Richard Day's picture



    Okay, the problem may lie in the fact that I do not deserve that much.

    I admit that three wives would agree in that assessment!

    And of course, there is a value judgment with regard to what the word 'deserve' AND WHAT it means.

    I probably deserve a death sentence, depending upon the judicial context.

    But I swear I shot those guys in Reno for a reason!

    Okie dokie.

    So I am hesitant to ask for what I deserve!

    Hell, I mean the great emancipator in the sky might just toss a goddamn coin because I messed things up so badly!


    Now I do find myself on the front page of this esteemed blog site, quite serendipitously (is that a word? I mean I spend a lot of time deciding whether or not my scribble is really a word but I digress) from time to time.

    And, once a month the Dagblog Gods wish to make me a headlined blogger.

    I mean it's uptop and all and it has a red line thingy and so that is advertising as far as I am concerned.

    I have to digress, once again (I like to digress actually, it gives me my best responses) , but the single best line I have ever written in my entire worthless life was actually edited by the Gods of Dagblog. I mean, Donal esplained it all in chat one weekend and all. Hahahahahahahaahahaha

    The line in question all had to do with the issue of Oedipus and his unrelenting sexual pleasure with his own mother.....

    But I digress...

    How does one, in a sphere of Free Speech, claim authority?

    This is not an easy question to answer, even given our penchant for SAT's and ACT's and free quizzes on the internet.


    I marvel at how Free Speech actually works.

    Hitchens can say: GODDAMN GOD!

    Coulter might say: GODDAMN MINORITIES.


    I can go on and on.

    But Hitchens made a lot of money with his message and Coulter makes a lot of money with her message and Rush makes more money than God with his message.

    It's the money not the media for chrissakes and that makes the real message.

    Here are some messages from 2011 that astound me! And remember, I am 61 years of age and heard Governor Wallace exclaim: Segregation now, Segregation for ever! Besides the line: I shall never be out-niggered again.

    D'Souza, a member of an upper Indian Caste remarked, after underlining the fact that slavery could not have been that bad since slaves were property and that there was some message dictated from our DNA to protect our property:

    Slavery is usually portrayed as constant torment, but Mr. D'Souza finds that "slaves were, in material terms of diet, health, and shelter, slightly better off than northern industrial workers, and far better off than workers in much of Europe." As he points out, "no free workers enjoyed a comparable social security system from birth until death." Moreover, life expectancy for slaves was only slightly lower than that of their owners. When slave owners had really dangerous work to do, they hired Irish navvies rather than risk their valuable property. Mr. D'Souza notes that when Frederick Douglass visited Ireland in the 1840s he was appalled at conditions there and wrote that he was almost "ashamed to lift my voice against American slavery." Mr. D'Souza concludes: "In summary, the American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."

    And what better protection might an individual experience than that of actually being a prized chattel! Of course chattel is hardly prized more than real estate (depending upon the market). Just ask any office fellow living behind a screen!



    Ann Coulter said:

    "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks," she said, speaking of Democrats. "To become a black Republican, you don't just roll into it."

    Roll into it? Roll into tons and tons of cash I suppose!


    Herman Cain said:

    Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the banks. If you’re unemployed and you’re not rich, it’s your own fault.

    Of course, 17% unemployment is the fault of the 17% unemployed.




    Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,“ Gingrich said there is a ”fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts.” He defended his previously stated position that the president and Congress should have the authority to ignore court rulings they disagree with, and that in the case of extremely controversial decisions, lawmakers should have the power to subpoena activist judges and have them defend their rulings.

    When host Bob Schieffer questioned how such a subpoena could be enforced, such as whether he would send a Capitol Hill police officer to forcibly bring the judge in, Gingrich said yes.

    If you had to,” he said. “Or you would instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall."

    Make the kids clean our toilets, fire all the union janitors and arrest errant judges.

    Boy, how much more could a guy love his Constitution!



