Posts Tagged ‘history’

The Rangel/Waters ethics case, a sign of racial progress?

Posted: August 3, 2010 by datechguy in congress, opinion/news
Tags: , , , , , ,

I’ve always remembered a particular episode of Gilligan’s Island (Gilligan vs. Gilligan available online here) that had a particular exchange between Mr. Howell and the Russian spy posing as Gilligan. Mr. Howell puts his chess piece on an illegal square. Mr. Howell reacts indignantly:

Mr. Howell: Young man are you accusing a Howell of cheating? I’ll have you know I’m far too wealthy.

Spy Gilligan: To cheat?

Mr. Howell: No, to be accused!

It reminds me that there once was a time when our icons such as JFK were far too important to have their dirty laundry aired in public.

How does that relate to The Rangel/Waters issues? Consider this; as Black America gradually progressed in rights and influence, they also gradually took the places at the seats of power that their growing influence and the slow progress toward legal equality demanded.

Like all men and woman those people who attained power and office were individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses and foibles. However those foibles while they might be known in their own communities were not aired to the general pubic. Not because the community approved but because you didn’t tear down your own when it took so long to get to the mountaintop (this is of course not unique to the Black community). As blacks migrated to the democratic party and as the party became more dependent on their vote, it became a priority for the party as well to keep any problems in house with a tact cloak of silence. Thus any such suggestion became a racial issue and the proponent of such questions a racist.

Now however things are different, the digital age forces light on things that were once hidden (read Rev Wright) and with our first black president (sorry Bill Clinton) it is impossible to pretend that African American’s place in American society is defined primarily by the sins of the past.

James Clyburn not withstanding, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics issues have nothing to do with race and everything to do with actions. The actions against them are not signs of the return of the Jim Crow past meant to keep Black America underfoot. It also shows we have progressed beyond the equally offensive but less violent era of tokenism.

This is the sign of a new era where we can look at a member of congress of any race and see…a member of congress. This means we can judge said member not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I think that’s progress and America in general and the Black community in particular are better off for it.

Update: Morgan Freeman knew what he was talking about.

As does Col Allen West:

Two last things concerning Bainbridge’s post…

Posted: August 3, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

…first of all I must link to Roxeanne De Luca’s excellent piece that not only linked to mine, but puts the lie to his anti-intellectual point that the professor tried to make:

While Bielat is the only one of those guys (and gals) who pulled off the double-Ivy education, one can hardly call the small army of JDs, CPAs, MBAs, and professors “anti-intellectual”. One then has to wonder at Bainbridge’s assertions: who, among this growing conservative movement, is really “anti-intellectual”? Are we stupid? uneducated? have the audacity to think that our BC, Georgetown, and Tufts educations are not so dismal as to disqualify us from public debate and office? or just not relentlessly focused on degrees obtained two decades ago? is what is happening in Massachusetts not representative?

As they say, read the whole thing as the young lady with TWO DEGREES of her own defends the tea party she is so much a part of.

Secondly and more importantly as I re-read his piece I noticed something that I hadn’t caught in his 10th point, lets review:

Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan? emphasis mine

Even Ronald Reagan? EVEN RONALD REAGAN?! That sentence, the idea that: Today’s conservatives are so dumb they even make Ronald Reagan look smart, well-read and articulate, brings me back to my college days.

Starting college 8 months into Reagan’s first term I recall the way that liberals treated Reagan with disdain and/or fear. My favorite professor the spectacular Ed Thomas, (the best history teacher I ever had) used to talk about how Reagan “Scared him”. Liberals reacted with glee when he got the nomination. They couldn’t believe he won.

But I also remember how elite conservatives absolutely HATED him. They hated his small town background, they hated that he was a Hollywood actor, they hated his abandonment of realpolitik saying bluntly what the Soviet Union actually was, they hated him because he was so comfortable in his own skin and beliefs they he didn’t feel the need to seek their approval.

Most of all they hated that due to his success and popularity among the idiot people that they had to pay homage to someone so obviously beneath them to get elected or to be supported.

Remind you of anyone today?

We have seen this last point often in the last few years among the leftist media and pols (who can’t believe and won’t forgive Reagan for drawing more sympathy in death than Ted Kennedy) who now avoid criticizing him, acting as if they had been with him all the time.

I had almost totally forgotten the absolutely visceral hatred some Republicans had for Ronald Reagan. Thank you Professor Bainbridge for reminding me of an important lesson from the days of a full hairline.

Update: An Instalanche in my sleep. Very odd to wake up and find my first post of yesterday to be linked by Glenn at the very end of the day. Nice to have you all. You may want to check out the article I put up at Examiner.com on the subject called:
Conservatives in Massachusetts should be grateful not embarrassed by the Tea Party that answers the point concerning Tea Parties.

Stacy on Zinn: The sequel

Posted: August 2, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

Following up on his first rate post on Howard Zinn this weekend Stacy puts up a new article at the American Spectator:

Revelation of Zinn’s support for Stalinism is unlikely to affect his standing with liberals, whose main response to the FBI disclosures was to express shock that an official of Boston University tried to get Zinn fired in 1970. Zinn’s liberal admirers obviously share his anti-American perspective, in which the FBI poses a greater danger than any foreign enemy. It was that view Zinn meant to express when, in 1986, he condemned the U.S. bombing of Libya in response to a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack in West Berlin. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable,” Zinn wrote.

That such a condemnation could be applied more truthfully to Zinn’s communist heroes, who slaughtered millions of innocents in pursuit of an unattainable socialist paradise, is an irony the professor apparently never contemplated.

This is uncharitable of me but I suspect he did contemplate it and brushed it aside as all fans of totalitarianism do. What are mere lives when compared to the cause? The irony that he did this from the safety of America where he was free to make a living off of his support for our foes is not lost on me.

Those who promote his views have much to answer for.

If professor Bambridge is embarassed to be a conservative these days…

Posted: August 2, 2010 by datechguy in elections, opinion/news, tea parties
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

…I guess we will have to win without him, won’t we?

Let’s examine his points in reverse order:

#10 He doesn’t like the voices of conservatism these days. He forgets that during those wonderful days of Buckley and Goldwater the democrats ruled. Firing line was on 35 years, 31 of them were years of Democratic house control, During Goldwater’s 30 years it was even less. Reagan never had a house majority. Liberals always respect conservatives as long as we lose. Even better when we lose gracefully

#9 Can you define what is a Nativist? Does being against Illegal immigration make one a “nativist” Is that something like Andrew Sullivan’s “Christianist” term?

#8 As for birthers I’ve hit them myself but also pointed out that the Administration loves them because it is to their advantage for them to exist. This is a very tiny fringe of the conservative movement and his inclusion of it elevates it to liberal advantage.

#7 Excuse me? Didn’t this president stress Afghanistan all during the campaign? I seem to recall him attacking the war in Iraq and elevating Afghanistan over and over again. The General who was in charge was his general, the decision to replace the general was his decision and the latest surge is his surge (and when Petraeus wins this war it will be his success and he will deserve it). Yes Bush went in first, yes Bush focused more (correctly) on Iraq but right now this war is our current president’s responsibility.

#6 Anti-science? I’m sorry but did you come out of a coma and miss the entire climategate scandal? I suggest you google “Hide the decline” or “global warming e-mails“. Let’s put it another way, other than not believing in the Global Warming Climate Change where else do we see conservatives as anti science? Oh and check this link from Glen yesterday.

#5 Yeah that horrible tea party that drew 10k in Boston in April and has energized voters. The Polls are close in NV and the Prof might have already given up but I wouldn’t be so ready to haul up the white flag. If we only listened to the MSM and the RNC about the tea parties a year ago what would conservative prospects be right now?

#4 This one is a good point. The GOP did fail to restrain spending but that is due to their unwillingness to act “conservative” Ironically it’s those tea party voters that you disrespect so that are holding republican feet to the fire and will desert those same republicans if they after winning congress decide to go back to their spending ways. (Although I would add the caveat that the war spending was and is justified, I actually think that some of the spending was to buy votes on the war from dems but that is strictly my opinion).

#3 I didn’t see the column in question am reading it now…You’ve got to be kidding. That column has gotten your knickers in a twist? It’s not much of a column but if that column is your number #3 reason to be embarrassed to be a conservative then you need a Valium quick! Update: And how many people voting conservative have even heard of these guys? Do you think the conservative movement hangs on their words? If you think so you need to get out more.

#2 You are correct that Tancredo is wrong. I wrote a post called: Let’s not get carried away making that same point. Am I embarrassed by Tancredo being wrong? Not really, so he’s wrong big deal. If the conservative movement was pushing for impeachment and running on that platform that would be a different story. But this is a mountain out of a molehill

#1 Let’s be blunt here. It is #1 that drives all the others for you. Palin Derangement Syndrome. How embarrassed must you have been that Palin almost managed to win the 2008 election for John McCain until he went along with the bailouts. How horrible that she has brought the Hoi Polloi into the political process. How terrible that she draws huge crowds and raises money hand over fist for conservatives. How horrible that she started as a mayor and rose through the ranks to a governorship, succeeded as a governor and has managed to do this without an elite university degree or the backing of the eastern elites and the inside the beltway crowd? I’m old enough to remember the elites hitting Ronald Reagan the same way.

Put it another way, what American has been more successful in the last 2 years in advancing both their personal fortunes and the fortunes of their worldview? Who has done more to advance conservatism that Sarah Palin? Who other than Rush kept fighting when the rest of the GOP wanted to run? Who had a better and more impressive record going into the 2008 election? Palin or our current president?

You want to hate Palin, you are welcome to do so. You want to be embarrassed by Palin? Feel free. You want to get a few extra hits and a popular memeorandum thread? Go wild, but don’t beat your breast about being embarrassed to be conservative these days. You sound like Braxton Bragg after Chickamauga unwilling to follow up the victory.

As I said at the start, if we have to win without you we’ll manage, but I’d just as soon win with you, because once we do win, we will need people to help keep the new congress honest on spending and you can be an important part of that.

Oh and Prof I’m not embarrassed by you from what I hear and have read in the past you are an OK guy, you just happen to be wrong today.

Update: left out the phrase “climate change” and added to point 3

Update 2: Professor Jacobson farts in their general direction.

Older Entries
Newer Entries