On the Allegations that Cynthia McKinney Is Crazy

I have great admiration for Cynthia McKinney. She was the first U.S. Congressperson to introduce articles of impeachment against George Bush. She was also the first – and only as far as I know – Congressperson to seriously question the role of the Bush administration in the 9/11 attacks on our country. Even if I believed that she was wrong on those issues – and I don’t – I would have to give her much credit for having the courage of her convictions. I believe that we need a lot more people with those traits in Congress.

Therefore, allegations of her being crazy and irresponsible are disturbing to me, and I certainly am not about to accept them at face value. I refer here to the most recent serious allegations against her – that she alleged that five thousand prisoners were executed by our government during Hurricane Katrina and dumped in a swamp.

So I tried to find the original source for this story, and I found that U-Tube videos of McKinney’s statement are scattered all over the internet. There appear to be hundreds of links to this video. But when I click on it I always get the same message: “This video has been removed by the user”. I don’t know what that means, and I’m not making any allegations. I’m just pointing out that it’s difficult to put this in context without the original source. But let’s consider a few things:


RIGHT WING HATRED OF MCKINNEY

Summary of reasons for hatred of McKinney by right wingers

It is probably accurate to say that during her Congressional career, no other member of Congress was hated or feared by right wingers as much as Cynthia McKinney. This article sums up a lot of the reasons for that:



Insistence on investigating Bush administration role in 9/11 and opposition to the Iraq War

Of all the reasons for right wing antipathy to Cynthia McKinney, probably none is more important than her hostile questioning of the Bush administration’s role in 9/11 and her opposition to the Iraq War. Indeed, it is fair to say that her words about George Bush in this 2002 speech “crossed a line” that many Americans consider sacred, especially with regard to his role in the 9/11 attacks on our country:



Targeting of McKinney’s U.S. House seat

As a result of Cynthia McKinney’s many high profile words and actions, her primary opponent in her 2002 bid for re-election to Georgia’s 4th District House seat:


McKinney won her seat back in 2004, but in 2006 her seat was targeted again, thus ending her Congressional career (apparently), as she lost another Democratic primary election.


MCKINNEY’S ALLEGATIONS OF NEFARIOUS GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY DURING HURRICANE KATRINA

As I noted above, I could not find a working link to an actual video on McKinney’s comments. But here is a quote from Right Wing News on what she said:


Right Wing News included this in their commentary on the subject:



A look at some documented nefarious activities in New Orleans during Katrina

As you can see from the above quote by Right Wing News, even if it is accurate McKinney did not claim that the story was true. She merely claimed that that is what she was told and that she felt it should be investigated further. Even that might be considered over-the-top for a public statement by a prominent public figure – if it weren’t for many well documented instances of nefarious activity in New Orleans during and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

For example, Jeremy Scahill describes the following activities by Blackwater USA, a prominent Bush administration contractor, during the response to Hurricane Katrina, from his book, “Blackwater – The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”:


And A. C. Thompson recently wrote an article in The Nation titled “Katrina’s Hidden Race War – In New Orleans’s Algiers Point, white vigilantes shot African-Americans with impunity.” It is a ghastly story of how, freed from the reach of the law, under cover of a catastrophe, a bunch of racist white men in a white enclave of New Orleans formed a militia to prevent black people from using their neighborhood as a sanctuary from death. Several horrific examples are provided in the article. Thompson describes how the racist militias thought of themselves:


The historian Lance Hill provides some perspective on what happened, noting that “Some white New Orleanians think of themselves as an oppressed minority”:



Green Party response to allegations against McKinney

Here are some excerpts from the response to the allegations against McKinney, provided by her Green Party Presidential campaign:



CONCLUSIONS

During her 12 year Congressional career, Cynthia McKinney was a fearless and tireless voice for justice and progressive government policies. She never shrunk from harsh criticism of the most powerful individuals in our country when she thought it was warranted. Consequently, her Congressional career was destroyed (twice) largely through the efforts of those who had reason to fear her.

