DonCoquixote
DonCoquixote's JournalI will see your truth and raise you one
Many of the same self-described "liberals" will indeed complain about their benefits being cut, but they will also be the first to lay roses at Rand's feet for several things.
One: making Marijuana legal. I know that Cannabis is legit medicine, but frankly, there are a lot of people that A) just want to legalize their pastime and B) think they will make a shitload of money. These will also be the same people who will complain when Monsanto, with the aid of the Tobacco Companies, makes damned sure that their brand of weed is knocked out of existence by the corporate strands that are probably all ready to go. Let's not even get into what the Medical industry will do, goodbye dime bags, hello big markup on price, with the ATF and DEA being replaced by the IRS.
And let us not forget Medea Benjamin, who made literal Valentines to Ron Paul, Randy's dad, even though he has been a zealous opponent of abortion rights. I wonder what these self-appointed "Feminists" will think when the Paul family brings back the back alley doctor days in a way that even the Bushes dared not do.
Let us not forget the Travis Smileys and Cornel Wests, who will talk about this as if the Paul rise to power is the key to getting a "real" black man elected, and by that, we mean someone that obeys them.
Do not get me wrong, Obama has disappointed me in many ways, mostly because he has allowed parasites and scum to use him and compromise him. It is like watching Muhammad Ali fight in his later years, with the Clintons playing the role of Don King, aka , the sob who will capitalize on his fighter, then betray him when he is too punch drunk to be exploited any more. However, there are a lot of people who attack because they know Obama is, by the very nature of being Black, able to be attacked with a vigor that no other could be attacked with. Yes, he is the Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown who can get shot for going into the wrong 7-11, with a bunch of white middle-class hipsters and blue collar types raising a Pabst Blue Ribbon in solidarity with the gunman. What is sad is that , if a president Hillary were to get into office, many of the people that attacked Obama will be as silent as a stone tombstone about Hillary. I really, really look forward to seeing what Jane "Obama reporters are sexist" Hamsher over at FDL does when her Goddess decides to start world war III to get her street cred.
Nice catch David
Though it goes beyond empty, it makes us sick. Whether Hillary's supporters realize it or not, there were things that Hillary supported and IS SUPPORTING that will KILL OR INJURE many of those on the left that are still expected to march into the booths and get "ready for Hillary." The poison that will spill from the Trans-Canada pipeline, the troops that will come back dead from Syria, the people hurt by slashing welfare, make no mistake, they will be hurt, if not killed.
And before some of her supporters take out the branding irons they used in 2008 "Sexist!/Anti-Semite/insert cheap insult here", and the war cries "Party Unity my Ass!", let me add this point: since Hillary has not yet decided if she is running (snicker) she is in that phase where she supposedly can define who she would run as; she is supposedly malleable. We, as the voters of the Democratic Party, have every right to say that we want to see certain things from her, and that we do NOT want to see certain from her. We have every right to say "If you want to pass through this gate, we need you to come in from the left." What is sad is that if Hillary wanted to be a liberal, she could.
Anything stopping her from denouncing the Keystone Pipeline, save for the fact her Hubby has already supported it, and already condemned Obama for not approving it pronto?
Anything stopping her from saying "If I were to become president, one thing I would COMMIT TO was to get rid of Nafta, at least as we know it."
Anything stopping her from saying "If I were to run, I would demand BiBi Netanyahu cease his course of action, and come with us to Oslo, where we can resume implementing the Oslo accords that everyone, Israel included, agree to when my Husband was President?"
Oh, but you cannot offend people in office. Ha, that sure as hell did not stop her from writing that book of "hard choices" and stabbing Obama in the back, knowing her words would be used by the GOP to apply pressure on him to do "Stupid Stuff." This was the unkindest cut of all. If Obama ran things like Hillary did, no one from the Clinton era would have been allowed in the cabinet, because he would have shown the vengeful spite the Clintons are known for. That would have meant Hillary would not be SoS, and Obama could have earned EASY praise.
The right wing would have praised him because it would have meant Hillary would have had a sad ride into the sunset. The left would have loved him because they hated Hillary the War Hawk. But no, despite the fact that leaving Hillary out would have been easy, he kept her on, and she repaid him by that damned book, which is a way of paving over Obama on her way to the White House she felt was hers.
two cents about Scotland
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.
On Scotland voting on whether or not to stay.
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.
Godspeed Scotland.
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.
How to make Isis fall on its own sword
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/chelsea-manning-isis-strategyA god read from someone who knows what they are talking about.
For all her lovely intentions
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.
why some of us are mad at Michael Moore
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.
Perspective: new Russian Flag looks familiar
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/perspective-new-russian-flag-looks-familiar/2196186"ok, The irony is not lost, considering this is an imperial flag, not the official one in Russia, but one that reflects Imperial ambition.
Stumbling onto war: an open letter to Obama
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.
For certain areas, but not the Red state ones
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.
http://www.archives.com/experts/garstka-katharine/the-scots-irish-in-the-southern-united-states-an-overview.html
"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.
http://www.irishgenealogy.com/surnames/migration-scotch-irish.htm
"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.)
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 05:51 PMNumber of posts: 13,616
