Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 05:51 PM
Number of posts: 8,006
Number of posts: 8,006
A disabled librarian from Tampa, Florida
- 2014 (63)
- 2013 (165)
- 2012 (165)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
First off, the fact that the Scots chose to resolves this with a vote instead of with Guns is something that makes them noteworthy and praiseworthy. Let's face it, many nations had to let things get to the point of bloodshed. The US revolution is obvious, but also Ireland, Palestine, Zimbabwe, and even the non-violent revolution in India. The fact that the Scots voted, and that England was willing to listen to that vote, is something to praise, especially because this was the same England that was willing to go to war with Argentina to keep the "Falkland Islands."
However, I think there is a lot to fear in the way the vote turned out. The people who did the mot to kill the "yes" notion were the bankers, who pretty much said "Do what we want, or we take the pound, and move all the jobs down south." It's the same crap their siblings do in the US, and not matter how many times we give in, they still do what they want.
Jon Oliver and the Guardian kept comparing this to a romantic comedy where the guy realizes he has been horrible begs the girlfriend to take him back at the last moment. Actually, the more fitting analogy would be the abusive husband who controls his wife with threats, and says "if you leave me, you will starve." There is nothing romantic about a relationship based on dominance and manipulation, even the kinky BDSM types play at the domination, but would never actually want to HURT their partner.
I also say that I am thoroughly disappointed by the EU. This should have been one of the finer hours of the EU, as they told Scotland "you do not need the pound, Europe is waiting for you, and the Euro is." This of course would have been a real sea change, as a UK les England would have to stop looking towards Washington and towards a more common future, especially if Scotland started to prosper, as former colonies tend to do once they break away from London. The EU would have been a true influence, a force for power, not dominated by Washington on one hand, and the hard wall of the BRICS. However, The EU got cold feet, namely because they knew the Basques, the Flemings, and others would have imitated. There was also likely the feeling in Berlin and France that if the UK went, their dominant position in the EU would have been questioned as well. As long as Berlin, London and Paris fight for control of the mike, and treat the rest of Europe like servants (i.e. Greece) they will never be the transformative power they think they are. Couple this with the fact that their attempt to take in the Ukraine with disastrous results, and you will have people that are overpowered by the Brics long before they get their act together.
I am also saddened that Obama backed the UK. Dammit Obama, you have the blood of Irish as well as of Africans in you, and both sides of your history should be sympathetic to those that are tried of being exploited for London. But of course, we need our partner in all things Imperial.
It6's not like I could nto see the valid reasons why someone would say no. However, what I fear is that those who want to say democracy is a joke will use this as a reason why we need good old violent revolution. I can see the Ted Ralls and Ahudrunti Roys sharpening their pencils, in the hopes they make people take up guns. There has been serious talk about whether Democracy itself is some relic to be disposed of, although, right after they say "another world is possible" they offer sketchy details on what is involved, except killing a lot of people. I still remember in his "Anti-American Manifesto" where Ted Rall blithely talks about how there may be "Stalinist purges" but that is the only way to affect change (as if he does not have dreams of standing Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow against the wall.)
If we are going to keep democracy, we are going to have to protect it against the fear that is it's enemy. There are a lot of people, many in the BRICS, many in the US, that are peddling the idea that democracy is just not worth the effort, and that we should embrace killing in the streets. The Scottish rejected that idea, and for that, the whole entire world needs to support them. If you do not want the lovers of violence to win the day, then we ALL have an obligation to support Scotland, who may, after the fine job we Yanks did in 2000 (sarcasm of course) be the people to prove Democracy can still work.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Sep 19, 2014, 04:11 PM (10 replies)
Folks, by this time tomorrow, we will know whether or not Scotland is a part of the UK, or if those words "UK" mean anything anymore.
On the one hand, there are positives about Scotland going it's own way. Scotland has had centuries of a relationship that, even at it's best, has been full of strife. It is nice to see London try to make nice, I even believe they may be sincere about it, but honestly, when most of Ireland declared independence, would that not have been a better time to sweeten the pot for the Scots?
An Independent Scotland would be a more liberal country, and probably closer to Europe than London. In light of the lousy job that both Labor and Tory have done, would that not be a clear message that the Centre-left/third way stuff will not work anymore? Imagine for example, if Scotland thrived, that would shake the financial center of London, and thereby, also shake Wall Street.
In addition, it would be something epic for all humanity. A nation that had changed hands by a simple vote. Not an armed revolution as we Yanks did, and as the Irish later did, not even a heavy protest led non violent revolution, as did India. No, a Democratic vote, that idea mocked by both Rush Limbaugh and Ahudrunti Roy, would be the agent, that alone may do a lot to save what little civilization we have left.
On the other hand, there are some strong negatives. As Galloway pointed out, all the countries in the UK would be smaller, and the Scots would be a smaller voice within the EU, at a time when the EU is not showing a willingness to listen to her citizens, especially because they are too busy listening to Merkel's calls for austerity. Never mind that the EU was strong precisely because they rejected Anglo-American austerity, Merkel is too busy trying to be Margaret Thatcher. There is also the facts that the BRICS are LARGE NATIONS. Yes, I like some things Brazil and India are doing, and dislike others, but let's be honest, there is a lot about the current actions of both the Russians and Chinese that do NOT inspire confidence.
No, that is not a code word for "You yanks are just mad because Putin got the Ukraine back" it is the fact that both nations have shown themselves to have taken the worst aspects of Capitalism, with less and less of that nice Communist idealism.
All in all, if Scotland leaves, I wish them the best, because I truly think they have a chance to show the world that, as insane as we are, there is still a chance to abandon the primitive ways of settling disputes, and for all of us to actually work together, with respect, without the need for domination or Oppression.
PS, if you decide to stay, take a lesson from the Quebecois. You not only have every right to demand that, in exchange for staying, you get to be a real influence on the UK, but it is your duty, to the world as well as yourselves. After all, the fact that France has demanded a true multicultural scheme has kept Canada from keeping it's character, despite it's southern neighbor. You can demand that England, if it wants you, has to change as well, and if not, then let you be a bunch of ex spouses that still remain friends, and work together for the sake of the children.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Sep 17, 2014, 04:13 AM (23 replies)
A god read from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue Sep 16, 2014, 07:25 PM (8 replies)
She is falling for "No true Scotsman." She can argue that Islam would never, ever allow this. Indeed, as far as Muhammad goes (peace be up him) I can hardly imagine the guy who said "the ink of the Scholar is worth more than the blood of the martyr" would be in isis. The problem is, isis would behead him, as the Inquisition would burn Jesus, as some hardline Zionists might stone Moses. The problem with ideas is that they are subjective, which means if you get enough people to agree on something, it become the common perception. It does not matter what person A wrote, but how the ones who take control can convince people he wrote.
It does not even have to be religion proper. Marx is noted for saying "I am not a Marxist", not because he disowned his ideas, but because he got sick of seeing his ideas twisted into something he never wanted. Good thing he died before Stalin took over, else he might have ended up like Leonid Trotsky, another person that probably thought he knew what his ideas were, even as he was murdered in the name of those ideas.
Let's be honest, it is easy to get masses around the idea of killing people and oppressing them, it was natural to us long before the God of Abraham was ever born in the meme-making mind of man.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:24 AM (1 replies)
granted, I know he has supported Obama, and by support I mean make sure the good is known, and also taking Obama to task with some badly needed advice.
However, when any white person tries to write a Black person's legacy, they need to realize they are playing right into the hands of the media. No one, including and especially liberals, should be trying to determine what it means to be BLACK, be they Ferguson cops or the well meaning Mike Moores, because the very nature of yes, whote privledge, is that yes, you as a white person get to determine what a person's blackness means, especially since whites control the means of recording history, including films.
