in physically abusive relationships will then have the right to be cowed into abusive submission with no government intervention from those offensive repellent do-gooder social services & police  types, no matter how black-and-blue. Otay?

    We can extend this to intimidation and theft by crack gains if the self-deterministic woman doesn't want to report it, because we hate to lower self-determinism under any guise, and if she wants to give away her money to thugs with guns and bats, who are we to butt in?

    Don't want to break any eggs for the sake of a few losers with Stockholm syndrome.

    Regarding a certain current politician's wife and birthing incident, I didn't talk about this at all, and the only reference would be that if it were post-3 months, there would be some medical controls and potentially other verification as regards current law - I wasn't advocating a Terry Schiavo crowd of politicians and media specialists to provide talkover. I know it troubles you that the law would actually distinguish between the decision of a woman to have an abortion of a 6-month fetus because she'd changed her mind, vs. one who decides to have an abortion because there are medical complications for the fetus or significant risks for the mother. As soon as we can get rid of these immoral government intrusions on the specific right to go shopping or the noted legal defense of "the right to whatever", we'll do it. Perhaps we should put this on the Democratic plank, "no laws about abortion evuh".

    Of course via another blogger here, we know that limits on women are only caused by patriarchal types. In fact, I got early instruction on this when I was at a party with a 15-year-old pregnant friend who was drinking and smoking heavily a few nights before giving away her baby for adoption, and I learned the important behavioral code: "shut the fuck up - you don't want to act like one of those nanny state social workers". All this "fetal alcohol syndrome" talk is just code for "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant", fer sure.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 5:18am

    It's hard to see that a century of share-cropping and hard labor in northern mills was the Mecca blacks sought, even though a huge improvement on life under slavery

    You suggest that slaves should have been bought and freed instead of going to war, and then you say this. The two things don't jive. This is part and parcel of the "slavery wasn't always that bad, we shoulda just waited some more" argument.

    I guess I'm prejudiced by the fact that I know is that if I was legally owned by another human being, I would very very very much prefer sharecropping or hard labor in northern mills. But I will admit I don't have no polls showing happy 19th- century slaves willing to wait.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:17pm

    I love this. The bit where it turns into a complete gong show... "Arguing with Americans."

    Yes, AA, I suspect very much that if you were a slave, or I were a slave, yes, we'd prefer to.... ummm.... not be slaves. 

    But that's really (really) not a grand clinching argument against the "we should have waited some more" line. 

    And while I know (I know) that every single American trots out the "America is different, and slavery wouldn't have changed or gone away" routine... the fact is, the world is full of nations where slavery.... ummmm... changed and went away.

    Now am I saying that Ron Paul isn't a racist prick and a moron? No. Because... he is.

    Am I saying that Civil War wasn't worth fighting? No. Personally, I think it was.

    Am I saying it wasn't worth fighting to free the slaves? No. In fact, that is the single argument I find at all convincing in favour of that war (maintaining the Union" - no thanks.)

    But is there a case that perhaps the U.S. had other courses, other options, other paths along the way? Ones that might have benefitted the black population even more? That seems to me to be an entirely sensible point of view. And not at all looney.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:24pm

     

    But is there a case that perhaps the U.S. had other courses, other options, other paths along the way? Ones that might have benefitted the black population even more? That seems to me to be an entirely sensible point of view. And not at all looney.
    No, not looney at all. If that was all that was being asserted, I wouldn't dispute it. I'd possibly ask for some suggestions, since making that assertion without any alternative suggestions is rather vacuous, but I wouldn't find it looney. However, if you put this in context (which Peracles claims to love), the source is Ron Paul, the same person whose newsletter bearing his name published an article wondering why we couldn't have white neighborhoods, along with much, much more racist filth.

    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:41pm

    Like I said, I'm not disagreeing about Ron Paul. He's said about 3 good things in his life.

    Otherwise, he's a racist dip-shit. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:08pm

    I think mediaite's summary is apt: "Like many libertarian ideas, it’s appealing unless you think about it for five seconds."

    Here's a starting point. Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, almost two years after the war started. In the 1860 election, he had only campaigned against expanding slavery to new territories. But even that was too much for Southern states, most of which seceded before he took office. The war itself began when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter in 1861.

    So what exactly were the other courses, other options, other paths?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:57pm

    Without (once again) refighting the Civil War (with the inevitable idiotic accusations), I wonder a bit (not spending too too much of my life on alternative histories) about boycotts and trade sanctions and such. Yes yes, I know "they don't work" and all that, but, ummmm, South Africa says they had some impact. Some. Then there's the concept of buy-outs. Which, as I've said below, I suspect could technically be done.

    Really, the grand barrier to these sorts of options though, is, in my mind, that the North would never have willingly taken on such expenditures. After all, they continued to supply the slaving industries right up to the War, right? 

    As for a 3rd option, there was always... to permit secession. Crazy concept, I know. But if the North combined it with economic sanctions, I'm not 100% sure either way how it would have turned out. Still. Not every secession in history has worked out, and it's really not implausible to argue that the Southern economy might just have... failed. Considering global economic history, there really aren't many examples (ok, there are precisely none) of heavily slave-owning nations making it with any success even as far along the timeline as WW1, are there? (No, there aren't.)

    Thing is, let's face it. We're really arguing a point of national religion here. Any Northerner - or really, any modern American - has imbibed this path as the only, the necessary, the gloriously noble, Godly and successful path. And how can I really argue? Except that, for me you understand, I'm on the side of the line which DIDN'T fight a Revolutionary War to achieve independence, and DIDN'T fight a Civil War to maintain the Union, and DID have to face in within my lifetime (re: Quebec), and does come from a nation (Scotland) which lost a war and was suppressed, but then worked from within to achieve success, but which today, looks about ready to go independence again.

    Which means, in short, that we all know different stories about how people can handle these sorts of issues. I'm not sure what the "right" one was. As you know, I happen to side both with the US in 1776 and the North in 1860.

    But could it have been otherwise? Hells yeah.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:04pm

    Things could be otherwise, of course.  But like shuffling a deck of cards, one can never know whether the outcome would be better or worse.  Who is to say the South, with its economy failing and frustrated by some sanctions etc, lash out, try to pull off a Kuwait-invasion maneuver and unleashes something worse than the Civil War. 

    The basic society that had within the fabric that could lead to the Civil War would still be there, no matter what options were taken.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:27pm

    You're right, of course - the same northern society that attacked southern Ft. Sumter "to get our federal land back" could then attack Baghdad because "we suspect they still have WMDs" or bomb Vietnamese villages back to the stone age "to save them".

    Do you think there's a way to remove the aggressive gene from the US's military posture?


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:33am

    So that's the other path? Permit secession? If you were Lincoln's advisor, that's what you would have recommended? Let 'em have their country and their slaves?

    PS For the record, permitting secession was not Ron Paul's "other path."


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:43pm

    Hmmm. I thought I'd been arguing that it was sensible to think about there being "other courses, other options, other paths along the way." But you seemed most interested in trying to get me to pick a path. So I laid out three that might be worth consideration - Boycott, Buy-Out and Permitting Secession. Again however, you seem most interested in pushing me to choose "my" recommended course. which would, I fancy, turn this into a set-piece (and oh-so-boring) fight.

    Which I'm not all that interested, frankly Genghis. 

    (And as a heads-up, I'm also not much interested in being punked into being the pro-slavery guy, again. Thanks. Nice one though.)

    I say this because I have stated, on here, about 101 times, what my view would have been at the time - I'd have fought, and done it to end slavery. (Pretty much as I said at 7:24 above.)

    Shorter: F*ck the Slavers.

    But as for what feels to me like an attempt by you - twice now - to shove me into some position so you can then go off on me, let me just say, you (and others) might do well to look elsewhere when pursuing the moral ne'erdowells. For instance, on this very site - in previous battles - a number of folks showed up who took what is, in my books, a gutless (and deeply immoral) stance. Namely, these poor lost blogger-lads (and lassies)(and Lassies) would have fought, and done so, drivne by their concern for.... the Union.

    600,000 dead, for their barmy idea that a particular national alignment is handed down by God - and that, less than 90 years after busting up a previous national experiment! (Why... sounds almost Balkan in its crazed intensity.)

    And yes, sadly, this stance mirrors that of many Northerners at the time. Witness the way the Emancipation Proclamation lagged a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit, and neither Lincoln nor Congress can be said to have "led" with the anti-slavery issue in the 1860 election and its aftermath.

    Whereas, my moral stance is simple - either the War was about slavery, or it was a slaughterhouse with no morality in it. 

    Amusing though, the way a number of Balkan-type voices of violence rampaged around after the fact, looking to pin the pro-slavery button on those who even wished to consider other possible paths through.

    Say it ain't so, bro.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:26pm

    It ain't so, bro. Don't mistake my incredulous tone for sanctimony. I just don't think that those were serious options.

    Paul's buy-out option is a non-starter. The South seceded even without the North attempting to free a single slave. The Civil War was was about far more than "property "rights.

    A unilateral trade boycott against a huge region that was largely self-sufficient and had good relations with foreign powers would hardly have worked. Heck, boycotts rarely work today in our U.N.-coordinated trade-dependent global system.