Was she overzealous in her remarks about potential nefarious government activities during Katrina, and the need for investigation of those alleged activities? I can’t say for sure. But we do know two things with absolute certainty: There was very good reason to be highly suspicious of our government during that period of time; and, Cynthia McKinney’s enemies will use every opportunity given them to blow way out of proportion anything that she says.

Our country needs people like President Obama, skilled progressive politicians who exercise enough political caution to get elected to high government office. Even though they sometimes hold their tongue in situations where some of us wish they wouldn’t, that is sometimes the price that has to be paid in order to ascend to positions where a great deal of good can be accomplished.

But our country also desperately needs voices like Cynthia McKinney’s – voices that will not shrink from protecting the vulnerable or criticizing the powerful. Her words and actions go a long way towards helping to maintain the sanity of those of us who desperately long to hear the truth spoken about grave abuses of power by high government officials. If McKinney’s statements about government activity during Katrina were out of line – and I’m not saying that they were – that doesn’t change the fact that our country needs a lot more people like her.

This isn't a monarchy, with a favored/less favored court of royals.

Citizens holding their elected Representatives accountable is how it's supposed to work.

We like to pretend it is

But there are folks who will go as far as kill a president or senator if they feel threatened.

It would be nice to catch those folks, but we haven't

She's a modern day Don Quixote

permanently silenced or turned into a loon that no one pays attention to.

The permanent silence seems less painful, almost kinder.

Go for the chinks in the imperialist armor if you will

Segregation was one chink

Just make sure your pursuits are ethical, and not moral

Moral is ethical

Morality has nothing to do with logic

Ethics have everything to do with logic

"Do onto others as you would have them do unto you" is ethics

"Homosexuality is an abomination" is morality

You have posted what some view as morality - that does not make it moral and doesn't alter the very basic fact. Ethical is a synonym of moral - your use of the words or your understanding of their meaning (as well as other's use and understanding) doesn't change their meaning or give credence to your position.

But for Ethics, there is

Hence, the two ARE NOT synonyms


------


I invite you to watch a movie some time

"Election" with Matthew Broderick

Its a funny movie, and basically discerns, through the movie, the difference between Morals and Ethics

can alter long accepted definitions? Just because you "say so" makes it so?

I consider myself a moral person, what you have listed as an absolute "morality" is disgusting and is not morality in my book or in the book of those I know that are ethical.



I suppose your attempts to pervert and distort the words are a perfect example as to how other humans pervert what is "moral".

First thing you learn is there is a difference.

True, according to Merriam-Webster there is no difference

Just as they don't discern the difference between the many words for snow the Eskimo use

Just as they don't differentiate between Agape, Phileo and Eros when defining love

But I assure you there is a difference

The difference comes from the small mind of those who try to define them according to their small minded views, much like what you are trying to do. Ethics, as commonly used, would be the system of rules passed to govern the morals of the people to be governed.

The two aren't different, the approach to the two by individuals may differ but the definitions are basically the same.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-...

"The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution and court must also deal with the difference between ethics and morals. In some cases past actions of the accused might resonate with the current charge, but are kept out of evidence so as not to prejudice the jury. In a sense, the prosecutor “lies by omission” in representing the case, never revealing the prejudicial evidence. The same prosecutor, however, would likely find it reprehensible to fail to tell a friend if her date had a potentially dangerous or suspect history.

Another area in which ethics and morals can clash is at the workplace where company ethics can play against personal morality. Corporate greed that blurs its own ethical lines coupled with unreasonable demands on time can lead to having to chose between a stressful, demanding and consuming work ethic, and family obligations seen as moral obligations to spouse and children. Conversely, people lose jobs every day because of poor personal morals, employee theft being a common reason for dismissal.

In society, we are all faced with the butting heads of ethics and morals. Abortion is legal and therefore medically ethical, while many people find it personally immoral. Fundamentalists, extremists, and even mainstream theists all have different ideas about morality that impact each of our lives, even if indirectly through social pressures or legal discrimination.

In the case of homosexuality, many believe it is morally wrong, yet some of the same people also believe it is unethical to discriminate legally against a group of people by disallowing them the same rights afforded heterosexuals. This is a plain example of ethics and morals at battle. Ethics and morals are central issues as the world strives to overcome current challenges and international crossroads. Hopefully, in the coming years, a growing understanding will lead to peaceful and productive solutions."

<SNIP>

I said that. I could get you a whole boat load of someone else's writings on the subject to prove my point. I thought you would find it rather pompus of me to rely on the thoughts of others. I see you like pompus and you rely on the thoughts of others, the sad thing is, those thoughts coincide with what I have said and not what you have said.

"Do unto to others" is a moral statement, the ten commandments would be the ethics given to govern a people.

Morals: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical.

Seriously, do you think anyone should take you seriously when you suggest that they watch a movie to better understand the definition of words and their usage in the real world.

Folks that consider homosexuality "an abomination" are not moral, they have just convinced themselves they are, just as you have convinced yourself that there is a difference between being moral and ethical.

The two words share the basic definition: principles of right and wrong. How they are viewed and twisted may make some folks consider them different, but that would be folks that think they own the moral high ground.

because your ego is preventing you from thinking.

The argument that your debater has presented is far superior to yours. You have become emotional and your ego is doing the talking

And you lecture me on ego.

I disagre with much of what is said there, but here is one prime example:

"Ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs."

That would tend to mean that the German Nazis were ethical because they were following the standards of their group. That's not my understanding of the usage of the term.

ethics imply a more universal notion of right and wrong, a notion that has some sort of widespread common acceptance although it is not necessarily grounded in a religious or spiritual tradition(which would then be morality as opposed to ethics).

You tell me that it's because morality implies a religious or spiritual definition. Others say it's that morality implies a universal definition of right and wrong, while ethics applies to the standards of society. I don't believe that either of those statements are correct. There are many millions of atheists who consider themselves moral but not in a religious or spiritual sense.

The ultimate sin at that - you will not kill

That is the core of the social contract, whether people agree with it or not

First one to get shirty loses, IMO. Pack up your diaper bag and run along!

Add alcohol, and things degenerate into poopee peepee talk

I can't see getting drunk and getting on the internet! It just doesn't seem like much fun to me!

"Ethics is concerned with how a moral person should behave. Ethical values are beliefs concerning what is morally right and proper..."

Whatever difference is reflected in that explanation escapes me entirely.

http://www.scribblers-ink.com/professional_ethics.html

accepted definition of words because of what they got out of a movie, but as is evident, it happens.

One has to do with generally accepted standards of behavior, the other has to do with right and wrong.

right and wrong for their group?

...they would have considered themselves both ethical and moral. They really did believe they were superior and special.

Very rarely are the two at odds with each other within the same culture. I would say that early American slavery was one of those times. Most moral leaders in the New World (religious leaders and, oddly enough, ethicists) thought it was morally wrong, while those who set ethical standards (law enforcment, the legislature and the courts) thought it was fine, as long as they were well treated.



I think the two are so very similar that it makes it difficult to differentiate between them most of the time. They are like two separate roads that are "supposed" to lead to the same place, and most of the time they do, but not always.

But I think the more important test in considering whether there is any difference between them is to ask a single person "Can you think of anything that you believe is moral but not ethical or vice versa?" I can't. Can you?

I don't know if that is possible or not. It would take an extreme amount of rationalization.

Take the slavery question as an example. If a person expresses an opinion that even though it's wrong, it's for their own good. In that case the moral and ethical questions are at odds.

It sounds like a troubling way to look at things. It isn't exactly irrational, it's more like it's extra rational. Like a way of justifying something that one knows is wrong.

morals and ethics. what if you mix sex and logic? what happens when logic gets horny and goes looking for quick satisfaction? the end. if that's the case you wouldn't want to power the logical side of the brain with sex energy. but that's what could happen if people learn sex with the hand connected to the logical side of the brain.

Denotation and Connotation

Denotation refers to the literal meaning of a word, the "dictionary definition."¨ For example, if you look up the word snake in a dictionary, you will discover that one of its denotative meanings is "any of numerous scaly, legless, sometimes venomous reptiles¡Khaving a long, tapering, cylindrical body and found in most tropical and temperate regions."

Connotation, on the other hand, refers to the associations that are connected to a certain word or the emotional suggestions related to that word. The connotative meanings of a word exist together with the denotative meanings. The connotations for the word snake could include evil or danger.

http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/English_Literature/terms/deno...

other, then it is no longer a debate. I am surprised that anyone would debate with you.

how nice.

The comment you replied to was not an attack on the poster, it what was an observation as to the poster's distortions of simple words. The first attack came from him, not me. Direct your judgments where they belong or better yet, keep your comments to yourself.

Other than that, it's been a good discussion here.

are synonyms, does not imply they mean the same exact thing.

The other posters are right about these definitions, you are wrong.

Sorry.

Logical approaches to problems can often be, on a large scale, brutal and inhumane.

Some have been argue, with great political success, that it would often be "logical" to solve a particular problem by consigning a large group of people to death. It would never be ethical to do so.


And, as far as that goes "It's wrong to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation" is also a moral statement. "Sexual orientation is unchangeable and thus discrimination, which has been imposed because of the belief that people could stop being gay if 'they just tried hard enough' and discrimination is a tool to make them 'try hard enough' is a waste of time" is, by contrast, a logical statement.

Most change has and will continue to be made by folks who push for it. And no, sorry, I don't think Barack Obama's presidency is "change" in any sense of the word. Sure, it shows that racism has eased up. But that's not Barack Obama's achievement. That's the achievement of those who stood for something at the risk of being unpopular--maybe even 'annoying' or labeled 'dangerous.' All those people called 'humorless' who demanded an end to those 'fun' racist jokes. All those academics and law professors who made 'ridiculous claims' that eventually sunk into accepted practice--claims like "'Courses called 'African-American Literature' and "African-American History" have the right to exist at any US university and it doesn't mean the end of Western Civilization." If everyone stopped every time someone was told the "truth" wasn't possible, the world would be in more shit than it already is.

Sorry, McKinney isn't "tilting at windmills." She's tilting at real problems in a political world that only ever tilts at windmills.

History is a series of measures that, despite our despotic nature, free us from tyranny.

It is the irony of humanity.

Sometimes we may revert to authoritarianism, but in the long long long run, it will be freedom that will prevail

Freedom would never prevail in the long run if no one fought for it.

She will speak the truth, but no one will believe, even when it comes to pass.

People don't like it when they're made to feel uncomfortable by the truth; the first thing they do is to paint the truth teller as crazy as a means by which to get over on those who haven't made up their minds.

I'm not surprised by her treatment, both in the press and here.

That is EXACTLY what the situation is like.

It seems very appropriate.

Dennis Kucinich...

It never has been - there have always been qualifiers

Check out "People's History" by Zinn

But we just have to shoot for victories where we can...any other option is futile

I think i will join a church and hide from reality.

Observe and analyze life to your heart's content. That is relatively safe, and requires nothing of you.

The rest of us will live it.

We doom ourselves if we limit ourselves to "the possible". That always ends up making even "the possible" impossible. The Nineties prove my point.

Out friend looks backwards, and now that it is popular to do so - and most importantly safe and risk-free to do so - supports Dr. King and then uses him, by seriously distorting the historical record, to make an argument for conservatism today.

One would think that the pervasive popularization of the phrase "I have a dream" would in itself be sufficient to contradict and demolish our friend's argument. But defense of right wing ideas while claiming to not be a right winger, which dominates modern literalism, has always required people to hold two contradictory sets of ideas in their minds simultaneously. That "enemy within the gates" phenomenon, as FDR called it, has always been the greater threat from the right wing then the Republicans are.

Cynthia McKinney is attacking windmills

Obama will knock down more windmills than she ever did, because he is on the inside, and affecting change

Just sayin'.

Instead of being outraged, and standing alone...she should have gone for specific 9/11 inaccuracies, and worked from there.

Instead she played martyr, and we won no ground.

Conyers and Kucinich took the approach I suggested, and true, they did suffer in many ways, this issue has more of a chance of coming to light.

Just think about how crazy Bev Harris went with the whole Diebold thing. She was right, but because she was crazy, it almost ruined that investigation.

Your argument is a re-tread from the 60's and was used against Dr. King.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

Why was Dr. King in Memphis? Do you know?

What was the last campaign Dr,King planned and did not live to see happen? It failed, by the way. Tilting at windmills, no doubt, and going about it the wrong way.

It is easy to buy into the mass media mythology and feel-good stories, and imagine that you know something about what happened. Anyone can pick the "winners" once the game is over, especially if you let popular media create the narrative for you. It is easy to now fancy yourself to be on Dr. King's side, when it requires no risk to do so.

I am telling you that the exact same arguments you are using here were used against Dr. King.

Dr. King's last campaign failed, and we are still paying the price today. We never hear about that campaign, because it does not fit with the safe and benign and self-congratulatory mythology the media has created around Dr. King's work.

So...

Why was Dr. King in Memphis?

What was Dr. King's last campaign?

McKinney may have been right, but she had no plan and she did not organize. It was her alone against the windmill.

If Dr. King can be accused of attacking windmills, he did so with the support of thousands. Thousands that he had organized beforehand.

It takes a wide variety of contributions of different kinds from many people. This "he had a plan," and "he had a following" line of reasoning is just your latest grasping at straws in your effort at discrediting people.

This is such a reactionary argument - "oh I agree with the goals, but you are not going about it the right way." I promise you that this exactly same argument was used against Dr. King.

You are trashing the work and reputation of Dr. King in your attempts to recast him as some moderate and practical establishment figure who went about things in an acceptable way. Crediting him merely for for being a success, while looking in hindsight from your safe vantage point, discounts and ignores the struggle and the opposition - opposition that was based on the same reasoning and was phrased the same way that you reason and phrase your opposition here to us.

So you attack McKinney, you trash out the work of Dr. King, and you oppose all here who agree with McKinney. Given that, I am sure you can understand why we might question just which side you are on in the struggle.

Person #1: Wants to strike the letter "L" from our alphabet. He goes out on a street corner and screams the evils of the letter "L." Let's just say he's an English Teacher even. But no one listens to him.

Person #2: This person isn't even an English teacher, but this person also wants to strike "L" from the alphabet. This person, instead of just screaming into the air, organizes a letter writing campaign, works with other people, some English teachers, some not, to put pressure on the Dictionary people to eliminate "L." Risks life and limb because people named Larry, LeRoy and Leslie really don't like this idea.

Who do you think is going to be more successful?

Who would you label 'crazy' (notwithstanding the logic of dropping "L" from the alphabet)?

You are missing the point. No one is arguing against organizing and planning. You are using that argument as a stalking horse to make an ideological argument in a deceptive and covert way.

In your little scenario, it takes both. It always has, as even the most superficial knowledge of history would tell you.

And that is all Cynthia McKinney is

And he was an outsider. If Obama does as well, it will be because someone steps up to be his King.

That was a clear goal with clear aims

They stated exactly what they planned to do, did it and then told everyone how they did it

That is not attacking windmills

You are looking in the rear view mirror. Hard to see where you are going when you do that.

Going after a windmill would be something akin to "ending racism in all forms"

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

But what he did - the marches, the lobbying and pushing legislation

Providing on the ground support for the students

That is completely measurable and those are his greatest successes

Standing on a mountain and shaking your fist against evil does nothing

At the time of King's activism many people would have accused him of standing on a mountain and shaking his fist, and virtually no one would have thought his goals were "clear, measurable and attainable". In fact I don't think even King himself believed that his goals were attainable, but he knew that whether they were attainable or not he needed to fight for justice. King did a lot more than simple lobbying and marches, he committed acts of civil disobedience and went to jail, eventually he even sacrificed his life for the cause. He knew there was a good chance he would be assassinated, and yet he kept on doing what he was doing because he knew this was a cause that he would need to keep fighting for until the day he died. King was not someone you would call pragmatic, he was an idealist and he fought for his ideals no matter how many times people told him he was being unrealistic.

And the way he accomplished the big ones, was by working on the smaller ones. Organize a march in Selma, for example - with a stated goal of getting media attention. "The Whole World is Watching" became the chant at many of these.

Basically, I'm saying he was a tactician, not just shooting holes in the sky

Except inspire others to rebel, to march, to lobby, to push legislation.

When you step out of line in a small way you make it easier for others to step out of line in a more dramatic way. If others don't pick up the standard and run with it, shaking your fist at evil is still a measurable success.

Like McMurphy said, "I tried. At least I did that much."

Without setting goals and setting measurable ones at that, you might as well be Don Quixtoe charging against those damn windmills.

Its good that Sucessful Leaders never did (Gandhi, MLK, OBAMA)

They used organization more than they just stood out and whined to the skies...

Or the people who egged GW Bush's car on Inauguration Day in 2000. The car kept going and he got eight years, after all.

Or the Shministim who are, without any measurable success, defying the Zionist war machine by wasting their best years in Israeli prisons. After all, many more people who joined up than resisted, and they're leading far more comfortable lives.

The nameless African-Americans in the racist South that wasted their time standing up for themselves, only to die anonymously because they were outnumbered by cowards.

You imply that people who charge windmills only do so to avoid attacking the giants. That's only true if you stop with windmills. But windmills can also be excellent practice for giants.

In any case, you need to make sure you understand the goals and resources of the person that is defying oppression before you dogmatically write off their effort as "charging those damn windmills". The fact that you don't understand or accept their goals doesn't mean they don't have any.

(...Sorry, it was there...)

You need to read about King's last months.

You could not be more wrong with your attempts at portraying Dr. King as a practical and cautious man who did not fight for the "impossible."

You're accepting the "official" interpretation of King's life, taverner, the version where white society canonized MLK AFTER they killed him.

when he opposed the Vietnam War, when he made common ground with Cesar Chavez and poor whites, when he supported the Memphis garbagemen in their strike for dignity(the stance that led to his assassination) and when he organized a Poor People's March to bring the issue of poverty directly to Congress.

And actually, Dr. King was seen as attacking windmills when he ORGANIZED the Civil Rights movement.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was ONLY awarded "respectability" by the white establishment AFTER they had him killed.

Just because someone thinks you are crazy doesn't mean you are

Then again, if you are crazy, people will sometimes follow you right off that cliff.

Stay away from McKinney's cliff, people

It is not relevant whether or not people are "tilting at windmills." The point is that the "tilting at windmills" argument has always been used to promote reactionary political ideas. Of course when windmill tilters succeed, you can no longer accuse them of tilting at windmills. So what?

You - or at least your ideological allies and forerunners - lost in your battle against Dr. King in some ways. So now you switch sides where he is concerned, but not without stripping the guts out of his career. So you changed sides to be with those you perceive as the winners, once the battle is over. Again so what? That brings no credit to you nor credibility to your argument.

President Obama wants the radicals and the dissidents and the committed activists to keep speaking out. He wants people speaking truth to power so that he can commit truth IN power. You're attacking the people President Obama doesn't WANT attacked.

We can't do it solely with insiders.

And if it hadn't been for Dr. King "attacking windmills", Barack Obama would never have been elected president. In attacking Cynthia(and, by extension, the whole Civil Rights protest/activist tradition)you're insulting Dr. King's memory and President Obama's intelligence.

You have got to accept that the enemy is the RIGHT, not the Left.