Nike, it does not matter hwo many white people hate you, they will STILL grant you more power to define the legacy of the first black president than they ever will to a Spike Lee or John Singleton. You should KNOW that.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Sep 12, 2014, 01:39 AM (3 replies)
"ok, The irony is not lost, considering this is an imperial flag, not the official one in Russia, but one that reflects Imperial ambition.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Thu Sep 11, 2014, 12:37 PM (5 replies)
Look Obama, one of the main achievements I praised you for was ending the war in Iraq. Sadly, it looks like you are going to give that up, as you know that Isis does not care if they have to leave the Mideast in a stone age mess. Indeed, part of the reason they are trying to goad America back into war is because they know the Americans did more than half their work for them. They know that there is no way for America to win this wart, and all dead bodies do is make their job easy.
Yet, maybe because Hillary made you look like a "wuss" to use her hubby's term, you feel you have to do this. Yes, I know many democrats are leaning over to crown her, already writing the op eds where they lie and say "because she was brave and went to war, she saved Israel and proved herself to be more the man than Barry ever was." God, I can hear Maureen Dowd writing that crap now. However, History is a long game, and truth to tell, picking this war in the mid east has already done damage we cannot count. The debt will last for decades, and the Chinese and Russians have been building their empires in the meantime. Truth be told, the powers that be did their best to make sure this presidency was run over before it began, though sadly, by picking Clinton era stooges, including Hill herself, you choked off a change at real change in foreign policy. That is why the media is ramping up this war, they want to be sure that regardless of 2016, the only issue is who gets to promise to kill more brown people, something that even Rand Paul has shown a willingness to do.
The thing is, you do not defeat any enemy by giving them what they want, and oh yes, they want this. Otherwise, they would have to deal with Assad, and his bog brother Russia. Why not let Russia get tangled in it's imperial war, by having to keep Assad alive against isis. As Afghanistan proves, the Russians lose against Mujahedeen. This is where we can sit back and actually enjoy enemies killing each other for once...as Iran, Isis, and Russia will get tangled, and then, we could sit back and offer whatever help on OUR terms.
I know you will not hear this, nor will appeals to things like decency or humanity appeal. After all, if that worked you would have put on comfortable shoes a while ago. The sad thing you and Hillary will not see is that the more you appeal to joesixpack, the more joesixpack will HATE you, because you think you can do what he has deemed a "white man's job!" Hitler's Germany thought they could appeal to England, Mein Kampf reads like a love letter to Queen Victoria, but all that happened is that England hated them more for trying to copy THEIR Empire. All you will gain by fighting wars on other people's terms is a loss before the first shots are fired, because, as Chuck Todd can tell you, the false historians do not NEED facts.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Thu Sep 11, 2014, 01:39 AM (6 replies)
Yes, there were many English in Dixie, but again, as folks like Joe Beagant could tell you, the vast majority of Dixie, whose descdentants populate the "Red States" were the Scotch-Irish.
"The Scots-Irish, as well as large numbers of German settlers, followed the Great Wagon Road that traversed the 600 miles from Pennsylvania to Georgia, many settling along that path. While the Germans and the Scots-Irish were not openly hostile to each other, they were separated by culture and religion and thus tended not to intermarry. Gradually the Scots-Irish moved south to the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, which became a launching point for further migration to the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Eventually, with so many Scots-Irish settling in the south, Charleston became the second most important arrival port (after New York) for ships from Ireland."
"The Scots-Irish played a large role in the settlement of America, particularly in the southern United States. Their experiences in settling new lands in Ireland, and then again in the American colonies, helped to develop a hard-working, fearless, and sometimes brash, spirit. Occasionally lawless and violent, the Scots-Irish nevertheless had a big influence on the history of the United States; their descendants populated many frontier areas, and aspects of their culture, customs, and speech are still visible in parts of the south today."
Dixie, aka Red State land, was mostly Scotch irish, and of course, much of the West was also settled by descdenants who came from Dixie.
That article seemed fitting as it reference your reference of David Hackett Fisher. I found it while looking for him online
The reason I say this is because, again, The Scots-Irish brought along hisotrical baggage. Call it scars, call it prejudice, call it a mix of both, but they were used to the government being the enemy.
"The first migration, then was touched off by a combination of drought, rack-renting, diminished trade in woolen goods, depression, and also religious discrimination and “persecution.” When the fourth successive year of drought ruined the crops in 1717, serious preparations began to be made for a migration. Ships were chartered, consultations were held, groups were organized, and property was sold. More than five thousand Ulstermen that year made the journey to the American colonies. There were but two real drawbacks--the perils of an ocean crossing and the expense of that passage. The practice of indenture has long been a familiar device."
"In 1717, when the leases on the large estate of the Marquis of Donegal in county Antrim expired, the rents were so greatly advanced that scores of tenants could not comply with the demands, and so were evicted from the farms their families had long occupied. During the next three years nearly a hundred vessels sailed from the ports in the North of Ireland, “carrying as many as 25,000 passengers, all Presbyterian.” Thousands of the Scoth-Irish began their New World careers as servants. In 1728, it was estimated that “above 3,200” persons had come from Ulster to America in the previous three years, and “that only one in ten could pay his own passage.” Going to America came to mean, by the middle of the century, not launching out into a vast unknown, but moving to a country where one’s friends and relatives had a home. It offered the very exciting chance to own one’s own land, instead of holding it on a lease that might end in rack-renting; it meant a heady freedom from religious and political restrictions; it even promised affluence and social prominence to those who were truly ambitious. Every group who went made it easier for others to follow. and so by 1775, probably 200,000 Ulstermen had migrated to America."
Also about the Census, keep in mind, Americans are not always the best judge of their own history, as you often point out. To lay my cards on the Table, I am American, of Puerto Rican descent. That means that when I go to St. Augustine, Florida, founded in 1565, I can laugh at the idea of the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock. We were here long before the English had to steal food from the Indians in masschusetts, which they were stuck in because their navigator failed to arrive in Jamestown, Virginia. Yet every schoolboy and girl is taught that Plymouth Rock in 1620 was the birth of European settlement, which makes Florida annoyed (and I would assume it also that annoys those Scotch-Irish in Virginia too.)
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:49 PM (1 replies)
"This is Clinton's glaring flaw as a candidate: the all too obvious ambition, the tone deafness, the sense of entitlement, the indifference to understanding loyalty is best measured when it is the most risky to express.
Clinton said she couldn't wait to see Obama at a recent social gathering, when she could hug him. What do you think the chances are as they embraced Obama whispered: "Et tu, Hillary?"
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sun Aug 17, 2014, 06:15 AM (0 replies)
when you go ahead and punish people because the person happens to be a fool, you do nothing to advance the cause of leftism, you instead feed that narrative that "those people on the left cannot and will not help now, ya gotta kiss the ass of dose Reagan democrats." If people see that,wait a minute, the left CAN vote and come out to vote, than the right wing will panic and see "hey wait a minute, I better go left" It is exactly the reason why Dick Cheney softened up on Gay marriage. You are not just playing to the democratic leadership, you are playing to those that want the numbers. If we do not produce votes, than we will say "ok, we will not show uop, ignore us and keep chasing your regaan democrats."
And also,let us not forget that if Minorties starve because someone wanted to make a "protest vote" that will fray solidarity. Look at how successful the GOP was at a time for driving wedges between labor and the left, because they were able to sell the idea that these 20-30 somthings did not give a damned if the Union guys lost their jobs. It is also a major reason why we do not have much blue in Dixie. If we want solidarity, we will need a better sales tactic than "I hated you anyway because you were stupid, so i will take my votes and stay home!"
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Aug 13, 2014, 10:34 PM (1 replies)