    So that leaves secession, which the Union certainly didn't regard as a serious option. But leaving aside the question of breaking the country in two and all the subsequent battles over borders and western territories, it would have left the world with a stalwart slaving nation. Eventually, the South would have freed slaves on its own, but how long? And how long after that before equality would have been achieved? Jim Crow lasted to the 1960s as it was. Apartheid in South Africa survived even longer.

    We're into counterfactuals now, but on the face of it, these just don't seem like real options. Hence my incredulity.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:11am

    I think you ignore that the actual Civil War started as a trade boycott/embargo and imposition of a blockade on southern ports. As there were only a handful of significant southern ports - only 3 on the Atlantic coast, 3 on the Gulf were defended, and the North held the Florida Keys, the North's "Anaconda Plan" indeed was effective, including a mission to be sent down the Mississippi to help break the south in 2. It was rejected as the main approach only because it wasn't aggressive enough.

    Some in the north did regard secession as a serious option, such as the "Go West Young Man" New York editor Horace Greeley. However, that was not the new administration's take.

    As for Southern hostile intent, "The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William H. Seward, who wished to give up Sumter for political reasons—as a gesture of good will—engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[21]"


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:29am

    I knew about the blockade but didn't realize that the Union considered it as an alternative to infantry war. So yes, that was clearly a serious alternative option.

    But a blockade is very different from an embargo. It employs military force and is generally regarded as an act of war. Nonetheless, if it would have resolved the conflict with fewer casualties, I'm all for it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:26am

    hahahahahah

    I hereby render unto this Canadian prick the Dayly Comment of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of us free Americans. hahahahaha

    Why I am not arguing that Ron Paul is not a racist, fascist prick. Because he is. hahahahahaahahahahhaahahahh

    Now I know why there is this imaginary line separating the home of the free and the brave from a bunch of English colonial cowards. hahaahahahahah

    By the by, Q do you know a good doctor I could write to in order to alleviate my pain? Just a few Oxycontin or some such. hahahahahah

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:09pm

    Thanks Dick. but no, I know of no such doctor. Sadly. Cause my leg arm left nut chestal tissue back hurts like hell, and I need a refill some pain relief.

    As for cowards, and the English, you have to be careful. Diplomatic. See, you're 90% safe in insulting "the English." But "the Loyalists"... weren't so very very English, in many cases.

    And as for how history unfolded from there, well... Canadians always say a nice loud "thank you" to the US for entering WW2... but they also tend to mumble a bit amongst themselves about those years spent on the sidelines... in the face of this clearly immoral and muderous monster... if you catch my drift. ;-)


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:33pm

    When the conversation repeatedly centers around the soldiers and not those who were enslaved questions are raised. The freeing of the slaves was a triumph. The Civil War was a triumph. when you talk about the poor newly freed slaves as a consequence of the Civil War, it does suggest that you are selecting enslavement over the Civil War.

    Most importantly, the Civil War is over. The GOP is focusing on voter suppression in minority communities. The GOP is labeling black voters as criminals or preferring welfare to work. That is the message of the GOP today in 2012. The Civil War has no place in this discussion. Ron Paul wants to benefit the black community because he views them as drug dealers. What is his position on foreclosures, voter suppression and job creation. Other than telling blacks that he wouldn't prevent a private business from discriminating, Paul has no message.

    Paul's racist view of the black community is no different than the racial code words that come from Gingrich (food stamp President, Welfare talk to the NAACP); Cain (black Democrats are brainwashed); Perry (Niggerhead); Bachmann (the founding fathers fought against slavery); Santorum (I meant blah...not black). If the GOP can't take the time to study history or to learn about what black voters actually are clamoring for, then f**K the GOP and their fellow travelers.

    Just as black slaves did not want to return to slavery, current day black voters are not going to accept as party who has a racist view of their community as a savior.

    There is a tendency to view the Christian faith of many blacks as making them willing to accept a great deal of crap on earth to gain freedom after death. What is forgotten is that defiant strain of black religion that carried the race through troubled times. The hymn "Oh Freedom" has a line; "And before I'll be a slave, I'll be buried in my grave." Concerned about the status of post Civil War freed slaves, what a load of crap.

    Telling us that Ron "Stormfront" Paul is the answer. Shove it. We'll find another means to alter drug laws, just as some people suggest another means besides the Civil War should have been found. We'll keep the federal educational grants and work to improve governmental health care plans, thank you very much.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:20pm

    A lovely little rant, but not at all sure why it's attached in response to my comment. 1stly, because you and I really shouldn't speak. And 2ndly because, whatever you're on about has no connection at all to my comment. e.g. Your line, "Telling us that Ron "Stormfront" Paul is the answer. Shove it." is a comment aimed somewhere out in space. At least, it better be aimed out at space.

    Otherwise, it's really quite poorly-mannered.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:16pm

    Sorry. I though that it got inserted as an addendum to my own comment at 4:53 PM.

    Was it brewmn, me or brewmn or both that weren't supposed to be communicating? At any rate, I haven't benn replying to your posts.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:50pm

    But is there a case that perhaps the U.S. had other courses, other options, other paths along the way? Ones that might have benefited the black population even more?

    Absolutely. Unfortunately, the amount of benefit the variously contested proposals put forward might have provided to a group that was largely considered to be sub-human was not a primary design criteria at the time.

    But your set of questions is not what Paul is talking about. Paul's alternative history suggests that the resistance to the end of slavery was unnecessarily amplified by those who opposed the institution. Who would benefit from that sort of speculation? 


    by moat on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:19pm

    Doesn't the South deserve a bit of the blame for the country's headlong rush into Civil War?  You and Peracles make it sound like the South was eminently reasonable in its decision to secede, even though the election of Lincoln did nothing but ratify the feelings of a narrow plurality of Americans that slavery should not spread throughout the new territories.  

    Seems to me those claiming that the Civil War was a mistake and who don't preface their claim by placing blame on the South for their precipitous decision to secede rather than negotiate with the newly-elected Republican administration are the ones making the ahistorical argument, targeted more at emotion than at facts and logic, here.

    It wasn't the North who decided not to "wait some more."   


    by Ethanator on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:43pm

    The leaders of the South - and many of its landowners and slaveowners - were complete racist pieces of shit. Violent, killers, wealthy pigs, etc. And their decisions were most usually appalling in the lead-up to the War.

    That said, there can be sensible discussion about their right to secede, as well as who was playin' whom in the run-up to the War. Doesn't make the leaders of the South - and its % of pro-slavery residents - any better, just says, they may have some sort of legal case. 

    And also, in point of fact, many Northerners were racist pricks, many others were very happy to supply the slave industry, many looked to gain from the War, many were violent assholes, etc.

    Such is life.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:59pm

    Shorter Ethanator: "can't you discuss the Civil War by describing it exactly as in every textbook and then once you've made it clear you agree with that, then say what you want?"

    Southerners knew the direction they were headed, whether in 5 years or 15, and chose to secede. Whether they were nuts or immoral or whatever, they could see the writing on the wall, and they like East Libyans and Kurds and Quebecians and whoever have the right to secede and form their own government.

    The only real question is not whether they had a right to secede - they did, whatever made up God-ordained status Lincoln gave to "Country Unity My Ass". It's what were the legal and moral options for handling the South's slaves.

    As Q said, if the North was fighting to free the slaves, that was a distinctly moral position - whether the best option, 2nd or 3rd. Fighting to maintain country unity is something to tell a group of flag wavers - not something progressives should applaud, no?

    However, in debating the options of how best to handle slavery, whether in the Civil War or similar protection of people's rights in the future (Burma? North Korea? Pakistan border regions, Afghanistan), the options should look at practical outcomes, preferably in advance. "Hey you're free! Sorry I had to kill all your family in the process, and sorry you only have a handful of dirt to eat."

    Many bloody wars start off trying to be moral, and fail at their goals miserably. Which gives an idea that good intentions aren't a good excuse.

    Obviously freeing the slaves should have involved not just the physical act (whether by war or by edict), but also dealing with the economic, educational, cultural, and other issues required to actually transition a deeply ingrained practice.

    Instead, we threw some soldiers at the problem, and expected them to be back from Manassas by dinner. Which is what we did in Iraq, and in Vietnam. And when it didn't work so easily, we just throw in more troops, because it's just a few more steps to Jerusalem. Well it took a real son-of-a-bitch like William Sherman to end the war, and that's kinda the way it always goes - if lucky. The British tried the Sherman approach in Iraq in the 1920's, and they ended up after 10 years or so just throwing in the towel. After showing some of their worst barbarity.

    So, maybe instead of asking me to repeat the rote lessons, you should look at history as a continual lesson book that needs re-evaluating to better understand the present and the future. And we haven't even discussed what effect Reconstruction had on race relations, which you might find was the bigger issue in this long-held grudge - after a few years, everyone gave up, and by 1878, we settled into a new status quo, much like the old one, but without official slavery. Progress? Well, a bit.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:17am

    The Civil war is over. Reconstruction is over. we are judging Ron Paul and the GOP in 2012 not the 1860s. Ron Paul is not the answer to our racial strife. Blacks have more issues than people being able to smoke marijuana. For Paul to think that he is focusing on the most important issue in the black community is a disgrace. Let's deal with the current century. Blacks celebrate the past on Juneteenth. The Civil War was a triumph.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:36am

    Yeah yeah yeah, the only impact of the drug war on blacks is the right to smoke a joint, not about having 1 million+ incarcerated or reporting to a parole officer.

    And Paul was only using the war on drugs as a flagrant example of where the courts provide no balanced recourse to minorities. But you have to find something abhorrent in everything he says, just because he's a Republican and he has to fit your model that all Republicans are the same evil.

    (in 2009, 840,000 or almost 5% of non-Hispanic black males were incarcerated; perhaps it's not the black population's biggest problem, but I'd think he'd get some credit for being the only candidate D- or R- to worry about it)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:59am

    There has been a change in cocaine sentencing under the current Democratic President. The legislation came through Congress where it was fought tooth and nail by Conservatives. Ron Paul would have the same success that Obama and Holder had. I'll take the President who actually made an attempt to change things over the guy who talks about dong stuff. So, no, I don't give Ron Paul a great deal of credit. When Paul talks about doing something about voter suppression, I might give him some props, although even there, Eric Holder has made an actual move against actions being taken in South Carolina, so Obama would still be superior. With Paul I run the risk that he may view voter suppression as something to be left to the state committing the act. Ron Paul is too risky for me.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:01am

    Weird: Ron Paul was one of the co-sponsors of the original more lenient House bill, but still spoke out in favor of the final joint bill. Obama simply signed it once it had passed both houses.

    ----------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2009, the United States House Committee on the Judiciary passed proposed legislation, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act (H.R.3245), a bill sponsored by Bobby Scott. Co-sponsored by a group of 62 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, the bill would have completely eliminated the sentencing disparity.[25] The Fair Sentencing Act was introduced as compromise legislation to get bipartisan and unanimous support, amended to merely reduce the 100:1 disparity to 18:1.[26]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Ron Paul: Statement on the Fair Sentencing Act
    July 28, 2010
    Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant support for S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act. My support is reluctant because S. 1789 is an uncomfortable mix of some provisions that reduce the harms of the federal war on drugs and other provisions that increase the harms of that disastrous and unconstitutional war. I am supporting this legislation because I am optimistic the legislation's overall effect will be positive.
     
    Congress should be looking critically at how we can extricate America from the four decades of destruction that has ensued since President Richard Nixon announced the federal war on drugs in 1972. As a medical doctor with over 30 years' experience, I certainly recognize the dangers that can arise from drug abuse. However, experience shows that the federal drug war creates many additional dangers, while failing to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse. Like 14 years of federal alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and '30s, America's federal drug war has failed to ameliorate the problems associate with drug use, while fostering violence and disrespect for individual rights.
     
    While imperfect, I am optimistic that the Senate bill being considered today will reduce the harms of the federal drug war. I also hope consideration of this legislation will enliven interest in ending the federal war on drugs.
     
    It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is today considering this compromise legislation from the Senate instead of Rep. Bobby Scott's HR 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act. I am an original cosponsor of Rep. Scott's bill, which passed the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on July 29, 2009—one year ago tomorrow. Rep. Scott's legislation is a short and simple bill that repeals a handful of clauses, sentences, and subparagraphs of federal drug laws to eliminate the 100 to one drug weight basis for sentencing disparity for crack cocaine violations in comparison to powder cocaine violations.
     
    I will vote for the Senate legislation today because it rolls back some of the enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine that the federal government created in 1986. These enhanced mandatory minimum sentences have caused people convicted for small amounts of crack cocaine to serve much longer sentences in prison than people convicted for the same amount of powder cocaine.
     
    While the Senate legislation reduces the drug weight basis for mandatory minimum sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions for many individuals to only 18 to one compared to the total elimination of the disparity in Rep. Scott's bill, the Senate bill does make a step in the right direction. The Senate bill eliminates entirely the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and reduces significantly the mandatory minimum sentence for many people convicted of crack offenses by raising the number of grams of crack cocaine a person must possess for each mandatory minimum sentence level to apply. In addition, the Senate bill allows courts to show compassion for individuals with compelling cases for leniency by reducing sentences for some people convicted of controlled substances violations who a court determines meet requirements including having minimum knowledge of the illegal enterprise, receiving no monetary compensation from the illegal transaction, and being motivated by threats, fear, or an intimate or family relationship.
     
    Unfortunately, while the Senate bill reduces some of the most extreme and unjust mandatory minimum sentences in the federal drug war, it also contains expansions of the federal drug war that I fear may yield results destructive to individual liberty and public safety. In particular, the Senate bill significantly increases maximum allowed monetary penalties for violations of federal restrictions on controlled substances and increases sentences for people convicted of controlled substances violations whose circumstances include certain aggravating factors.
     
    Some people will argue that the increased penalties in the Senate legislation are desirable because they target people who are high up in the illegal drug trade or who took particularly disturbing actions, such as involving a minor in drug trafficking. But, the history of the federal drug war has shown that ramping up penalties always results in increasing rather than decreasing the harms arising from the federal drug war. Such enhanced penalties increase the risks of the drug trade thus causing illegal drug operations to be more ruthless and violent in their tactics. Enhanced penalties also can result in even more inflated prices for illegal drugs, leading to more thefts by individuals seeking funds to support their drug use. High monetary fines for drug trafficking also tend to provide police and prosecutors with a perverse incentive to focus on nonviolent drug crimes instead of violent crimes.
     
    Each successive ramping up of the federal war on drugs has made it more evident that this war is incompatible with constitutional government, individual liberty, and prosperity. It is time for Congress to reverse course. I am optimistic that S. 1789—even with its faults—may signal that Congress is ready to begin reversing course. It is imperative that the House of Representatives pursue a dialogue on how we can end the federal war on drugs—a war that has increasingly become a war on the American people and our Constitution.

    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:16am

    So I got the same bill and compromise from Obama and didn't have to rely on the grumpy old guy who takes funds from racists and won't tell us who wrote his racist newsletters? Seems like a win to me. Thanks!

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:40am

    You're right, Peracles.  The next time we abolish slavery in this country, we should try to avoid devastating war and 600,000 deaths. 


    by Ethanator on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:16am

    Right, and the next time we try freeing a people and winning hearts and minds with carpet bombing, indefinite detention and drones, perhaps we'll make similar considerations.

    Aw never mind, just kidding.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:35am

    It seems that you want to be free to be allowed to make the large leap between support for an effort that wound up freeing the slaves and support for modern day carpet bombing in the Middle East, but would object to others connecting trying to find "alternatives" to the Civil War that delayed freeing the slaves and allowing Bull Connor to go unchecked by the federal government in using fire hoses and police dogs against black citizens who objected to a store owner's right to discriminate.

    If you connect Civil war support to carpet bombing, Civil War opposition connects to Bull Connor.  It's false equivalence.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:53am

    But then Bull Connor wasn't given free reign, was he.

    And my "large leap" is actually a pretty simple observation that our supposedly simple humanitarian interventions often turn into huge bloody messes.

    Remember the Maine!!!


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:02am

    The Civil War alternative did not happen, but you argue that it would have been better. Bull Connor did not get free reign, but he could have given the states rights position at the time. Compare fiction to fiction.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:01am

    It's interesting that you find the Cvil War as "illegitimate" as our invasion of Iraq.  and by "interesting, " I mean "really ridiculous."  As someone noted upthread, you really do like to just toss any old bullshit analogy against the wall, and hope it sticks, don't you?

    So, enlighten us.  Beyond the fact that military force was used, what are the reasonably precise historical parallels between the Civil War and the invasion of Iraq?  


    by Ethanator on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:09pm

    We do have some slave narratives written before and after the Civil War. I am not aware of the bulk of narratives from escaped slaves detailing their desire to relieve themselves of the burden of freedom by returning to slavery. Some people with ancestors were at no risk of being enslaved may lament the slaves freedom, but most slaves who wrote about the experience of slavery were not in a rush to go back to "Massa".

    Slave patrols were required because slaves wanted to escape. The details of slave revolts were buried. In regions where physical labor was intense, the average lifespan of a male slave could be as little as thirty years.

    In the "civilized" part of the world where slavery was abolished peacefully, racial anomousity persists. Watch Prof Gates' PBS series "Black In Latin America" for details. There were race riots in Britain last year because of hatred between police and minorities. To suggests that those whites who were racist would have remained calm if the Civil war had not occurred is ridiculous. Again it is a cover to imply, slavery wasn't bad and the Civil War was too high a price for worthless blacks.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:33pm

    Bizarro - I'm arguing that maybe there were other ways to end slavery than kill 600,000 (i.e. like all the rest of the world did at that time), and noted that our method of ending slavery didn't actually end black suffering for another century (or even now), and you use it to say I'm just arguing "slavery wasn't always that bad, we shoulda just waited some more". 

    ​I've lost a lot of respect for you.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:39am

    You don't see that the one thing hurts your argument about the other? Like I said, they don't jive... Either you are for trying to end slavery at the time (another way--fine) or you're not. You don't drag in "having these people go free isn't going to work very well for a hundred years anyways. What is that but an argument for delaying freeing them!

    I really don't care about your respect, especially since I was simply trying to point out your very obvious inconsistency for the benefit of your argument (please reread my comment, and not what your pal quinn thinks my comment is.)

    BTW, I took many looks at the older thread,  where you mostly did the same thing, just dragging in any old thing that might support your case, no matter how ridiculously the twist conflicted with your point about avoiding devastating war.

    Matter of fact, I didn't see any of you in the original debate on all sides went to/cited original docs to what people in power at the time were saying, it was all theory, all sturm and drang, no meat, a waste of time Very clear none of you had read much except the very basics of the history. There's a gazillion better words written out there on the Civil War than what has been discussed on DagBlog, really. It's a really silly exercise for all concerned to keep hacking at the same points. High school history stuff. Signing out on that topic.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:09am

    "You don't drag in "having these people go free isn't going to work very well for a hundred years anyways. What is that but an argument for delaying freeing them!"

    ​For fuck's sake. The Iraq occupation was completely screwed up. We didn't get security, it didn't "free the people" except in a perverse way. So rushing in to produce a trillion dollar clusterfuck is kinda self-defeating, wouldn't you think?

    Union deaths are estimated at 360,000 - Southern at 260,000. So more Yanks died in the war - is that something to consider?

    ​Reconstruction ended as mostly a failure - by 1878, blacks were disenfranchised and out of power, the northern Republicans had lost interest and were on to wiping out Indians and making money out West and getting into the industrial revolution. So we have a war that kills 600,000, gives blacks a fleeting glimpse of good times post-slavery, and then drops them back in the muck until say 1964 or later.

    ​Slaves were not in practicality freed until 1865, no matter what Lincoln finally said 3 years into the war. So if in 1860 you had a 5 year window to design a plan to fix slavery so black rights wouldn't be in the sewer for the next 100 years, that they would have a chance at reasonably equal opportunity, what would you do? If a good plan took 15 years of steady progress, versus some hope of instant miracle after 3, which would you choose? Or is time not allowed in any planning, only as a chaotic unfortunate result?

    Think of it as project management or whatever, just figure out the outcomes. The ones we got, aside from the basic requirement that slavery be abolished, was pretty shitty - more for blacks than racist whites who regained power and managed. Why people are clinging to it as if it was an unapologetic success, I can't fathom.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:40am

    Black people survived and thrived. The Civil war was worth it. Should the colonists have remained under the thumb of the British and waited for British colonialism to collapse? The US has been through turmoil including depressions, was the colonists' effort in vain?

    The Civil War is over. The South lost. Where do we go from here?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:12am

    Oh right, black people thrived in say 1880? Please define "thrive".

    The Civil War was worth it? well, if the only consideration is "did it stop US slavery", then I can't argue. As I don't know if any other factors enter your calculation, I dunno.

    As the colonists became quite prosperous following the Revolution, and the Revolution itself wasn't nearly as bloody (25,000 deaths vs. the Civil War's 620,000), it seems a very good move.

    Plus we scored all that British/French/Indian land west of the Adirondacks to the Mississippi immediately after.

    While I understand you'd like to score some equivalence, there really is none. There was a land speculation bubble in 1797, 16 years after Cornwallis' surrender, so no, not a real depression followed. 

    Compare that to the turmoil and tough times for freed slaves in the south from 1865-1868 before real representation was enforced, while the south was doing what it could to retain its old white-dominated order. Consider that the northern enforced new way lasted about 10 years - "thrived" as you put it - before it was reversed by 1878.

    To be honest, I'm not sure there was a more successful route post-war to implement a new order, but certainly it would be nice to consider one that would have lasted longer than 10 years.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:32am

    To be honest, I'm not sure there was a more successful route post-war to implement a new order, but certainly it would be nice to consider one that would have lasted longer than 10 years........

    But, you are stuck. For you the Civil War was a tragedy and everything ends there. Ron Paul is a states rights man up to and including discrimination is ok and the marketplace will work to correct the problem. Martin Luther King Jr. said that Barry Goldwater and his states rights supporters were wrong on the issue of discrimination being allowed. Was Goldwater right on the issue of segregation? Is Ron Paul correct on that issue? You have to take the entire Goldwater and Ron Paul states rights package.

    In the 1880s there were Klan-like groups attacking blacks. Whites attacked Indians. Cowboys attacked sheepherders. Thriving meant that you were staying alive. Just off the top of my head, Tuskeegee Institute was founded in 1881. Other black colleges were created around the same time.Two black owned banks opened in 1888, including the Capital Savings Bank of Washington DC. Booker T Washington rose to prominence. Thriving means improving from what was there before you arrived, and blacks in the 1880s did that.

    I am not saddened by how blacks thrived in the 1880s despite  lynchings. I cannot understand how you are not filled with pride by their actions. Are you suggesting that 20-50 more years of slavery would have improved their status?

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 8:43am

    "Thriving meant that you were staying alive." Uh, okay - they were mostly doing that under slavery.

    ​2 banks plus Booker T. was head of Tuskeegee Institute. Fine, but not how I defined "thriving": 

     

    thrivingpresent participle of thrive (Verb)

    Verb:
    1. (of a child, animal, or plant) Grow or develop well or vigorously: "the new baby thrived".
    2. Prosper; flourish: "education groups thrive on organization"; "a thriving economy".

     

    "For you the Civil War was a tragedy, and everything else ended there" - uh, no, I mentioned Reconstruction, and the end of Reconstruction by about 1878 brought white southern fanatics back to power, and it basically ended there until blacks were able to make inroads through the courts and protests starting post-WWII.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 8:54am

    Wow. The fact that banks and institutions of higher learning were being built is the sign of a flourishing society. How many slave banks and colleges would have existed if they remained in slavery in the 1880s waiting for slavery to burn out?

    Would those financial and educational institutions have been founded when they were if your plan for ending slavery had been in effect? Answer. No.

    Can we now stay in the current century?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:07am

    I will simply refer you to an inexpensive book by historian Quintard Taylor of the University of Washington titled " Black I AM Facts". the Kindle version is about $5-6. Taylor gives timelines for events in the African-American community during your so-called inactive period.

    Typically, you mention 2 banks, "some" colleges and Booker T Washington. As, I noted, that was only what came to mind after you mentioned the 1880s. OObviously more was going on.  I still see no sensible argument for delaying freeing the slaves coming from your side. I think if you told the newly freed slaves that you could work a better deal if they just remained in slavery a few more decades, I doubt that you would have many takers.

    Definition of flourishing? Not being a slave.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:15am

    [correction: I originally stated 5 years for the Civil War - it was 4]

    I didn't advocate "delaying". I noted it took 4 bloody years from Lincoln's taking office to actual freeing of most slaves following the war, which was proposed some 21 months after the start of hostilities. (Presumably, some less bloody plan with more benign effect could have been proposed for that same 4 years. As I noted elsewhere on this thread, Lincoln refused to hear peaceful offers of compensation for Ft. Sumter, though obviously the bargaining over the whole slavery issue would have been much more difficult)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:40am

    You said "thrive" as a justification for how swimmingly the Civil War went.

    Not my fault your examples didn't really convey this.

    For this century, I posted Ron Paul's co-sponsorship and support of the Fair Sentencing Act 2 years ago - awaiting your whole-hearted applause for this needed measure.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:42am

    With  freedom came churches, schools, homes, neighborhoods, banks, a professional class, etc. Blacks thrived. I am sorry that you cannot see that progress was made, but that is your problem, not mine. Blacks did not sleep between 1860 and 1960, I'm sorry that you don't know that. Steady progress was made leading to the Civil rights era. Read about the post WWI era when Black soldiers returned from Europe and a mostly non discriminatory France and how that impacted race relations in the US. Read about the formation of the NAACP, etc.

    Ron Paul will not be getting my whole-hearted applause because he traffics with racists. That is something that I won't ignore. We got the same bill in the end that Ron Paul agreed to. Applause to Obama-Holder.

    In the real world progress often takes time. Ford had an air car in the 1950s or 1960s, we see no Jetson style  air cars today they will they come eventually or we will have something even better. Heck one day I'll be able to be able to connect to all my data no matter where I am without needing to find a "hotspot". You want to repeatedly relive the Civil war while others are looking ahead.

    TMc used the Civil War as a historical reference point. She does not continually re-fight the Civil war. The blog should not be bogged down by repeatedly stating that something else could have happened in the Civil War. It didn't.

    Write a blog about what you see the the better outcome for the Civil war and how the slaves would have been oh so much better.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:48am

    No, really, it's as good as it could ever have been, nothing to learn from history. 

    Blacks were in rawkin' good shape from 1865 to 1965, and then they rawked even more.

    Good night, Gracie.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 3:01pm

    Just to be clear: you're suggesting that one is more defensible than the other because of the end results, even though no one could've predicted what those end results would've been before the wars started. If you think that someone could've predicted just how bad the Civil War would be, then you're probably not familiar with many of the early Union mistakes. If you think someone could've predicted just how well the Revolutionary War went, then you're probably not familiar with many of its details. Don't get me wrong, I'm no history buff, but I know enough to know that the end results could not be even semi-reliably predicted.

    P.S. In doing a little research based off something Q wrote, I will give you the point that the British did, in fact, compensate slave owners for the loss of their slave when they freed them. I can find it arguable that such a method could've been tried here. Of course, although the war was started primarily over slavery, I don't believe the North was fighting primarily to free the slaves so much as to maintain the Union. (That's not to say that freeing the slaves wasn't important to many in the North, however, which is borne out by the fact that they leveraged the situation to do just that.)


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:24am

    Sorry, I think I'm saying wars almost always turn out worse than people think.

