Political correctness can kill

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
CANDANeh
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Jeddore
Contact:

Button pushed!

Post by CANDANeh »

It's a slippery slope, Ian. Why not French? I'm sure our fellow Canadians might have a thing or two to say about that.
I was born in a French community and I communicated mostly in French. All road signs, newspapers, and government documents were all in English in our French community ( about a 60 mile stretch along the coast of Nova Scotia). Although we continued to speak French at home and within the community English was the language we accepted without apprehension. Now (30 years later) French is on the road signs, in every call you make (add choose #1 for service in French etc...) AND a French only school system that is creating a division or false patriotism in my opinion. Pride in your culture and maintaining is fine but not with everyones tax $$$$. Recently I moved to New Brunswick (Province = State in Canada). New Brunswick is the only official bilingual Province in Canada. Not Quebec...go figure. Anyhow...imagine the extra paper printed as everything is in two languages. Yes I have met some individuals younger than me around here who can not speak English. Yet, in the 1960`s I grew up in a higher density French speaking community where everyone could read and speak both languages and it was not a negative impact on the community what so ever. I was born hearing French but I am Canadian.
PS This was written with a slight French accent :wink:
Léo
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Re: Button pushed!

Post by Bill Glasheen »

CANDANeh wrote:
This was written with a slight French accent :wink:
Mais oui!

French was the second language I came closest to speaking fluently. At one time I could function just fine with it and no English. But... C'est longtemp que je parle francais. :(

The person I was closest to in my last job was French Canadian, and lives in a community near Providence which at one time was completely French. We used to talk about the problems with evolving French. He actually did poorly in school when taking French classes because the teacher spoke and wrote modern Parisian French and he knew the older-world, Canadian French.

And God knows how I got through 2nd semester, 2nd year French at Exeter. No English allowed, and... the dude was Canadian. Man... it reminded me of when my neighborhood first turned black. Until I was immersed in this brand of English, I couldn't understand a word they said. (No big deal, now. Great experience!)

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Ian

I can agree with you that prejudice exists.

What I can't agree with is having everything in two languages. Last I checked, Ian, all highway signs are in English. So we're going to give a Latino a driver's exam in Spanish, and then expect him to read the road signs? That doesn't pass a simple sniff test, Ian.

There's a way to do this, and it's what's done in Europe. There are no words on street signs. Every sign is an internationally-recognized symbol. That way you can drive from country to country in Europe and not have to worry about what language you speak.

Not here...

Image

I rest my case.
IJ wrote:
Incidentally, the Economist reports that fully 82% of Americans expect the Arizona law to result in American Latinos getting pulled over for bogus pseudo-infractions and then getting harassed about their citizenship.
Hyperbole aside...

It's called profiling, Ian, and it isn't altogether inappropriate. And that's my point!!!!!!!

Perhaps you forgot what it was like to be young, Ian. I have not forgotten the many times I was harassed for being 18 with long hair. Was the ACLU pleading my case? They didn't, they wouldn't, and they won't. Younger people are terrible drivers, and the stats bear that out. Remember, Ian, that I build predictive models for a living, and I worked for a large company that did so in health, property, casualty, and auto. Remember what it was like being a 22-year-old single male in search of an auto insurance policy? The data are the data, and they don't lie.

Giving the younger ones an extra look isn't an altogether bad thing.

If you are asked to enforce our immigration laws and you are working the Rio Grande, you're a liar if you're going to tell me that you won't consider ethnicity.

Meanwhile...

There are specific parts of the Arizona law that deal with the potential pitfalls of racial profiling. Under the circumstances, they're doing the best they can.

Passing a needed law and not enforcing it is what the federal government is doing, Ian. Posturing behind it to get the Latino vote is what slimeball Obama is doing. THAT is immoral.

And just so we're clear on this... It is also immoral for government to make immigrants dependent on taxpayer-funded programs that slow down their ability to immerse and assimilate. Meanwhile... Democrats love it when they can enslave whole demographic groups that way. It's how they perpetuate wealth redistribution. And in doing so, they kill opportunity for said ethnic groups. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Got it??

There's an old saying, Ian, that I'm sure you're aware of. The fact that you don't have kids makes me believe you don't really understand it the way others do. (We've been through this before...) But humor me. Savor this quote.

- Bill
If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is
not a conservative by the time he is 30, he has no head.
- Francois Guisot (1787-1874)
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Well... It appears the voters are also frustrated, and expressing it at the voting booth.

I particularly like the Kentucky result. Voters rejected the Republican-party-anointed candidate and went with a classic libertarian. And that just goes to show that great minds think alike. ;)

I could go on and on, but that would miss the point. The proof is in the voting patterns.
Primary Voters Rebuke Parties

By PETER WALLSTEN And NAFTALI BENDAVID

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a national figure during 30 years in the Senate, was defeated in a Democratic primary Tuesday, as the election year's anti-incumbent trend extended to three more states.

In Kentucky, tea-party favorite Rand Paul soundly defeated Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the hand-picked candidate of top GOP officials, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln was pushed into a June run-off by a union-supported candidate who portrayed her as a friend of Wall Street banks.

In all three, voters showed they were ready to sever ties with candidates too closely identified with Washington and its political leaders.

***
- WSJ


Keep making fun of the protesters. Laugh at the Virginia attorney general filing suit against the health care "reform" bill as the ink is drying. Call 70 percent of Arizona residents racist. The bottom line is that Washington politicians - and those who defend them - don't get it.

But they will.

................ Every generation needs a new revolution.
................ - Thomas Jefferson

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Welcome back (to me) from dull conference trip.

Ok. We've been talking about this for days nad days and the AL guy made a whole ad about this and NOW, after all that, do we get to the REAL issue, which is merely SAFETY. PHEW! Somehow we forgot, especially those ad guys, they accidentally aired the one about the dislike of foreigners and not the public safety one. Alright, har har... all kidding aside, I do not know how foreign language driver's license exams work. My presumption (only) is that Bill is not the first person to recognize that being unable to read street signs is a problem. Thus my suspicion is that these licensees are confronted with bunches of street signs just like they would on the street. And they know the words. Just like I navigated streets in Buenos Aires and Puerto Vallarta without any confusion, even though the Mexicans insist that "stop" is "alto," when we all know it's "pare." In any case, we can all agree (as carbon based life forms) that people should be safe to drive to get licensed. That's an easy one.

As for your suggestion that racial profiling is ok, hmm, well, I guess you just need to convince the SCOTUS? I mean, you hinted it would be ok to pull young drivers over just because of their age... and racially profile latinos... I assume you would then racially profile at the TSA checks at airports too--that seems to make good sense. We're just a beat away from using black race as a negative qualifier for college because of someone's statistical models. Where would you like to draw the line?

As for voter dissatisfaction, yeah, it's real. I'm not sure I fully understand those concerns though. I mean, people (Dems too) had only cheers when Bush tied the fastest growing segment of the population (old) to the most expensive part of our healthcare (meds) with a new entitlement. Obama expands coverage and he's Hitler. The death panel stuff was wholly fabricated. I recently heard that all this rill baby drill stuff is fabricated too--correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but this piece said the oil all goes to the world market and so would only change flow from sketchy places by a percent or two at most as we couldn't self direct it. What's the rest of it about? They're all bums, but aren't they all always bums?

Oh, I know something that's new--Hispanics don't like laws that encourage racial profiling of Hispanics. They're going to flee the Republican party in droves. Activist groups have reported the AZ law is the best thing that's happened to them in a long time. That they've got more people signed up than the teapartiers. I do think it's nuts for Mexican presidents to tell us they don't like a law that seeks to capture their criminals. But it is fair for Americans to say they don't want to have to be harassed about their papers like they're in the USSR. And all that stuff about voter dissatisfaction, and zeal, and it being "real," and people ignoring it at their peril? Counts both ways.
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

IJ wrote:
you hinted it would be ok to pull young drivers over just because of their age. {Emhapsis by Bill}
NO I DID NOT!!!!

Shame on you, Ian. As enormously intelligent and morally sound as you are, I would think I wouldn't need to write this in crayon.