    Michele Bachman:

    [I]t would be enforcement: Enforcement both at the border but also by the [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents. Right now the ICE agents -- those are the agents in the interior of the country who are tasked with enforcing the law -- they are not enforcing them and we also have sanctuary cities now where they don't enforce the laws on deportation. I think that what we simply need to do is to start enforcing the laws which we are not doing and begin the process of deportation," she said.

    I would just add that it would be much easier if the Feds would call for a brand new census and those without proper papers would have to wear a star upon their outer clothing noting their 'illegal status.'

    Then Arpaio could just pick them all up and put then in tented gulags until such time as busses could properly package them and send them to Mexico!




    The reason that people don’t talk about it like I do is that you are vilified by the mainstream media, by Hollywood, by the educational establishment, all of the levers of power,” Santorum said. “Even the conservative media when it comes to these issues are hesitant to talk about them, it’s not polite conversation.”

    Santorum pointed to the landmark case, Lawrence v. Texas, where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws that were used to imprison gays and lesbians.

    And I stood up from the very beginning back in 2003 when the Supreme Court was going create a constitutional right to sodomy and said this is wrong we can’t do this,” Santorum said. ”And so I stood up when no one else did and got hammered for it. I stood up and I continue to stand up.”

    Santorum added, “I do not believe that sexual orientation should be added to hate crimes, but let me be honest, I don’t believe in hate crimes, period.



    Ron Paul:

    I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it’s off the wall when you say I’m for property rights and states rights therefore I’m a racist. That’s just outlandish.

    And to claim that George Wallace was racist....well that is just outlandish!



    Rick Perry:

    I’m going to Washington D.C. to save this country and put the values back into the White House. Faith, family and freedom. That’s what this election’s really about."

    Well, except there is ample evidence that this fruitcake screws anything that walks.





    well that's all I got folks!




    Yeah, dagblog never gives me what I deserve either.


    Well it is beginning to look like I am getting what I deserve with this post. hahahah

    How does one, in a sphere of Free Speech, claim authority?

    By demonstrating special access to information.

    Now that can either mean something as rigorous as a thorough program of training where one acquires expertise or mean something as easy as claiming to be a witness to something that just came to a person in a moment of whimsy. 

    That range of possibilities is why arguments based upon authority are so weak, even if they reflect the truth.

    That is as good a definition as any I can come up with, but in this day and age you better also have digital pix! ha


    Jesus, man, we're waiting!!!!!

    - Q

    It was not the primary goal in the life of Oedipus to become the most notorious MOFO* in the history of mankind!

    *the MOFO  was substituted by the editors.


    (I am too lazy to look it up, but this is close!)

    Sorry, DD. It is a good line. Ironically, we probably only edited the text because we featured the piece. We try to avoid profanity, misspellings, and formatting issues on front page pieces. Otherwise, we hardly ever edit blog posts.

    Oh this is hyperbole Genghis. hahahahah

    I told Donal on several occasions that I appreciate it when someone here actually takes the time to edit my drivel.

    I have nobody else to check my work.

    And I swear much to much although there are writers like Taibbi and a few at Salon that throw in swear words and really get me to laughing.

    Ha. To be honest, I hate editing your work or anyone else's for that matter. ;) We must have really liked the piece if we took the time to edit it.

    I edit all the time—but mostly to get rid of white space, egreegus, egregous, really bad spelling errors and wrong-thinking. I think I put in mofo so we could promote it.

    Wrong-thinking will be punished!

    Right-thinking will be rewarded!

    Where in God's name did you find that old picture of Q?

    And why is he kissing Shatner?

    Laugh it up, you two.

    It's all fun and games... until somebody gets their eye gouged out with a spoon. 

    Warning, not for the faint of heart:

    No, seriously. Don't watch that if you've eaten within the last 30 minutes.


    We try to avoid profanity,... on front page pieces.


