Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Huffington Post tells of an interview with the legendary Hank Aaron:
“We are not that far removed from when I was chasing the record,” he said. “If you think that, you are fooling yourself. A lot of things have happened in this country, but we have so far to go. There’s not a whole lot that has changed.”
Aaron pointed to Republicans’ obstruction of Obama as one area where not much progress has been made.
“Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated,” he said. “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.”
Actually Mr. Aaron, those were democrats back then. The new Republican party was formed to oppose them, and end slavery. Thought you should know.
Update 4/10/14: Larry Elder poses the challenge to you, to name the names. Hope you can provide a response.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mkfreeberg: Thought you should know.
Seriously. You don’t think Hank Aaron, of all people, doesn’t know about segregation and the civil rights movement?
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 14:23When people say foolish things, I question their knowledge.
The alternative is to question their sincerity and/or motives. I’ll give Mr. Aaron a pass and presume he’s ignorant. Either way, what he said is wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 17:16mkfreeberg: I’ll give Mr. Aaron a pass and presume he’s ignorant.
Um, Aaron being ignorant of the political affiliation of segregationists is not reasonable. Nor does pointing it out exonerate modern day Republicans.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 18:47Um, equating the Ku Klux Klan with Republicans is not reasonable.
mkfreeberg: Um, equating the Ku Klux Klan with Republicans is not reasonable.
Well, you might have a reasonable argument if you didn’t keep linking to the historical crimes of the Democratic Party. You seem to think that, if once upon a time, the worst racists were primarily Democrats, then Republicans today can’t be the worst racists. That doesn’t follow. Indeed, the essay you linked to says that racists gravitate to the Republican Party, and that Republicans make common cause with racists where their positions overlap. That’s exactly where the Democratic Party was 75 years ago.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 02:45http://philmon.blogspot.com/2009/06/party-of-racism-is-not-what-most-think.html
You seem to think that, if once upon a time, the worst racists were primarily Democrats, then Republicans today can’t be the worst racists.
Well gee. The democrats were fighting to keep slavery alive right after the Civil War, they were fighting to bring slavery back in the early part of the twentieth century, now they’re trying to do it with ObamaCare.
Throughout it all, the democrat party’s position has been consistent: There are certain people who are born to rule, and everybody is is born to do what they say. And don’t you dare ask why. Masters and slaves, slaves and masters.
- mkfreeberg | 04/11/2014 @ 05:21mkfreeberg: The democrats were fighting to keep slavery alive right after the Civil War, they were fighting to bring slavery back in the early part of the twentieth century
Sure.
mkfreeberg: now they’re trying to do it with ObamaCare.
Gee whiz. That’s just silly.
You ignored our comment about how racists have migrated to the Republican Party—per your own citation—, that Republicans make common cause with racists where their positions overlap, exactly where the Democratic Party was 75 years ago.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 07:08Oh, oh my oh me oh my. Let’s go on and quote that essay.
Y’alls claim that all the racists are now Republicans. Here’s what Philmon actually wrote – emphases mine:
Which makes it clear that these are folks who, like stopped clocks, get things right twice a day – when they are not blinded by prejudice. When they are occasionally correct, Republicans agree with them because to do otherwise is dishonest. Republicans are stuck with them, not because we refuse to kick them out – remember that the Democrats didn’t bother even trying to do that – but because as hard as we kick, they don’t go very far.
From this you somehow get “make common cause with racists,” implying that racism is the cause they have in common. But the quote states exactly the opposite – these are fringe groups whose racial animus is explicitly rejected, and by and large the Republican Party ignores them.
The Democrats’ long-term investment in popular entertainment and news media has paid them great dividends here, because they have managed to steep us all in a lot of bullpucky about the GOP being the party of inequality. But when you look at actual Democrat behavior, verifiable actions done and not just a lot of speechifying, the picture changes.
* Prominent black conservatives and Republicans are savaged by Democrats. You’d think something like “first black Supreme Court Justice since Thurgood Marshall” would have everyone happy, but Democrats haven’t stopped trying to destroy Clarence Thomas since his confirmation hearings. Condi Rice? Dismissed and scorned, and people try to boycott anyplace that wants to hire her now. Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Herman Cain, etc etc? Every last one of them has to deal with “Uncle Tom” and “race traitor” nonsense from the Left – and not the fringe groups either, but quite mainstream outlets.
* Detroit may never recover from five decades under Democratic rule. It isn’t alone. California and Illinois are barely solvent. Ray Nagin was as corrupt as the day is long but managed to fob blame for Katrina’s damage to his own city as George W Bush’s fault.
* Charter schools? Vouchers? These programs actually have a lot of support among minorities, but Democrats consistently try to quash these programs – DeBlasio in NYC being just the latest example.
* Criticize any black Democrat and it’s automatically called racist. Who cares if it’s projection (remember all that “Uncle Tom” stuff) or outright lying or whatever – the end result is that the actual substance of the criticism never gets examined. It serves to provide cover for any Democrat to do as they please without accountability.
* What they primarily do undermines minority families very badly. Fatherhood and intact families are one of the surest safeguards against future crime and poverty among children – but it also creates lots of independent adults who aren’t beholden to government programs and government largess to make their way in the world, so it must be prevented if at all possible, regardless of the cost in lives and happiness to everyone. And it has hurt minority families worse than whites, precisely because the programs in question targeted minorities in the first place. If they had been honest attempts to combat poverty and inequality, then they would have been stopped after ten or so years of watching the problems get worse and worse in response to the programs… instead any attempt to stop them is itself called racist.
* Worst, the constant drumbeat of racial animus from the Left means that whatever gains in race relations that were won in the last half-century are at risk. Entire generations of kids are raised to believe that any Republican must be A) white B) bigoted C) capable of swatting minorities like flies. Yet when you look at the kids who actually are white and privileged, well boy howdy, there are an awful lot of young budding Lefties among them – raised to literally hate themselves for who they already are, taught that the only expiation is to work ceaselessly to continue the very policies that have society in general (and minority families in particular) suffering.
How can we get along this way, when one side is simply told that their only purpose is to shut up and surrender already? How will any person or policy from the Right get a fair hearing? How does this stultified culture ever hear a different idea, learn anything, grow in any way?
- nightfly | 04/11/2014 @ 11:06nightfly: Republicans are stuck with them, not because we refuse to kick them out – remember that the Democrats didn’t bother even trying to do that – but because as hard as we kick, they don’t go very far.
That is not correct. The history of the Democratic Party during the last half of the twentieth century is characterized by the struggle against racists in the Party.
nightfly: From this you somehow get “make common cause with racists, …”
We got it from “We can accept their support where they agree with us”.
nightfly: implying that racism is the cause they have in common.
No. There was no such implication; however, its quite possible that common ground could advance the cause of racism. It’s a dangerous course, one that the Founders faced trying to form a unified country, and one that FDR faced trying to form a lasting political coalition.
philmon: We must make it clear to them and to our detractors that that point of view isn’t welcomed in our tent.
That cool.
This returns to the original point. Mkfreeberg argued that because the Democratic Party once included segregationists, that Hank Aaron doesn’t know his history. That’s very doubtful. He lived it. Nor does it follow that because Democrats were once the party of segregationists, that Republicans today couldn’t have its own issues with race.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 11:27That cool.
What’s this, Ebonics? Racists.
- Severian | 04/11/2014 @ 11:31nightfly: “From this you somehow get “make common cause with racists, …””
Z: “We got it from “We can accept their support where they agree with us”.”
And where do they agree with us? Not on race. Oh, right – it was on the occasional non-racial issue. So, again – you got it from a willful misreading, and as a result you got it exactly backwards.
Z: “Mkfreeberg argued that because the Democratic Party once included segregationists, that Hank Aaron doesn’t know his history. That’s very doubtful. He lived it.”
Specifically, he lived when the Democratic Party actually did include segregationists, and fought tooth and nail against equality before the law. It really wasn’t some long-ago age when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and peony nosegays were THE fashion trend of 1286. It was pretty damn recent. Robert Byrd was still in office *this decade.* To his credit he did repudiate his past, and good for him. But it’s not like he and his party was doing this stuff back before electricity and the steam engine.
When David Duke – pretty damned racist – started his career, lo and behold he was also a Democrat. And when he swapped parties and ran for Senate as a Republican, the national GOP endorsed one of his Democratic opponents rather than have anything to do with him. He didn’t even get out of the primaries. The same thing happened when he ran for Governor in 1991 – the GOP not only declined to endorse him, then-President George H Bush openly denounced him. When he tried for President in 1992, the GOP tried to block him off the balloting entirely.
Again, none of this is particularly far-off history. It requires no archæology, no research more strenuous than a search box on your computer and fifteen minutes of reading. Only a determination to stick to a self-serving narrative could keep you from knowing this stuff.
- nightfly | 04/11/2014 @ 12:31@Nightfly,
they’re incapable of arguing honestly. They simply can’t do it.
Par for the course with liberals, no doubt, but these assholes are especially egregious.
- Severian | 04/11/2014 @ 13:03nightfly: And where do they agree with us? Not on race.
Most Republicans aren’t racist, however, they often use race for political advantage. Michael Steele, chair of the RNC, said “For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.” In other words, it’s an ongoing strategy.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 14:18nightfly: Specifically, he lived when the Democratic Party actually did include segregationists, and fought tooth and nail against equality before the law.
Yes.
nightfly: Again, none of this is particularly far-off history.
No, it’s not. You haven’t actually tied the ends together, how someone who lived segregation, who fought to overcome racism, some who is clearly intelligent, has reached the conclusion that the Republican Party is racist. Could birth certificates and Kenya be representative of the problem, where mainstream Republicans avoid denouncing their xenophobic supporters, and sometimes even encourage the behavior?
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 14:24Mkfreeberg argued that because the Democratic Party once included segregationists, that Hank Aaron doesn’t know his history.
I charitably advanced the notion that Hank Aaron doesn’t know who the racists were, and must be commenting out of ignorance. The alternative would be that Hank Aaron was being maliciously and willfully deceptive.
Either way, what he said is wrong. We should all just come to agreement on that right now. Republicans are not democrats, and democrats are not Republicans. It doesn’t matter who you are, if you look at what democrats did and say “Republicans did that,” you are W-R-O-N-G.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:20mkfreeberg: The alternative would be that Hank Aaron was being maliciously and willfully deceptive.
Or that he actually knows something of American history, and has reached the conclusion that the Republican Party has used racism for political advantage. As Michael Steele, chair of the RNC said, “For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 07:28Or that he actually knows something of American history, and has reached the conclusion that…
Right, I figured this would go there. There’s this maaaaaagical bit of knowledge that turns truth and logic upside-down, conjures up differences in things that are not different, and make opposites identical.
This demonstrates why humility, ultimately, is a good bulwark against the natural forces of ignorance and foolishness. When you get caught saying something incorrect, like there’s some connection between the KKK and Republicans, the wiser thing to do is say “Okay, that was factually incorrect, I was wrong.”
The left-wing thing to do is to say “Aha, but I know this maaaaagical secret piece of knowledge that makes it correct when it otherwise would not be.” People who live in the real world and have to build real things that actually do what they’re supposed to do, can’t do that. That’s like alchemy. It’s mystical and magical, and therefore, false. Life, as you’ll find out if y’all ever start living it, does impose real and meaningful differences between lead and gold.
And Republicans and democrats. These things are different. They are not the same.
Hank Aaron was W-R-O-N-G. And that is the subject of this post. He got it wrong. Doesn’t make him a bad person. But, debate rule; we all like to triumph in a debate, but if you really want to do that, you have to allow it to happen, and Hank Aaron got this wrong. Pretending he’s got some elite knowledge of a magical nugget of alchemy-wisdom, isn’t going to make him right; at the end of the day he’s still wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:53mkfreeberg: There’s this maaaaaagical bit of knowledge that turns truth and logic upside-down, conjures up differences in things that are not different, and make opposites identical.
Hank Aaron is an intelligent man, who lived during segregation and felt the sting of racism directly. He was deep in the history of that time. He’s not ignorant.
The only possible alternative you recognize is that he “was being maliciously and willfully deceptive” — again, with the false dichotomy. The other option is that he does understand the history, and has sincerely reached a different conclusion than you have.
mkfreeberg: When you get caught saying something incorrect, like there’s some connection between the KKK and Republicans, the wiser thing to do is say “Okay, that was factually incorrect, I was wrong.”
Aaron didn’t make the historical claim that the KKK was made up of Republicans. He’s claiming Republicans use race for political advantage to the detriment of people of color.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 08:08Aaron didn’t make the historical claim that the KKK was made up of Republicans. He’s claiming Republicans use race for political advantage to the detriment of people of color.
Yes, I understand. It isn’t as if y’all have a reputation for honest arguing around these parts, or anywhere else for that matter. Why would y’all start now? Here’s what H.A. said.
The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.
He’s clearly arguing they’re the same people. The statement could be taken literally or figuratively. It’s clear to me he’s probably speaking figuratively. But that doesn’t change anything at all, his point is that this is all part of the same movement. That makes him wrong, since the democrats have been arguing for a caste system, all along, while the Republicans have been arguing the opposite, that people should be treated equally regardless of skin color or anything else.
I think I see where y’all are going wrong here. It starts with this:
Hank Aaron is an intelligent man, who lived during segregation and felt the sting of racism directly. He was deep in the history of that time. He’s not ignorant.
Maybe he’s got all the world’s fine literature memorized and is five minutes away from discovering the cure for Cancer. What of it? He’s ignorant enough.
W-R-O-N-G. It’s not that hard a concept. When a statement is wrong, it doesn’t matter who said it, it’s still wrong. Hank Aaron got it wrong. If he got it right, there would be no need to go into hagiographies, y’all would be able to defend his statement by addressing — that statement. But he isn’t right, because Republicans are not democrats. He got it wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 11:48mkfreeberg: He’s clearly arguing they’re the same people.
Let’s see how other people read it:
mkfreeberg: He’s ignorant enough.
Saying that Hank Aaron is ignorant of the basic history of the civil rights era is just not tenable.
mkfreeberg: But that doesn’t change anything at all, his point is that this is all part of the same movement.
Not sure if movement is the correct characterization, but the same social forces of xenophobia.
mkfreeberg: If he got it right, there would be no need to go into hagiographies, y’all would be able to defend his statement by addressing — that statement.
We’re addressing your argument, which is fallacious.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 12:33We’re addressing your argument, which is fallacious.
My argument is that Republicans are not the KKK, because Republicans are not democrats.
Y’all’s “addressing” of my argument could be summarized as: We invite error, in fact glaring error, when we rely on other people to do our reasoning for us. And y’all have done an excellent job demonstrating how. Hank Aaron knows this, Hank Aaron has felt the sting of that, these people say, those people say…meanwhile, y’all fail, because Republicans are still not democrats, and H.A. is still W-R-O-N-G.
Externalizing the reasoning process leads to glaring error, and here endeth the lesson. Now if y’all want to continue down that path, y’all go right ahead. But some of us need to live in the real world, and the things we build have to actually work, so y’all head down that way without us.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 12:38mkfreeberg: My argument is that Republicans are not the KKK, because Republicans are not democrats.
Which, as we said, is fallacious. Aaron never claimed that the original KKK was made up of Republicans. Rather, he compared modern Republicans to the KKK, which is arguably wrong, but not for the reason you have given.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 14:23Which, as we said, is fallacious. Aaron never claimed that the original KKK was made up of Republicans. Rather, he compared modern Republicans to the KKK, which is arguably wrong, but not for the reason you have given.
Y’all are supposed to stop trying to deceive people, after they’ve shown they understand what’s wrong with what y’all are saying. This is why people call you retarded. I’ve already quoted Hank Aaron.
So, I know what he said, and so does anybody who might be so bored with whatever else is going on, that they might’ve read this far. This is the part where y’all go “Oh well, we can’t sell that to this crowd” and go on to some other lie.
We have the quote. We don’t need y’all’s re-interpretation. If y’all have a need to be selling it, then that looks like what it is: Y’all know y’all are wrong. Hank Aaron said Republicans were continuing the work of the KKK of old, and in so saying, he was wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 15:51mkfreeberg: Hank Aaron said Republicans were continuing the work of the KKK of old, and in so saying, he was wrong.
So you do agree that Aaron never claimed that the original KKK was made up of Republicans, so your original argument is moot.
Now you’re arguing, well not actually arguing, but saying that Aaron is wrong, but you aren’t providing a reason. Perhaps you mean it’s an exaggeration to compare modern Republicans to the KKK. Is that your position?
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 17:36So you do agree that Aaron never claimed that the original KKK was made up of Republicans, so your original argument is moot.
No, for these ultra-fine details — details so precise that they are smaller than Mr. Aaron’s original intent when he made his comment, as carried through in the comment — y’all are going to have to consult Hank Aaron. I don’t claim to be able to parse out these talcum-powder granules.
It isn’t necessary to do so. I refer you back to his actual word-for-word statement. The KKK was democrats, so that makes him wrong. Case closed.
Now look. I understand a paradigm shift can be rough, especially for kids who never make it out of the basement to start living life. So, y’all might want to have some arguments-in-vacuums, maybe mutter something to y’all’selves. But that doesn’t concern anybody else…
Hank Aaron was wrong in what he said. Republicans are not democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:11mkfreeberg: No, for these ultra-fine details
We provided many examples of people who heard or read Aaron’s comments, and they all considered it a comparison.
mkfreeberg: Republicans are not democrats.
Aaron did not state that the original KKK was made up of Republicans.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:31Again, we have the original quote, I’ve now posted it three times. So y’all aren’t fooling anybody.
Hank Aaron said “they” had “hoods” back then, and wear starched shirts now. He accused Republicans of carrying on the same effort. So don’t trouble y’all’selves, there’s been no misinterpretation here. Hank Aaron was wrong because Republicans are not democrats.
The KKK was created by democrats and not by Republicans. Both times. Y’all can continue to argue the point, but in so doing y’all are making more of a statement about y’all’s attachment to reality, or lack thereof, than about Hank Aaron’s statements.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:37mkfreeberg: Hank Aaron said “they” had “hoods” back then, and wear starched shirts now.
“They” refers to racists and those who make alliance with them. The racists and their allies changed parties. Per Aaron, they used to wear hoods, now they wear starched shirts.
Past: KKK, Democrats
Now: Starched shirts, Republicans
It’s not that difficult to figure out what the man is saying.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:41Past: KKK, Democrats
Now: Starched shirts, Republicans
It’s not that difficult to figure out what the man is saying.
Right. And they’re two different things, so he was wrong.
Y’all really haven’t explained, argued, or demonstrated much here at all, other than why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:43mkfreeberg: And they’re two different things, so he was wrong.
Your argument was that the KKK were Democrats, so modern racists must be Democrats. However, that doesn’t follow. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that the Republican Party has consciously used race for political advantage, to the detriment of minorities. We’ve already posted information about the Southern Strategy.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:49Your argument was that the KKK were Democrats, so modern racists must be Democrats. However, that doesn’t follow.
That was not my argument.
Hank Aaron got his political parties mixed up. He was wrong. Y’all are wrong, too, if y’all try to defend the statement. Is that what y’all are trying to do?
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:57mkfreeberg: Hank Aaron got his political parties mixed up.
No. He clearly sees the Republicans as providing a voice for racists and their allies, primarily using strategies similar to the Southern Strategy. You must realize that by avoiding responding to particulars you undermine your argument.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 19:01But the Republicans are not the party of the KKK. The democrat party has that role.
It’s a fact. So, Hank Aaron is wrong, and so are y’all, if y’all try to defend his statement. Is that what y’all are trying to do?
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 19:02mkfreeberg: But the Republicans are not the party of the KKK.
No, but that is not Aaron’s position, so it doesn’t constitute an argument against his position.
mkfreeberg: so are y’all, if y’all try to defend his statement
We haven’t defended his position, and suggested reasons why his statement is wrong. We’re saying your argument is fallacious.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 19:25No, but that is not Aaron’s position, so it doesn’t constitute an argument against his position.
Oh, dear. So now y’all aren’t even willing to admit he was saying the Republican party is continuing the mission of the KKK, or that he was comparing the Republicans to the KKK.
Well, I’ve repeated his comment three times now — accurately. You can only fool people about what Hank Aaron said, if they don’t know what he said. Y’all seriously need to work on figuring out when these sales tactics have lost their situational effectiveness.
We’re saying your argument is fallacious.
Well I’d agree if “fallacious” meant “inconvenient for the democrat party”; it certainly is that. If my party was responsible for writing Jim Crow laws, and the KKK, then I wouldn’t like people pointing it out either. But facts are facts.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 20:42mkfreeberg: So now y’all aren’t even willing to admit he was saying the Republican party is continuing the mission of the KKK, or that he was comparing the Republicans to the KKK.
He did compare modern Republicans to the KKK. You had argued that Aaron had said the original KKK was made up mostly of Democrats. Then you argued that Republicans couldn’t be like the KKK because the KKK was made up mostly of Democrats. Both are fallacious arguments; the former because that is not what Aaron said; the latter because there is nothing, a priori, preventing modern Republicans from acting like the KKK in starched shirts.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 05:28mkfreeberg: If my party was responsible for writing Jim Crow laws, and the KKK, then I wouldn’t like people pointing it out either. But facts are facts.
Most members of the KKK were associated with the Democratic Party. But that doesn’t address Aaron’s position.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 05:32You had argued that Aaron had said the original KKK was made up mostly of Democrats.
I argued that Hank Aaron said that? I don’t think so.
If he said that, he would have been more correct. My critique against him is that he’s incorrect.
Y’all are now so confused from sharing a common login ID, that now y’all can’t even keep track of the distinction between “correct” and “incorrect.” is there hope?
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 06:54Zachriel: You had argued that Aaron had said the original KKK was made up mostly of {Republicans}.
mkfreeberg: I argued that Hank Aaron said that? I don’t think so.
Sorry, typo.
You had said “equating the Ku Klux Klan with Republicans is not reasonable,” and “if you look at what democrats did and say ‘Republicans did that,’ you are W-R-O-N-G.” Notice the past tense. But Aaron did not claim that the KKK were Republicans, only that modern Republicans are acting like the KKK in starched shirts.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 08:34But Aaron did not claim that the KKK were Republicans, only that modern Republicans are acting like the KKK in starched shirts.
Pffffffft….
Well, we live in a universe in which all things are technically different from all other things. But only some of these differences are meaningful.
This is a good example of a difference that is not. H.A. was saying Republicans were in the KKK, or KKK members were in the Republican party, or KKK means Republican, or vice-versa, or KKK have a Republican smell about them, or, or, or…plainly, his intent was to associate the KKK with the modern Republican party. That makes him W-R-O-N-G.
Because the KKK was a democrat party movement. And the democrat party, today, is a KKK movement, or would be if the KKK were still around in full force. It’s all about the same agenda.
He got it wrong, which was the point of this original post. He’s either trying to deceive people, or he’s ignorant, one or the other. It doesn’t really matter which one. What he said was wrong.
What else is to be discussed here?
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 16:11mkfreeberg: H.A. was saying Republicans were in the KKK,
No.
mkfreeberg: or KKK members were in the Republican party,
No.
mkfreeberg: or KKK means Republican,
No.
mkfreeberg: or vice-versa,
No.
mkfreeberg: or, or, or…plainly, his intent was to associate the KKK with the modern Republican party.
Yes. He drew a comparison. He said Republicans were like the KKK in starched shirts.
mkfreeberg: Because the KKK was a democrat party movement.
In the South, the Klan largely served the interests of the Democratic Party, to the detriment of minorities.
mkfreeberg: And the democrat party, today, is a KKK movement,
No. The Democratic Party explicitly repudiated its segregationist past. In 1948, the Dixiecrats split off after Truman integrated the military. Johnson, of course, is known for having signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, which further splintered the Democratic Party. Nixon’s Southern Strategy was consciously devised to attract whites disaffected with the social changes due to integration, a process that was largely completed with Reagan.
mkfreeberg: He got it wrong, which was the point of this original post.
The reasons you gave are fallacious. You argue against a position that Aaron does not hold.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 16:31No. The Democratic Party explicitly repudiated its segregationist past.
Two points to this:
One. YES, the democrats said what they have to say to get votes, just like they always do. They also say they respect women, but we see how true that is whenever they have something to say about Sarah Palin. So this means nothing, except one thing…
Two. Its segregationist past. And that’s really the only argument taking place here. The KKK is part of the democrat party’s past; not the Republican party’s past. So, Hank Aaron got it wrong. I’m sure he “felt the sting” of lots of stuff in his time, but out here in the real world that doesn’t necessarily mean a person’s comments are necessarily well-informed. In this case, he got it wrong.
All the rest of it is just fluff. But glad y’all finally came around on this.
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 21:11mkfreeberg: One. YES, the democrats said what they have to say to get votes, just like they always do.
In fact, desegregation efforts split the Democratic Party coalition. For instance, the Dixiecrats formed as a breakway party in 1948 in reaction to Truman’s desegregation of the military, beginning the process of eroding the Roosevelt coalition. Truman’s actions were more than rhetoric, and were politically risky.
mkfreeberg: Two. Its segregationist past. And that’s really the only argument taking place here.
Democrats formed a political coalition of southern whites, labor, and liberals. In the South, Democrats formed a solid segregationist voting block.
mkfreeberg: The KKK is part of the democrat party’s past; not the Republican party’s past. So, Hank Aaron got it wrong.
Again, you are misrepresenting Aaron’s statement. He didn’t say that the KKK was or wasn’t associated with the Democratic Party. He did say that modern Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts. It’s not that complicated, so it is rather amusing that you keep missing his point.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 04:55Again, you are misrepresenting Aaron’s statement. He didn’t say that the KKK was or wasn’t associated with the Democratic Party. He did say that modern Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts. It’s not that complicated, so it is rather amusing that you keep missing his point.
I notice this is a constant. “He didn’t say blah blah blah, he said blah blah blah, you missed the point.”
If only it applied here. He didn’t say Republicans were the KKK, he said they were like them?
They — obviously — is a constant. This is a metaphor and not a simile.
Guess nobody took the time to tell y’all. When you pull the “Ho ho ho, there’s a difference here and everybody else has noticed it and we’re all laughing at you” — you’re supposed to get that difference straight in your own minds. You’re supposed to see to it that, if people take note of the difference y’all are calling out and go back and reinspect, they discover some evidence that persuades them toward your side. Guess y’all must be used to addressing lazy complacent types who just believe what they’re told, and don’t bother to do this.
Hank Aaron is talking about yesterday’s Klansmen being today’s Republicans. He says so.
It’s as if conditions are supposed to somehow improve if one merely listens to one’s own pomposities. Oh well, that explains Chicago, Detroit and the healthcare.gov launch.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 05:35mkfreeberg: I notice this is a constant. “He didn’t say blah blah blah, he said blah blah blah, you missed the point.”
Sure. You repeat the mischaracterization of Aaron’s remarks, so we repeated the correction, with evidence.
mkfreeberg: He didn’t say Republicans were the KKK, he said they were like them?
That’s correct.
mkfreeberg: They — obviously — is a constant. This is a metaphor and not a simile.
Not quite. “Like” means they share common characteristics. “They” refers to racists and their allies. That’s how other people read it too.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=hank+aaron+kkk
mkfreeberg: Hank Aaron is talking about yesterday’s Klansmen being today’s Republicans.
Much closer. Yesterday’s Klansmen are mostly dead, but, per Aaron, Republicans are acting in ways with similar in effect to yesterday’s Klansmen.
Now, if you want, we can discuss whether this is a fair characterization.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 05:46You repeat the mischaracterization of Aaron’s remarks, so we repeated the correction, with evidence.
Actually what I see happening here is that I’m repeating what Aaron actually said, several times, and it’s funny how it always shows the same thing: Y’all are the ones mis-characterizing.
What sort of “evidence” have y’all got in mind, besides the actual quote?
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 05:50mkfreeberg: Actually what I see happening here is that I’m repeating what Aaron actually said,
Then misinterpreted what those words meant, saying “Republicans are not democrats, and democrats are not Republicans. It doesn’t matter who you are, if you look at what democrats did and say ‘Republicans did that,’ you are W-R-O-N-G.” That is not what Aaron said, of course. Notice your use of the past tense “Republicans did”. Rather, Aaron said Republicans today are {present tense} acting like KKK with starched shirts did {past tense}.
mkfreeberg: What sort of “evidence” have y’all got in mind, besides the actual quote?
As you were misinterpreting what Aaron said, we showed how the vast majority of other people read his words. We provided evidence of the change in political affiliation that occurred due to desegregation. And we pointed out that Aaron is certainly not ignorant of the history of Jim Crow, having lived in the center of the desegregation movement, something you have admitted to ignorance about.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:08Then misinterpreted what those words meant…
Meant. Oh, I see! We’re having an argument about what Hank Aaron MEANT to say!
Well then, pardon me; of course y’all win — automatically.
So let me guess: It’s the same as Barack Obama’s childhood, isn’t it. Momma busted y’all, and y’all told her “actually I was putting the cookie back in to the jar” — she bought it — and from then on, no lie is too outlandish to be at least tried-on for size.
And if ever it doesn’t fly, you keep selling it over and over again until there’s a sale.
So what Hank Aaron said, if we read it too literally, it’s wrong — but I’m misrepresenting his intentions, which magically change as soon as I point out the problem. Of course, until I do, people are free to take his words as “Republicans are KKK, Republicans are KKK, Republicans are KKK”…then there’s this flip-flop if someone points out that that is factually incorrect, in that moment, all of a sudden, Hank Aaron never meant to say that.
Makes perfect sense! I’m sure Hank Aaron himself would insist it works that way. I must have misunderstood his intent. And here I am mischaracterizing it….
…by quoting it accurately.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 06:30mkfreeberg: We’re having an argument about what Hank Aaron MEANT to say!
No. We’re having an argument over what he meant by what he said.
mkfreeberg: And here I am mischaracterizing it…. …by quoting it accurately.
No. You mischaracterized what he said, not misquoted what he said.
You said he was claiming “Republicans did that,” referring to the historical KKK. He said no such thing, nor would any reasonable reader say that he did.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:36No. You mischaracterized what he said, not misquoted what he said.
Right, exactly. We agree: I’m quoting him accurately, but mis-characterizing what he meant to say, by failing to take into account this speculation of what it was he was really trying to say.
Which y’all have fabricated. And doesn’t gel with the text of what he said. But, I’m sure there’s a likelihood he’d agree to it, if the factual problems with his statement were brought to his attention. People do that all the time. “Oh yeah right, what I really meant to say was this other thing…”
So we agree. What he said was wrong. He got the wrong party.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 06:44mkfreeberg: I’m quoting him accurately, but mis-characterizing what he meant to say, by failing to take into account this speculation of what it was he was really trying to say.
It’s not a matter of speculation. It’s the clear meaning of his words.
mkfreeberg: “Republicans are KKK, Republicans are KKK, Republicans are KKK”
The KKK is a specific organization with a history. Aaron is saying modern day Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts. That implies the effect is similarly pernicious, but that the tactics are different.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:46It’s not a matter of speculation. It’s the clear meaning of his words.
The “clear meaning of his words” is that “they” is a constant. It refers to the same people in the first statement as it means in the second statement. That makes him W-R-O-N-G.
I suggest y’all dispense with any rebuttals having to do with someone not being sufficiently enlightened as to what he said. I’m probably the only other one following the thread this far; I’ve read it; in the unlikely event anyone else is following along, I’ve re-pasted his statement several times for their benefit. Accurately, according to y’all’s own concession. So it’s settled on what he said.
The point of dispute is how to interpret it. Y’all have conjured up some way of doing this in a way that lets him off the hook and have somehow concluded if y’all just state it enough times, it will be come de facto truth or something.
Y’all have made this mistake before. Quite a few times. False things don’t become true if y’all just repeat them. Hank Aaron got it W-R-O-N-G, because the KKK were democrats, and Republicans are not democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 06:54mkfreeberg: The “clear meaning of his words” is that “they” is a constant. It refers to the same people in the first statement as it means in the second statement.
Yes, “they” refers to racists and their allies. They used to be mostly Democrats, but moved to the Republican Party over the last half century.
mkfreeberg: Hank Aaron got it W-R-O-N-G, because the KKK were democrats, and Republicans are not democrats.
The KKK were Democrats. Now, the KKK is largely marginalized, while disaffected whites have moved to the Republican Party.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:56I find the easiest way to explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans is this.
Democrats are, and have always been, the party of group rights.
Republicans are, and have been, the party of individual rights.
If groups have rights, people don’t. Democrats simply change what groups they purport to represent in order to maintain hold on power.
- gospace | 04/14/2014 @ 17:01Yes, “they” refers to racists and their allies. They used to be mostly Democrats, but moved to the Republican Party over the last half century.
:
Now, the KKK is largely marginalized, while disaffected whites have moved to the Republican Party.
How many? What are their names?
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 18:22mkfreeberg: Democrats are, and have always been, the party of group rights.
This was written by a Democrat: 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.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
mkfreeberg: How many?
Virtually, the entire white population of the South shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party after desegregation. Here’s the Senate representation:
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 06:02http://mattsmaps.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/republican_percentage_of_senate_seats.jpg
Y’all’s claim was “racists and their allies…used to be mostly Democrats, but moved to the Republican Party.” The graphic y’all have posted fails to support this statement, even in the slightest.
Who are the racists who moved from the Republican party to the democrat party? How do we know they were racists? What kinds of racist legislation did they support after they moved? What racist legislation did they support before they moved?
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 06:25mkfreeberg: Who are the racists who moved from the Republican party to the democrat party?
Disaffected whites were consciously attracted to the Republican Party by the Southern Strategy.
Reagan even gave an important states’ rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, just in case anyone doubted.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 06:30Yeah, about that.
Could it be that in the fifty years in question, democrats just did a crappy job governing? All the support for judicial activism, the softening of criminal penalties while violent crime worsened, the inflation, hostage crisis, energy crisis…
Even now, when democrats bungle it and you ask them “Why are you losing support?” they reply reflexively — WAYSCISM!! It’s their go-to whenever they screw up. You can set the clock by it.
But when we talk about Lee Atwater’s idea — ooh, it’s an idea, he voiced it, there ya go — somehow we should take this seriously, ignoring completely the plain fact that: When you poke people in the nose, they stop supporting you.
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 06:37mkfreeberg: [Carter, Sept. 17,1980: Reagan shouldn’t have mentioned the Klan or “states’ rights,” but he is not “a racist in any degree.”]
No, Reagan was not a racist. See Lee Atwater above.
mkfreeberg: Could it be that in the fifty years in question, democrats just did a crappy job governing? All the support for judicial activism, the softening of criminal penalties while violent crime worsened, the inflation, hostage crisis, energy crisis…
That wouldn’t explain the 1964 election. Or why other states don’t vote the same way. There’s something different about the South.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/elections/maps/1964.jpg
mkfreeberg: But when we talk about Lee Atwater’s idea
It was a political strategy.
mkfreeberg: ignoring completely the plain fact that: When you poke people in the nose, they stop supporting you.
Which in this case was desegregation, er, meddling in the South’s peculiar culture.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 06:44Aaron said he still has the racist, threatening letters he received as he closed in on Ruth’s milestone to serve as a “reminder” that things aren’t too different from when he pursued the record.
The Atlanta Braves have been deluged with hate mail …
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 14:11http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hank-aaron-atlanta-braves-racist-hate-mail
There actually is an amendment to the Constitution that says the states have rights. Believe it or not, it was written well before Reagan’s speech. In fact, some time before he stopped being a democrat, I believe.
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 17:49mkfreeberg: There actually is an amendment to the Constitution that says the states have rights.
Sure, but they still have to abide by the Constitution.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 18:39Sure, but they still have to abide by the Constitution.
As does the Federal government. Equal protection under the law.
Which is a measurable thing. Platitudes, rhetoric, hyperbole don’t change the outcome. It’s an objective measurement, equal or not-equal. There’s a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 19:12Mkfreeberg: As does the Federal government. Equal protection under the law.
Southern states had engaged in a pernicious conspiracy to rob blacks of their rights. The 15th Amendment grants Congress the power enforce the command guaranteeing the right to vote. The courts reviewed the evidence, and found oversight to be “appropriate” per the 15th Amendment.
Essentially, they were found guilty, as reviewed by the courts, and put on supervised probation.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 19:34Southern states had engaged in a pernicious conspiracy to rob blacks of their rights…Essentially, they were found guilty, as reviewed by the courts, and put on supervised probation.
Yeah, y’all said that already.
Why punish all the people in those states, for this “pernicious conspiracy” that had been engaged by those states? People. States. Those are two different things.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Thing that is non-partisan, or darn well ought to be, #8:
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2014 @ 01:19mkfreeberg: Why punish all the people in those states, for this “pernicious conspiracy” that had been engaged by those states?
Institutions can be held responsible. If found liable, a state or corporation may have to pay damages. In this case, Alabama wasn’t being punished, but was just under supervision.
Do you really think the federal government is helpless under the constitution to enforce the 15th Amendment, even though the Amendment itself says they have the power to enact appropriate legislation for its enforcement?
mkfreeberg: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Newer amendments always supersede previous amendments. That’s what it means to amend.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2014 @ 05:32Institutions can be held responsible. If found liable, a state or corporation may have to pay damages. In this case, Alabama wasn’t being punished, but was just under supervision.
There is the jurisdiction of Alabama, and the people who live in it. Non-partisan-thing-number-eight, again. Y’all seem to have persistent trouble with that.
How could it possibly work, going the other way. Oh, the legislators of Hawaii, back when it was first admitted to statehood, did something awful. Therefore, Barack Obama who was born well afterward — just like many voters in Alabama who were born well after Selma and the connected events — should have to have a few extra things tacked on to His Oath of Office when He is sworn in.
That would be silly, because we’d be punishing — er, put under supervisory probation, or inconveniencing, although I’m sure many among Obama’s fans would consider it punishment — someone who had nothing to do with the original transgression. At all. Well, that’s the trouble with pre-clearance. Once again, in addition to non-partisan-thing-number-eight, y’all seem to have persistent problems with things that just so happen to be inconvenient to y’all’s homilies.
Do you really think the federal government is helpless under the constitution to enforce the 15th Amendment, even though the Amendment itself says they have the power to enact appropriate legislation for its enforcement?
Ever stop to think what the word “appropriate” was doing in the 14th and 15th amendments?
The country had split itself in two and then fought a bloody civil war over the question of, do some things fly here and do other things not fly. And the answer was: Yeah, there are standards. The liberals, moral-relativists, lost.
I recall reading the following in Grant, which I traded away to a relative who’s no longer among us. Found it online here:
So there are certain rules in America, and the most important among these rules are rules-about-rules. There is “legislation” and then there is “appropriate legislation.”
Non-partisan-thing-number-eight again.
Newer amendments always supersede previous amendments. That’s what it means to amend.
Just like the first and second amendments, the tenth means what it says.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2014 @ 06:29mkfreeberg: There is the jurisdiction of Alabama, and the people who live in it.
That’s right, and the state is often forced to do things, like desegregate its public schools, even if it costs innocent taxpayers money or inconvenience. If the state breaks the law and is sued in federal courts, they can be forced to pay, even if that means innocent taxpayers have to foot the bill.
mkfreeberg: Well, that’s the trouble with pre-clearance.
They did the crime. They were put under federal supervision. Not sure how else you would be able to force Alabama to comply with the 15th Amendment in 1965.
mkfreeberg: Ever stop to think what the word “appropriate” was doing in the 14th and 15th amendments?
Sure. As we have pointed out many many times, that was the core issue of the court cases regarding the Voting Rights Act, from Katzenbach to Shelby decision.
mkfreeberg: There is “legislation” and then there is “appropriate legislation.”
That’s right. The Court decided that what was appropriate in 1965 is no longer appropriate in 2014.
mkfreeberg: Just like the first and second amendments, the tenth means what it says.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments supersede the 10th Amendment. Where there is conflict, the most recent Amendment has priority. Hence, states no longer can decide the slave issue. That’s been superseded by the 13th Amendment.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2014 @ 06:46That’s right, and the state is often forced to do things, like desegregate its public schools, even if it costs innocent taxpayers money or inconvenience. If the state breaks the law and is sued in federal courts, they can be forced to pay, even if that means innocent taxpayers have to foot the bill.
The distinction between the state of Alabama, and the people who live in it, has now been made unambiguously clear to y’all. And yet y’all continue to use the ambiguous “they,” carelessly conflating the pronoun reference.
Ignoring things systematically, in this way, leads to…ignorance. Hence the term.
Where there is conflict…
Ah, but there is no conflict. Until Congress passes laws in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Then there is conflict, and the tenth amendment prevails over the lesser statutes.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2014 @ 18:10mkfreeberg: The distinction between the state of Alabama, and the people who live in it, has now been made unambiguously clear to y’all.
Sure, but an institution can be held responsible, including for damages.
mkfreeberg: Ah, but there is no conflict. Until Congress passes laws in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The 15th Amendment is part of the Constitution.
mkfreeberg: Then there is conflict, and the tenth amendment prevails over the lesser statutes.
New amendments supersede previous provisions. In this case, the 15th Amendment grants the power to Congress to enforce voting rights.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 05:23The 15th Amendment is part of the Constitution.
I see. So the “with appropriate legislation” phrase means everything in the Constitution prior to the 15th amendment is no longer in effect.
This is a fascinating look into the mindset that caused the healthcare.gov launch, Detroit, Chicago and Great Society to go the way they did. Outcome means nothing, “winning” arguments means everything. Then, pretend it’s got something to do with helping people.
Result: Mess. Do tell me more.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 05:51mkfreeberg: So the “with appropriate legislation” phrase means everything in the Constitution prior to the 15th amendment is no longer in effect.
No, it means that Congress can pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce voting rights. It does restrict the 10th Amendment with regards to voting rights, just as the 13th and 14th Amendments restricted the 10th Amendment.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 06:00It does restrict the 10th Amendment with regards to voting rights, just as the 13th and 14th Amendments restricted the 10th Amendment.
Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically states —
Y’all’s supervised probation is an abridgment of privilege. That’s the whole point to it, isn’t it?
So when was each citizen of Alabama put on trial, one by one, and subjected to this due process? Also, it may surprise y’all to learn that there are new Alabama citizens all the time. A full quarter of the population is under eighteen. They’re probably innocent of this “crime.”
What would we say about an early-American settler whose family was murdered by the Sioux, and took out his revenge on the Cherokee? That would be wrong, wouldn’t it? Why is preclearance any different. Y’all still haven’t explained that, opting instead to deliberately confuse the state with the people living in it, and calling it good.
When “knowledge” arrives as the result of willful ignorance, it isn’t knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 07:03mkfreeberg: Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically states –
That’s right. And Alabama had violated the equal protection clause. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce equal protection with “appropriate legislation”, hence the civil rights laws.
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s supervised probation is an abridgment of privilege.
Um, the clause of the 14th Amendment you cited restricts the states. In any case, it’s not an abridgment, but an enforcement action, authorized by the section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Alabama was guilty of violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. In order to rectify this situation, they were placed under temporary oversight.
mkfreeberg: So when was each citizen of Alabama put on trial, one by one, and subjected to this due process?
That isn’t required. If you win a suit against GM, then they have to pay damages, even if individual employees and shareholders are innocent, even if they resisted the policies that led to the damage award. If you win a suit against the state of Alabama in federal court, then the state of Alabama has to abide by the decision of the court, even if it inconveniences Alabamians.
mkfreeberg: Why is preclearance any different.
In 1965, Alabama was patently guilty of violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. The remedy was federal oversight, which the courts have found to be appropriate under the circumstances.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 07:16Um, the clause of the 14th Amendment you cited restricts the states.
Thought this might be headed there. Yes, Congress is above the states and can do all kinds of things the states can’t do.
Like own slaves?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 18:55mkfreeberg: Like own slaves?
13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 03:41What if Congress decides that the appropriate legislation involves Congress owning slaves?
14th Amendment:
Can Congress deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law?
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2014 @ 04:40mkfreeberg: What if Congress decides that the appropriate legislation involves Congress owning slaves?
The courts would find it as not appropriate under the 13th Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
mkfreeberg: Can Congress deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law?
The federal government has always been under the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the states.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 09:28The courts would find it as not appropriate under the 13th Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
Don’t be so sure. SCOTUS, which we have agreed is fallible since it’s made up of humans, has made a mess out of the questions of incorporation, and reverse-incorporation.
If y’all were arguing honestly, y’all might have pointed that out, rather than waiting for y’all’s opposition to point it out. But, I suppose if y’all started trying right now, it would take an exceptionally long time to build up any sort of reputation around these parts for arguing honestly. Can’t say I blame y’all for not even bothering with the first few steps.
So I guess it falls to me to state the obvious. Incorporation is what it’s called. It is judicial officers taking on the role of legislating. Entirely valid questions, with entirely invalid answers — maybe correct now and then, but only in the sense that a busted clock is correct about the time of day. No rhyme or reason to it at all, no pattern, no coherence, no consistency.
By the way, this is the expected outcome anytime the finer points of a general rule are to be hashed out by these wise, respected elders with their infinite-weight and unlimited community-esteem. Coherence and consistency tend to be lost. This is why the English language is full of contradictions — because it has actually been used. Throughout the centuries, when an ambiguity has arisen that had to be settled before a paper could go to print, some very wise and respected senior-editor settled the question by opining about how it has always worked for him — and then the typesetters and the reporters were obliged to do whatever the wise old owl said. Inconsistency, incoherence and wrinkles in the fabric were the inevitable result.
That’s what has been happening with American constitutional law in the “incorporation” department. A quick read through Wikipedia’s list of which amendments have been subject to it, and which amendments have not, will confirm this. It’s not the way The Zachriel have presented it here at all, not even close. It’s messy.
The result there? Common sense will rely on itself; on common sense. It won’t rely on the Supreme Court or any other council of elders; that would be lunacy. And it certainly won’t rely on the opinions of some unknown quantity of anonymous Internet busybodies to say what is so. That, too, would be lunacy.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2014 @ 18:08mkfreeberg: Don’t be so sure.
Any reasonable reading of “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” would render any such law invalid under the constitution.
You seem to have abandoned any defense of your position.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 18:34As you have repeatedly refused to answer, let’s pose a hypothetical. A state government passes a series of laws segregating the population by race. They pass onerous laws making it difficult for the minority to vote. Indeed, the state even overlooks terrorism against minorities when they try to petition for a redress of grievances. Let’s say these clear violations of the 14th and 15th Amendments have been going on for generations.
The 14th and 15th Amendments grant Congress the power to protect the rights of the people being oppressed by the state government through “appropriate legislation”. Congress passes a law to supervise the guilty state’s electoral process. Is this appropriate? Why or why not? If no, what would be appropriate legislation, keeping in mind that the guilty state is resisting change?
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 19:09You seem to have abandoned any defense of your position.
I seem to have done this…to whom? Why would I abandon a position of “KKK were democrats and not Republicans”? This is factual.
Y’all seem, to me, to have become overly fond of a certain cliche of discourse, and made the mistake of deploying it in a situation where it isn’t suitable.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 05:09Here’s is the claim at issue on this thread:
mkfreeberg: Hank Aaron was wrong in what he said. Republicans are not democrats.
As Aaron never said the the KKK was historically Republican, that’s not a valid argument. His claim is that modern day Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts. If you want to argue the point, you have to address his actual position, not one you made up.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 06:19His claim is that modern day Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts.
Can’t help noticing y’all’s counter-argument rests entirely on that — not a little bit, not a lot, but completely.
And it’s a falsehood, since “acting like” is a fabrication. Thus, y’all’s counter-argument fails.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 11:20mkfreeberg: Can’t help noticing y’all’s counter-argument rests entirely on that — not a little bit, not a lot, but completely.
Let’s see how other people read it:
>blockquote>Fox: Hank Aaron Compares Obama Opponents To KKK
Daily News: Hank Aaron compares Republicans and other Obama opponents to KKK
CBS: Hank Aaron compares Republicans who oppose Obama to KKK
Talking Points: Baseball Great Hank Aaron: Obama’s GOP Critics Are Like The KKK
WND: Hank Aaron likens Republicans to KKK
http://www.google.com/search?&q=hank+aaron+kkk
Have you considered that you misread Aaron’s comments?
“Aaron was asked why he keeps the the mail sent to him so long ago. He said, ‘To remind myself that we are not that far removed from when I was chasing the record. If you think that, you are fooling yourself. A lot of things have happened in this country, but we have so far to go. There’s not a whole lot that has changed.'”
Shortly after his remarks, Aaron was flooded with racist emails. Guess Aaron was right. There’s not a while lot that has changed.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 13:13http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/04/14/jackie-robinson-day-mlb-hank-aaron-racism-still-exists/7723045/
Let’s see how other people read it:
Why would we want to do a silly thing like that?
Experience shows that to be a great way to define wretched ideas: The only way they find support is by way of pointing to what a bunch of other people think. Good ideas stand on their own merits.
M: Either way, what he said is wrong. We should all just come to agreement on that right now. Republicans are not democrats, and democrats are not Republicans.
Z: You seem to have abandoned any defense of your position.
Prematurely eliminated as a possibility, is the entirely obvious notion that some “positions” don’t require a defense. If they’re factual, they stand on their own merits.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 17:16mkfreeberg: Prematurely eliminated as a possibility, is the entirely obvious notion that some “positions” don’t require a defense.
Of course they do.
mkfreeberg: If they’re factual, they stand on their own merits.
No. You still have to justify what you claim are facts. For instance, we stated that the state of Alabama systematically undermined voting rights among blacks. Like any purported fact, it can be supported, and should be supported if it becomes an issue.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 18:36http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2013/05/02/ed7d9dc3-c3f8-11e2-a43e-02911869d855/thumbnail/620×350/fc3be6819b7977c5514c611475acea80/Birmingham.jpg
M: If they’re [positions] factual, they stand on their own merits.
Z: No.
Thank you for demonstrating the inferior flibbertigibbet mindset, and in so doing, indirectly explaining Detroit, Chicago and The Great Society. And how the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.
Out here in the real world where we have to build and maintain things that actually work, the universe turns out to be a complicated place, a busy hodge-podge of some things that are up for negotiation and other things that are not. And, we humans do not to pick & choose which is which; instead, it is our place to merely acknowledge what is so, and ponder what to make of it.
Prof. Sowell has written and spoken a great deal about the others.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 18:55Just because you claim something is a fact, doesn’t make it so. Of course you have to support your positions, even those you think are “fact”. It’s hard to believe you would think otherwise.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 18:59Just because you claim something is a fact, doesn’t make it so. Of course you have to support your positions, even those you think are “fact”. It’s hard to believe you would think otherwise.
Y’all are disputing that the KKK was started by democrats and not Republicans?
That’s a yes or a no. If y’all aren’t disputing it, then that matter is settled. Why would I then have to defend something that doesn’t require a defense?
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 19:05mkfreeberg: Y’all are disputing that the KKK was started by democrats and not Republicans?
Not at all. We’ve said it several times already. However, as Aaron never said the the KKK was historically Republican, that’s not a valid argument. His claim is that some modern day Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts. If you want to argue the point, you have to address his actual position, not one you made up.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 19:37M: Y’all are disputing that the KKK was started by democrats and not Republicans?
Z: Not at all. We’ve said it several times already.
Glad we got that cleared up. Hank Aaron got the wrong party, then. And we agree.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 19:43Aaron was saying that many Republicans are acting like KKK in starched shirts. You had raised a fallacious argument, that because the KKK was founded by Democrats, that modern day Republicans couldn’t act in such a fashion.
What’s interesting is that the question concerned racist mail he got when he was playing professional sports. In response to his comments, he has received racist emails. Apparently, Aaron was right. Some things haven’t changed.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 20:03“Acting like,” as I’ve already explained to y’all, is a fabrication and does not reflect what Hank Aaron said.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 21:03mkfreeberg: “Acting like,” as I’ve already explained to y’all, is a fabrication and does not reflect what Hank Aaron said.
Your position is that “they” refers to historical members of the KKK. That doesn’t make much sense of course, as those people are mostly dead. If he is referring to a specific “they”, it would be racists and their allies.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 05:16Here are Aaron’s comments from the original story:
“We can talk about baseball. Talk about politics. Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated.
“We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements, but we still have a long ways to go in the country.
“The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.”
It’s obvious he is not allowing for any possibility that a Republican, or for that matter anyone opposing Obama’s agenda, could be outside of his target zone. In fact, it’s obvious that is the point to his statement; it is a move toward intimidation. Hank Aaron, like many others, is serving notice that anyone who doesn’t go along — anyone who flings “mud” and doesn’t “treat” President Obama the way Hank Aaron wants Him treated — is continuing the KKK legacy. That is Hank Aaron’s intent. We still have a long way to go, after all.
So Mr. Aaron may be bitter that his comments “taken totally out of context,” but it’s a bitterness no different from the bitterness felt by lots of people who’ve used that excuse: Surprise, and maybe some shock, that when he said what he said, someone was actually listening. There’s a certain skill involved with anticipating one’s own feelings about it, off in the future, when one sees one’s own words, in print, broadcast to audiences consisting of diverse peoples, with one’s own name next to the comments. None of us are born with that skill. It takes practice and a bit of humility.
But when y’all comment on the Internet, y’all do so without any name attached; so y’all couldn’t be expected to know anything about this. Well, take my word for it, Hank Aaron hasn’t acquired this skill. He’s taken the first step toward figuring out how to get along with others, in a shrinking world.
The next step would be to admit, when his candid comments reveal a very ugly prejudice against Republicans, the problem is with him and it doesn’t rest with anybody else.
Lesson: There are valid reasons for people, in fact large numbers of people, to resist the agenda of any political leader.
Your position is that “they” refers to historical members of the KKK. That doesn’t make much sense of course, as those people are mostly dead. If he is referring to a specific “they”, it would be racists and their allies.
While they were alive, were they Republicans? Yes or no.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 06:06mkfreeberg: While they were alive, were they Republicans? Yes or no.
We’ve already answered this many times. The historical KKK had strong connections to the Democratic Party. It’s not unreasonable to say that in the aftermath of Reconstruction, the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party in the South.
mkfreeberg: It’s obvious he is not allowing for any possibility that a Republican, or for that matter anyone opposing Obama’s agenda, could be outside of his target zone.
That’s a different argument, and it’s not a fallacy! We’re proud of you!
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 06:13The historical KKK had strong connections to the Democratic Party. It’s not unreasonable to say that in the aftermath of Reconstruction, the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party in the South.
Then, as the title says, Hank Aaron got the wrong party. He’s wrong.
Hank Aaron is an intelligent man, who lived during segregation and felt the sting of racism directly. He was deep in the history of that time. He’s not ignorant.
And here, we have the problem with modern liberalism in general. So-and-so is a celeb…a luminary…high profile personality. A saint, who felt the sting of blah blah blah, therefore, his words are not to be questioned.
Causes a lot of problems when the luminary happens to be just-plain-wrong about something. See, in the final analysis the Christians have it right: We’re all mortal, all tainted, all flawed, all fallen sons of Adam. Hoisting any of our fellow mortals onto such pedestals leads to folly.
And that’s why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 08:41mkfreeberg: Then, as the title says, Hank Aaron got the wrong party.
No, it does not follow that because the KKK was once allied with the Democratic Party, that today they are still allied. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s history shows that it threw off its segregationist past, while the Republican Party instituted a strategy to attract disaffected whites. But that’s a historical question that can’t be determined a priori as you claim.
mkfreeberg: his words are not to be questioned.
Sure you can question his words, but thinking Aaron is unaware of the history of segregation and the civil right movements is just not tenable. He lived it.
Indeed, there are valid arguments against Aaron’s position, but you have presented a fallacious argument. Really, we thought you had abandoned it, but then you go right back to it.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 11:31No, it does not follow that because the KKK was once allied with the Democratic Party, that today they are still allied. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s history shows that it threw off its segregationist past, while the Republican Party instituted a strategy to attract disaffected whites. But that’s a historical question that can’t be determined a priori as you claim.
Right. The propaganda. The desperate, misleading, false propaganda. There was some kind of a “switch” or “flip flop.”
Meanwhile…today, democrats are all about castes. Defining who-goes-where. Such-and-such a human right doesn’t apply, because those people are not really people. They do it now, with the abortion issue and the campaign finance issue; they did it in the Eugenics era, saying that the poor and “undesirables” shouldn’t reproduce. And they did it in the antebellum era with slavery. Throughout it all, the conservatives have conserved — opportunity for all. The conservative argument has been YES, those people are people and they have rights. The liberal argument has been no, they would have rights if they were people, but they’re not…they’re corporations…they’re property…they’re blobs of cells. The arguments haven’t changed.
And yet we’re supposed to believe in a mass switcheroo of some kind.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 12:14mkfreeberg: The desperate, misleading, false propaganda.
Not at all. When Truman desegregated the military in 1948, the Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party. When the Democrats passed historic civil rights legislation in 1964, Goldwater came out against it, winning only the South and his home state of Arizona. After that, the Republicans instituted the Southern Strategy to attract disaffected whites. Today, southern whites, which had been solidly Democratic, are solidly Republican. The history is plain.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 12:23The history is plain.
Right! It’s factual! Oh…wait…
M: If they’re [positions] factual, they stand on their own merits.
Z: No.
Yeah, that’s the history from the universe of liberal-college-professors, the one where the aesthetics of “debate” trump reality and fact. So when y’all say “the history is plain,” what that means is — the college professor would agree with it, and all the students would be obliged to repeat it, if they don’t want to flunk.
Meanwhile, the liberal movement’s arguments about social issues have not changed. They’re all based on “These people belong over here, those people belong over there.” It was true in the slavery era, in the Eugenics era, in the civil rights era, and now in the Obama era. They have never been in favor of “all men [are] created equal,” and everyone enjoying equal opportunity.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 13:47mkfreeberg: Right! It’s factual!
We’re more than happy to support our claim.
Dixiecrats “originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948… opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
mkfreeberg: Yeah, that’s the history from the universe of liberal-college-professors …
You might try to be specific. Are you saying there never was a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party called the Dixiecrats?
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 15:20http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hrA_3YiCv_E/TyrIzl_50kI/AAAAAAAABPM/ggzhsx2CnKg/s1600/Dixiecrats.jpg