The data do not support prediction from a single variable.

A reasonable person would not tolerate a world where suspicion is generated strictly because you're white or you are male or you are gay or whatever.

But...

I don't expect a man to be pregnant.

I don't expect an elderly woman would be hooked on methamphetamine.

I don't expect a black man to be fleeing Mexico for a better life in Arizona.

The data AND moral principles support the use of complex pattern recognition schemes where race, gender, and age come into play - in the context of a specific problem in a specific region of the United States.

The practical application is something like this. As annoying as it is... Whenever signing up for a new insurance policy, I'm often asked to supply a marriage certificate - moreso than the average person. And why? Figure it out yourself. It's extra work *I* have to do because others in the United States think fraud committed against insurance companies is perfectly fine. What-ever... So I keep the certificate on file, and produce it when asked. And then all is fine. Meanwhile, I don't mind this at all. If that 15 percent of fraud in the health care system can be brought down to a civil 5 percent, then my insurance premiums will be cheaper.

It also means I don't mind an officer being extra careful with me when stopping me for driving in a "spirited" fashion. I'm aware that I project some degree of athletic capability with posture and fitness level. So I do everything I can to make sure the officer sees that I'm cooperating and he has little to worry about. And we both go home safe and happy. Respect, courtesy, and protocol go a long way in this world. Empathy does as well - from BOTH directions.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

IJ wrote:
when Bush...
It's May, 2010. George Bush isn't president, Ian.

This is all Obama. This is on Obama's watch. He own's the schit we're experiencing. No excuses. No passes. No buts. And no references to his Keynian ancestory (the common red herring).

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

IJ wrote:
Hispanics don't like laws that encourage racial profiling of Hispanics. They're going to flee the Republican party in droves.
Newsflash, Ian. Hispanics were never part of the Republican party "in droves." You cannot flee from where you weren't. Gotcha, big guy! ;)

The Republican party attracts a mixed bag of fiscal and social conservatives.

What typically happens in elections is that each party has to work on getting their "base" to show up. Then each party tries very hard to appeal to independents such as yours truly. (You'd be surprised at my voting record.)

Elections are won because the base shows up to vote (or the opponent's base does not) and/or the independents are attracted more to one party than the other.

Oh... and elections are not won when illegals vote - because they can't!

Meanwhile... Visions of Democrat landslides are merely a wet dream. The reality - as reflected by election results just this week - is something very different. Incumbents can kiss their asses goodbye. This goes BOTH for Democrats and Republicans. Nobody likes the government we have, and they're blaming BOTH parties for letting it happen. I know I do...

It's a good time to run for office, Ian. Interested?

- Bill

P.S. Don't ask me to run for office. I'd never make a good politician and I'd never be good strictly in sales. I like the truth too much.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I know you like Karl Rove, Ian. As you know... he was the mastermind behind previous improbable Republican victories. He's often referred to as the brains behind the front man.

Mr. Rove apparently agrees with me about voter turnout. See below.

- Bill
MAY 20, 2010

A Bad Day for the Obama Agenda
The primary election results show rising intensity among Republican voters.

By KARL ROVE


The temptation for politicians and political analysts is to draw broad, sweeping conclusions from election results. But most election outcomes defy being reduced to a single cause.

Campaigns are a complicated mix of issues, personalities and impressions. Voters settle on a candidate after using an algorithm that varies from person-to-person, contest-to-contest, and year-to-year. Tuesday's election results reflect an anti-Washington, anti-Obama, anti-establishment feeling among voters, but they also reflect the candidates' individual winning messages.

Take Kentucky's GOP primary, where ophthalmologist and tea party activist Rand Paul won the Republican nomination to replace retiring Sen. Jim Bunning. Dr. Paul's victory was a rejection of the Republican establishment, shrieked observers. He defeated Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who was supported by the state's senior senator, Mitch McConnell. But Dr. Paul won with support from party regulars Cathy Bailey (finance chairman for both George W. Bush and Mr. McConnell), Kentucky State Senate President David Williams, and Mr. Bunning himself.

Image
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul
Associated Press

Dr. Paul's emphasis on fiscal issues trumped Mr. Grayson's emphasis on biography. The sluggish economy, combined with Mr. Obama's budget-busting agenda, sparked a populist reaction that Dr. Paul tapped with attacks on deficits, spending and special interests. He has a challenge: Being magnanimous often comes hard to first-time candidates. But his big, 24-point victory margin—like those of the GOP's Senate standard bearers in Pennsylvania and Arkansas—will make it easier to unite the party.

Pennsylvania's Democratic primary did see a longtime incumbent lose. But here incumbency was less important than lack of principle. The defeat of Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter shows opportunistic politicians are rarely trusted or accepted. Mr. Obama's endorsement in ads and appearances didn't save Sen. Specter.

The GOP would be better off if Mr. Specter had won. The weaknesses that became apparent in the primary would have doomed him in the fall. The race now, pitting former GOP Congressman Pat Toomey against Congressman Joe Sestak, will be among the country's hardest fought races.

Mr. Obama's endorsement similarly failed to carry Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln to a decisive victory. She now faces the state's liberal lieutenant governor, Bill Halter, in a June 8 runoff. Her predicament shows Democrats, especially in border and Southern states, are badly split over the Obama agenda. If Mr. Obama's vaunted political operations couldn't deliver for Mr. Specter and Mrs. Lincoln, what does it say about the fall?

Democrats are increasingly likely to distance themselves from Mr. Obama, either ignoring him or running against him. Which brings us to Pennsylvania's 12th District. Democrats are right to crow about keeping that seat, left vacant by the death of Jack Murtha. Murtha's longtime aide, Mark Critz, won with a message that he was pro-life, pro-gun and anti-ObamaCare, while benefiting from a sympathy vote for Murtha's legacy.

In a district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 137,000 voters, 62% to 29%, Mr. Critz also benefited from Gov. Ed Rendell's clever decision to schedule the special election on the same day as party primaries.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says "This is the type of race [the] GOP has to win." He is right, but just how many other Democrats will be running this year as pro-life, pro-gun, anti-ObamaCare, and against cap and trade?

The Democratic theory that voter anger would fade or burn out once health care was passed was wrong-headed and was undermined Tuesday. That anger remains and likely will persist through the November elections.

Republican intensity also continues: The Democratic turnout in Kentucky declined 8% from the last midterm, while GOP turnout rose 27%. In Arkansas, the hot Democratic Senate primary produced a 15% increase in turnout from four years ago—but the GOP turnout more than doubled, up 122%. Even though Pennsylvania Republicans didn't have serious statewide primary fights while the Democrats battled over both Senate and gubernatorial nominations, Republican turnout was up 46% over the last midterm, while Democratic turnout rose 41%.

Conventional wisdom holds that incumbents are in trouble this year. There's some truth to that. But the vast majority of those incumbents are likely to be Democrats. And the only bright moment for Democrats Tuesday came from a candidate who explicitly disavowed Mr. Obama's most significant policy victory and expressed views on social issues that are detested by most national Democrats.

The wave that started last year is continuing to gain velocity, size and force. This week's elections confirmed what the evidence has shown since last summer: Mr. Obama's agenda is a political killer and his endorsement is of little help. If there is a big takeaway from what happened on Tuesday, that is it.
- WSJ
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Bill, if you think that you can promote the idea of your statistical modeling to predict behavior, and in the areas of profiling at the airport or for young drivers, and a "single variable" won't affect decisions (eg, driver age, arab race), you're kidding yourself. Highlighted in crayon kidding yourself. First, we already do this, whether in drug corridors coming up the 95 or with suspected illegals in Maricopa. Second, your attempt to have it both ways (these are useful guides to behavior but mexicans, arabs, or young people won't catch any undue attention) just won't fly in practice. "The data AND moral principles support the use of complex pattern recognition schemes where race, gender, and age come into play," you say, but I say that complex schemes don't work when fallible humans are making decisions about whom to pull over at night under stress yadda yadda. Third, if you succeed in adding variables like dress at the airport or type of car or something, you'll still either catch innocent Americans or the terrorists will learn to dress the right way, lickety split.