    "No one could have predicted terrorists flying planes into building". Right, human myopia.

    And yes, the British provided compensation to slaves many years before. Interestingly, in Jamaica, the slaves revolted during the transition period to speed up the time to freedom.

    But as you note, Lincoln cared less about the slaves than his precious Union. Though I imagine many soldiers cared more about slavery.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:34am

    Sorry, I think I'm saying wars almost always turn out worse than people think.

    Then perhaps you would like to revisit rmrd0000's question:

    Should the colonists have remained under the thumb of the British and waited for British colonialism to collapse?

    Don't get me wrong, I agree with your statement. I'm just trying to figure out what conclusions one should draw from it. Should all wars be avoided? If so, your answer to rmrd0000's question is clear. If not, then there must be a secondary principle. What is it?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:06am

    I already replied - we made out like bandits, including by default all of the French/British/Indian property west of the Adirondacks to the Mississippi.

    Only 25,000 dead, and the richest kingdom in the world.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:12am

    So, then your qualification is that wars are OK if we make out like bandits? How are we supposed to know ahead of time whether we will make out like bandits?

    I initially interpreted your answer just as you present it here, but that didn't seem consistent with your later assertion. Could you clarify?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:53am

    Please try not to be so humorless. It's like warmth sucked out of my body. Time to go watch Nosferatu.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 3:02pm

    That feels like an evasion. If you're saying I'm missing your humor, then was your point that you were only joking that the Revolutionary War was worth fighting? If so, would that imply that you think it wasn't worth fighting? I'm sorry I don't get your humor, but I don't, so I'm afraid you'll have to break it down for me if you want me to understand how what you've said is self-consistent.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 3:36pm

    sorry, I seem to have forgot. never mind. i'm sure it'll come around again.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:30pm

    This is classic argumentum ad consequentiam: you didn't like what you perceive as the consequence of freeing the slaves (even though that particular consequence preceded its cause), so you think maybe slave ownership was legitimate (excuse me, "legitimate") in 1860. Wow.

    Property rights do not trump civil rights. Of course there are gray areas, but not anywhere near where you're walking.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:43pm

    VA. This is classic "you don't get it." Slave ownership, in 1860, in the South certainly, was legal. i.e. "Legitimate,"with quotation marks around it. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:14pm

    No, I most definitely don't get it.

    (a) No one has ever disputed that slave ownership in 1860 was legal.

    (b) I can't believe either Peracles or you would claim that legal=legitimate, with or without quotation marks.

    (c) If what he meant by "legitimate" was legal, why didn't he say legal and avoid any ambiguity? Surely there was a reason for the deliberate choice of "legitimate" rather than legal. What was it?


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:34pm

    VA, within SOUTHERN SOCIETY, slave ownership was both legal, as well as legitimate. PP put quotation marks around it to show that it isn't necessarily his opinion, but those of others, at the time. Can't see where the controversy is on that.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:37pm

    On practical terms, the "buyout" approach has  difficulties.

    One example, Haiti, they just paid the last installment like in the last ten years 1947.

    Rough numbers, 2000/slave (per insurance rcds) 4 million slaves, 8 billion 1860 dollars.

    I dunno.


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:16pm

    I donno either, but something tells me the ability of the United States to pay down debt is likely to have been somewhat greater, historically, than Haiti's. ;-)


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:09pm

    To be crass, there probably would have been a volume discount.

    To be only slightly less crass, a cease-and-desist payout would likely not compensate up to fully insured value of every slave, but would likely have been offered as some ease of economic damage.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 5:25am

    TMac, you've nailed the problem.  There is not a magically fairy candidate out there who wants to have a fair tax system, a well regulated financial system, as well as a truly compassionate, caring and free society.

    Sometimes you just have to judge people why what it is they choose to freak out about.  When somebody tells me, "I'm a social libertarian, I think you should be able to do whatever you want," I get all happy and then, the next words out of their mouths is too often something stupid like, "For example, if you don't want to let Hispanics join your country club..." Ugh.

    It'd be nice, though, if an actual thoughtful Democrat would show up and say, "You know what?  Nobody should be hassled by the cops for smoking marijuana.  And also, let's have a transactions tax."


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:48pm

    Thanks des, yes to everything you wrote, I agree completely.

    And yes it would be good for a Democrat to suck it up and say nobody should be hassled for smoking a joint, and yes those transactions should be taxed, cause that would show some backbone! Well we can dream can't we, cause dreamin' is free.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:29pm

    Oy, I always wondered who Alex Jones was, seriously, this was my intro.

    That said,( and btw I can't argue with a thing tmac says) I have been driven crazy on the drug war/war war/ spy war thing.

    I want to give cover to anyone who says publicly the truth that Bradley Manning is a hero.

    Others may differ, but that buys a full getouttajail free card from me.

    (oh, and PP, give me a break...buy the slaves?  That's code and should be seen as such.  You do Paul too much kindness to take those particular protestations at face value.)


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:27pm

    Even though I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, I can respect the position (which I take to be yours) that says, "yeah, I know he's wrong about these other things, but what matters to me right now is ending the war(s) and preventing future wars". I just can't respect the position that seems to be "what matters to me right now is ending the war(s) and preventing future wars so Ron Paul must be right about that other stuff, too."

    I will vote for Barack Obama, but that doesn't mean I think he's right about everything. I think it was a very bad move for him to sign the NDAA, and his signing statement meant next-to-nothing. I just think he's the best option we have right now.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:50pm

    I think it's just too depressing for some to see that the only person talking sense about the drug war, the war on terror and domestic surveillance is also a deranged nut job on everything else.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:02pm

    It certainly is depressing to me but as you say, the nut job is the only one talking sense on those three very important issues and arguably a few more. You know where I am going with this. The obvious corollary is that among the candidates with a realistic chance to take over the leadership of our country and the one who now is the leader of out country, none of them are talking sense on those issues. That means they are talking nonsense. That means they are nut jobs.

     We are going to have a nut job for President until at least 2016. I'm not real optimistic that there will be a chance for change we can believe in following that.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:16pm

    From Blow Jobs in the 1990's to Nut Jobs in the 2010's = progress?


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:40pm

    Same anatomy - status quo. You left out Tea Bagging as well. When do the girls get theirs?


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:43am

    When I say a "full" getouttajail card, it's because Paul has such a load of things he needs a simple nolle pros on.


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:06pm

    Oh, you didn't know anything about the horrible Alex Jones.. well there you go.

    Being driven crazy is fine jolly, but if it leads you to do crazy things, well I can't condone that. I think it would be worse than a bad acid trip if Ron Paul were in charge.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:05pm

    He is an odious man with worse associates, who has somehow stumbled through a pile of shit to find three diamonds (four if you count Bradley Manning is a Hero)


    by jollyroger on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:33pm

    We have to acknowledge, however, that the good side of withdrawing from foreign intervention also comes with it the end of positive foreign intervention, like funds to battle AIDS in Africa.  With Paul, they're on their own dealing with that epidemic.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:40pm

    In 2004, African aid was about $3.4 billion for the whole continent - much of that military "aid" of course to help our weapons industry. Help for AIDS was a much smaller part. 

    Again, worth considering an alternate approach to our military-dominated foreign policy.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:47am

    When President Bush came to power in 2001, the US spent $1.4bn a year on humanitarian and development aid in Africa. By 2006, the figure had quadrupled to $5.6bn a year. And it is likely to get bigger. The centrepiece of Mr Bush's aid to Africa is the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), a five-year, $15bn Aids prevention and treatment programme launched in 2003. His most recent budget proposes doubling the funding to $30bn over the next five years.

    I didn't say that our current military-dominated foreign policy was the right approach.  I was talking about the  two fundamental types of approaches: one in which the US sees its role as an intervener in the conditions in other countries and one in which US is only concerned about those situations which it sees it a direct threat to its national security.

    Allowing the AIDS epidemic to run rampant in Africa would only further weaken the countries hit by it, allowing them to be less able to resist foreign powers and multi-nationals to sweep in and control things.  Doing the right thing was the "profitable" thing to do in this case. 

    And yes I know that there is a lot of corruption in Africa so not all of the funds go towards the objective.  But, like talking about the dominance of the foreign dollars going to the military, this is a red herring to the broader issue of what role the US role should be on a global level. It would be like saying since there is welfare fraud, we should get rid of it, or since the military budget dwarfs the funds directed toward the safety net, we shouldn't acknowledge that the safety net is an appropriate approach.  The question is not whether to support these issues, but how can we improve how we support them.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:42am

    The racism inherent in Ron Paul's private rights beliefs are definitely horrendous and needs to be pointed out.  But as your title suggests, it is about oppression, and not just one particular ugly strain of oppression.  We are talking about a cafe owner being able to not serve someone because they are black, a business owner who doesn't promote someone simply because they are woman (and tells her so while using crude overtly sexual language), a landlord not renting to homosexuals, a coal mining company stripping an entire mountain and polluting the water, a country club telling the Jews to go somewhere else, and on and on.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:34pm

    I guess everyone is finally convinced that Paul would not make a good President and so won't vote for him.

     Oh. wait, no one here has ever said different. No one has said he would make a good President. No one has said they would vote for him. No one has said anyone else should vote for him.

     Lets continue to concentrate on Paul's alleged racism so we don't have to get into any honest debate about his good ideas which are not shared by anyone else who will be on the ballot come November.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:49pm

    How can you debate his ideas beyond just saying "yeah, I agree with him we should get out of the war" without looking at the underpinnings of how we came to believe we should not be involved in the war, why we need to get the feds out of the drug war, etc.  What one finds when one delves is the underpinning is directly connected to the underpinnings of his racism, etc. as it would be played out in the government.  I mean Pat Buchanan thought the neo-cons were doing the wrong thing with the whole invasion and imperialism.  Politics makes for strange bedfellows. 

    As I said before, Paul's foreign policy would lead to end of positive foreign interventions as well as the negative.  Let's debate that.  Can't have your cake and eat it, too.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:57pm

    What one finds when one delves is the underpinning is directly connected to the underpinnings of his racism, etc. as it would be played out in the government.

      Try to keep this in mind. I am not suggesting electing Ron Paul in order to advance the ideas he puts forth that I agree with. I do not think anyone else here has done so either. 

    I don't assume that there is no way to talk about Paul's good ideas and how to push for them without suggesting that we would have to take the good with the bad. We can reject the bad without rejecting the good.
     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:17pm

    I'm not suggesting you are advocating electing Ron Paul.  I positing that to have debate about his "good ideas" from the pro side of the aisle sort of just end when says, "I agree with him we should get out of the war."  It strikes me the reason he is against war isn't because of humanitarian reasons.  If one just makes an economic case, then one ends up unable to justify any expenditure that goes toward relief of suffering outside our borders.   


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:47pm

    ***Disclaimer Alert*** Ron Paul is a dickhead.

    I caught a snippet of one of the debates this weekend and found myself liking how Paul framed some of his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thought he articulated strong sympathy for the dead and wounded young people whose sacrifices he suggested were essentially made in vain.  It went beyond his usual isolationist and constitutionalist postures. And yeah, LULU, let's talk about it.


    by kyle flynn on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:23am

    I just came back in and saw this on my way to bed. It will be tomorrow before I can get back.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:30am

     Kyle, I spent some time last night trying to formulate a response. I could not then and can not now think of anything to say that has not been said better by others and heard by everyone here. I will rant a while anyway. 

    Part of the human condition is that living involves being subject to a lot of “chance”. It is unavoidable that we must always be subject to some random chance but must also consciously make decisions which carry chance. That is, to some extent we can try to choose what chances we will take.

    Also, I firmly believe that we that there are things which we can learn of, and then empathize with, without directly experiencing those things in our own lives. We can intellectually know something and strongly believe it. I also believe that there are truths which we can know only intellectually but then have an experience that makes us feel the truth of that belief emotionally. There is a difference between only “knowing” something is true and also “feeling” that truth.

    Random chance played out in my life in a way that put me into a position to feel the truth of the saying, “War is Hell”. An attempt that I feel is as honest as I can be to understand why we fight wars has convinced me that we, as a country, have been inflicting hell on earth on millions and millions of people for my entire lifetime and it has almost never been for good reason. For every minute of that time I have watched my country be lied to about our wars and into wars. I have seen entire peoples demonized on a geopolitical realpolitic rotating basis depending on where mostly bad motives directed the warmongers. I have watched the our country believe the delusion that because we are so powerful that we were never decisively defeated that we actually won. We haven’t “won” a god damned thing since Grenada.

    Besides being wrong by any ethical or moral or humanistic standard, our attempt to rule the world is the most likely thing to cause our own downfall. It is pragmatically wrong and it is blindingly stupid to continue the path we are on.

    I didn’t expect miracles but I hoped and then let myself believe that Obama would turn at least somewhat in a better direction. Obama has turned out to be at least as big a lier as any previous President in my lifetime when it comes to war. He continues to commit war crimes and cover for war crimes and put our country in position where more war will result. He might actually be the worse of two evils because his presidency has somehow given his followers reason to not just ignore the problem for partisan reasons but to be complicit in the attempt to shut up the only candidate speaking any truth about our country’s war footing. I am too old for Obama’s bullshit to not be the last fucking straw as far as I am concerned. I will take the chance of being called or even being considered to actually be, a racist by supporting Ron Paul’s message that our war policies are wrong. I will associate myself with Paul in that way becauseis he the one with a national stage and I will take the chance that it will hurt what used to be my team.

    Most of the rest of today will be preparing to leave on a trip tomorrow. I'll check back as I can.


    by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:00am

    Ok, have you been to his campaign website? I went and looked at his "issues" on his campaign website; I don't see much at all about the NDAA or civil rights (besides the right to bear firearms and right to life at conception) or privacy rights for that matter.

    And his statements about war, foreign intervention, and use of the military are very abstract and non-specific, he does not mention Afghanistan that I can see.

    The following things are the things that seem the most important to him, that he has listed under "the issues" tab, these are the issues he wants to advertise in his quest for the presidency. So these are the things it appears he most wants people to elect him to do. I have added bold where I think it is something signficant that might be missed in my pastes

    (Edit to add: if you get an error message on a link, try again; I got them a couple of times, but eventually got the pages if I tried again)

    RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”

    [....]


    TAXES:

    Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

    [....]

    ECONOMY

    RESTORE AMERICA'S PROSPERITY

    [....]

    REAL SOLUTIONS

    As President, Ron Paul will lead the way out of this crisis by:

    * Vetoing any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.

    * Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.

    * Fighting to fully audit (and then end) the Federal Reserve System, which has enabled the over 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy and continues to create money out of thin air to finance future debt.

    * Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.

    * Ending the corporate stranglehold on the White House.

    * Driving down gas prices by allowing offshore drilling, abolishing highway motor fuel taxes, increasing the mileage reimbursement rates, and offering tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles.

    * Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.

    * Opposing all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs.

    These are just a few of the steps we can take to put America back in place as the world’s leading economy.  Taking a stand for these principles has often been a lonely fight in Congress for Ron Paul, but, now more than ever, our nation needs a President who will champion sound money, responsible spending, lower taxes, and free market enterprise.

    TAXES
    LOWER TAXES
    KEEP MORE OF YOUR MONEY

    The power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why Ron Paul will never support higher taxes [....]

    As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes.  And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.

    Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), should also be immediately repealed.

    Struggling college students and those working to support their families would be greatly benefited and receive an immediate pay raise by eliminating taxes on tips.

    As a congressman, Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care.  He also believes it is immoral to tax senior citizens twice by requiring them to include Social Security benefits in their gross income at tax time. A first step to eliminating that requirement would be to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.  Then we must abolish that tax entirely.

    While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

    But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans [....]

    END THE FED

    THE FED: DISHONEST, IMMORAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    There is no greater threat to the security and prosperity of the United States today than the out-of-control, secretive Federal Reserve [....]


    Statement of Faith

    “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

    -Ron Paul

    My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.

    [....]

    I am running to Restore America Now, and by that I mean that it’s time to protect and promote the basic God-given rights inherent in the promise of America.

    We must pass on our heritage of liberty to the next generation – not tens of trillions of dollars in debt and liabilities.

    We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.

    We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures – not printing money out of thin air in almost complete secrecy and then handing it over to oppressive dictators.

    We must only send our men and women to fight for our country when the mission is clear, every necessary tool needed to win is provided, and we respect the Constitution by declaring war.

    Once war is declared, it must be waged according to Just War principles.  We should only fight when it’s in our national security interest, and we should no longer do the corrupt United Nation’s bidding by policing the world.[....]

    IMMIGRATION

    SECURE OUR BORDERS
    A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY
    [....]

    COMMON SENSE REFORMS

    If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration.  As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

    * Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.
    [....]


    SECOND AMENDMENT

    PROTECT GUN RIGHTS

    [....]

    RON PAUL'S PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS

    As a congressman, Ron Paul has never once voted for any piece of legislation that would infringe on gun owners’ rights or weaken the Second Amendment.

    The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not only essential to a free society, but it is the guardian of every other right.

    During his time in Congress, Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans by:

    * Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”

    * Authoring legislation to end U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”

    * Writing a bill that would allow pilots and specially trained law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers and help prevent future 9/11-style attacks.

    With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

    HOMESCHOOLING

    HOMESCHOOLING CHAMPION
    [....]
    TAX CREDITS FOR HOMESCHOOLING-
    [....]
    PUT PARENTS BACK IN CHARGE

    Congressman Paul wants parents to have the freedom to choose the best educational options for their children, and his commitment to ensuring homeschooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any other Presidential candidate.

    As President, he will veto any legislation that encroaches on homeschooling parents’ rights.

    Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda.[....]

    ABORTION

    A PRO-LIFE CHAMPION

    [....]

    And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

    * Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

    * Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

    [....]
     

    RIGHT TO WORK

    FORCED UNIONISM VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION
    [...]

    BIG LABOR’S FORCED-DUES EMPIRE
    [...]

    A PRO-RIGHT TO WORK RECORD

    That’s why Ron Paul has been a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act in Congress.

    Passage of a National Right to Work law would end forced union dues by repealing compulsory-dues provisions in federal labor law.

    In addition to his support for a National Right to Work law, he also voted to defeat Big Labor’s “Card Check” scheme.

    This bill would have eliminated secret ballot elections for union organizers – allowing union bosses to intimidate workers into signing themselves over to union boss control.

    And he voted against the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

    This legislation was designed to put all American police and firefighters under the union bosses’ control – just the first step toward forcing all state and local public employees under Big Labor’s thumb.

    Ron Paul’s exceptional record on Right to Work issues earned him the prestigious Everett Dirksen Award from the National Right to Work Committee.

    And he’s been proud to receive the support of the National Right to Work Committee in each and every one of his Congressional elections over the years.

    As President, he will continue to lead the fight to free Americans from the shackles of compulsory unionism     by working to pass a National Right to Work law [...]

    ENERGY

    FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

    The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs [...]

    HEALTH CARE
    THE RIGHT REMEDY
    “DO NO HARM”

    Dr. Ron Paul spent his entire career in the medical profession working to uphold this simple principle by ensuring his patients received the best care he could give them, even if they could not afford it.

    Dr. Paul understands the key to effective and efficient medical care is the doctor-patient relationship.  Yet, federal bureaucrats continue to believe that their one-size-fits-all policies will lower costs, increase access, and cure an ailing industry.

    Instead, excessive regulation, immoral mandates, and short-sighted incentives have created a system where no one is happy, doctors pass quickly from one patient to the next, insurance is expensive to get and difficult to maintain, and politicians place corporate interests ahead of their constituents


    FREEDOM NOT FORCE

    The answer to our nation’s health care crisis lies in freedom – not force.

    As President, Ron Paul will fight to put you back in control of your health care decisions, save you money on medical expenses, and institute reforms that will once again make America’s health care system the standard for other nations to follow.

    He will work with Congress to: [....]

    NATIONAL DEFENSE
    STRONG. SECURE. RESPECTED.
    PROVEN LEADERSHIP

    “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” – Ronald Reagan


    A PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY

    As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

    In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

    Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

    Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

    Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

    Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

    Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

    That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

    * Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

    * Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

    * Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

    * End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

    * Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

    * Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

    * Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

    * Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

    * Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

    * Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

    As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 1:00am

    Even before I got to the bottom of this very long comment, I knew it was an AA comment. Your comments stand out for their strong information content with remarkably little bias. I envy your ability to gather and distil information.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:27am

    Paul is a crank.  He has always been a crank.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:42am

    But he's a popular crank.


    by Donal on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 8:03am

    I find it interesting that many people have used this space to discuss the civil war yet again, should it have been fought or not, etc and so on.

    My point is, the Civil War is over, there is no re-fighting it, there is no going back, seriously. The Civil War is over, that is the point and my point with pointing out Ron Paul's ridiculous view, because we cannot turn back the clock. Any discussion of what might have been is just mythology cranked up by the pro-secessionists.  There is no discussing the 'what ifs' that have been brought up in this thread, it is over, it is ridiculous to accept from a candidate for the Presidency that this is relevant to any discussion, because it isn't, it is the dog whistle as I stated in my blog, to attract a certain type of voter.

    As AA sharply pointed out by reading his website, Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist Reformer, that is some pretty extreme stuff. Some folks are completely ignoring that stuff, his radical view of what our government should be. It should control women and rich people should never have to pay taxes for any reason, so no roads, nothing, if Ron Paul had his choice we would be 50 nation states, doesn't anyone see that?

    Ron Paul at times sounds lucid, so what, I am sure the same is true of Joe "no relation to me" McCarthy, but it didn't make him any less toxic to America. Ron Paul is toxic to America.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:52am

    The entire GOP field is toxic to America. From "Corporations are people too." to " I didn't write those newsletters." The GOP solution lower taxes on the wealthy, raise taxes on the middle class and ship jobs overseas. BP was getting a get out of jail free card from BPGOP.  The GOP has no platform that is beneficial to the US.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:04am

    If you don't want to discuss the Civil War, perhaps try not mentioning the Civil War in your diary and asking about a certain stance, "does anyone else see how fucked up that is?"

    And while Ron Paul may or may not be "toxic", his public opposition to draconian drug laws, the endless war on terror and it's boondoggle for the arms industry, financial malfeasance and our intertwined corporatized surveillance government certainly is not.

    So instead of you worrying about the Civil War yourself, maybe you can focus on the real issues he's declaiming today.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:07am

    That's sort of the point of AA's comment, which tmccarthy0 pointed out.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:09am

    May be, but the 4 points I mentioned come through much stronger elsewhere.

    You guys are having so much fun laughing at the turd in the punch bowl, you haven't noticed that we're partying in an outhouse.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:14am

    I'm not having fun laughing at the turd in the punch bowl, exactly because I'm excrutiatingly aware of our own turd in the punch bowl. I'm merely saying that I prefer the turd we currently have to the Paul turd. It's got less stench to it (but it's still a turd).


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:56am

    I'd put my Bristol Stool Chart up at this point, to help people more easily classify their politicians, but I think that ones worn out its welcome. 

    Funny, that.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:09pm

    I'll admit, it had come to mind... wink


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:34pm

    That is silly PP, I pointed out in my  blog how unacceptable it should be for anyone to take Ron Paul seriously when he says stuff like that. but I know if one writes "Civil War"  anywhere on DAG, then you must come and defend it, but my point remains, there is no going back, there is nothing to change. It is over, that particular war is over. And that is why Ron Paul is so toxic because he relies on those dog whistles to attract folks who aren't over the fucking Civil War and it's been more than 100 years. To quote Whitney Houstan, "that's whack".


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:15am

    I'm sorry you can't just snap your fingers and have your opinion accepted as gospel with fawning adoration.

    But no, I disputed the 2 items, that there is a reason why a war that killed 600,000 people perhaps should be avoided if possible, and that assigning an anachronistic term of "illegitimate" to slavery is completely ahistorical, as by the rules of the day, it was entirely legitimate while being abhorrent - thanks, Founding Fathers.

    Of course the Civil War is over, but we inherited this overreaching manifest destiny attitude towards US intrusion into others' affairs that persists to this day. (to be fair, it existed before, but it's hard to make shinola out of the Mexican-American War.)

    And even though Ron Paul is standing up for some very good, progressive values, because you have a hard-on over the Civil War or whatever, you just have to ignore it all and obsess over some perceived racism. Which wouldn't be so bad if some other candidate somewhere was speaking out against the endless war on terror, out against racist judicial practices, out against  the surveillance state, out against trillion-dollar handouts to crony capitalism.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:25am

    To clarify #3, the manifest destiny that anything we do is fantastic. The Civil War had very mixed results, but we're supposed to grade it A+ based on 1 criteria alone. World War II actually would be a pretty high score. Everything else we've done is pretty muddy.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:26am

    WW2 gets a B+.

    Sorry, points taken off for lateness.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:44am

    So far all we've seen is that Paul compromised and signed off on the same drug bill that Obama signed. Paul didn't refuse to sign off on the legislation out of moral outrage over it's weaknesses. Some hero.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:53am

    What the hell are you talking about? He co-sponsored the better version. He spoke out in its advocacy to get it passed. He didn't just sign it. And there's no way he could have pushed the House version through over the Senate compromise, so why should he refuse to sign off on it? 


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:06am

    He could refuse because, I don't know, he disagreed with it. But he affirmed it with his vote which was probably just going along with his fellow Republicans for political reasons, which would mean he is playing the same game as everyone else.   Just because one puts through a different version which can't get passed doesn't force one's hand to vote yes for the one that can be.  The cynic would say he knew very well his version would never see the light of day, put it out there so he could later say this is what he supports, then go along with the version that he knew would pass and be quite happy about it.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:33am

    ^This. I'm amazed that some people who seem to take Ron Paul at face value poke fun at the fervent Obama supporters who did the same.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:41am

    Precisely, Paul will compromise just like everyone else. Obama gets criticized for signing the bill that Paul approved. Paul is somehow the hero for signing the identical bill.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:42am

    You seem to not understand this.

    Ron Paul doesn't "sign bills" - he helps create and votes for bills.

    He gets the best bill out of the House that he can.

    Then it goes to conference committee to match up with the Senate version - i.e. compromise.

    By the time it comes back, they can't amend the bill - they can only vote yea or nay.

    And then it goes to the President's desk to sign.

    As the sentencing law was controversial, the best they could do was 18% of previous sentencing. Which is better than 100%, no?

    But in your head, Obama good, Ron Paul bad, so it doesn't matter the details of who actually pushed for passage.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:41pm

    By the time it comes back, they can't amend the bill - they can only vote yea or nay.

    As opposed to sign or not sign a bill.

    But in your head, Obama good, Ron Paul bad, so it doesn't matter the details of who actually pushed for passage.

    As opposed to Ron Paul good, Obama bad, which is really what it seems like you've been saying for he last several days. Yeah, I've seen the occasional reluctant realization that Ron Paul ain't perfect, but I feel I've seen more of them from rmrd0000 on Obama.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:45pm

    In your head a Ron Paul who sides with racists is good so long as you get to smoke pot, the Civil War was bad, states rights misunderstood, etc etc.. In the end Paul compromised just as Obama compromised. You side with Paul. I side with Obama. The drug law that came out is identical. So yes my verdict is that Ron Paul is bad even though I agree with Paul both agree that the sky is blue and water is wet.

    We shall all watch as white New Hampshire Republicans reject Ron Paul in the Primary today. In the end, my dislike for Paul will not matter because Paul will be cast aside by Republican voters and Paul won't be mounting a third party candidacy.

    Just like the Civil War discussion, talk of a Ron Paul Republican candidacy will be full of "what ifs" with Paul supporters believing his rhetoric and detractors dismissing his words.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:55pm

    I don't smoke pot, so I can only sympathize with those who do and get busted. If you don't give a shit about the plight of blacks in America, that's your problem.

    Similarly, I care both about the results of the Civil War for the lack of progress for blacks in the century following, somewhat for the decay in southern culture over that period, but since life doesn't deal do-overs, future lessons with which we can do better. And of course its literary value. Fables of the Reconstruction and all.

    Was going to paste in Driver 8, but then those URLs always invoke a moderator....

     

     

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 3:18pm

    Work on education and unemployment will go a long way in dealing with the drug issue. Well paid employed people will not find the risky life of a drug dealer a reasonable option. Escape from reality via drug use would also be less likely. If your concern about those poor slaves with no visible employment options runs so deep, why are you now ready to release poor felons to fend for themselves with a decreased jobs market?

    You arguments about caring about blacks falls flat when you argue that they could have stood a little more time as slaves while watching your alternative plan to fail. You criticize people for pointing out the major recent impact of states rights, Jim Crow, because you care so much abut blacks.

    Your insult would carry a great deal more weight if I actually cared what you thought. The South lost. Get over it. Write a book about your revisionist history it may be cathartic. Ron Paul is not going to be a Presidential candidate in 2012. Get over that as well. Your book should contain a chapter on the wonderful Presidency of Ron Paul. The book is about as close as you will get to your desires.

    You might take the time to look at some polls among blacks about how they feel about how the community is faring. Families are sending children off to college and feeding themselves. I am sorry that our progress has not impressed you. Then again, no I'm not sorry, because you spend too much time lamenting the Old South.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:28pm

    I said the Civil War lasted 4 years, so any alternative plan that fit that 4 year window wouldn't have required they stay slaves any longer.

    You're just putting words in my mouth. Forget it. (And no, I never fucking "lamented" the old south. i lamented that people like you spend too much time playing identity politics rather than trying to support real progressive policies. that one sure fell on deaf ears)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:36pm

    The fact that you are clueless about the visceral response many African-Americans have to someone like Ron Paul tells me that you spend more time focusing on your navel than on what blacks actually think or what black voters consider to be the most important issues.

    If you came to a group of African-Americans with the crap you have placed in this forum, you would have been laughed out of the room as a nut job a long time ago. You just cannot see Ron Paul as anything other than a folk hero. You live in a bubble.

    Think about your comments on the Civil war, states rights and drug laws as the most important issue etc. and now consider that you are talking to a group with slightly ethnic different backgrounds. What would you think of those comments? Could you find any reason to be suspicious of intent?

    (Lack of insight in 5,4, 3.........)


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:40pm

    Okay, my bad - your lack of consideration of the effect of drug incarceration is just a visceral response, not thought out. 

    I'll make sure to give answers that fit your visceral expectations going forward, and skip asking those tough thoughtful questions that might not be viscerally obvious.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:53pm

    Predictable. Dodging the elephant in the room. Ron Paul has ties to racists in his fundraising and in his newsletters. His major platform for blacks has been  to view blacks as drug offenders. He has not answered questions about who wrote the newsletters.

    If someone repeatedly laments about the Civil War, talks about the failure of Reconstruction, defends states rights, and is upset that black voters are not attracted to Ron Paul who has ties to racists, what would you think?

    If a person views a period during which the inspiring stories of former slaves building a community that included schools, banks, businesses, professional lives and activists like Booker T Washington as a sign of a community not thriving what would you think about that person?

    Would you really care if that person told you how much they cared about the black community? Would you care if they continued to view the black community as focused only on drug laws?

    If that person told you outright that they would be willing to give up educational grants, women's rights, access to health care and a host of other thinks to gain the promised security of bringing the troops from overseas bases, wouldn't you be reminded of Ben Franklin's warning about what people should not give up for a "little" security?

    In the end you would view the person as not really caring about the thoughts of others. A person who does not recognize how others feel cannot really care about those others. The others only purpose is to agree with the views of that one person.

    You also realize that Ron Paul is not any more of a threat today than he was yesterday and you'll wait until tomorrow for the results of tonight's Primary knowing that Ron Paul will not win and that the South still lost the Civil War.

    And you sadly realize that the next time someone mentions the Civil war at dagblog we'll go through the same juvenile recitation of how things could have been different if one person had been born in a different century.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 5:48pm

    Rmrd, it takes two to tango. If you're tired of what you call "juvenile recitations" then stop trying to provoke them. To his credit, PP has avoided responding in kind to your insinuations against him.

    My advice to you (and to PP) is to let it go. There is no meeting of minds to be had here.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 6:48pm

    You people are simply amazing.

    The version Ron Paul supported was written by Bobby Scott, an African American Democrat (okay partly Filipino). The Senate version was written by Dick Durbin, Democrat.  

    As typical, the Senate version was more conservative, and the House had to accept it. (That's been with most legislation from 2009-2011 - remember all those votes that had to appease Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, etc.?)

    Anyway, I'd suggest you buy a copy of Wikipedia - really comes in handy on the internets for intellectual debates.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:49pm

    PS - the bill passed the House through voice vote, so no record was kept of votes. Voting against it would have done no good. Though I still don't see why Ron Paul would have wanted to vote against it, since he co-sponsored it, and they weren't going to get better.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:54pm

    You people.........where have I heard that before?

    John McCain and GW Bush worked on some issues with Edward Kennedy or other Democrats. Sarah Palin likely worked with some Democrats in Alaska. Newt Gingrich did a commercial with Nancy Pelosi. GW showed up with Bill Clinton to request aid for Haiti. Should I now support McCain, GW and Newt?

    Is the African-American Democrat supporting Ron Paul for President? You are running around in circles to support the unsupportable. Ron Paul has a black friend.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:04pm

    Am I supporting Ron Paul for President? Am I asking anyone to support Ron Paul for President? I was just happy to have some advocate getting out of Afghanistan, a candidate who's sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:29pm

    Huh? There is no snapping my fingers to get fawning adoration from you? Hahahaha, umm okay, cause I write everything just to get fawning adoration from you! #noireallydont


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:06am

    The continuing debate about the Civil War continues to amaze me.  The one blog I wrote about it, which dealt the reasons for the continued conflict as opposed to taking a particular side (and which got over 5000 reads and still climbing), mentions that it is probably because I grew up on the west (left) coast, where the Civil War is more a settled matter.  I still remember talking with a Rabbi from Virginia/Delaware area, who was about as liberal as one could get, and spoke of it as the Northern Aggression. 

    It is difficult to talk about the abstract notions regarding government and society, and people look to historical events and people in which to coalesce their notions.  The Civil War in this country (and especially for those in certain regions of the country) plays this role.   That people are coming from sometimes vastly different agenda and perspectives facilitates the hostilities, because everyone is making assumptions about everyone else's agenda and perspectives (which doesn't mean those assumptions are always off the mark).

    History reveals the present.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:41am

    This thread is much better if you play this while reading it.

     


    by DF on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:35pm

    I guess the musicological line is Scots-Irish into Appalachia?


    by jollyroger on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:41pm

    Well, damn.  You got me curious enough to look.  Seems it was written in the style, but penned in '82 by Jay Ungar.  Don't tell the Paulistas, but he's apparently Jewish.


    by DF on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:50pm

    That's pretty funny...I had the roots more or less right, but I was sure that it was actually from the 1850's and envisioned guant hill billies with fiddles standing around waiting for the still to heat up...


    by jollyroger on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:02pm

    Dizzie Gillespie traced some of South Carolina's gospel singing influences to Scottish churches - google Willie Ruff as musicologist. Pretty interesting.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:42am

    And maybe this, too.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:46pm

    Born 1915.  That means he could'a heard some folks sing this song from personal experience.

    It's funny how little time has passed in this country when you take into account overlapping memories and recountings.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 10:05pm

    OH hahaha.. okay that is good!


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 6:19am

    Me too, I also have a link that's just been screaming at me to be posted on this thread!

    (I must add that, mho, it's not that fair of a depiction of old George, but it's still very apropros as to some of TMac's original points)


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 9:59pm

    OMG, that is a great link AA.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 6:20am

    Ta-Nehisi Coates takes a look at perceptions of the Civil War and how some of them have been formed. Coates also notes some facts about Shelby Foote, one historian featured in Ken Burn's PBS series.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 6:58am

    Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?
    Kenobi, Obi-Wan

    (I believe it was originally said by the fool in King Lear)

    Words of wisdom no less. Now apply it to Ron Paul and contemplate if his actions are foolish  ... or ... are the people who believe what he says foolish? Keep in mind, Joseph P Martino once said ... To the foolish, every utterance of nonsense seems like wisdom.

    And then there's this one by Nicholas Boileau-Despreaux ...  A fool always finds a greater fool to admire him. That sums up the entire GOPer Presidential wanna-be gaggle doesn't it!

    I do believe Martino hits the jackpot when he states ... A foolish person is 'quick' to condemn what they do not understand. A wise person is 'slow' to condemn what they do understand.

    But Will Rogers said it best ... If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?

    In short, it's not so much about who is saying what ... it's more about who is listening and believing it. With out an audience, would they be relevant to the political discourse?


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 9:46pm