HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bucky » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »

Bucky

Profile Information

Name: Mister Rea
Gender: Male
Hometown: Houston
Home country: Moon
Current location: afk
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 42,449

About Me

I live in Houston, if you can call this living. I teach history to 11th graders. They don't appreciate my genius. I'm an active Democrat really only around election time (knock on doors, make a few phone calls, maybe donate a dollar or two if I think it'll do some good). I'm 48. I'm datin a real special gal right now, but if I don't watch my step I may have to edit out this sentence. I have pretensions toward being a director of performance art, although I've only put on one show (as of Dec 2011). I'm currently working on a second show. Our group is called Invisible Lines (www.invisiblelines.net). I mostly drink Shiner Bock beer because it's a mouth full of heaven. I'm a nut about George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, and John Dewey. I've resisted for three years saying "I told ya so" about Barack Obama (but then again, I supported Biden in '08 so my room for complaining is minimal). That said, I'll certainly vote mediocre over evil any day of the week. I want Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. And a pony. I totally want a pony.

Journal Archives

What you find when you google "Jefferson on slavery"

This is interesting. Based on books I've read about it, Jefferson grew more vocal in his support of slavery in his later years. At least in his early career, he had the decency to be a hypocrite. But his political actions were limited to opposing the slave trade, not slavery itself. Most people don't separate those issues. In our time, that would be like failing to separate opposing car imports from the political issue of getting gas-guzzlers off the roads. Virginian slaveholders didn't like slave traders because they were undercutting market prices.

When I googled the phrase "Jefferson on slavery" I got this:

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery - Monticello
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the ...

Thomas Jefferson and slavery - Wikipedia, the free ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and slavery has been extensively debated by his biographers, and by scholars of slavery. He owned plantations ...

Jefferson on Slavery < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents ...
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php

It has often been quoted because of the eloquent appeal to end slavery as degrading to the Southern family and endangering the liberty of all. Jefferson was one ...

The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson | History | Smithsonian
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

In his original draft of the Declaration, in soaring, damning, fiery prose, Jefferson denounced the slave trade as an “execrable commerce ...this assemblage of ...

The Real Thomas Jefferson - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html
Nov 30, 2012 - Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson's slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to ...


Notice that Monticello.org takes the hagiographic pose: "consistent opponent of slavery his whole life." This is bullshit. You could argue reasonably that he opposed slavery on some principles, but it defies dictionary definitions to call him consistent about it. The man sold slaves to settle his debts, for criminey's sake.

This is TJ in 1814 on slavery:
Nor in the class of laborers do I mean to withhold from the comparison that portion whose color has condemned them, in certain parts of our Union, to a subjection to the will of others. Even these are better fed in these States, warmer clothed, and labor less than the journeymen or day-laborers of England. They have the comfort, too, of numerous families, in the midst of whom they live without want, or fear of it; a solace which few of the laborers of England possess. They are subject, it is true, to bodily coercion; but are not the hundreds of thousands of British soldiers and seamen subject to the same, without seeing, at the end of their career, when age and accident shall have rendered them unequal to labor, the certainty, which the other has, that he will never want?... But do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people, by the example of another nation committing equal wrongs on their own subjects. On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity."


Like so many of Jefferson quotes, this requires a bit of unpacking. He compares slaves' living conditions and clothing favorably to those of laborers and soldier of England. First off, this presents a pretty damn rosy view of real slave conditions. A few slaves were well fed & clothed, particularly those who worked in households. But the majority of slaves were off in tobacco, cotton, & sugar plantations, living in rags, dying from working conditions, and subject to family separation and personal humiliation beyond the touch of law in ways that even press-ganged redcoats and destitute coal miners were not.

This is one of slavery's oldest lies: at least they're treated better than factory workers. But bad as life was for the poor whites, there was at least hope for escaping circumstances and the comforts of family bonds. Jefferson wilfully glosses over the brutality happening literally in his own back yard.

Further, he says bluntly "do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery." But in fact he did do exactly that. He wanted a plan to work toward ending slavery--usually in the form of paying off slaveholders (not the actual slaves, however). But he never himself offered a plan, much less offering any actual "sacrifice to a practicable plan." This is posery.