    If you were wondering why Rogie is never fronted...(inquiring minds...)

    I have discussed this matter at length with you Jolly. hahahahaha

    This is all I got and like you I am in charge of nothing (hahahahah):


    Cat Power, never heard, thx.  drummer is from Sonic Youth. 

    After watching the Ron Paul-Chris Mathews exchange, it would be interesting if Paul would support the woman who posted a sign outside of a pool on her property stating that the pool was for "Whites Only"? Ron Paul would be responding to a current event and could not hide behind a problem that was ancient history. I believe that Paul would support the landlord.

    (It should be noted that the sign stated that the pool was a public pool)

    I was pondering the same thing.

    I am sure that Paul would back her rights.

    It is interesting how you can go to Germany and find laws banning NAZI as well as anti-Semitic signs or behavior and through our Civil Rights legislation we have so-called hate crimes besides legal impositions upon private businesses relating to our past sins as a nation.

    It would be folly for us to erase our Civil Rights legislation.

    But the way far right blogs and right wing radio talk, there is no certainty that this folly could be achieved.

    And there have already been assaults on what I perceive as the landmark Civil Rights legislation.

    The right to vote.

    The roots of the racial venom found in the modern GOP can be found in the GOP of the Barry Goldwater Presidential race era. Jackie Robinson, an Independent, was drawn to Nelson Rockefeller's campaign ,because of Rockefeller's progressive views on race. Robinson talked about the hatred that Conservatives directed at Rockefeller during the Republican convention in 1964. Robinson wrote of the harm that a Goldwater Presidency would unleash on the Black community. Robinson's words could be used to describe the modern day GOP race baiters.

    As if the writing of Jackie Robinson wasn't enough Belva Davis, a pioneering female African-American reporter, wrote of her treatment by the crowd at the GOP convention in 1964. She experienced the same hatred that Robinson felt.

    Barry Goldwater gave those Conservatives permission to express their hatred. The leaders of the modern GOP are mimicking Goldwater's behavior by allowing code words and outright hatred to go unchecked.

    Martin Luther King Jr said that people of good conscience could not vote for Goldwater because the Conservative was willing to work with the racists. Ron Paul, Bachmann and Perry would do the same.

    I will hereby render unto rmrd the Dayly Comment Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of rmrd, from all of me.

    Coalitions are the key to any political movement. And some sins are to be forgiven.

    But damn, here was a clear choice.

    The unwashed caste shall hereby be given acknowledgement.

    I find it fascinating that George Will (a relic from the days of William F. Buckley Jr.) and the other intellectuals will diss Wilson and Wilson was a racist prick and sent DC into segregation it had not experienced since the end of the Civil War!

    Another example of strange coalitions.

    People like Robinson, proved their grit? People like Robinson shed blood sweat and tears for a proposition:

    All Men Are Created Equal.

    My baseball hero of all time, Babe Ruth, died a young man but spent twenty good years in the big leagues. Robinson, who was awesome could only hack half of those years as the most hated man in America during that time.

    Robinson spent the rest of his life, in pain physically as well as mentally and spiritually attempting to make a point.

    Things get screwed up.

    Sides are not so well defined at times.

    We are at another point in history where the sides are pretty well defined.

    Talk radio and fox news and tea baggers have drawn a line in the sand.

    This is us.

    Goldwater somewhat relented.

    Hell, even Wallace relented in a wheel chair.

    But now we have states run by repubs taking away the minority right to vote?

    The war continues.

    Good comment!

    Goldwater voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the basis that it was not constitutional also set the stage for ensuing decades of judicial activism militating for an "originalist" philosophy where the "intentions" of the founders became more important than the working out of what is Justice in our lives here and now. 

    So it is not only a code for discrimination (and it surely has been shown to serve that end) but an intellectual bail out:

    "I don't have to take part in solving the problems of the moment because they wouldn't exist if everyone had just stuck with the original program".


    Latest Comments