I'm confused by your marriage certificate story. You're asked... more than the average person? Huh? Are you suggesting you're the victim of discrimination here? On what basis? And I fail to see how it's discrimination for anyone to have to produce proof they're eligible for a lower rate, provided the company asked without regard to race, gender, age, etc.

You keep saying that nothing that happened before Obama was sworn in matters ever again. Maybe someday, somewhere, some idiot will believe you. The rest of us know it DOES matter when people look at an entitlement Bush creates differently than one Obama creates, or that it does matter when people give Bush a pass on sloppy language and diplomacy and war prep and management and give Obama lots of heck for being soft while using conciliatory language while making a surge in Afghanistan and increasing drone attacks. And so on. This illustrates its an issue with politics not with policies. THAT MATTERS. It matters, the same way it matters to see Bill O'Reilly call some celebrity a total pinhead for having a kid out of wedlock which is a terrible example, and then seeing a clip of him defending Palin's kid and saying they deserve privacy and the issue is not a public one provided they pay for all the costs. Bias matters. It matters! Jeez.

Newsflash, Bill. Not from me, from The Economist. We can debate how many hispanics are in a drove, but the fact is there's a nicely written article about the longstanding effect the anti-illegal prop snafu had on the republican party in CA and how its changed their policies to avoid offending this demographic, and how the AZ law is driving up recruitment of hispanics who are becoming antirepublican when they may have been already dem, independent, republican, or inactive before. Lots of hispanics have conservative catholic values and coulda been ideal republicanization candidates; tough sell now. THAT's the larger picture; as to whether you "got me" on "droves" leaving the republicans, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

Thank you for that reminder that illegals don't vote. It's worth pointing out that more than one American cares how 1) illegals or 2) their demographic (other hispanics) are treated. I figured you knew that!! Meanwhile, none of my recent dreams, wet or otherwise, have featured Democrat landslides (have anyone's? really?).

And no, I've got a full plate, so no elected office for me right now. Besides, you really think I'm going to win somewhere this backlash is in full swing?
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

IJ wrote:
And no, I've got a full plate, so no elected office for me right now. Besides, you really think I'm going to win somewhere this backlash is in full swing?
No excuses, Ian. You live in the land of fruits and nuts. And if Dr. Rand Paul can win by a 24 percent margin, well then you have a shot at it.

Just don't ask for Obama's endorsement. And why? ;)

I know you like Karl Rove, Ian. As you know... he was the mastermind behind previous improbable Republican victories. He's often referred to as the brains behind the front man.

Mr. Rove apparently agrees with me about voter turnout. See below.

- Bill
MAY 20, 2010

A Bad Day for the Obama Agenda
The primary election results show rising intensity among Republican voters.

By KARL ROVE


The temptation for politicians and political analysts is to draw broad, sweeping conclusions from election results. But most election outcomes defy being reduced to a single cause.

Campaigns are a complicated mix of issues, personalities and impressions. Voters settle on a candidate after using an algorithm that varies from person-to-person, contest-to-contest, and year-to-year. Tuesday's election results reflect an anti-Washington, anti-Obama, anti-establishment feeling among voters, but they also reflect the candidates' individual winning messages.

Take Kentucky's GOP primary, where ophthalmologist and tea party activist Rand Paul won the Republican nomination to replace retiring Sen. Jim Bunning. Dr. Paul's victory was a rejection of the Republican establishment, shrieked observers. He defeated Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who was supported by the state's senior senator, Mitch McConnell. But Dr. Paul won with support from party regulars Cathy Bailey (finance chairman for both George W. Bush and Mr. McConnell), Kentucky State Senate President David Williams, and Mr. Bunning himself.

Image
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul
Associated Press

Dr. Paul's emphasis on fiscal issues trumped Mr. Grayson's emphasis on biography. The sluggish economy, combined with Mr. Obama's budget-busting agenda, sparked a populist reaction that Dr. Paul tapped with attacks on deficits, spending and special interests. He has a challenge: Being magnanimous often comes hard to first-time candidates. But his big, 24-point victory margin—like those of the GOP's Senate standard bearers in Pennsylvania and Arkansas—will make it easier to unite the party.

Pennsylvania's Democratic primary did see a longtime incumbent lose. But here incumbency was less important than lack of principle. The defeat of Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter shows opportunistic politicians are rarely trusted or accepted. Mr. Obama's endorsement in ads and appearances didn't save Sen. Specter.

The GOP would be better off if Mr. Specter had won. The weaknesses that became apparent in the primary would have doomed him in the fall. The race now, pitting former GOP Congressman Pat Toomey against Congressman Joe Sestak, will be among the country's hardest fought races.

Mr. Obama's endorsement similarly failed to carry Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln to a decisive victory. She now faces the state's liberal lieutenant governor, Bill Halter, in a June 8 runoff. Her predicament shows Democrats, especially in border and Southern states, are badly split over the Obama agenda. If Mr. Obama's vaunted political operations couldn't deliver for Mr. Specter and Mrs. Lincoln, what does it say about the fall?

Democrats are increasingly likely to distance themselves from Mr. Obama, either ignoring him or running against him. Which brings us to Pennsylvania's 12th District. Democrats are right to crow about keeping that seat, left vacant by the death of Jack Murtha. Murtha's longtime aide, Mark Critz, won with a message that he was pro-life, pro-gun and anti-ObamaCare, while benefiting from a sympathy vote for Murtha's legacy.

In a district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 137,000 voters, 62% to 29%, Mr. Critz also benefited from Gov. Ed Rendell's clever decision to schedule the special election on the same day as party primaries.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says "This is the type of race [the] GOP has to win." He is right, but just how many other Democrats will be running this year as pro-life, pro-gun, anti-ObamaCare, and against cap and trade?

The Democratic theory that voter anger would fade or burn out once health care was passed was wrong-headed and was undermined Tuesday. That anger remains and likely will persist through the November elections.

Republican intensity also continues: The Democratic turnout in Kentucky declined 8% from the last midterm, while GOP turnout rose 27%. In Arkansas, the hot Democratic Senate primary produced a 15% increase in turnout from four years ago—but the GOP turnout more than doubled, up 122%. Even though Pennsylvania Republicans didn't have serious statewide primary fights while the Democrats battled over both Senate and gubernatorial nominations, Republican turnout was up 46% over the last midterm, while Democratic turnout rose 41%.

Conventional wisdom holds that incumbents are in trouble this year. There's some truth to that. But the vast majority of those incumbents are likely to be Democrats. And the only bright moment for Democrats Tuesday came from a candidate who explicitly disavowed Mr. Obama's most significant policy victory and expressed views on social issues that are detested by most national Democrats.

The wave that started last year is continuing to gain velocity, size and force. This week's elections confirmed what the evidence has shown since last summer: Mr. Obama's agenda is a political killer and his endorsement is of little help. If there is a big takeaway from what happened on Tuesday, that is it.
- WSJ
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Bill Glasheen wrote:By KARL ROVE
I can't tell you how astounded I am to see Karl Rove seeing this in pro-republican terms. Not that I disagree, really. I will be pretty surprised to see anything but a route of the Democrats, since ousting the majority party in the mid-terms is pretty normal, and there does seem to be at least some additional fervor going on right now.

When it comes to profiling, I think it's sort of an unfortunate reality that it can be effective. Unfortunate, because it's really not right to do, when it is effective.

As far as bashing Bush goes, I think it's mostly pointless, but on the other hand, conservatives spent 8 years crying about Clinton anytime Bush was criticized, so it goes both ways. It was not so long ago around here that anything anti-Bush-agenda was met with endless reams of irrelevant potshots at Clinton's sexual adventures -- talk about your pointless debating tactics.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

I have to say this Rand cat wouldn't have won two years ago. He thinks private companies, restaurants included, should be allowed to discriminate, and that the Civil Rights act in 1964 was wrong for desegregating lunch counters at Wallgreens? Wackadoo. And why? If we force people to accept blacks for lunch then the government can force people to allow people with guns into their establishment. Right! Because that's been such a major problem in the last 45 years :roll: Remember, if we do anything, than ANYTHING can happen! And too bad about the former staffer who left racist comments on his social networking sites for 2 years and had to resign when this came to light; that doesn't help the situation any either.

Sigh. I found this news more disheartening than when I learned Obama was the anti-christ and that he was born in Africa. And is a Muslim.
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Valkenar wrote:
I can't tell you how astounded I am to see Karl Rove seeing this in pro-republican terms.
That's what he does, Justin. When you see an editorial by Karl Rove, you know he's going to be giving a view for his "home team." I was actually joking with Ian about him appreciating Rove. But truth be told, he's extraordinarily smart, and was the brains behind both GWB victories.

What I like about Karl Rove is that he doesn't fall prey to his own party's propaganda. Rather he shows you some cut-and-dry facts, and then articulates how folks who associate with a specific party can use that information. It's pretty much like how a good defense attorney works with you to put your best case forward.
Valkenar wrote:
I will be pretty surprised to see anything but a route of the Democrats, since ousting the majority party in the mid-terms is pretty normal, and there does seem to be at least some additional fervor going on right now.
Actually if you read this opinion piece AND read other news sources, Justin, you'll see that it isn't quite an anti-Democrat movement. The conventional wisdom now is that it's anti-incumbent and anti-DC.

Ever watch Wanda Sykes? She's pretty much a Democrat by opinion. But she pulls no punches, and gets away with saying things that you and I can't. Her mastery of humor is that good. Anyhow... early on Wanda was riding Obama because he was getting nothing done. Even SNL had a number of skits that roasted him.

Unemployment is high, people are losing their homes (for myriad reasons), and prospects for the economy aren't great. The independents will be the first to jump ship. But at some point, even the party faithful start rattling the cages. Political opinion gets to be a fairly petty thing when even the most basics of needs (food, shelter) can't be met.

What Rove was doing was explaining how and why the voter anger extends to Republican incumbents as well. Rather than get upset about it, he's pointing out how useful the process is. The dead wood is being removed, and the party is redefining itself. And given how badly they've performed - irrespective of philosophy - that is a very good thing for everyone.
Valkenar wrote:
When it comes to profiling, I think it's sort of an unfortunate reality that it can be effective. Unfortunate, because it's really not right to do, when it is effective.
I hear you.

There's a right way to do it. And when it's done, I don't think people should mince words. If you're Pakistani and belong to the Taliban, well... Please step aside so we can do the extra special search. That's the way it is, baby. We may be stupid but we're not that dumb.

Both the data and basic human rights will lead you to the right way. Discriminatory profiling has nothing to do with effective behavior. When it's happening, everyone needs to step back and stop being stupid.

Same goes with crying racist at every turn. To wit...
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Ian wrote:
I have to say this Rand cat wouldn't have won two years ago. He thinks private companies, restaurants included, should be allowed to discriminate, and that the Civil Rights act in 1964 was wrong for desegregating lunch counters at Wallgreens? Wackadoo. And why? If we force people to accept blacks for lunch then the government can force people to allow people with guns into their establishment. Right! Because that's been such a major problem in the last 45 years Remember, if we do anything, than ANYTHING can happen! And too bad about the former staffer who left racist comments on his social networking sites for 2 years and had to resign when this came to light; that doesn't help the situation any either.
There you go again.

Golly, Ian, like... I've NEVER heard these kinds of arguments against libertarian thinking. It reminds me of the drivel that used to come out of folks when the Equal Rights Ammendment was being considered. The argument inevitably degraded to one about bathrooms. Bathrooms??? Do *I* really care when a woman chooses to come into the Men's Room because "her" bathroom is full? Nope... But there you have it. We need to crush the ERA because we can't have Suzie going into the Men's Room.

Here's some of the dangerous propaganda espoused by America's first classic libertarian, Ian.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That's some pretty dangerous schit, Ian, don't you think? No wonder the king wanted his head.

Here's the truth, from the man himself. Look, ma, no hearsay!!!

Rand Paul defends discrimination remarks.

Your politics are showing, Ian. :oops:

Maybe you ought to get some new sources.

- Bill
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”