In 1816 he wrote this howler: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

TJ is anticipating a race war (this is 16 years after Haiti's blood soaked revolution against France, a democratic revolt that Jefferson helped France to suppress). What he's leading up to is arguing for forced colonization to Africa alongside a policy of inducing white settlers to fill the void of a denegrofied Dixieland. So much for Mr. Small Government. Of course any such social reengineering was unworkable and something Jefferson never bothered to work for.

He continues:
And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species.

When other men of his age were able to see that circumstance of birth, not "natural symmetry" and hair texture, accounted for intellectual differences. Presumedly his own children by Sally Hemings were not of that "eternal monotany" and "immovable veil of black" that field slaves suffered from, but then they were no more than 1/8th black (Sally's mother was a mulatto and her father was Thomas Jefferson's father-in-law - I'll let you do the math on that point).

These race-centered conclusions tell us how much exposure Jefferson had to the thoughts & lives of field hands. His neurosis about black men lusting for white women finds a bizarre parallel in orangutans lusting for black women. This is the infancy of the psychosexual perversions revealing the worst mental distortions of racism. He's embracing unsubstantiated facts in order to justify his inhumane conclusions about racial differences. This is what Lord Acton meant about absolute power corrupting absolutely.

The Smithsonian article http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/ goes into more detail on how Jefferson pretty much stopped talking about ending slavery by the 1790s. His energies turned to opposing the Federalist Party of Washington and Hamilton, which politically anchored his fortunes to the slaveholding interest. Working on gradual abolition plans at this point, just as cotton was booming as the "new tobacco," would have been political suicide. Jefferson very carefully made his political bed and laid in it for the rest of his life.

The Monticello.org line about "consistent opponent of slavery his whole life" is baseless propaganda.

What's frustrating is belief that "do not always tell the truth" means "always lies with competence"

Just as "reserving some degree of skepticism of government explanations" doesn't mean everything the government says is part of a tapestry creating an orchestrated illusion of truth. The conspiracy theorists' consensus view of a supercompetent, indeed error-free, far-sighted elitist cabal planning out the Kennedy assassination, Oswald framing, and perfectly concealed multiple snipers in a crowded public square simply doesn't jibe with actual human experience.

But the most instructive argument in this thread is the uncaptioned photograph of Colin Powell making the case for WMDs in Iraq. To some people in this thread, this is confirmation that the government lies to us about important things in order to get its way and suck our tax dollars into the military-industrial complex.

Only, the context of that photograph more clearly shows that large scale conspiracies do not work. Within months of the invasion of Iraq, the whole web of lies, fabrications, manipulations, and distortions used in the conspiracy to drag America into a war with the wrong country came unraveled. A conspiracy on that high a level of government, where competing ideologies, career goals, personal ambitions, personality clashes, and emotion-laden revenge fantasies all clash in the jumble of cover-ups and marketing switcharoos, simply can not be kept in secret. Hundreds of actors would have had to be involved in the murder of Kennedy and framing of Oswald for most conspiracy theories to pan out (with the possible exception of the mafia-related conspiracies--but even then the target should've been Bobby, not Jack Kennedy). Someone would have talked; some ego would have been driven to a deathbed braggadocio. Secrets that big do not remain secret.

Now something wacky was going on in Dallas (and New Orleans) in the run up to Kennedy's murder. I don't swallow the Warren Commission report. But a concerted effort by a villainous clique, each member in turn commanding dozens of loyal, lip-locked minions, none of whom ever spilled the beans, just doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Let us judge a man by his works

June Cleaver: Ward, wouldn't that be downright sneaky?
Ward Cleaver: Sure, it would. It's the only way we can survive as parents.

Obama Democrat


Beaver Cleaver: If I tell you you'll be mad at me.
Ward Cleaver: That's ridiculous. Now, come on, tell me.
Beaver Cleaver: I losted my money.
Ward Cleaver: Again! Oh, Beaver! Your mother and I have been very patient with you, but this habit of losing money has got to stop.
Beaver Cleaver: I told you you'd be mad at me.

