Weak tea

F**king F**ksticks!


I was reading this article by Dave Weigel at Slate and I realized that “What the fuck?” month is still going on. It starts with this:

We sit down and we’re given the full details for the conference: “Fractures, Alliances, and Mobilizations: Emerging Analyses of the Tea Party Movement.” It’s the first event of its kind hosted by Berkeley’s two-year-old Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements.

Do you get the feeling that just maybe there might be little bit of bias here? It’s kinda like Baylor University doing a comparative study of Mormonism.

But wait! There’s more:

But the social scientists are more ready than the historians to crunch numbers and prove that racial animosity is key to the Tea Party. It’s cold comfort for people like Hardy Frye, but it does suggest that Obama’s ability to form some grand populist coalition was always limited. The University of Washington’s Christopher Parker shares his research-in-progress based on interviews in seven states that break down subjects into “true skeptics” of the Tea Party at one end and “true believers” at the other.

“If you look across the board here, true skeptics of the Tea Party, 49 percent agreed with the proposition that blacks ought to work their way up without any special favors,” says Parker. “But if you look at the true believers, that goes to 92 percent. This is another indicator of racism, right: Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve. Forty-five percent of true skeptics disagree with this; almost 80 percent of true believers disagree with this.”

After all the media and progblogger hoopla about how the Tea Party is nothing but the Klan minus the white sheets, THIS is their proof?

I think we need a new rule – Everyone is presumed to be not guilty of racism unless they:

1. Use racial epithets and/or stereotypes

2. Advocate discrimination and/or the superiority of one race over another.

3. Actually discriminate based on race

Allegations of racism must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.





About these ads

181 Responses

  1. From Weigel’s actual notes:

    Steve Martinot, who teaches at San Francisco State University: “There is that U.S. DNA that goes all the way back and does provide the conceptual source for this lynch mob mentality. And that is white supremacy. Shouldn’t we be looking at the Tea Party through that?”

    Yeah, that won’t bias the results.

    • Tea Party sympathizers also think that PhDs in chemistry who are laid off should take the first job that’s offered to them even if that means washing dishes, losing your severance benefits and defaulting on your mortgage. I guess we should evaluate the Tea Party through their secret dislike of balancing equations.

    • I forbid Brooke to apply to Berkeley. Call me authoritarian but I’ve got standards.

      • Don’t let her go to Chico State either.

      • CAL post- grad here.

        Berkeley has it’s feet firmly planted in the liberalism of ideas. It is years ahead of the rest of the world.
        Class A education there.

        Tolerance to the extreme.
        Can a person be radically tolerant?

        • I’m pushing for Stanford.

        • As a grad one who sat in on Gender and Women’s Studies courses and witnessed the bias for BO and against HRC in 2008, UCB has certainly become a disappointment to me. From what I saw, many of the GWS courses were only concerned for “social justice” issues (i.e. the market and development issues) which resulted in sidelining or ignoring altogether questions of gender. Heck, at least in one class, students weren’t even required to write their papers on women per se!

          • I have a number of friends who are profs at Berkeley. All feminists, and all supported B0 over Hillary. I would never have thought that possible if I hadn’t lived through it.

          • Erica, what do they say now?

          • Yes, do tell. I’m interested to know.

          • Still firm Obots. Inauguration pics on the wall, thank-you notes from Obama on the fridge. Nary a complaint about anything he does–and all are lesbians!

          • I work at UCB and I can testify that I saw the same thing happen!! Every grad student & undergrad I came in contact with was for Obama and couldn’t stand Hillary. There were only 2 people I knew (me & my coworker) who were for Hillary and we couldn’t believe some of the sexist slanders coming from the mouths of Obama supporters about HRC. In Berkeley or elsewhere in the Bay Area, you didn’t dare mention that you supported Hillary or you’d get a firestorm of b.s thrown at you about what she or Bill “supposedly” said or did and then get put on their Suspected Racists List. I’m still not friends with a lot of people who claimed to be feminists allies during the Bush administration but turned on a dime when, as they say, Hillary ran against the historic Obama & felt “entitled” to the presidency.

      • Cal has high academic standards.

    • Did Obama’s stimulus pay for this study? If so, I protest.

      Oh, (light goes on over head), I get it. If they can prove the tea party is racist, then Obama can call Palin a racist. Yeah, that follows.

  2. That sounds like a very shoddy study. I’d like to see the principal components

    • Ya think?

      • Is it just me, but just about half the “true skeptics” agree with both propositions anyway. Shouldn’t they be more concerned about the revelation of their own problem, instead of like “Progressive represent! By our own definition, racial animosity is key to progressivism! Wahoo!”

        Dave Weigel better bring a buddy to the conference so he can indicate by pointing and whispers that the buddy represents the problematic half.

      • That gets me to thinking about the Uni. Southern California who put out their results today, Jerry Brown is up in the polls. What does it cost to attend USC, 50,000 a year? Let’s hope this coming week the Los Angeles City Community College will get a chance to do a poll too.

      • Its a “work in progress”. They will soon give a questionaire to a 2nd person.

  3. What are the majors at the Center for Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements? Since it’s comparative do you get extra credit everytime you break Godwin’s law?

  4. The Raiders are putting a tubthumping on the Broncos (38-7 at halftime)

  5. OT, but I know now why Obama and Pelosi taped those “It’ll get better” videos
    Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election

    • Figures, they couldn’t do it because it was the right thing to do.

    • Pelosi is a believer in gay rights, but she’s not above using it for crass political opportunity.

      • Is she really a believer?

        You can’t judge a book by its cover or a Democrat by his/her statements.

        • Pelosi believes in The Word.

          • Lol She’s been trying to organize a prayer group dedicated to worshiping TOTUS, the Source of All Words, but don’t tell anyone.

          • Barbara Ehrenreich will get right on that and let us know about all the religious cells that Pelosi’s prayer group serves as a front for.

          • Which one?

          • Only if she has time after analyzing how Pelosi’s hair reflects her erratic mental state. Is there a Center for the Study of Comparative Highly Indicative Hair Accessorizing?

          • Center for the Study of Comparative Highly Indicative Hair Accessorizing

            Think Koch would fund that ;-)

          • Is there a Center for the Study of Comparative Highly Indicative Hair Accessorizing?

            Lol, not sure, but I think at the Institute of Teabagger studies there is a Department of Studies devoted to Sarah Palin’s Toenail Polish.

          • Hmm… come to think of it there’s probably a separate division for Mama Grizzly studies.

          • THAT’s where Barbazon comes in!

          • Don’t be ridiculous. Toenail polish analysis is a mere subdiscipline at the Institute for Hot Librarian Categorization and Response-Justification.

          • Is that a joint degree program? Psy.D in Teabagger and MHLS (Masters of Hot Librarian Science)?

          • Yer all dreamin’ about getting those degrees. Word is that they don’t admit any sino-peruvian lesbians in their programs. They have standards, after all, and you’re just not their sort of people. *Harumph and sniffity sniff*

          • I’ve taken enough detailed notes on what’s expected of me to embrace self-hate with the best of them. I’m just a few credits short of my Masters in Hot Librarian Science, and then all I have to do is find a way to be embraced as a conditional member of the squishy goo-goos! All of the grunt work, none of the glory. And after that, the world’s my oyster. I can marry a President, or a Senator, a Congressperson, or a judge. Nothing but opportunities as far as the eye can see.

          • I think you get extra credit for turning on your own. Just look at Dave Weigel and Kathleen Parker. If you are a reformed bitter knitter majoring in Teabagger 101 or Mama G studies, you can count on job offers from MSNBC, slate, and CNN.

  6. I have to say the progressives are complete and utter morons. Calling the tea partiers a bunch of racists might be the only thing that might allow me to sympathize with people who from a policy perspective I have absolutely nothing in common with. Everytime an Obot says racist I grind my teeth and am reminded of how exactly they decided to get rid of half their base.

    Every time I consider voting for Boucher(he’s pro choice , he didn’t vote for the health care nightmare and helped a neighbor struggling on disability get housing assistance) some moronic progressive opens his mouth about racism and I feel like sitting home and washing my hair so the idiotic progressive base can get their comeuppance for the superiority complex they adopted in 2008.

    Instead of dead people, Obots appear to see racists everywhere.

  7. Maybe I OD’ed on the Yuengling today but I’m at that “Who Gives A Rat’s Ass” moment.
    All I know is I’m going to sit this one out and if the Tea Party candidates win, I don’t really care.
    The Dem candidates can burn in Hell.
    Here’s the deal, what have you done for me lately Joe Sestak, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bob Casey Jr., and President Obama?
    Why should I get off my ass and vote for any one of you ever again?
    The Democratic Party is dead to me, so I don’t really care what they say about the Tea Party or its candidates because they lost my vote back in May of 2008.

  8. How pathetic has the Left become in this country? How far off the beam will these idiots go? A year and a half into the Tea Party as a political force and a bunch of over paid brats claim it is all racist. SOOOOO 2008.
    Here is what this meeting was: A large confab for a bunch of egos to figure out a way to make excuses for Obama and by default themselves for falling for Obama. Obama failed on getting thru a progressive agenda because HE’S NOT A PROGRESSIVE.

    Hello, anyone in there?

    The tea party exploded on to the scene for the same reason something like it always does every few decades: Americans don’t like or trust government. Obama laid the groundwork for the current backlash because he over promised and under delivered and the economy is in the tank. That combo was ALWAYS going to get a chunk of people angry. This racist meme is an idiotic excuse spewed forth from slothful academics and Obama media sycophants. It is so far off base that is actually helps the tea party recruit. Telling people who are scared to death of losing their jobs or have lost them that they are angry because Obama is black is a recipe for MORE anger.

    One does not have to be a PH.D. in anything to figure out what’s going on. The economy sucks and it turns out Obama sort of does too. Enter Scott Brown, Palin, Angle, whoever…and trust me if Obama doesn’t get his act together and the economy remain limp the current drop of tea parties will be looked back on as moderates. If Obama and Pelosi actually had any leadership skills the tea party would have been gutted 12 months ago….no matter what the economy did. Instead they’ve both behaved like effete pricks.

    • today’s progressive means Romney-lite, in true 11 dimensional chess fashion.

      Good thing we got rid of those evil triangulating Clintons.

      • Speaking of those “triangulating Clintons,” Black Agenda Report has an article up entitled, “Obama Prepares to Triangulate Himself.” As far as I’m concerned this is a done deal. Link here:

        http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-prepares-triangulate-himself

        Love the opening paragraph:

        “What a guy! Barack Obama has neutralized Blacks, the white left, and the majority of his own party in service to Wall Street, and some still call him “liberal” (The insane call him “socialist.”) With Social Security and Medicare in his sights, “the stage is set for a performance of presidential political gymnastics that will make Bill Clinton, once known as the Great Triangulator, bow down to the master.”

        Too, too true.

        • Thanks for the link to the Black Agenda Report. I sometimes forget to check that site, but when I do I almost always find insightful posts and intelligent discussion.

    • “effete pricks” {{snicker}}

      too true. When you’re out of a job, your bennies are about to run out, you’ve got sick kids but no health insurance and the bank is going to foreclose on you, the LAST thing on your mind is what color your president is.

      I guarantee it.

    • Honk honk!

    • Great comment!

      And yes, this “he over promised and under delivered” is what more and more people, however slowly and reluctantly it may happen, are realizing.

  9. Honk!

    slothful academics

    Lol! I’m gonna use that one! Most Obots I ran into , loved the non thinking part of the O-wave. Asking them to think or look at his record was always greeted with screams….. the very tired accusations of ra*ism we see now are more of the same. Anything to stop looking at what Obama actually is or does

    • Funny, paper doll. I’d get comments like “he’s got a record?” Cause they didn’t realize he had to be a lower pol before he got the US senate dig.

  10. Roll Call:

    Before introducing President Barack Obama at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser in Minneapolis on Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi bemoaned the massive amount of money that shadowy conservative third-party groups have poured into this year’s election.

    “Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in,” the California Democrat told about 100 donors at the fundraiser, according to a White House pool reporter in attendance.

    Funny, two years ago when the Democrats had all the money from undisclosed sources it was considered hunky-dory.

    • Who cares how much money they pour into elections? No one watches campaign commercials anyway. I haven’t seen one all campaign season. If you have a DVR, you can go years without exposure to them

      • You should actually watch some of them. It’s actually almost sitcom funny because they usually end up being shown back to back. So you have Candidate A extolling how evil Candidate B is and then Candidate B extolling how evil Candidate A is. It’s like watching grade school children go back and forth with “I know you are but what am I.”

  11. Have you seen this crazy ass shit from Chris Hedges at Corrente? I hope Lambert isn’t slipping into being one of those liberals who have their minds so wide open that his brains have fallen out.

    Hedges has no idea what the working class really thinks.

    • I’ve read a number of Hedges’ essays [haven't read his most recent book]. And no, I don’t agree with everything he says but what does concern me and always leaves me in a funk is his view of the corporate takeover of the system.

      That I can’t shake. That appears to be our reality, whether we’re talking the outrageous bowing to BP after they poisoned the Gulf through negligence and pure greed, the on-going fraud and corruption on Wall St and the Administration’s [this one and the last's] blind eye, the Citizen’s United decision from SCOTUS, the 10 years of pointless war and . . . the list goes on and on. Hedges was writing about this creeping corporatism two years ago [at least]. For that I give him props.

      I have to read or listen to Hedges in small doses. He always leaves me in a very black mood. The one thing he said during that presentation is that we can no longer depend on the electoral process to bring any meaningful reform or change. When I look at the elections since 2000, I cringe. I don’t want to believe that terrible prediction, but I can’t put it out of mind entirely.

      I sincerely hope that Hedges is dead wrong, that he really is a crazy ass.

      • The problem with business is that no one is holding them accountable for their behavior. That is intentional. The Republicans designed it that way.
        Here’s a test of Hedges perception of reality: what would he replace business with? What kind of industry would we engage in?
        Realistically, there will always be businesses and corporations. There’s that whole economy of scale thing going on. So, we can’t get rid of corporations without becoming something close to pastoralists making and growing our own food. We would become rustic agriculturalists and craftsmen. Right? I mean, logically, that’s what you get when you harp on business like Hedges does. After all, they’re all evil and heartless and cruel.
        Are there any alternatives to this POV? Um, yeah. We could reimpose regulation. We could modernize the departments that are supposed to oversee business. We could start holding them accountable and throw their asses in jail if they misbehave. We could start giving labor a fair break by enforcing laws that labor likes, like the paycheck fairness act. There are a lot of things that can be done. Why take the extremist point of view?
        Hedges isn’t dealing with reality. Working class people don’t have time for that nonsense.

        • RD said:

          “We could reimpose regulation. We could modernize the departments that are supposed to oversee business. We could start holding them accountable and throw their asses in jail if they misbehave. We could start giving labor a fair break by enforcing laws that labor likes, like the paycheck fairness act. There are a lot of things that can be done. Why take the extremist point of view?”

          You and I agree. But I don’t see the will on the Left or Right to do that anytime soon. In fact, I see just the reverse. Of course, you’re right too, Hedges offers no alternatives beyond a dismal, Margaret Atwood-like dystopia. I certainly don’t want that sort of world. But it concerns me when our politicians seem to be working against the common good, defending each and every corporate abuse. This foreclosure fraud is a case in point. Obama’s housing guy came out and said they saw no evidence of fraud but would make sure of compliance in the future. Say what??? Rule of law apparently no longer matters.

          William Black had a scathing article over at Huffy-pooh about what the Wall St. gangsters have done, continue to do, and what needs to be done to clean it up. But until we have the will in DC, nothing will turn around.

          Link here:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/foreclose-on-the-foreclos_b_772434.html

          The BP disaster? A total disgrace and the problem continues. Ten years of war. Where is that taking us other than total collapse?

          Trust me. I don’t want Hedges to be right. But I can’t easily dismiss him or his predictions out of hand.

          • It doesn’t matter if Hedges is right about the future if he is unwilling to offer practical solutions to avoid it. In that sense, he is no better than the Christian Right eschatologists who are always predicting the end of the world but don’t want to do anything to stop it.

            It has been my policy to never go to a public meeting of elected officials and complain about the way things are without offering at least one practical solution for fixing it. Hedges doesn’t do that and he doesn’t seem willing to understand a working class person’s POV. So, what good is he to liberals?

        • Working class people don’t have time for that nonsense, because for them, it’s real. It isn’t an academic exercise. Hedges is engaged in what is essentially mental masturbation with no application. Yeah, and, SO? What’s yer solution in the real world? Because it’s those corporations that are going to employ people, so saying “icky poo” and theorizing about a world without them is about as helpful as theorizing a world where unicorns fart rainbows.

          And while I agree with you that the Repubs have designed it that way, I disagree that they are only or even primarily responsible. BOTH parties have set up a power structure whereby the way for a business to get ahead is not to compete for customers and market share, but to compete for political favors, and govt connections. They compete both for an end to inconvenient regulation (which the repubs willingly give them), AND they compete for advantageous regulation that helps them and cripples their not-so-well-connected competitors (the Dems usually have that one covered for them.)

          Corporations are not evil. They are seeking profit, which is neither moral or immoral, it just IS. And we have created a system where the only profit to be made is by having an incestuous relationship with the govt. I am just as skeptical of the Dems when they tout that they will “add more regulation” as I am of the R’s when they want to get rid of regulation. Because the devil is in the details, and the real problem is that we need two things: 1) Simple, understandable, sensible regulation with TEETH to make the playing field fair, and b) the govt to otherwise get the fuck out of the way. Do your goddamned JOB, in an even-handed way, and stop there – no more and no less.

          We need an end to crony capitalism, as opposed to actual capitalism, which I’m all for. Neither party is giving us that, and haven’t for ages. Meanwhile, Hedges spins fairy dust and argues about angels on the head of a pin, to the “I say, well said old chap! That was quite a clever dissection of the prevailing theory!” accolades of his similarly ivory-tower peers.

          NOTICE TO CHRIS HEDGES: Golf claps for beautifully theorized semantics and intriguingly-constructed arguments don’t do FUCK ALL to help the people out here who are hurting.

          • What we need is separation of business and state. The government should stop giving money to business and creating regulation that picks winners and losers. When business knows the system can be gamed, they will game the system.

            WMCB, I would say business is amoral. Their morals are flexible based on the situation. I don’t think governemnt should impose morality, but they have to impose good business practices by business.

          • We call it “beautiful theories destroyed by ugly facts” and intellectual masturbation.
            Totally agree with you.
            Honk!

          • Ooooo! Separation of business and state. That is sooo good. But we have to change business to something with one syllable to really make it sing.
            Jeez, that’s fricking brilliant. It needs to be on a bumper sticker.

          • What we need is separation of business and state

            Yup. And neither party seems to want to do the proper function of the state, which is to have fair rules so no one gets ripped off. I often say that the difference between the R’s and D’s is that when they get in bed with big business, they only disagree on who should be on top.

            The People want them out of bed together altogether. And that sentiment, in my experience, is shared by the rank and file of left, right, and middle.

          • Separation of Corp and State?

          • Gettin’ there. WCLSOCS-Working Class Liberals for the Separation of Corp and State

          • I often say that the difference between the R’s and D’s is that when they get in bed with big business, they only disagree on who should be on top.

            Honk!

          • Yes!

            And sounds like a new political party to me — WCLSOCS-Working Class Liberals for the Separation of Corp and State

    • I got 3/4 through and just couldn’t stand it. Clueless. As I said above, they may call themselves the reality-based community, but what they have is a community-based reality. Sheesh, talk about existing in a bubble!

    • Love your rant over there :-) I usually like Hedge’s work but he’s went round the bend it seems.

      Anyone who believes NAFTA is the source of our globalization problems really needs to get out more.

      • I think Lambert cut me off. I had a couple more “And another thing…!” comments but couldn’t post them.

        I consider myself an FDR style, practical, working class liberal. I have no idea what the fuck Hedges is but he’s no friend of mine.

    • Well, I hope so, too.

      • Adding… That anybody who thinks Hedges isn’t advocating anything “practical” needs to listen to the end of the presentation. His recommendations, and his idea of what’s “practical” may not be everybody else’s, but they do exist.

    • Wow – I never knew that Bill Clinton single-handedly caused the apocalypse.

  12. It the pot calling the kettle black…they are all crooks. I can’t believe people fall for the same line every election cycle.

  13. *sigh* So basically, their primary reason for labeling the teapartiers raycist is because of their views on affirmative action?

    You know, affirmative action is a policy. It is not holy writ. It has both advantages and drawbacks to be weighed. Sane people can disagree whether, as a policy, it is a) fair b) was needed once but no longer is, or c) is in practice proving to be actually worse for minority communities in the long run.

    There are logical arguments to be made on both sides of the issue of affirmative action. Both pros and cons exist in the real world. Disagreeing on whether something is good policy is not raycism. Someone can be wrong, in your view, without being a raycist, or a bad person, or immoral and horrible.

    Crap like this is precisely why 80% of the public does not self-identify as liberal. Because they really don’t want anything to do with these superior, judgmental assholes.

    • “Crap like this is precisely why 80% of the public does not self-identify as liberal. Because they really don’t want anything to do with these superior, judgmental assholes.”

      I could not have said it any better, WMCB! By the way, are you going to be the official front-pager writing on behalf of the Rangers since we seem to be outnumbered? ;-)

      • LOL! I know nothing about the Rangers, since I’ve only been in TX 3 years, and don’t really follow much baseball. The last team I truly loved and watched all the time and was emotionally attached to was the 90’s Braves.

        But I will be rooting hard for the Rangers, in any case. :)

    • Affirmative action is a policy that makes the working class pay again for the sins of the elite. We know that the family is the bedrock of any society. For over 200 years (1619 – 1865), the policy of slavery was the destruction of the black family. After the Civil War, the blacks who up until then never had to compete for work, need an education, support a wife or children fathered, were told to get a life and be like everyone else.

      One doesn’t have to be a genius to understand that the blacks needed help to participate in our society. Those who benefited, the industrial cotton mill owners and the southern land owners never paid restitution to the blacks through taxation to help the slaves develop to their best potential. With the Civil Rights movement, the working class was told to pay for the sins of the elite and give up their jobs in favor of blacks. Affirmative action is the policy that helped the most for the disadvantaged blacks, but at a very high price. Affirmative action has angered the working class against the blacks, who they see as being given an advantage because of the color of their skin. The cry of reverse racism is a natural response.

      The working class needs to focus their anger, not against the blacks, but against the elite that’s never owned the damage created by slavery and should pay for a support system that brings each black child to be a productive member of society. That system should begin from the moment a black child is born, so that he/she is healthy and is given every chance to develop a good education, ethics and family value.

      • I agree. I was just pointing out that holding the opinion that affirmative action today is no longer an effective policy is not ipso facto an indicator that one is a raycist. But that’s what the “teaparty study” claimed.

        • I totally agree. Affirmative action is an unfair policy, developed by the liberal elite to help the blacks, by taking jobs from the white working class to give to the blacks. RR understood the anger and divisiveness of the policy, and the Democratic Party could only defend the policy by painting those who spoke against it as raycist.

        • I seem to recall hearing presidential candidate Barak Obama say that it may be time to interpret Affirmative Action on an economic basis rather than a racial basis—-ie, there are worthy poor white kids , too, who need help academically, etc, and are quite worthy of same.

          He got so much negative feedback from NAACP and others, he never said it again.

          You can bet your bottom dollar that these “teaparty study” people will never allow that thought to invade their already set-in-concrete assumptions.

      • It’s not that simple.

        The white working class bore prejudice and hatred toward non-white persons long before affirmative action. They, too, benefited from cheap, easily abused labor in their homes and businesses. The presence of “others” at the bottom of the heirarchy gave them a sense of privilege, even if it was minuscule compared to the privileges of the elite.

        It was white sharecroppers, hardly more than slaves themselves, who lynched my great-grandfather’s parents. Look at the photos of any lynch mob, and you see working class whites–never the wealthy family from the big house.

        • The white working class I grew up with, truck drivers, factory workers, etc., didn’t have businesses of their own to exploit anybody in. They didn’t have paid labor in their homes either. As soon as one *owns* a trucking firm or construction company, they move into the middle class.
          These are not the same as white sharecroppers who lynched. I’m sure the majority of white sharecroppers didn’t lynch, but those who did were criminals.

          • Branjor–I suspect you grew up in a different time and place. The white farmers up and down the road from my granddad’s place in rural NE Texas each had a black field hand or two, and there wasn’t much economic or social distinction between those farmers and the small shopkeepers, the farrier, the seamstress who sewed for the town “ladies,”etc. The middle class was professional people, some of whom had actually been to college: the doctor, the lawyer, the pharmacist, the minister, the postmaster.
            No truck drivers, no factory workers–a very different social structure.

        • Ira Katznelson has a spectacular book about the history of Affirmative Action.
          Most people who argue about whatever merits and demerits of the policy have a rather simplistic “knowledge” of the issue.

          When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

  14. Um, did someone turn on the “send me a copy of the comments” feature in the dashboard?
    Could the person who is responsible please turn it off?

    • there is a “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” underneath the button to “submit comment.” Sometimes that accidentally gets activated when you comment.

      If you go to your wordpress dashboard and click on subscriptions, I think you can unsub there.

  15. community-based reality

    LOL
    msnbc is like their scifi channel

  16. The comments underneath the Chris Hedges video are also annoying…

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26658.htm#idc-cover

  17. Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters

    BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama’s energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.

    An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.

    The report, released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe’s biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: “The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers

    WOWZA… :shock:

    • Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000
      http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2010/10/24/climate.pdf

      (click link for pdf of full report)

    • Um, how is this wowza? Yeah, the oil companies will generally donate to candidates who oppose cap and trade. Companies who stand to make a bundle on cap and trade will generally donate to candidates who support it. This is shocking expose news?

      • Just the timing.

        Oh, I hope all those nasty tea party types get defeated so we can have more of Obama’s BP support instead.

        • :-)

          sometimes breaking news at the Guardian is like “Water is wet!”, but it gets some folks excited before an election.

      • The Dems made it seem like it was ‘little business people’, BP is a Billion Dollar Company, I don’t remember seeing them at the local chamber. Pretty sure that!

        Also, the Supremes let this happen when they placed higher rights/personhood on big business and didn’t hold them to the same campaign restraints that you and I have to navigate.

        • Wait, what campaign restraints does an individual have that a big business does not have?

          • We have a limit as to what we can contribute, where the Supremes ruled they can spend and spend…so, WE THE PEOPLE can never compete.

          • Corporate personhood
            * Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

            The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.
            Recent background
            See also: Creature of statute

            The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states:

            In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise– the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

            Here is a quick article via Wikipedia on the ruling.

          • No, that’s not the case, Contributions to candidates are limited just as ours are.

            What they said was that corporations can spend all the money they want on outside advertising, promoting a cause or candidate, etc. As can you or I if we have the money to do so. As can MSNBC. Their legal restraints are the same as ours.

          • Supreme Court Corporate Speech Ruling: Election/Campaign Spending Eased; Unions too

          • Yes, WV. I’ve read the entire decision, and the dissent. I understand that it allowed them to spend. What I was pointing out was that they are not free from the restraints that individuals have. The ruling treats them the same as an individual. Any restraints on you or I apply to them also.

          • There is the video, and the case was due to a Hit Movie on Hillary by a GOP group who was going outside of the campaign finance laws. NOW, the supremes, ruled that corporations NOW have no limits but you and I do. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations were ‘PERSONS’ and I don’t agree with that. Why do the rich get more rights?

          • Yes, I know what the case was about. You needn’t explain it to me. But the decision did not give corporations no restriction on spending while leaving restrictions in place for individuals. That’s simply not true.

          • WV, are you even talking about legal restrictions? I interpreted your comment to mean that they can spend and spend on non-coordinating activities because they have the resources to do so, and we can’t, because we don’t. Therefore acting like we’re on an equal playing field with equal opportunity to influence outcomes because we could spend a million dollars a minute if we had it while they actually can and do is kind of nonsensical. Am I right? Wrong?

          • Seriously,

            Yes, and it makes it all the harder for us to support our candidates, and well I think I will die before I ever see a Public Option or The Medicare Buy In passed. I once filed a complaint on a person who ran a campaign hit operation. Eventually the State ruled (fines and requiring them to register), but we had to form a committee, get the evidence and then file the complaint giving our names and our Committee name, but only after the election did they rule in our favor. Today, I don’t think they would…mum is the wink wink word.

            The Liberal (attorney) Viewer explains it better though.

            Anonymous Speech or Disclosure in Political Attack Ads?

          • I really hope we all get to see both a Medicare Buy In and a much healthier political culture, WV. :)

          • If only we had a more sensible government that invested in its people and not WARS. The WikiLeaks press conference is rather interesting and the other videos on the leaks…I am just now watching them. I wonder when we will finally be done with those Wars.

        • they placed higher rights/personhood on big business and didn’t hold them to the same campaign restraints that you and I have to navigate.

          “Hold them to” pretty much means she was talking about legal restraints, one would assume.

          • Not sure, but the wiki does say:

            * Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

            In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise– the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

            So, it doesn’t seem like WV doesn’t understand the ruling.

          • Yes, it does seem that she misunderstands. Her contention was that individuals have legal restrictions that corporations do not have. That’s not true.

            Direct contributions to candidates still have limits, whether one is an individual or a business. However, any person, or any corporation, can spend however much they want to print flyers, buy ads, or express their political preferences in whatever manner they choose, without a monetary limit.

            There is no difference in the “restraints” that individuals or corporations. are “held to”. None.

          • The Bush tax breaks were available to me if I made a gazillion dollars, but I don’t make that kind of money. The Supreme Court says that I can spend as much money as a corporation, for the candidate of my choice, but I don’t have as much money as the corporations. In this case equality can only be achieved if the corporations are limited to spend what a poor person can spend.

          • Oh, I agree that they have more money to spend, Dario. I was just trying to correct the statement that the ruling treats individuals and businesses differently as far as legal restraints go. It does not.

        • The devastating fact is that Citizens United now holds corporations to be the exact same as individuals. My understanding is that the danger is the personhood of a corporation. It’s bad enough that its legal for them to have the same restraints as we as physical persons do.

    • The DSCC had a record breaking month of fundraising in September. Who is funding them?

      • The multitude of small grassroots donors who didn’t show up to vote for Obama in the primaries and won’t be showing up to vote on Election Day either. A surprising number of donors believe that casting a vote will steal their souls. It’s a problem for which no one’s yet discovered a workable solution. Learn about it at CCSRWM in the class “Ewwww, do we have to?Voting makes us voters, and voters are icky.”

      • To expand that thought: Should Move-On be required to reveal all of their donors? If not, why not?

  18. 60 Minutes says unemployment/underemployment is actually 17%, 22% in California

  19. Frank Rich?:

    The reasons for his failure to reap credit for any economic accomplishments are a catechism by now: the dark cloud cast by undiminished unemployment, the relentless disinformation campaign of his political opponents, and the White House’s surprising ineptitude at selling its own achievements. But the most relentless drag on a chief executive who promised change we can believe in is even more ominous. It’s the country’s fatalistic sense that the stacked economic order that gave us the Great Recession remains not just in place but more entrenched and powerful than ever.

    No matter how much Obama talks about his “tough” new financial regulatory reforms or offers rote condemnations of Wall Street greed, few believe there’s been real change. That’s not just because so many have lost their jobs, their savings and their homes. It’s also because so many know that the loftiest perpetrators of this national devastation got get-out-of-jail-free cards, that too-big-to-fail banks have grown bigger and that the rich are still the only Americans getting richer.

  20. Mondale on Obama, and how he could’ve beat Reagan

    Now they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    • It’s just an excuse to remind everyone of Reagan’s profound unpopularity, disastrous midterms, and amazing comeback.

    • Salon’s really fallen down in terms of what they’ve been publishing the last few months. It’s not just the political stuff, either. Joan Walsh maybe needs to forego the TV appearances for a while. Her day job could really use the attention she once gave it.

  21. I think it’s sad that the only thing ObamaNation has, after two years of the Obama presidency, is the r@cism stick. Are we going to have to listen to this crap for another two years???

    • Basically the answer is yes. That is all they got. And the public will continue to ignore the media. The media will get shriller and crazier and the public will continue to ignore it, or if shoved in their face will answer with a “So?”, or a “Why do I have to pay for this shit on my cable TV?”. I want to start a movement demanding news free cable TV packages, except for the Weather Channel.

      • Honk!

        I don’t think they even realize how many of the public aren’t even listening anymore. Amazing.

    • Ya know if Obama actually went to an inner city or to someone’s home who lives in the ghetto … maybe then I could have a rat’s chance of hell in believing the raycism shtick. Maybe an address from a single family home that’s crammed fill with 4 families, no pretty furnishings for a back drop, and the sound of bullets whizzing outside. But alas, I still hold my breath.

  22. Speaking of Tea, I heard this morning on am talk radio that “Romney is courting the GOP leaders” while Gingrich is courting the Tea Party.
    I think it is base don this wsj article

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304354104575568730326784138.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

    Romney, to my mind, is an Obama prototype, and I’d rather the Tea Party get hold of the 2012 nomination. I’m thinking if they do they’ll pick Sarah Barracuda. The best Newt can get is VP.
    I would rather have the option of voting for Palin vs Obama. The financial elites hate her and it breaks the glass ceiling (and in your face, Dems!)
    If it’s Romney vs Obama I’m definitely voting Green Party. There’s literally going to be no policy differences between Bush -> Obama -> Romney.

    • I’m with ya, votermom. I’d love to have a woman (or two, or three) on the ballot in 2012. My first pick is Hillary, second is McKinney, but if I have to settle for Palin, so be it. I’ll take what I can get and be happy I had a woman to vote for.

  23. This article seems to get it. They even play Hillary’s “celestial choir” speech.

    http://www.examiner.com/post-partisan-in-national/new-york-times-profile-shows-obama-delusions

  24. I want to share. My 13yo had a brilliant suggestion on how to clean up political ads. You know how the candidate always has to say “I am _ and I approve this message.”
    Her idea is that BOTH candidates should be required to approve of an ad’s message.
    I said that would be great — no ad would ever make it to the air.
    By the way, we were just in DE and I have to say that Christine O’Donnell has some nice-looking big signs on the highway. Light blue, with her name, an a small pic of her in the corner.

    • LOL!

      Notice how the Sunday shows talk a lot about O’Donnell’s gaffes, but never mention AL Greene in S. Carolina?

      Annoying how they do that, eh?

  25. The movie “Inside Job” explains the financial meltdown succinctly and clearly (it interestingly provides vindication for both tea partiers AND progressives as regards to ‘who to blame’ (Obama Administration is no friend of the average American when it comes to ‘fixing the financial system’.
    review is here:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2010/1022/Inside-Job-movie-review

  26. I’ve been wanting to ask WHERE IS CLAIRE MCCASKILL? She was everywhere when we celebrated her head up Obama’s ass because her kids told her to. Now? She must be in hiding ala Sadam Hussein. Hey, Missourians, look under rugs for caves in the ground.

    • HaHaHa! Maybe her kids had to move in with her when they couldn’t find jobs. Or, are they still in highschool?

  27. Is it the word ass or Claire Mccaskill that put me in moderation?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 450 other followers

%d bloggers like this: