In that old thread, it was the "lefties" with their historical understanding of rights, not the libertarians with their metaphysical understanding of rights, who were arguing for wheelchair ramps.

Historical understanding of rights my ass. Systematic killings of Jews fit far more into the role of history than tolerance of Jews. History is about as good a guide for freedom as Bill Bavasi is a guide for microbiology.

We need to see rights as goals, not inherent facts about an individual.

And when they aren't inherent facts, a society with different goals, such as the right to Lebensraum for their master race, can do horrible things.

Huh. Helms dedicated his entire working career towards violating the natural rights of a significant portion of the population. That doesn't offend you? There are plenty of issues that flit between one side and the other. Racial bigotry isn't one of them.

And as I said, a few of the posters also dedicate their working careers towards violating natural rights of a significant portion of the population, but I don't wish your deaths. And the ones that don't at least support those who do.

As I said, even if we accept for the sake of argument that Helms was an extremely dangerous person, that's an argument for cheering for his death at that time, not for cheering his death 30 years later when there was no practical consideration of preventing future harm.

Yes I quite agree. Cheering the death of Helms reflects badly on oneself. I was merely talking about your assessment of his life.

On the other hand, we all have thoughts and emotions that reflect badly on us - I don't think it's necessarily a "pathology" as you describe it. When people have affected our lives a lot these things produce a visceral reaction. When Saddam Hussein was executed I was very happy - I wish I was the kind of person with a more benevolent soul but that's not me. So I'm more forgiving of the thoughts (not actions!) of some of the people here. If they actually went so far as to desecrate the man's grave that would be a different story.

That goes for the people who've actually found themselves affected in one way or another by Helms. The people queueing up cheer his death just because they think it's PC - that's pretty sick, really.

And when they aren't inherent facts, a society with different goals, such as the right to Lebensraum for their master race, can do horrible things.

But isn't that really just a gray area?

[/snark]

It is simply not the case that the denial of the metaphysical reality of rights leads to (a) Nazism or (b) the inability to condemn Nazism. Huge numbers of people have failed to be rights-idealists without becoming Nazis. This is really quite silly.

I condemn Nazism quite easily as the perhaps the single greatest historical affront to the ability of people to construct communities and societies in which they can thrive and live with dignity and such and such. This isn't because I think humans have metaphysical characteristics inherent in them called "rights", but because I believe that, given the shared historically evident precariousness of human life, we ought to work together to form communities and societies in which all people can thrive.

It's pretty funny that you, on the one hand, demand from your interlocutors that they respect gray areas in morality, and on the other, accuse people who differ from you on a relatively abstruse point about the metaphysical nature of humanity of either Nazism or the tolerance of Nazism.

a few of the posters also dedicate their working careers towards violating natural rights of a significant portion of the population. And the ones that don't at least support those who do.

Good to see you working in that gray area rhetorically. As an adult ed teacher, am I violating your natural rights or just supporting those who do?

Also, how did we get from wheelchair access back to the Holocaust?

You declared your philosophical allegiance...

I quoted him. I didn't declare any allegiance to him or the salmon. I do realize that the abuse stemmed from the gonads comment. I accept that. The only thing I would suggest is not calling someone a fool just because you find his position untenable.

Yes, it's no fun to catch it from 20 different guns, but best to crack a joke like Butch to Sundance and go out on your feet.

Except he was given that extended time because of the viewership. He was simply another racist talking to a bunch of other racists.

You seem to be saying that Helms was just a product of the time and place. I don't think it's that simple. No one else elected to statewide office in North Carolina in the 1970's had similar views.

sigh

cmon boys

hows about we talk baseball and stop all this stuff, hmmmm

we all supposed to be friends here and you sound like a bunch of grrrls picking on some other grrl for having a zit. honestly what is the point?

- i can't believe i'm saying this, but i think it is time to keep all the political mud slinging and name calling stuff in the forum section.

you know how we are supposed to separate church and state?

well, bout time we separate the church of baseball from the state of politics.

there is too damm much hostile and too damm much really bad manners going on and it serves exactly ZERO purpose

Flip the politics 180 degrees, and that's perfect description of Helms's role on WRAL-TV---five nights a weeks, 52 weeks a year, for nearly an entire decade. Do the math. Not influential, my asss. And that was all before his Senate career.

Except he was given that extended time because of the viewership. He was simply another racist talking to a bunch of other racists.

Dan, what was "simply" about Jesse Helms? You make it seem as if the 29th or 77th man standing in line at a White Citizens Council all-you-can-eat luncheon buffet could have done as much damage as Helms, which is absurd. People like that don't have that sort of effect. But Jesse Helms did.

The core question is: Is all this merely a case of being offended at people expressing joy / pleasure / glee at Jesse Helms's death, or is it also an attempt to relativize the nature of his life's work into the murkiness of "probably" and "gray"?

The first is an understandable reaction, whether some of us would agree with it or not. The second is frankly---not. What, precisely, was "gray" about Jesse Helms's career, other than the bromides about his personal graciousness?

I have to say, #163 kind of captures how I feel about the political environment on BTF -- though the particular attitude described is by no means a lefty/righty thing. If it seems to be more of a lefty thing here, that's probably a function of the site's userbase than of anything inherent in the philosophy of either "side".

I don't personally take a lot of snark on those ever-less-frequent threads where I do dive into the political jungle, possibly because my BTF persona is studiedly moderate and hyper-rational on those questions. That's really the only way to avoid it, I think -- to treat the whole question as an intellectual exercise. If you get emotionally invested, it's going to get messy.

Yes I quite agree. Cheering the death of Helms reflects badly on oneself. I was merely talking about your assessment of his life.

I've hardly been all that nice. The nicest thing I said about him was that he was a buffoon. The high-fives of the mutual admiration society on his death here are nauseating.

BBC, rush us all a case of Corona (or in my case, a giant economy size bottle of Kahlua) and we'll all shutup. We promise.

I'd like to go on record as being totally against death.

Dan, what was "simply" about Jesse Helms? You make it seem as if the 29th or 77th man standing in line at a White Citizens Council all-you-can-eat luncheon buffet could have done as much damage as Helms, which is absurd. People like that don't have that sort of effect. But Jesse Helms did.

Lynchings dropped like a rock in the 50s and 60s and blacks had far more rights at the end of his WRAL stint than at the start. Doesn't sound like he was all that effective to me.

The first is an understandable reaction, whether some of us would agree with it or not. The second is frankly---not. What, precisely, was "gray" about Jesse Helms's career, other than the bromides about his personal graciousness?

Well, for one, he didn't treat the federal budget like Mary Poppins's bottomless carpet bag like the Democrats (and sadly, today's Republicans).

That goes for the people who've actually found themselves affected in one way or another by Helms. The people queueing up cheer his death just because they think it's PC - that's pretty sick, really.

Depends on what you mean by "affected." I covered this upthread.

All four of the individuals in question (Lassus, E-X, kevin, and Andy) have lived/spent time in NC. Lassus says he knows people directly affected by Helms. E-X said he was indirectly affected by Helms and currently works in an area that is predominantly African-American with young people. kevin is also (and forgive me kev, if this out of line) married to an African-American woman, which may or may not affect his reaction to Helms. Andy worked directly in the civil rights movement while he was at Duke, in Helms' pre-Senate, most virulent race-baiting days.

Also, you were the guy who opposed gay marriage on certain grounds, and was called a bigot here, which was unfortunate. I myself, while I disagree with you, made a point of avoiding name-calling. However, I know a hell of a lot of people who would say that your views on gay marriage are "pretty sick, really" or worse.

Claiming the objective, nuanced ground is always a tricky business.

BBC -

If you'll just tell us all the fun rumors you've heard about the toxicity of the Astros clubhouse, we'll stop talking about politics. Promise!

Yes I quite agree. Cheering the death of Helms reflects badly on oneself. I was merely talking about your assessment of his life.

I've hardly been all that nice. The nicest thing I said about him was that he was a buffoon. The high-fives of the mutual admiration society on his death here are nauseating.

Again this evades the question: What made Helms only "probably" a racist? And most all of us agree that it would have been better if he'd croaked while his era of influence was still in front of him. I don't myself have all that much glee that someone finally pulled the plug on his life support, or however it ended. But I'm certainly not in any state of mourning, any more than I'd be if Sharpton fell off the Empire State Building.

I'd like to go on record as being totally against death.

Got a workable alternative?

Claimning the objective, nuanced ground is always a tricky business.

Which is exactly why I said I refused to act as an arbiter of "good" or "bad."

...Sharpton fell off the Empire State Building.

That would kill several bystanders and likely damage the sidewalk.

So I disagree about its not being tragic.

What made Helms only "probably" a racist?

I didn't say he was probably a racist I said that he was probably a bad man. I sure as hell didn't say that I was in any kind of mourning for Helms.

And yes, if Al Sharpton fell off a building and died and people here cheered his death, I would find that repulsive as well.

The high-fives of the mutual admiration society on his death here are nauseating.

This is what I'm not sure I get. Where? More than one of us here is glad he's met his end, certainly. But I can't say that I've somewhere made reference to anyone else's opinion who thinks that with any kind of "woohoo!" attached, nor have I seen anyone but kevin be truly, truly proud of what has already been admitted by myself to have been a base emotional reaction. You seem to have grouped us all together around a table drinking wine and toasting Hades, when it is more on this issue than the noose at the construction site, the levees, that record-breaking Obama thing that there is no "society". I mean, I could be wrong, I suppose. I'm just not seeing it that way.

I don't understand this Sharpton comparison thing either. I can't think of a single serious-minded liberal who really thinks positively of Sharpton. Do the rightists really think that Al Sharpton is our Jesse Helms as far as influence and respect goes?

Dan, what was "simply" about Jesse Helms? You make it seem as if the 29th or 77th man standing in line at a White Citizens Council all-you-can-eat luncheon buffet could have done as much damage as Helms, which is absurd. People like that don't have that sort of effect. But Jesse Helms did.

Lynchings dropped like a rock in the 50s and 60s and blacks had far more rights at the end of his WRAL stint than at the start. Doesn't sound like he was all that effective to me.

No, I do have to admit that he wasn't Superman with a WCC cape, and he wasn't able to defeat the civil rights movement all by himself from a Raleigh television studio. But I was talking specifically about his influence in North Carolina during his WRAL days. His Senate career was his first venture into national politics, and that was after that.

The first is an understandable reaction, whether some of us would agree with it or not. The second is frankly---not. What, precisely, was "gray" about Jesse Helms's career, other than the bromides about his personal graciousness?

Well, for one, he didn't treat the federal budget like Mary Poppins's bottomless carpet bag like the Democrats (and sadly, today's Republicans).

Thanks for finally coughing it out. What took you so long?

Which is exactly why I said I refused to act as an arbiter of "good" or "bad."

I can't agree here. Ultimately, I think we all think our way is the best way and that includes you. The key is to recognize that the other side makes good points sometimes, too, and that those points are made by PEOPLE, just like us. Easier to say than to do or feel.

we all supposed to be friends here and you sound like a bunch of grrrls picking on some other grrl for having a zit. honestly what is the point?

- i can't believe i'm saying this, but i think it is time to keep all the political mud slinging and name calling stuff in the forum section.

you know how we are supposed to separate church and state?

well, bout time we separate the church of baseball from the state of politics.

there is too damm much hostile and too damm much really bad manners going on and it serves exactly ZERO purpose

You are awesome, and I sympathize, Lisa. But at the same time, if you don't like it, you can just bail. There are a bunch of baseball threads in progress.

And I agree with Eso: shut us up with ASTROS DIRT.

...Sharpton fell off the Empire State Building.

That would kill several bystanders and likely damage the sidewalk.

So I disagree about its not being tragic.

Mere collateral damage (smile)

-----------

What made Helms only "probably" a racist?

I didn't say he was probably a racist I said that he was probably a bad man.

I stand corrected, but if you acknowledge his racism (and its effects---he wasn't exactly your ordinary private citizen), that makes your actual wording even harder to figure out.

Well, for one, he didn't treat the federal budget like Mary Poppins's bottomless carpet bag like the Democrats (and sadly, today's Republicans).

Thanks for finally coughing it out. What took you so long?

Indeed. Helms was a powerful, unrepentant bigot. He was also pro-life and pro small-federal-government--ideals many righties who are NOT bigots value deeply.

Something good about Helms -- he adopted a child with cerebral palsy after reading a newspaper wish by the child for a mother and father.

I don't think it serves much purpose to demonize political opponents, even someone as bad as Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Much better to bring them to justice for their crimes than to denounce them as evildoers and trample innocents in our self-righteous zeal to be on the right side.

Solzynitsin has a great bit in one of his books about how it wasn't until he found himself in the depths of prison camp that he realized his past idealism allowed him to commit great evil upon others, that the line between good and evil runs down the middle of every human heart.

Feel free to disagree with me, though.

I stand corrected, but if you acknowledge his racism (and its effects---he wasn't exactly your ordinary private citizen), that makes your actual wording even harder to figure out.

Why? I'm no expert on the pathology of racism and don't feel comfortable automatically calling someone bad simply because they held beliefs that I find archaic.

andy

you know how i feel about alcohol

so i would rather feed all yall boys lots and lots and lots of food and you be too busy shoveling food into your mouths to sling mud. then you all just sit around and belch afterwards and of course then all yall be too interested in belch contests to argue

esoteric,

i thought it is pretty common knowledge that the players don't like the manager, the players have divided into little groups that don't like each other, that the pitchers can't STAND the pitching coach or the other coaches

and valverde blew yet ANOTHER save today - damm got thing we gt rid of that no good gutless head case brad lidge who is washed UP

Thanks for finally coughing it out. What took you so long?

Frankly, I'm not sure that I'd be too inclined to say anything positive about Jesse Helms simply because of the unpleasant potential for being tarred as a racist.

Solzynitsin has a great bit in one of his books about how it wasn't until he found himself in the depths of prison camp that he realized his past idealism allowed him to commit great evil upon others, that the line between good and evil runs down the middle of every human heart.

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

He also wrote another quote on the subject that I find insightful: "To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good."

Much better to bring them to justice for their crimes than to denounce them as evildoers and trample innocents in our self-righteous zeal to be on the right side.

This is all well and good, but Hitler and Hussein broke actual laws, international and local, and Hussein at least was punished for those specific crimes. Helms broke no laws. Does this mean we can't say that we find what he did to be reprehensible and give reasonable, factual examples of the same? How else to hold someone accountable?

lots and lots and lots of food

bbq at your place? Your husband grills? I pitch to your Frank-Thomas-esque kid? Eso and I don't mention McCain or Obama? Awesome.

don't feel comfortable automatically calling someone bad simply because they held beliefs that I find archaic.

Then how do you explain your posts on this thread?


38. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 06, 2008 at 12:37 AM (#2845245)

...Frankly, smiling at someone's death because they hold backwards beliefs is the very epitome of thinking every bit as small-minded as Helms's views on blacks and gays.

Seems to me like you were calling some people out for holding beliefs that you find archaic.

Sabathia trade appears to be a done deal. Rays/Brewers in the Fall Classic? On ESPN2?

Seems to me like you were calling some people out for holding beliefs that you find archaic.

Easy-peasy. I didn't those people were bad, I said they were acting in a small-minded manner.

Sabathia trade appears to be a done deal. Rays/Brewers in the Fall Classic? On ESPN2?

Did they trade Parra? Link?

Second thread on the sidebar. Looks like Parra was not in it.

Except he was given that extended time because of the viewership. He was simply another racist talking to a bunch of other racists.

Dan believes being a racist is inherited, and one who has the racist gene is condemned the rest of his life to be a racist.

Second thread on the sidebar. Looks like Parra was not in it.

Thanks - nothing else I've asked gets answered. ;-)

Another thing, eso. I'm kind of pissed you dumped me in with the ideologues. I'm about as un-ideological as you can get. I argue policy, not ideology.

And I haven't attacked one person in this thread, save helms himself, the dead racist. I ridiculed Alan for dismissing my disposition on Helms. I haven't attacked his politics.

kev,

I think eso was talking tone and style as well as ideology.

Does this mean we can't say that we find what he did to be reprehensible and give reasonable, factual examples of the same?

Back in #87, I stated: I find it much too convenient to load the sins of many upon the head of one. Let's remember specifically what Helms did that was evil, but not forget his co-conspirators in high places who were content to let ol' Jesse walk point on issues they also supported.

I don't think anybody's gone beyond the pale here. If anything, we've been too easy rather than too harsh when it comes to Jesse, too easy in dismissing the effects of racism as just a part of the social stratum that is passing with progress. Helms full-fledged support for Central American death squads in the '80's was a continuation of his keep the negras down in his '60's broadcasts.

This discussion is a good illustration, though, of how making a serious issue like racism about a specific individual like Helms, and then engaging in arguments about just how bad Helms is as a person, distracts from actually detailing the wrongs he committed and actually educating those who don't know why some of us are a little emotional when it comes to Jesse.

I'd sit around with any of you and have a beer... though I might find a good excuse to leave after one drink.

Back in #87, I stated: I find it much too convenient to load the sins of many upon the head of one. Let's remember specifically what Helms did that was evil, but not forget his co-conspirators in high places who were content to let ol' Jesse walk point on issues they also supported.

Well, yes, I do remember. I immediately agreed in the following post or two. :-)

I guess I was trying to parse out your meaning in "bring them to justice for their crimes" bit. That can't really be done to Helms. His "crimes" as even the harshest amongst us see them, were not against the law. But they deserve note. If you feel that we shouldn't demonize but instead bring to justice, I don't understand (literally, I'm asking for clarification) how we then deal with Helms if not demonize? I'm all for attempting to change the mindset of racist thought and the roots as you forward, but this thread has mostly been about Helms specifically. I can't feel comfortable just leaving him and his actions be, honestly.

robinred Posted: July 06, 2008 at 07:16 PM (#2846099)

lots and lots and lots of food
- bbq at your place? Your husband grills? I pitch to your Frank-Thomas-esque kid? Eso and I don't mention McCain or Obama? Awesome.

all yall have to bring the food
husband most definitely grills
and yall eat so much cobbler too full to do moren grunt
- you set the ball on the tee for da Bull. barry lamar dog might could jog after a few balls - he gettin old and stiff
- nobody mentions ANY politician of ANY party, race or sex. i would agree to hear - polotician X sucks, politician y sucks, politician z sucks, but knowing you guys next thing you be arguing about who is the MOST sukc and there goes you go again. which is why politics sucks and don't nobody talk about that in MY house. or my backyard neither


Sabathia trade appears to be a done deal. Rays/Brewers in the Fall Classic? On ESPN2?

- rays/brewers in the series - couldn't be better. and yeah, the 4 letter put it on espn and probably get the cities wrong. actually i would prefer kc royals to the rays. or anyone else who would pisss off fox even more

Kind of like a good novelist, show don't tell. How many people died while AIDS funding was delayed. How many were killed by death squads with US support. What demogoguery from the '60's led to a poorer political and social reality for the people of North Carolina.

His actions were bad enough without making him into a demon. It's self-defeating in more ways than one.

Let's recount the Jesse Helms experience then, Alex:

While working on the primary campaign against Frank Porter Graham, Helms helped create an ad that read, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."

Another ad featured photographs Helms doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (FAIR 2001-09-01, The News and Observer 2001-08-26)

Helms commented on the 1963 Civil Rights protests, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights.

Helms announced his candidacy for a seat in the United States Senate in 1972. He won the Republican primary with 60.1 percent of the vote and eliminated two intraparty opponents. Meanwhile, Democrats retired the ailing Senator B. Everett Jordan, who lost his primary, 55.3 percent to 44.6 percent, to Congressman Nick Galifianakis of Durham. Helms played upon Galifianakis' ethnicity during the campaign, running under the slogan "Vote for Helms—He's One of Us!"

Helms opposed the Martin Luther King Day bill in 1983 on grounds that King had two associates with communist ties, Stanley Levison and Jack O'Dell. [7] Helms led the Senatorial opposition to the bill and voiced disapproval of King's alleged philandering.

Helms had close ties to the rightist Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson and was considered a main sponsor of D'Aubuisson's political party, the Nationalist Republican Alliance.[8] When confronted with evidence that D'Aubuisson ran death squads that systematically murdered civilians, he replied that "[a]ll I know, is that D'Aubuisson is a free enterprise man and deeply religious."[9]

Opposing the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988, Helms stated, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

When Ryan White died in 1990, his mother went to Congress to speak to politicians on behalf of people with AIDS. She spoke to 23 representatives: Helms refused to speak to her even when she was alone with him in an elevator.

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." He then proceeded to sing the song about "the good life" during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 1993-09-02; Time, 1993-08-16).[17]

Having attempted, and failed, to block passage of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Care (CARE) Act passed in 1990, Helms tried to block its refunding in 1995, saying that those with AIDS were responsible for the disease, because they had contracted it because of their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct", and falsely claiming that more federal dollars were spent on AIDS than heart disease or cancer.

Jerry Falwell's Liberty University opened the Jesse Helms School of Government in 2005. Helms was present at the dedication ceremony.

How many people died while AIDS funding was delayed.

Unlike the other two, this is silly. There are people every day that die from something that could have been treated. I assume you have money you could have given them? If you do, then by this line of reasoning, blood's on your hands too.

Kevin, as a man who has repeatedly called for Barry Bonds to be raped in prison, you're throwing some awfully heavy stones at some awfully glass walls.

kev,

I think eso was talking tone and style as well as ideology.

Since I'm the one kevin was attempting to bother, I will respond further.

Your efforts to piss me and others off, not necessarily in this thread, but in general, are very effective. However, it significantly lowers the level of discourse here, both in threads about politics and in threads about baseball. You might not have "attacked my politics," but that is only because I have never made my political views known here. In the past when I've discussed baseball related things with you, you have not hesitated to go quickly to screaming and name calling without the slightest provocation.

Your interaction with me and with others on this site is one of the major reasons my participation here is infrequent. You are not the only who behaves in an ugly manner, but you seem to be the worst and the most consistent, and you also seem to take some sort of perverse pride whenever someone says something like this to you. I asked this in a thread a few months ago and you responded with sarcasm, so I will ask it again: Do you speak to people in person the way that you do here?

And indeed it is, which is fundamentally the only thing on which I really disagree with Dan. (And I sometimes feel uncomfortable about the logical conclusion of such a point of view.)

Your efforts to piss me and others off, not necessarily in this thread, but in general, are very effective.

Thank you. I try to do my best.

In the past when I've discussed baseball related things with you, you have not hesitated to go quickly to screaming and name calling without the slightest provocation.

I'm calling BS on that. I never namecall unless someone really, really asks for it. I attack ideas, not persons.

In the past when I've discussed baseball related things with you, you have not hesitated to go quickly to screaming and name calling without the slightest provocation.

I can't remember a one of them so you certainly never made much of an impression.

Your interaction with me and with others on this site is one of the major reasons my participation here is infrequent.

So? Is that supposed to be bad or something?

I asked this in a thread a few months ago and you responded with sarcasm, so I will ask it again: Do you speak to people in person the way that you do here?

No. Because nobody ever dares act like the jackass to my face like some of the people do in print here. For instance, when was the last time you were standing around in a circle and, when someone said something you disagreed with, said something like "Listen, don't anyone pay any attention to what he just said. It's just him being an ####### again."? How do you expect that person to respond? Aside from the ridiculousness of telling someone they shouldn't feel so negatively about a cruel, nasty, unrepentant racist, I mean.

How would you expect all the people in that circle to respond? Do you think they would all say "Yeah, let's do what Alan recommends. Let's ostracize (insert name)."?

Quite frankly, I would understand it if (insert name) punched you in the mouth for being so insolent and rude.

And indeed it is, which is fundamentally the only thing on which I really disagree with Dan. (And I sometimes feel uncomfortable about the logical conclusion of such a point of view.)

Which thing are you referring to?

Well, I would be very willing to make that statement to you in person if you entered the conversation the way you entered this thread. My interactions with every other person involved in this thread, regardless of whether or not they are on my "side", have been nothing but respectful and friendly. Why do you think I behave differently towards you? Why do you think you are so routinely spoken to the way you are here? Do you really think it's because everyone else is a jerk and not you?

Jesse Helms blocked scientific research on AIDS based upon his belief that it was God's punishment upon gays.

Do you think that's a legitimate reason, that it's silly to point to this as a immoral action? How do you think Ryan White's mom felt about that line of 'reasoning'?

People full of so much hatred that they find the deaths of others, not a pragmatic necessity in some cases, but actual cause of celebration, full of cheering and grave-pissing.

This distresses me. Who grave-pisses to celebrate? I grave piss to remind myself and others that the damage some inflict on the world doesn't die with them. That's not a bad thing--it's the natural flipside of the fact that if you live and love right, that good will remain in the world long after you pass.

On Sharpton:
I hate Sharpton because he's a racist and he's a sellout to the neo-liberal machine. He publicly hates whites and his latest policy destroys black communities.

Hey, if the previous poster wants to equate me as being a fan of Hitler, I think it's a fair place to go.

We recently had a long thread in which the left-leaning participants of this site asserted that the only rights that truly exist are those granted by government.

Yes, yes, some ####### peed in your lunch, so it's all good to poison everyone else's. Some did, some didn't. I don't blame you for wacky libertarians and I would take kindly if you didn't generalize a few people's points--liberal or whatever--to everyone else who has ever agreed with them on one point or another.

As to the general tenor of the site, I've been told that I should not be let anywhere near children and that I'm probably the worst teacher in the world for saying that it's probably worth considering the role of race in the society because I must hate whites. That was by a few people who flew off the handle, but I'm calm enough to not generalize that to one end of the political community on this site, or whatever other identity grouping those posters might have belonged to.

We are on the internet, is it really necessary to build factions? This was my problem with "The Union"--I respected the people in it, but can we have a refuge from rooting for teams and laundry and just have thoughtful discussions?

No, I frankly don't expect that sort of comportment from a gentleman like Andy. But the words speak for themselves. Out of character for him? Most certainly (which was my point, in fact). But the words speak for themselves. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Regardless of what people "actually think" or "normally walk around doing," that's what was done and said here. Which is damn unappealing.

So now we are allowed to read subtext into statements? I'm so confused... I honestly just thought that Andy was trying to point out that Dan was probably just baiting and playing devil's advocate since given the wealth of evidence about Helms, he could have certainly come up with a stronger statement. I had no conceptions of him sitting behind his keyboard, "Helms hates blacks and how dare these people desecrate his memory!" I would be surprised if anyone did.

Except he was given that extended time because of the viewership. He was simply another racist talking to a bunch of other racists.

I just don't think you can categorize people so clearly as "racists" or "non-racists". I mean, there's a long-distance from resenting the power which colonial powers have given to Tutsis and picking up a machete and hacking up your neighbors. Hate radio fills that gap whether it's hacking up your neighbor, or blaming them for centuries of oppression or their potential for dying of a terminal STD.

Wrong thread

Uhhhh... so's your mom!

Do you think that's a legitimate reason, that it's silly to point to this as a immoral action? How do you think Ryan White's mom felt about that line of 'reasoning'?

It's a stupid reason, no doubt, but someone who doesn't get treated for a stupid reason is just as dead as someone not treated for a good reason.

251 - kevin:

In the past when I've discussed baseball related things with you, you have not hesitated to go quickly to screaming and name calling without the slightest provocation.

I'm calling BS on that. I never namecall unless someone really, really asks for it. I attack ideas, not persons.

Just the other day, you called another poster an idiot fanboy and demanded they depart BBTF forever for the crime of stating (without any rancor) that Jason Giambi was having a better season than David Ortiz. Needless to say, this is only the most recent incident that comes to mind. So your protestations of innocence are a real howler. In fact, you compound your sins in this very post (#251) further below. But then again I suppose a certain level of bluntness and crassness is to be expected from military veterans.

I will merely add my wholehearted endorsement to Alan S's point. It's about tone and style as much as it is politics. I grew up in one of the most liberal places in America outside of the Bay Area, and the vast majority of my good friends are not merely liberal, but genuine political activist types. I have no problem with their politics, just as they have no problem with mine. It's about how one expresses oneself.

Well, I would be very willing to make that statement to you in person if you entered the conversation the way you entered this thread.

You might be willing to but you'd never actually do it. You'd be too concerned about your personal safety to be so insulting.

From my POV, I'd probably blow you off as a wimp not worth my time.

My interactions with every other person involved in this thread, regardless of whether or not they are on my "side", have been nothing but respectful and friendly.

RDF. Read the thread again, Mr. Sensitivity.

Why do you think you are so routinely spoken to the way you are here?

People don't like having pointed it out to them so frankly their own stupidity. So they lash back. But, eventually, reality starts to sink in. So I'm actually performing a useful service.

Do you really think it's because everyone else is a jerk and not you?

Everyone isn't a jerk. It's just people like you who are jerks.

Just the other day, you called another poster an idiot fanboy and demanded they depart BBTF forever for the crime of stating (without any rancor) that Jason Giambi was having a better season than David Ortiz.

He really, really asked for it.


An no rancor? Go back and read his post. He starts it with this:

I'm sure a completely unbiased assessment from the biggest Red Sox slurper this side of Gammo.

Right. No rancor.

I just don't think you can categorize people so clearly as "racists" or "non-racists". I mean, there's a long-distance from resenting the power which colonial powers have given to Tutsis and picking up a machete and hacking up your neighbors. Hate radio fills that gap whether it's hacking up your neighbor

Again, I'm only loosely familiar with this situation, but I'm a pretty strict free-speecher and feel people are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incitement they heard.


Yes, yes, some ####### peed in your lunch, so it's all good to poison everyone else's. Some did, some didn't. I don't blame you for wacky libertarians and I would take kindly if you didn't generalize a few people's points--liberal or whatever--to everyone else who has ever agreed with them on one point or another.

Yes, I was wrong to over-group things. I misread what Andy said and lost my temper, which resulted in me overreacting to what David said.

I sometimes have trouble believing "kevin" isn't just a schtick persona created by someone else on BBTF. Maybe Nieporent, I dunno.

But I'm certainly not in any state of mourning, any more than I'd be if Sharpton fell off the Empire State Building.

What if he fell on A-Rod? *oops someone already got that one*

Frankly, I'm not sure that I'd be too inclined to say anything positive about Jesse Helms simply because of the unpleasant potential for being tarred as a racist.

Does that actually happen? I'll say something positive about Jesse Helms: Like Jack Morris, he knew how to win.

It's a stupid reason, no doubt, but someone who doesn't get treated for a stupid reason is just as dead as someone not treated for a good reason.

And Jesse Helms would be just as dead even if Kevin and Andy said nice things about him.

...someone who doesn't get treated for a stupid reason is just as dead as someone not treated for a good reason.

So smart or stupid reasons don't matter when determining public policy? I don't think you can so easily disconnect ends from means.

kevin:

You might be willing to but you'd never actually do it. You'd be too concerned about your personal safety to be so insulting. From my POV, I'd probably blow you off as a wimp not worth my time.

[...]

People don't like having pointed it out to them so frankly their own stupidity [sic]. So they lash back. But, eventually, reality starts to sink in. So I'm actually performing a useful service.

[...]

Everyone isn't a jerk. It's just people like you who are jerks.

What a delightful fellow you are. Surely anyone objecting to your attitude and tone is just a pansyboy "Mr. Sensitivity."

He really, really asked for it. An no rancor? Go back and read his post. He starts it with this:

I'm sure a completely unbiased assessment from the biggest Red Sox slurper this side of Gammo.

Right. No rancor.

To be fair, he first made the innocent comment that Giambi was having a better season than Ortiz before Ortiz got hurt, to which Kevin replied, "Are you the biggest idiot ever?"

Geezus. Kevin, I agree with you 250% on this, and I still think you're over the line.

Again, I'm only loosely familiar with this situation, but I'm a pretty strict free-speecher and feel people are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incitement they heard.

I'm by no means an expert, but my understanding is that they issued proclamations to kill through lightly coded-language--"kill the tall trees", read names, and even instructed listeners exactly how to go about "clearing the brush" in a step-by-step fashion.

My (once again limited) understanding is that while the Hutu Power structures had planned carefully how to go about killing all of their political leaders, they depended on their radio operatives to energize the youth into the culture of genocide and it is unlikely that the genocide could have approached its magnitude without the cultural propulsion of the media.,

However, like you, I am an extreme free-speech proponent, and I can't speak for you but I believe that the power of hate speech lies only in the institutions that prioritize it and shield it from critical speech. This is why the current white supremacists' rhetoric is not too dissimilar from the historical speech, but holds less weight.

So I bring up this example not to suggest that Helms should have been silenced, but for two main purposes:
1. The potential for hate speech to trigger and exacerbate genocide and the violation of the civil rights of identified groups.
2. The importance of thoughtful critical speech in response to such speech both at the time and eternally.

When government and other institutions destroy the merit-based exchange of speech and privilege certain groups with super-speech, the latter control may become impossible.

This is why I don't find the "it was a racist time" argument persuasive. If the marketplace of ideas was in operation, certainly their would have been a litany of voices from whites, African Americans themselves, and others to respond to Helms and his ideological ancestors. And they would have moved others.

So I won't delight in Helms' death, but--despite how others have attacked the practice--I must again wholeheartedly endorse pissing--literally and figuratively--on Helms' grave and especially his legacy.

I believe that is the speech that will prevent future genocides.

So smart or stupid reasons don't matter when determining public policy? I don't think you can so easily disconnect ends from means.

If we're faulting someone for the ends, however, I think the ends are more relevant.

Yes, I was wrong to over-group things. I misread what Andy said and lost my temper, which resulted in me overreacting to what David said.

Thanks, Dan. We all write things in haste, but it takes a man (or a BBC) to own up to it.

Again, your "reaction to the reaction" to Helms's death isn't anything I object to beyond simple disagreement. And also again, I don't find racism in the words or arguments of anyone on this site. There aren't any Jesse Helmses or Louis Farrakhans here. And as a subpoint to that observation, I'd imagine that if anyone really went down that road he'd be promptly banned from the site. With good reason.

Yes, I was wrong to over-group things. I misread what Andy said and lost my temper, which resulted in me overreacting to what David said.

That's all I wanted. Thank you.

I don't find racism in the words or arguments of anyone on this site.


That's only because we haven't had any threads about Maoris.

BTW the way to have dealt with Helms during his lifetime was with voter registration, organization and persuasion. The fact that this wasn't enough to defeat him was disheartening, but I doubt that in the foreseeable future, thank God, we'll be seeing his likes again. There are plenty of conservatives and libertarians to vote for who are unencumbered by all that racist baggage.

Thanks, Dan. We all write things in haste, but it takes a man (or a BBC) to own up to it.


I've written several thousand blog entries for transactions on this site - if I couldn't own up to being wrong, I don't think anyone would take me seriously at this point! I still get ragged on sometimes for my analysis of the Soriano trade.

Yeah, you sucked on that one. I hope Soriano pisses on your grave!

To be fair, he first made the innocent comment that Giambi was having a better season than Ortiz before Ortiz got hurt, to which Kevin replied, "Are you the biggest idiot ever?"

No, he didn't. He mangled the quote tags so it's hard to distinguish what I wrote versus what he wrote. I'll quote it in it's entirety, italicizing what I wrote to get separation and bolding his first line:

12. rconn23 Posted: July 04, 2008 at 10:53 AM (#2843161)
"Well, just because The Steinbrenners are dumbasses doesn't mean they aren't playing up to expectations. I think they've shown exactly what they're made of.

Look, the Yankees just aren't that good. Their rotation is just fair and they can't catch the ball. Plus, the big boppers they are counting on to throw up all kinds of runs on the4 board are all a little long in the tooth. The only guy on the team you could say isn't playing up to expectations is Cano."


I'm sure a completely unbiased assessment from the biggest Red Sox slurper this side of Gammo.

Then I wrote this later:

32. kevin Posted: July 04, 2008 at 04:43 PM (#2843493)

But Giambi is having a good year, and much better than Ortiz, I might add - before his injury.



Are you the biggest idiot ever?

I've written several thousand blog entries for transactions on this site - if I couldn't own up to being wrong, I don't think anyone would take me seriously at this point!

Well, can you own up to not sending me my 15 clams too?

Well, can you own up to not sending me my 15 clams too?

Dude, if you have a Paypal account, I can send it to you right now. I don't think I've written a paper check in 5 years, so laziness takes over there.

Dude, I don't have a paypal account. I emailed you my address 3 separate times.

And it takes all of 15 seconds to write a check. If you don't have the money or just don't feel like paying, jsut say so.

And it takes all of 15 seconds to write a check. If you don't have the money or just don't feel like paying, jsut say so.

No, I'm just lazy. I'll run by the post office tomorrow and buy a stamp and get it out.

So I won't delight in Helms' death, but--despite how others have attacked the practice--I must again wholeheartedly endorse pissing--literally and figuratively--on Helms' grave and especially his legacy.

Eraser, maybe we can piss a cross over his grave, wearing black bedsheets. You know, for ole time sake.

as for me, i don't worry about piss.

i just picture helms having to stand before God on Judgement Day and trying to explain/justify his actions before having to take the Down Escalator and having to spend eternity in the company of gay, AIDS infected Negroes

Go ahead and laugh. The people who are dead of AIDS because of uninformed and meanspirited holdups in funding research aren't in a position to.

One problem with this is that it is an utter fiction. Nobody died of AIDS because of "holdups in funding research," because there weren't any. AIDS research got massive funding increases every year, far out of proportion to the incidence of AIDS in the U.S. To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, Jesse Helms did not give anyone AIDS.

If you want to say that Helms was bigoted against homosexuals, go ahead; I won't dispute that. If you want to say that his positions on AIDS were motivated by his animus for gays, I won't dispute that either. But Helms did not cause people to have unsafe sex long after they knew that said sex was unsafe, and Helms did not keep the federal government from spending disproportionate sums of money on AIDS research.


(As for Dan's argument, people like Helms did far more harm to the libertarian movement than they did to blacks or gays, so I can't be too sad that he's dead. But I'm not jumping up and down and cheering, since, as Dan notes, he's been retired for quite a while and was thus irrelevant.)

i just picture helms having to stand before God on Judgement Day and trying to explain/justify his actions before having to take the Down Escalator and having to spend eternity in the company of gay, AIDS infected Negroes

There was a fabulous parody in the old National Lampoon called Tales From The South that had (a) Lurleen Wallace, after having been elected Governor of Alabama, forcing George to wear a maid's uniform; (b) George buying "maybe a hunnert" cancerous rats from a mad scientist in Tuscaloosa in order to kill her; (c) George plotting a phony assassination attempt with Arthur Bremer firing blank bullets; (d) the ghost of Lurleen switching the ammo to real bullets; (e) George making a speech in a wheelchair at the Democratic convention, only to have Lurleen sic thousands of cancerous rats on him, forcing him to ditch the wheelchair and hoof it on foot; and (f) George making it safely to a bus, only to find that it was filled with the living dead corpses of King, Evers and all the other murdered civil rights workers. It may have been the most sublime thing that the Lampoon ever did.

The comparison was this: Just as Stalin ranks with Hitler at the top of the depravity scale among world leaders, so Helms ranks at the top of that scale among 20th century American politicians. That's what I said the first time around, and that's what I mean. You can think of plenty of foreign leaders whose particular combinations of cruel philosophy and access to power have wrought more damage than could ever have been done by Jesse Helms. But IMO it would be very difficult to think of a 20th century American politician whose philosophy was nastier, whose racial rhetoric was more inflammatory, whose influence was greater, and who at the end of his life was more unrepentent. There have been others who matched him in one or two categories (Bilbo, Wallace, etc.), but overall he was our greatest four tool son of a bltch.

I don't see how this can possibly be true, Andy. Helms was a Senator, and hence one of one-hundred people. By definition, an executive -- president or governor -- would have far greater "influence." Worst American politician of the 20th century, factoring in influence, would probably be Woodrow Wilson -- an unrepentant racist who (unlike Helms) actually contributed to increasing segregation in the U.S., actually (unlike Helms) suppressed free speech, and actually (unlike Helms) got us into a war because of his foreign policy views. Let's face it, if Wilson had an (R) next to his name, liberals would rank him with Nixon and Bush.

Too easy? Well, Helms wasn't in office until (as Dan points out) the 1970s, when the civil rights fights -- despite the delusions of those on the left who still want to think they're fighting the noble fight -- were essentially over. Jesse Helms never called out the national guard to keep blacks out of white schools. He never turned firehoses on civil rights protesters. He may have insulted MLK, but he never locked him in jail. He never had the police who reported to him look the other way while violent racists violently terrorized civil rights supporters.

Let me just say that I am far more judgmental than Dan is. (Libertarians don't all think alike on everything.) I have no problem denouncing people based on what they think and say, even if one can't show that their statements have had an impact. And when someone like Jesse Helms dies, I feel no particular sorrow; it has no more emotional impact on me than the abstract knowledge that some guy in a nursing home in Lansing, Michigan must have died yesterday too. But I don't cheer for a death unless I'm convinced the person has no redeeming qualities. Hitler, yes. Stalin, yes. Pete Rose, sure. But not Helms.

(As Dan says, if he were still in office, perhaps I'd be glad about the death, since the death would remove him from office where he could do harm. But he's a retired old guy sitting around a nursing home somewhere. Why expend the energy to cheer about it?)

...Sharpton fell off the Empire State Building.

'Twas booty that killed the beast.

Where does Little Daley fit in on the depravity scale?

One problem with this is that it is an utter fiction. Nobody died of AIDS because of "holdups in funding research," because there weren't any. AIDS research got massive funding increases every year, far out of proportion to the incidence of AIDS in the U.S. To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, Jesse Helms did not give anyone AIDS.

You don't know what you're talking about. I know the people who were responsible for funding the research. No special funding provisions were made until several years after it was obvious we had a new and terrible epidemic on our hands. Normally, when a public crisis emerges, the obvious thing to do is to make special funding provisions to address it.

What was done instead, because of the intransigence of the Reagan administration, money was pulled from this program and that on a piecemeal basis to fill the funding gap. It wasn't nearly enough but it kept the country from being totally helpless.

Let's face it, if Wilson had an (R) next to his name, liberals would rank him with Nixon and Bush.

Decidedely untrue, from what I know of Wilson. Wilson was an academic racist, yes. But again, from what I understand, his racism stemmed from his belief that the races couldn't coexist, not that one was subhuman or deserving of fewer rights. In that sense, Wilson's racism was Lincoln-ian, and nobody drags Lincoln over the coals for his racism, as it was an artifact of his time.

But Wilson, again like Lincoln, was also a strong proponent of peace and forgiveness. Also like Lincoln, if Wilson's post-war plan had been implemented, the world probably would have been better off in the following years.

Actually, the more you look at it, the more Wilson and Lincoln seem to converge, except apparently in the field of segregation. Again, I'm no Wilson expert, but I've never thought that Wilson was a slight against the democratic party nor against liberals in general, and I would probably call Wilson a liberal.

The thing I find most distasteful about Nixon and Bush--and, to be frank, those who defend them--is their overall rank hypocrisy and dishonesty. I could list examples, but if you're not willing to admit that this is true on its face, then I wouldn't get anywhere with you anyway. I can respect an honestly held positions and someone willing to admit a mistake, but nobody in the Bush adminstration from the top down possesses these two traits.

I don't detect that rank hypocrisy in Wilson, which puts him a far step up over Nixon or Bush, and probably Reagan. But again, I'm using hypocrisy and dishonesty as my metrics in ranking presidents, and you (David Nieporent) probably have a different way of ranking presidents. Perhaps a better system. I just value honesty a great deal.

Well, Helms wasn't in office until (as Dan points out) the 1970s, when the civil rights fights -- despite the delusions of those on the left who still want to think they're fighting the noble fight -- were essentially over.

Seems to me there's plenty of fighting still to be done, from getting gay marriage as a right in the land to curtailing government policies on torture and imprisonment in general, as our massive prison population is really a problem of civil rights. Something's wrong when we're throwing one of one hundred people in prison.

Also, does anyone else find it odd that history always seems to line up in the liberals favor? Liberals were the first abolitionists, suffragists, environmentalists, advocates for worker's rights, advocates for native americans, civil rights activists, gay marriage activists, anti-war activists in the vietnam era, global climate changes activists. Seems that where liberals go, history follows. And that's not even including the New Deal or the Great Society. And each one of these ideas resulted in sweeping public change to the foundations of the country.

Can conservatives in America claim anything like that record? Is there one thing conservatives were the first to advocate that changed America for the better? Honest question here, no flaming, but what is it that ties the conservative movement together? What are the monuments of conservative thought in the past that conservatives point to and say -- aha, we were right! Maybe gun rights? Abortion rights have been curtailed in the US, but Roe v. Wade still stands as the law of the land after, what, thirty years of conservative attacks?

EDITED TO ADD: Actually, it occurs to me that the conservative record, given conservative ideas about government, is probably not written into federal law like the liberal record is, so that accounts for the discrepancy. For example, when liberals want to save endangered species, they try to pass the endangered species act, a federal law. Conservatives would probably count their ideological victories as rolling back laws or in doing things outside of the government, and certainly not in passing federal laws.

when liberals want to save endangered species, they try to pass the endangered species act

Oops. You might want to do a quick Wikipedia on that one, VOTZCOBP.

Decidedely untrue, from what I know of Wilson. Wilson was an academic racist, yes. But again, from what I understand, his racism stemmed from his belief that the races couldn't coexist, not that one was subhuman or deserving of fewer rights. In that sense, Wilson's racism was Lincoln-ian, and nobody drags Lincoln over the coals for his racism, as it was an artifact of his time.

No; Wilson was nothing like Lincoln, who was (if racist by our standards) enlightened for his era. Lincoln (contra some neo-confederate revisionism) was anti-slavery his whole life, and while expressing the view that blacks were inferior, he also expressed the view that they were entitled to the same rights as whites:

I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

But Wilson? Wilson was an out-and-out racist. Big time. He wasn't merely a product of his time; he was far more racist than his predecessors and successors in the White House. He went out of his way, upon taking office, to fire black federal employees where he could, and segregate them where he couldn't. (See, e.g., here.)

And again, once you get past the racism, Wilson was what the juvenile left imagines Bush to be on the issue of civil liberties. The Espionage Act actually was what they think the Patriot Act is. Palmer was who they thought Ashcroft was. People really were locked up for dissenting. Not a handful of people, but large numbers.

And of course Wilson got us into an unnecessary war, and botched the end of it badly, setting the stage for a worse one.

I don't detect that rank hypocrisy in Wilson, which puts him a far step up over Nixon or Bush, and probably Reagan. But again, I'm using hypocrisy and dishonesty as my metrics in ranking presidents, and you (David Nieporent) probably have a different way of ranking presidents. Perhaps a better system. I just value honesty a great deal.

Yes, you're right; I do use very different metrics. I don't think hypocrisy is particularly interesting in any context, and while I certainly am not a fan of dishonesty, it's not high on my list of complaints. (I'm not sure whether you're talking about personal dishonesty or political dishonesty, but regardless.) I care more about substance in evaluating my presidents. Give me a hypocrite over an honest racist, a guy who lies over a guy who abridges freedom of speech.

Also, does anyone else find it odd that history always seems to line up in the liberals favor? Liberals were the first abolitionists, suffragists, environmentalists, advocates for worker's rights, advocates for native americans, civil rights activists, gay marriage activists, anti-war activists in the vietnam era, global climate changes activists. Seems that where liberals go, history follows. And that's not even including the New Deal or the Great Society. And each one of these ideas resulted in sweeping public change to the foundations of the country.

Well, some of us think that the New Deal and the Great Society were the worst things in 20th century American history, and don't think that being pro-union is being pro "worker's rights" at all.

In any case, that's rather a begging-the-question sort of question; if you define liberal to be "pro-good-things" and then ask "Why are liberals in favor of good things," the question kind of answers itself, but without giving any useful information. In fact, there's no set of people who were all the things you list. What you've done is cobble together a list of different views from different eras and assign those views to one hypothetical group of people. Abolitionists were not suffragists or environmentalists (indeed, the very notion of environmentalism is pretty much an anachronism if you're discussing abolitionism), and the people who made up the Progressive movement were the more reactionary ones of their era on issues such as race.

Can conservatives in America claim anything like that record? Is there one thing conservatives were the first to advocate that changed America for the better? Honest question here, no flaming, but what is it that ties the conservative movement together? What are the monuments of conservative thought in the past that conservatives point to and say -- aha, we were right!

The fall of the Berlin Wall. Globalization. Welfare reform. Deregulation generally. Affirmative action. Free speech.

The fall of the Berlin Wall. Globalization. Welfare reform. Deregulation generally. Affirmative action. Free speech.


Don't forget freedom fries.

Abolitionists were not suffragists or environmentalists (indeed, the very notion of environmentalism is pretty much an anachronism if you're discussing abolitionism)

In fact, one could say quite accurately that the most prominent liberal environmentalist politician in history that made the changes most favored by environmentalists was Pol Pot, the biggest carbon emissions cutter in the history of the world.

The comparison was this: Just as Stalin ranks with Hitler at the top of the depravity scale among world leaders, so Helms ranks at the top of that scale among 20th century American politicians. That's what I said the first time around, and that's what I mean. You can think of plenty of foreign leaders whose particular combinations of cruel philosophy and access to power have wrought more damage than could ever have been done by Jesse Helms. But IMO it would be very difficult to think of a 20th century American politician whose philosophy was nastier, whose racial rhetoric was more inflammatory, whose influence was greater, and who at the end of his life was more unrepentent. There have been others who matched him in one or two categories (Bilbo, Wallace, etc.), but overall he was our greatest four tool son of a bltch.

I don't see how this can possibly be true, Andy. Helms was a Senator, and hence one of one-hundred people. By definition, an executive -- president or governor -- would have far greater "influence." Worst American politician of the 20th century, factoring in influence, would probably be Woodrow Wilson -- an unrepentant racist who (unlike Helms) actually contributed to increasing segregation in the U.S., actually (unlike Helms) suppressed free speech, and actually (unlike Helms) got us into a war because of his foreign policy views. Let's face it, if Wilson had an (R) next to his name, liberals would rank him with Nixon and Bush.

WRT Helms, like many others here, you overlook or dismiss the poison he spread throughout North Carolina during the critical decade of the 60's, when he had the leading forum in the state and was far better known to the average voter than Senators Ervin and Jordan, who were (within the context of the time) typically bland but relatively moderate southern politicians.

But WRT Wilson, you have a case that could be made. You correctly note he was a proactive racist. And while in many ways he was a product of his time---his administration saw the birth and rise of the modern KKK, though it wasn't until the 1920's that its influence spread beyond the South---he often went out of his way, and gratuitously, to make things worse for African Americans. Whether or not to place him above or below Helms on the overall scale is more a technical question concerning the value you assign to specific powers (Wilson, since he was president) vs. the value you assign to intent, intensity, and over the top maliciousness (Helms). Perhaps if I'd lived through Wilson I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but perhaps if you'd lived in North Carolina through Helms's WRAL days you'd understand my position a bit more concretely.

I agree with DN about Woodrow Wilson!

He was one of the worst presidents in American history. The federalization of segregation, the criminalization of dissent, his long delay in acknowledging the suffrage movement, and a foreign policy of big words about universal freedom that left a useless war and mass suffering in its wake, and in which those ideals did not apply to American imperialism in Latin America.

The parallels to W are pretty significant. Though rather than take silly potshots at the "juvenile left", I'd say rather that a president whose record compares to Woodrow Wilson's must be one of the worst we've seen in a long, long time.

He was one of the worst presidents in American history. The federalization of segregation, the criminalization of dissent, his long delay in acknowledging the suffrage movement, and a foreign policy of big words about universal freedom that left a useless war and mass suffering in its wake, and in which those ideals did not apply to American imperialism in Latin America.

Libertarians and MCoA don't generally agree on much, so it's fun to highlight an area we actually agree on!

I simply can't imagine anybody in their right mind being a fan of Wilson.

Didn't know that about Woodrow Wilson. Thanks for the answers.