Rockefeller Republican


Ward Cleaver: When you're young, there are some thing you have to learn. How to catch a baseball. And good table manners don't come too easily. But when you're a boy, losing things is one of the few lessons you don't have to learn. And that's our story tonight on "Leave it to Beaver."

Johnson Democrat (cause all the other Democrats have to learn the hard way you can't bargain with Republicans)


Wally Cleaver: Hey, Beaver, Archie really went home, huh?
Beaver Cleaver: Sure, I told him, and he went. You know, it's a lot easier talking to dogs than it is to cats.
Ward Cleaver: Cats are very smart, though, Beaver. It's just that when you call someone Bootsy-Wootsy, he's inclined to be a little difficult.

Cheney Republican (cause unlike his boss, Dick Cheney never gave anyone an affectionately humiliating nickname)


Ward Cleaver: You know, Wally, when I went to high school, we used to have to wear a collar and tie to school everyday.

Reagan Republican (cute story, but factually inaccurate)


Wally Cleaver: Hey, Dad, what's community property?
Ward Cleaver: Well, community property means that your mother owns half of everything I earn or own.
Wally Cleaver: What a gyp! No wonder women get married!

Truman Democrat (big on sharing the wealth, but a little lax on policing ethnic slurs)


June Cleaver: Ward Cleaver, you have no romantic instinct at all!
Ward Cleaver: Dear, I'm a married man!

Kennedy Democrat


June Cleaver: It certainly was a change. Yesterday, freckles was the biggest thing in his whole life.
Ward Cleaver: Yeah, well, that's one of the advantages of being a kid - the biggest problem in your life seldom lasts more than twenty-four hours.

William Henry Harrison Whig


==========


Conclusion: Dude was all over the map. Probably had multiple writers putting words in his mouth, being himself an empty vessel for other people's economic aspirations. In other words, Ford Republican.

Whoa. I just fact-corrected someone on DU and, instead of digging in deeper, they agreed with me.

I'm a little taken back. I expect more hysterics and rhetorical theatrics from an internet discussion board.

Usually when I point out someone's inaccurate hyperbole, the response is to double down on their factlessness ("Well, I watch a LOT of PBS and I've seen incontrovertible evidence of alien influence on our Bill of Rights in dozens of documentaries--documentaries, might I add, with British-sounding narrators!") or they to try to justify their wild arguments with spurious lines of logic ("Oh really? And do you know just how many people have died of lung cancer since 1960? Far more than Hitler killed in the Holocaust, buddy-boy! And so, objectively speaking, second hand smoking is far worse than Naziism and Stalinism combined.").

Instead, however, one logical DUer today defied all my predispositions and simply conceded the point when confronted with facts. Frankly, I don't know what to do with this moment.

Perhaps I'll cry.

My new Facebook page, recording instances of accidental & pointless shooting deaths

0oops, or "Sorry I Shot You" (although many stories involve "Sorry I shot myself" stories). The tone is dry and factual. The content is, and will always be, just a little heartbreaking.

I'm looking for some likes. I'm wanting to just highlight all the pointless deaths & injuries resulting from our gun culture. It can be a bit depressing, so you've been warned. But I want raise awareness.

<== This is all of us

I'm a star. I've always been a star. And I have all you motherfuckers on ignore. All of you!!!

Everyone who posts in DU, I ignore 'em. Heh-heh. Every last mother's son of 'em. Heh-heh. And now I have DU all to myself. ALL TO MYSELF!! Do you hear me world! You can't fuck with Bucky Rea any more cause all you motherfuckers are on ignore!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!



Oh shit, I stepped on my glasses! Now I can't read any of my posts anymore. NOOooooooooo o... . . !!! !

I was lured into the straight lifestyle by liberal Hollywood propaganda

I've never shared this in public before, but I first started experimenting with heterosexuality in the 6th grade. I mean, I always had these feelings, this inexplicable attraction to people of the opposite sex. But I'd never actually acted on those feelings before I was 12. Then, little by little, in clandestine meetings or in back yards during friends' parties, I would occasionally find a willing partner and we would, you know, explore what it was like to act out on these impulses. But did I choose this lifestyle? Or was I programmed into it by an unrelenting barrage of media hyperganda, seducing me into becoming a straight? I'll never know. I only know I'm now trapped in this heterosexual mindset. I don't think there's any hope of any church official deprogramming me out of feeling this way.

(sob)

Pictures of plane wrecks that *everyone* aboard survived from.



http://io9.com/stunning-photos-of-plane-crashes-where-everyone-aboard-479513762

"Photos of plane crashes where everyone aboard survived"



According to Baron Montesquieu, this country doesn't want to be a republic.

You should learn a lot about Charles-Louis, Baron de Brede et Montesquieu (Chucky for short). In your civics class, he's taught as the guy who identified the three basic functions of government--legislative, executive, and judicial--and who had a powerful pull on the Founding Conventioneers in Philadelphia in 1787. He's more important for the Constitution than John Locke is. Locke more inspired the Declaration, but it was Chucky who inspired both the three branches scheme and laid the philosophical groundwork for maintaining a federal, instead of a national, structure to the Old 13. However Chucky had some other, more pertinent observations about how men & their governments interact. He identified the governments of the world as falling into three types: Republic, Monarchy, or Despotism. Yes, he always thought in threes. Like any Frenchman, he spent a good deal of time worrying about how size matters. And Chucky didn't think a country, like ours, nearly the size of a continent was quite suited for republicanism. There are dangerous signs he was rights.

In his view, a true republic requires a public and culture that has a love of virtue, that is, a society in which people (particularly leaders) put their love of country and the welfare of the community above their own personal needs. Think about everything we revere George Washington for and now compare it to, say, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, that clown from Alaska, or Rand Paul. But this character must exist among a nation as well. When a people lose virtuousness, they begin to lose their republican form of government. We pause now for this important commercial message.

Now back to Bucky's rant.

We're in post-democratic America. According to ol' Chuck Montesquieu, it's not just the character of the people, but also the size of the state itself, that encourages or prevents certain forms of government. A small state tends toward Republic because the rich and poor are neighbors; they see each other at the market or one works for the other, person to person. There is shared commonwealth because they see one another's person & thus one another's rights. A medium sized nation tends toward monarchy; when you lose neighborliness with your fellow countrymen, you lose common-feeling. You need a strong man to enforce the law so that all have an equality of (now reduced) liberty as allowed by the unifying state. But a large nation, an empire--a Russia or a China--will never be a true democracy. The size of state itself requires a despot to hold united all the conflicting interests of a vast land. Even with elections, Putin is still a strong man, a crowd manipulator and a godfather to racketeers who kill inconvenient journalists for him. An iron grasp has always unified Russia; when Gorbachev loosened that grasp, the factions tore the nation apart.

But let's look at the mote in Uncle Sam's eye. For two generations we've bemoaned the imperial presidency--tho mostly when there's a Republican in office. On the other talon, our compatriots at RedState.com only seem to gin up their love of the non-Second Amendments during the Clinton and Obama presidencies. These are two nice data points of what losing one's virtue looks like. Not as pretty as losing one's virginity, is it? When it's not the president taking over legislative functions, it's the Congress thrusting legislative decisions onto his desk. Remember all those pass-the-buck sequestration proposals the Republican caucuses came up with? They were dodging their responsibilities (just like with fobbing on the debt extension votes) because experience showed the members of Congress lacked the discipline, the capacity to compromise, in a word, the virtue, to pass a budget that split their differences.

Judges, too, demonstrate at least a check-and-balancing expression of despotism. Activist judges on the left and right assume more and more power... but this mostly happens when the most representative branch of the people, the legislative, fails to handle its core responsibilities. It is a failure of republican governance (small-r), demonstrating a failure of public virtue. Congress doesn't deliver it because the people don't demand it. And the people don't demand it because they want their MTV more than they want their communities serviced by their public servants.

We've not lost our republicanism yet. We may never lose it in full, but against Ben Franklin's possibly apocryphal advice, we're not really keeping it up lately.

A cartoon that isn't funny



See? No punchline. Not unless we get our shit together, that is.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »