(b) because when others make these same points, we're waved off with sarcastic remarks about being "spokesmen for black people / Latinos / etc.",

(b) doesn't happen at all, or if it does, it's extremely infrequent.

Your statement is accurate only if you discount your own posts on the subject, along with SBB's. Otherwise, dead on. But you can continue to insist that other people only interpret words and utterances as you allow them to-- that words and statements only mean the things you say they do. The problem is, they don't have to obey your interpretive guidelines. Individuals get to negotiate meanings in their own contexts, and bring their own experiences to the table in doing so. Telling these individuals they're not allowed to do that is just another technique for wielding power over them, and attempting to bully them into abiding by your vision of reality. And that "negotiation" part is where you really seem to stumble, since for you there is only ever one interpretive frame-- all the others must be wrong.

==
In terms of institutional racism being an "unsolvable" problem, how about we start with an easy one: equalize the sentences for powdered and rock cocaine. That should be a no-brainer, right? How about we put a moratorium on stop-and-frisks? These are just two easy ones OTH. This notion that institutional racism is somehow amorphous and untied to public policy shows zero understanding of what the term actually refers to.

Most (all?) PhD degrees in the humanities in Canada require you to pass a 2nd language proficiency test (your choice I believe, but it usually ends up being French). I'm not really complaining, I think it's a fine idea, and I think I'd be a better person if I worked on my languages...but part of being the worse person that I am now is being lazy and not wanting to do stuff.

The second language thing is common in humanities PhD programs in the US, too. In Ms. McGunnigle's program you either do a language or languages relevant to your work or you do a language in which there is a lot of research about your field (which almost inevitably means German). It's a hassle, but the language skill can really expand your range of available sources.

I think language education is great, and I think we should still be teaching Latin and Greek in school. But learning a language for the sole purpose of catering to less than a third of a population isn't a good reason.

The second language thing is common in humanities PhD programs in the US, too. In Ms. McGunnigle's program you either do a language or languages relevant to your work or you do a language in which there is a lot of research about your field (which almost inevitably means German). It's a hassle, but the language skill can really expand your range of available sources.

Yeah. In Philosophy programs you usually have to learn German or Ancient Greek, though you can get through with Latin or French. The day I realized no program was ever going to accept my secondary proficiency in Jive as a valid option was the day I knew the acadamey was not for me.

as to this whole anti-science stuff i understand the basis of that stuff and no amount of discussion is going to change anyone here from thinking otherwise.

but it is not the bulk of the party, not the majority of the 50 odd million who voted on tuesday.

So who is it, I wonder?

Is it Rep Ralph Hall, chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee?

NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?

Hall: I can't say it doesn't have a percentage of effects on it - one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don't think it's the cause. I don't think we can control what God controls.

We put $32 billion into it and don't see very much change.

NJ: Last year the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science published a survey finding that 97 percent of scientists were in consensus that human activities lead to global warming.

Hall: And they each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out. That's just my guess. I don't have any proof of that. But I don't believe 'em. I still want to listen to 'em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.

How about Rep Dana Rohrbacher?

“Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the congressman asked Mr. Stern, according to Politico.

“Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?” he continued.

Forestry experts were dumbfounded by Mr. Rohrabacher’s line of questioning, noting that the world’s forests currently absorb far more carbon dioxide than they emit — capturing roughly one-third of all man-made emissions and helping mitigate climate change.

Todd Akin is on the House Science committee to. Remember him? "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Not very scientific.

Don't forget another committee member, Randy Neugebauer who sponsored a bill requesting that:

"people in the United States should join together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions, including calm skies in the South and lower Midwest where tornadoes have ravaged homes and uprooted families, and for rain where rain is most needed in the South and Southwest, where devastating drought and dangerous wildfires have destroyed homes, businesses, and lives"

Is Jim Sensenbrenner a true Scottsman? Is

Sandy Adams a proper Scottish lass, or only when she served on the House Science, Space, and Technology committee?

And I'd be remiss in omitting Rep. Paul Broun, also serving as a Republican member in good standing on the House Science, Space, and Technology committee:

All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.

That's just the science committee. James Inhofe doesn't serve on that (well, he's a senator, but anyways...) so maybe we shouldn't consider the pernicious effect of his serious, fact-based scientific knowledge:

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Now go ahead and ask me - do you think I could go on in this vein, or do you think I've exhausted my list?

Sorry Harvey, the party of sober scientific thought hasn't been the Republican party for a generation. You're now part and parcel of the party of superstition, conspiracy theorizing, and ignorance.

I'm a senior BI consultant for a global software and data warehousing company.

Sam - Sent you a message/email thing, fyi.

EDIT: Sent email directly. Should work if I got the email address correct.

It's a hassle, but the language skill can really expand your range of available sources.

I can certainly see the merit in that. For a while I was trying to teach myself Latin for that purpose, but ended up giving up.

It would have come in handy a couple times in my research thus far. Spanish would have really helped in one area. I'm looking at the public self-fashioning of the Duke of Buckingham, and he had a crucial, identity-forming trip to Spain in 1623 which was covered pretty extensively in the Spanish press. Buckingham then had those newsbooks translated into English for consumption at home, and I've read at least one Spanish historian say that the English translations differed in some particulars. Possibly could have been an opportunity to see him explicitly trying to frame his public image...if I could translate the Spanish versions. It's actually a little late in the game now to use that material anyway, but I'm thinking of ways to use that stuff in some future project. (As it happens one of my supervisors in a historian of early modern Spain and she's offered to help out with the translations for me...we just haven't done it yet, so I guess with everything else it comes down to laziness.)

Correct. Humans are biologically programmed to fear and avoid outsiders; it was a useful survival trait through much of our evolutionary history. The idea that we can "fix" this through political action is hubristic and betrays a fundamental disengagment with reality. We've made some gradual progress over the centuries in that most of us can refrain from immediately attempting to stab out-group people in the neck. I look forward to more incremental change in ~500 years.

I don't disagree with this - in fact, I'll agree with it to a large degree... but I'll say two things -

First, it is rather interesting that children tend to get over this rather quickly... the question of 'differences' may come up, but it rarely becomes much of a sticking point long-term unless there are external factors (parents, etc) who reinforce those differences.

Second, I'll refer back to what I said in 5710 --

Democrats are yielding the fruits of seeds planted decades ago... they simply have more 'others' in various positions within the party. As such, they're simply better positioned to be able to attract minority voters. They've paid the price for this outreach in some cases -- losing electoral viability in various swaths of the south, problems with areas that have friction over immigration, etc -- but they're yielding returns now, as demographics have shifted.

As I said - I do applaud the GOP in the fact that it does have some relative newcomers (Jindal, Rubio, etc) that it's likewise trying very hard to highlight... However, I continue to believe that the GOP has a problem with some of its purveyors getting exasperated that it's "not enough".... it takes time and a critical mass. You can't just put Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell on camera and expect AA's not to notice that the local party leadership, the door knocker, the crowds, etc look nothing like them.

The Democrats simply don't have this problem -- up and down the apparatus of the party -- federal, state, local, party leadership, party organization, volunteers, etc, Democrats really don't even have to consciously try to create a diverse outreach to any minority community they wish.

People just tend to most easily trust strangers that look, talk, or seem like they share at least some cultural background.

I'm not concern trolling here in the least -- and again, the GOP can go about addressing this deficit however they wish -- but on the Democratic side, they've employed a variety of methods to get to the point they are now.

1) They made some tough choices generations ago that would necessarily cleave off some folks who were once reliable voters... and they've continued to make those same choices - but it took a concerted, multi-decade effort. Someone not even alive when Reagan signed a massive immigration overhaul that included, yes, 'amnesty' isn't all that much more likely to care than a AA that is told to vote Republican because Lincoln was a Republican.

2) Structurally, the Democrats actually have employed systems that are equivalent to what you might call 'affirmative action' - even quotas... For example, the DNC has delegate rules that require 50/50 delegation gender splits. Many states likewise go out of their way to ensure their delegations are ethnically diverse. Absolutely - it's brought in some charlatans.. but it's also brought on some talented people that they might not otherwise have picked up, and it's also ensured that the Democratic party can now present a face to any minority that looks familiar without really even trying.

3) They've listened from an issues perspective -- and not all those 'issues' involve some of the more flashpoint items that stereotype those communities... symbolic things like pushing MLK holidays... changing flags... honoring someone like Cesar Chavez... I mean - I'm a midwestern white guy of Polish ancestry -- and you better believe I know who Casmir Pulaski was, and while it may sound silly, Chicago's Pulaski Day IS a big deal to a lot of folks in the Polish community and even as the older generations who may actually remember a grandfather or somesuch who came over from the 'old country' fade, you better believe they still pass down the importance of such things to their kids. A lot of these symbolic things matter quite a bit - they tell a community "we're listening, we're interested, tell us more"... it's only natural that a community reacts to that.

I can certainly see the merit in that. For a while I was trying to teach myself Latin for that purpose, but ended up giving up.

My brother taught himself to read German so he could read Nietsche in the original tongue.

Yeah, I believe that many of the people aren't anti-science just by virtue of being religious, but the elected officials are legit hurting the country if they're serving on said committees with those ridiculous 14th century views.

Well, my point is that the mass of commenters on YouTube, or ESPN, or FoxNation are more typical of the average American than BTF users.



Tru dat, a million times.

So...

....we're actually the elites?

The cool thing about languages is that they once you have one or two, you can bootstrap others pretty easily, even if they are not closely related. Learning German and Latin helped me learn Greek. Then I took French, with French + Latin I could teach myself Spanish, and with Spanish + French I can read Catalán pretty well (I'm even reviewing a long book written in Catalán).

Sam - Sent you a message/email thing, fyi.

I don't think BTF-mail is forwarding properly. Resend to Sam dot H at Bell South dot net.

So...

....we're actually the elites?

Oh, god yes.

a super powerful Jewish Fairy Man literally created the Earth in 6 days, then retired to rest on his golden throne while stroking his fantastic beard

Allen Ginsberg?

2) Structurally, the Democrats actually have employed systems that are equivalent to what you might call 'affirmative action' - even quotas...

This is really true. (and it is a great post, btw)

There has been some "local downside", sometimes better folks have been turned away and "less talented" have been givern a step up. The party has gone out of its way to put in place structures which somewhat reverse the structural issues non white males deal with, and have clearly paid some deadweight cost for doing it.

I think the diversity bonus and the advantages Dems have now is very worth it, but there have been costs.

My brother taught himself to read German so he could read Nietsche in the original tongue.

I contracted syphilis for the same reason!

Allen Ginsberg?

*deep nod of appreciation*

I think language education is great, and I think we should still be teaching Latin and Greek in school. But learning a language for the sole purpose of catering to less than a third of a population isn't a good reason.

Why not?

Working for a European headquartered company, I'm always very impressed and more than a bit sheepish that whenever I have to meet or talk with Italian, German, Dutch, French, or Spanish colleagues -- we inevitably talk business in English... and they inevitably apologize for their English... and I inevitably respond "well, your english is much better than my French/German/Italian/whatever" - and I really do often wish that weren't the case.

Especially given that Spanish is probably the 2nd most spoken language in our hemisphere (or is it the most? I suppose Brazil speaks mainly Portuguese, which isn't the same) - I don't see a big issue with people learning Spanish.

My brother taught himself to read German so he could read Nietsche in the original tongue.

I contracted syphilis for the same reason!

I took two years of college German and all I needed to do was contract syphilis instead? Dieses ist sehr argerlich zu lernen!

Chicago's Pulaski Day IS a big deal to a lot of folks in the Polish community and even as the older generations who may actually remember a grandfather or somesuch who came over from the 'old country' fade, you better believe they still pass down the importance of such things to their kids.

I read that the first time as Paczki Day, which I must say is a Mid-western treasure, even though I know the difference. Haven't lived in Michigan in while, but one of my best friends was Polish and for Pulaski Day his mother would give us Paczki's. Those are some good damn donuts.

#5801 (DP),

Ray's usual snark aside, I often re-post preceding points for the simple reason that most people (myself included) drop in and out of these threads. When you read a decontextualized comment, it's often impossible to know what point is being made. And it's compounded when people like Ray grab a snippet of something you write and "respond" to that in a way that completely distorts your original point. It's like the BTF version of "You didn't build that", and I don't see any particular reason for enabling it just to make the post a bit shorter.

As I said - I do applaud the GOP in the fact that it does have some relative newcomers (Jindal, Rubio, etc) that it's likewise trying very hard to highlight... However, I continue to believe that the GOP has a problem with some of its purveyors getting exasperated that it's "not enough".... it takes time and a critical mass. You can't just put Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell on camera and expect AA's not to notice that the local party leadership, the door knocker, the crowds, etc look nothing like them.

It also doesn't help that the Ed Brookes of the former GOP have been largely replaced by the Michael Steeles. That's probably an overgeneralization, but it's hard to think of any 21st century counterparts to politicians like Brooke. You've got Colin Powell and Condi Rice, but the former is being slowly driven away by the extremists while the latter can't pass the litmus test because of her views on choice / abortion.

When you read a decontextualized comment, it's often impossible to know what point is being made.

Dude! You're giving away my whole friggin' game here!

To Andy's point, I didn't know DevilInABlueCap was black or a woman until a little bit ago - I just thought they were a good poster (which she is).
A lot of us drop in and out.

***

From a few pages back:

College: Making college more available to people, in large part through making loans more available, has played a big role in it getting so much more expensive in recent years.
When we talk about expanding access, we should consciously ask ourselves why we’re doing it – to increase socioeconomic mobility, because college is worthwhile in and of itself - outside of the opportunities it offers, to address the future needs of the labor force, etc… What you want to accomplish should dictate how you go about addressing the issue, rather than bland platitudes that more college is good.
(To be clear - I'm quite pro-college.)

My brother taught himself to read German so he could read Nietsche in the original tongue.

I started to teach myself Russian when I was 13 so I could read the Russian chess magazines.

Fortunately Chess Informant started publication and I was able to drop that little project.

I often re-post preceding points for the simple reason that most people (myself included) drop in and out of these threads.

I'm a requoter myself, (but I try to trim). Usenet posting habits mostly. Though I think it adds context.

I started to teach myself Russian when I was 13 so I could read the Russian chess magazines.

This may be the most perfectly Ron Johnson story of all time.

Sullivan comes down from taunting Colbert Tuesday night and pens a good bit of semi-rant today:

Yes, I watched [FoxNews] for Schadenfreude purposes. These charlatans and money-grubbers have turned the broad tradition of Anglo-American conservatism into Southern Fried Fanaticism - and I wanted to see them crackle in their batter. They have replaced empirical doubt with unerring faith in an ideology that had its moment over thirty years ago and is barely relevant to the world we now live in. That faith has been cynically fused with fundamentalist religion to make it virtually impossible for the GOP to accept that women are the majority of voters in this country, that gay couples are equal to straight ones, that 11 million illegal immigrants simply cannot be expected to "self-deport" en masse by a regime of terrifying policing, that war is a last and not a first resort, that the debt we have is primarily a function of two things: George W. Bush's presidency and the economic collapse his term ended with.

This kind of total fanaticism about an ideology that bears no resemblance to Burkean conservatism is often called religious. But the truly religious person is not focused on the Electoral College math, but on living her own life the right way in accordance with the God she worships. She is not obsessed with policing society to keep the "other" at bay - the homosexual, the African-American, the Latino immigrant, the single mother, the young straight dude who is truly baffled by the anachronisms of homophobia and the belief that alcohol is less harmful than marijuana.She knows that living a good life is hard enough without controlling the lives and fates and dignity of others.

But the person who fuses Manichean political warfare with theological certitude cannot, will not, abandon that stance for pragmatic purposes - because there is no greater evil than pragmatism for the fanatic. A political party can adapt and change; a fundamentalist religious party loses its entire authority if it admits error, because its message is based on religious texts that are held to be inerrant. The biggest obstacle in front of today's GOP threfore remains theo-political fundamentalism, and how it can be overcome.

What probability does Nate Silver put on the Republican party becoming Whigs II?

I started to teach myself Russian when I was 13 so I could read the Russian chess magazines.

My son has started to teach himself Russian (in addition to the French and Spanish he's studying in high school), but just becuase he wants to learn Russian. He's applied for a program to spend 8 weeks in Russia learning the language this summer (and if not there, then Tajikistan learning Persian or Turkey learning Turkish).

I started to teach myself Russian when I was 13 so I could read the Russian chess magazines.

And given what I've seen over the past 25 years, I should probably learn Tagalog in order to better my mastery of English. Because when it comes to English, Tagalog speakers rule.

So what's your explanation for that video just sitting on the shelf for almost two months? CBS forgot they had it? Nobody from CBS watched the second presidential debate and noticed that Obama claimed something that CBS had proof wasn't true?

You're letting your religious beliefs guide your interpretation of evidence. Evidence doesn't matter, because it will always be rendered subservient to your faith.

Non-responsive to the questions asked.

***

Joe, please provide me with a link to the video and, preferably in the same post, what you believe was the big lie that CBS sat on.

Already did. See #5520, et al.

They, they, they... You're fond of the sweeping, individual destroying pronouns, huh?

LOL. The idea that 57 million people all voted for Obama for a unique reason is absurd. The idea that there's no such thing as an accurate generalization is also absurd. (And you're probably the worst offender when it comes to generalizations about non-liberals, so this was just a strange complaint all around.)

***

Well, there's something to be said for nominating a candidate you know is popular with a broader demographic. Also, what do you think explains the fact that Obama did better this time around with Latinos despite doing worse overall? (Acknowledging that there's some margin of error in the numbers in both cases).

Latinos got crushed in the recession, and 75 percent of Latinos tell pollsters they want a bigger government with more services (see #5563). With Romney spending 6 months talking about shrinking the government, it's not hard to figure out why Obama was the overwhelming choice of Latinos.

It also doesn't help that the Ed Brookes of the former GOP have been largely replaced by the Michael Steeles. That's probably an overgeneralization, but it's hard to think of any 21st century counterparts to politicians like Brooke. You've got Colin Powell and Condi Rice, but the former is being slowly driven away by the extremists while the latter can't pass the litmus test because of her views on choice / abortion.

It's a chicken or the egg thing, I think... and I tend to think it's an egg problem.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton too polarizing? Here's an Obama... Rangel gets himself in ethics problems? Here's a Conyers... Obama's 2nd term up? How about a Deval Patrick... and here's a Corey Booker right behind him...

You can do nearly the same thing all over the ethnic dial.... and that's the thing, if we can all accept that in some way - we would prefer a truly 'color blind' society where these differences are just interesting conversation pieces - the Democrats are well-positioned to do so. As I said, the Democratic party doesn't really even need to try -- we can offer up clowns and charlatans of any race or ethnicity and competent, even gifted legislators and politicians of the same.

When you're continually forced to reach down to A ball to thrust someone into the spotlight - it's just common sense that those 'prospects' are going to fail more often than not, and when they do - even your already thin depth gets further depleted. Your margin of error just trends towards nil.

I'll be interested to see what happens to Mia Love - while I find her political views to be unacceptably far right personally, I have little doubt that she probably could play quite well in Utah. From what I've heard and read of her an from her, I do think she has some serious political chops... but now that she's lost her congressional race, what happens? Is she forgotten and just left to be longtime mayor of a smallish Utah burg? Does she run for and get a prominent role in the state legislature? Does said state legislature and the party leadership make a concerted effort to groom her for higher office? Governor? Senate?

I hate to offer the GOP any advice -- but the trick isn't finding the Mia Loves and shining national spotlights on them... the trick is finding lots of them, giving them the same sort of grooming and fostering that has happened to white male party players for generations, accepting that some of them will flame out, some of them you'll be wrong about, actually backing them when the inevitable fights occur with entrenched powers that be, and building that deep bench such that they can sort of 'appear' at state and federal levels without needing to continually rush the new kids into prominence just so you can say "See?!?!"

Re. 5819 - If someone wants to learn a second language so they can better serve a minority, that's one thing, but to require fluency in a second language for a position in which you might have to use that second language half a dozen times a year is effectively subordinating competency in the job itself to language skills. There are many private sector jobs in the province that require bilingualism, but they are mostly front-end customer service positions in areas with a significant French population. The gov't requires them all over the place, which is why you'll be greeted with "Hello bonjour" at the liquor store or DMV in towns where it would be just as sensible to say "Hello ciao guten tag".

joba

i understand the connections you are making and that's fine.

and if you want to dismiss me as ignorant stooge that's fine too. i have been branded as worse

but every party has their members with curious beliefs. i am not the googlemeister like you and matt so you win that battle hands down.

but i am not aware of any gop effort to thwart, stop, or end scienctific efforts.

if you are going to toss out climate change i know there are many climate skeptics in the party and out

personally i am open minded on the topic knowing first that the earth has been around a long, long time and our time on it is very brief but also that humans are a new addition (in earth time) so it's very reasonable to think that humans have impacted the world around them. but to make the direct link from one to the other i don't know. i get that the global temp has increased. is that 'us'?

i think the more important discussion is what are we going to do to adapt. sure we can talk about root causes but meanwhile what are doing to adjust the infrastructure? because it took a long time to get to this point and any 'fix' will take a long time to generate an impact. meanwhile, stuff keeps happening. is the world preparing for an altered climate? i don't hear that conversation happening.

it's the boy scout in me. be prepared.

Whether or not HW is right about anti-science nuttery being a minority position within the rank and file of the GOP, it seems difficult to dispute that of late the nutters have been wielding extraordinary power within the party. The percentage of GOP candidates who at least pretend not to believe in evolution or global warming in order to curry favor with the primary-voting base is very high. Further, as Joba (YR)'s quotes demonstrate, a great many elected Republicans are either true non-believers or very convincing actors. If there really is a silent majority within the GOP that disagrees with the wingnuts they've done a lousy job of pushing back against them.

Good article in the Independent on how voter suppression backfired on the GOP:

Analysts, voters and politicians said that a series of episodes here in Ohio — where exit polls showed black voters accounting for 15 percent of Tuesday's electorate, up from 11 percent in 2008 — were seen by African Americans as efforts to keep them from voting, stirring a profound backlash on Election Day.

"That was a strong motivator because we know we got here through blood, sweat and tears," said state Sen. Nina Turner, D-Cleveland.

She was among those who fought for the removal of dozens of billboards that appeared in largely black enclaves of Cleveland and Milwaukee declaring "Voter Fraud is a Felony!" and threatening jail time and hefty fines for violators.

Decisions to limit early voting to weekdays also stirred ire, as did a widely reported comment by Doug Preisse, chairman of the Republican Party in Franklin County, who said in an e-mail to the Columbus Dispatch, "I guess I really actually feel we shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine."

Your statement is accurate only if you discount your own posts on the subject, along with SBB's. Otherwise, dead on. But you can continue to insist that other people only interpret words and utterances as you allow them to-- that words and statements only mean the things you say they do. The problem is, they don't have to obey your interpretive guidelines. Individuals get to negotiate meanings in their own contexts, and bring their own experiences to the table in doing so. Telling these individuals they're not allowed to do that is just another technique for wielding power over them, and attempting to bully them into abiding by your vision of reality. And that "negotiation" part is where you really seem to stumble, since for you there is only ever one interpretive frame-- all the others must be wrong.

And now we have the polar opposite to the typical Devil post, utterly resolute in its opaque and faddish gibberish ...

Andy is perfectly free to carry on with stuff liberal white people do, which he knows. I bet he doesn't feel "bullied" in the least.

So what's your explanation for that video just sitting on the shelf for almost two months?

I don't know anything about the video in question (and not really excited about following the link, chasing down truth), but when in doubt ascribing something to incomptence or greed takes care of a huge percentage of why questions where something went wrong. If the video is a bombshell and would have gained huge ratings for CBS then they would have played it unless incompetence got in the way IMO.

5837

what has happened in that the efforts to cobble together a coaltion accomodations keep being made.

president bush winning accelerated that approach. he was a decent man but the folks around him set the groundwork for a lot of this nonsense.

that is why part of me is glad the party lost. forces some level of reckoning. y'all think it's about diversity. i think it's about absolutism. these binary bs needs to go away

Look, are we all going to pretend that up is down, day is night, and the GOP/TP doesn't trade in thinly veiled racism against Latinos?

There you go again, ascribing malice to a situation where there's little or none. Does the GOP have a few racist wingnuts? Sure. So does the left. On neither side do such people speak for the party or hold any real power. (I didn't see Sheriff Joe a single time in the past six months.)

The GOP, or at least the truly conservative portion of the GOP, wants to see the size and scope of government massively reduced. The vast majority of Latinos, meanwhile, want to see the size and scope of government substantially increased. We've seen this in the polls, and we've seen it in the home countries of the places from which most Latino immigrants emigrate. Thus, the GOP and most Latinos have fundamentally different visions of the role of government, and there's no easy or mutually satisfactory compromise. If one side wants less and the other side wants more, neither side will be happy with the status quo as a compromise.

The simple fact is, the United States was founded on the basis of limited government. We've obviously gone way beyond that, and conservatives want to reverse that trend. The GOP isn't anti-immigrant or anti-Latino; the GOP is simply anti-people-who-want-big-government. It's no different than a political party closing its primary, or Jim telling us we can't discuss politics in every single thread on his baseball site.

If 15 million people entered or remained in the U.S. illegally, and the Dems knew that 80 percent of them were all but guaranteed to vote for Republicans if they were amnestied and given citizenship, does anyone here claim that Dems would be making it a moral imperative to bestow voting rights on this group of people? It's ludicrous to even suggest it. But the Dems find themselves in the enviable position of having 10 or 15 million votes just a piece of legislation away, so they pander to Latinos by expanding the welfare state and they demagogue the issue of amnesty to solidify their support in that demographic. It doesn't have anything to do with racism or anti-racism or anything like that; it's just naked, bare-knuckles American politics, and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

If the video is a bombshell and would have gained huge ratings for CBS then they would have played it unless incompetence got in the way IMO.

And in any event, heaven forbid that a party have to win on the strength of it's ideas and candidate with the people rather than the latest in a looong line of silver bullets that never seem to work.

This, from yesterday, is #1 in my all-time (not very long) post-election tirades.

Late to the party, but...

Nobody answered my question about Germans and Japanese.

I live in Japan. I disagree.

that is why part of me is glad the party lost. forces some level of reckoning. y'all think it's about diversity. i think it's about absolutism. these binary bs needs to go away

Here's Mark Levin's response to Romney's loss:

We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We're not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We're not good losers, you better believe we're sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we're called 'purists.' Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We're purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

Harvey, I honestly wish you and yours would retake the reins of this on-going train wreck of a party. Hell, I *voted with you* prior to the second Clinton term. But it was clear by the late 90s that the GOP was eaten alive from the inside, that the Dixiecrat/Fundamentalist cells they had gobbled up via the Southern Strategy had metastasized and taken over the vital organs already. Hell, this "death spiral" started with the Clinton impeachment, IMHO.

There you go again, ascribing malice to a situation where there's little or none. Does the GOP have a few racist wingnuts? Sure. So does the left. On neither side do such people speak for the party or hold any real power. (I didn't see Sheriff Joe a single time in the past six months.)

Arpaio won reelection by 10 points.

Latinos got crushed in the recession, and 75 percent of Latinos tell pollsters they want a bigger government with more services (see #5563). With Romney spending 6 months talking about shrinking the government, it's not hard to figure out why Obama was the overwhelming choice of Latinos.

The "I'm going to make life so unenjoyable here that they'll want to pack up and move out of the country" stuff probably didn't help much, either.

There you go again. What makes you possibly think I haven't considered that?

Your posting history, your attitude, and your espoused worldview. You demonstrated the point prefectly on this page, when you dismissed what fdp as "faddish gibberish." It obviously doesn't occur to you that, abrasive though he can be, you might be able to learn from him as well.

Like I said to HW: if you want to work the sociodemographic/subjectivity angles, the best place to start looking is in the mirror.

There you go again, ascribing malice to a situation where there's little or none. Does the GOP have a few racist wingnuts? Sure. So does the left. On neither side do such people speak for the party or hold any real power. (I didn't see Sheriff Joe a single time in the past six months.)

Arpaio hauled in an absolute ton of money, and let's not forget Tom Tancredo... sure - both sides have "theirs"... but it's just blindly inaccurate to say t"on neither side"... We can discuss the proportional mix - but hey, I'm offered enough honest advise on the matter, so frankly - I encourage you to knock yourself out with the delusion... we'll have more elections in 2014, in 2016, etc - and seeing clear demographic trends, I hope that, electorally, most Republicans continue to think just like you.

The simple fact is, the United States was founded on the basis of limited government. We've obviously gone way beyond that, and conservatives want to reverse that trend. The GOP isn't anti-immigrant or anti-Latino; the GOP is simply anti-people-who-want-big-government. It's no different than a political party closing its primary, or Jim telling us we can't discuss politics in every single thread on his baseball site.

Yup - and guess what, the founders themselves went "way beyond that", too... I'm assuming you're aware that the "United States" was founded by the Articles of Confederation and that by any rational reading, the Constitution radically expand the size, scope and power of the government. When you compare the Articles and Constitution side-by-side, I don't even think you need to be versed in something like Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice to see that we really haven't moved the dial as much as the founders themselves did, in relative terms, within their own lifetimes.

If 15 million people entered or remained in the U.S. illegally, and the Dems knew that 80 percent of them were all but guaranteed to vote for Republicans if they were amnestied and given citizenship, does anyone here claim that Dems would be making it a moral imperative to bestow voting rights on this group of people? It's ludicrous to even suggest it. But the Dems find themselves in the enviable position of having 10 or 15 million votes just a piece of legislation away, so they pander to Latino citizens and demagogue the issue of amnesty to solidify their support in that demographic. It doesn't have anything to do with racism or anti-racism or anything like that; it's just naked, bare-knuckles American politics, and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

I don't know... how did it happen in 1983? Or - is illegal immigration a new thing?

Latinos got crushed in the recession,

And rationally decided that of the two choices, the best option for getting out from under that crush was the guy guiding the on-going recovery, not the guy promising to return the nation to the status quo ante from 2008 that led to the crash. (HINT: getting crushed by the recession doesn't mean they're stupid enough to fall for your attempt to blame the recession on Obama and the Dems.)

and 75 percent of Latinos tell pollsters they want a bigger government with more services

So they voted for the guy whose policy proposals matched their interests, and also happened to not be running as the candidate repping the party that alienates and hates on them with vigor? Weird.

I have never seen a more crystal clear example of why Republicans are failing with ethnic minorities. Here's what the GOP should do (because both blacks and Latinos are very conservative socially, and share a lot of "personal responsibility" rhetoric with conservatives): instead of telling minorities that racism is in their pretty little heads and that they'd know better if they just voted with Republicans, they should instead recognize that structural racism is a problem, and then explain how their policies will help solve the problem and give minorities a stronger voice and place in our national dialogue. They could then stop: associating places that have a lot of minorities with "not-real America"; conflating "American" with white (that's a huge one); talking to minorities as if we are too dumb to understand why Republicans are awesome (or suggest that Democrats have mind-control powers and thus we are too weak-willed to resist); talking to ethnic minorities as if we are a big hive mind (or, as every black person knows, like we all know each other); that the only reason we might want federal government involvement is because we are dependent leeches who love that sweet, sweet government money (and not because we have living experience with state and local govt oppression and corruption; whereas the Feds have a much better track record).

Could you provide a single example of Mitt Romney doing any of the above? (And before Andy jumps in with another screed about the evils of "self-deportation," please keep in mind that (1) "self-deportation" was Obama's policy for well over three years and remains his policy for non-Dreamers, and (2) there's nothing nativist or racist about it. This whole idea that illegal immigrants are an aggrieved party not only deserving of amnesty but entitled to amnesty is one of the most bizarre ideas in American politics. If some people crash your Super Bowl party and they're still at your house on Easter Sunday, they're not the aggrieved party.)

Arpaio hauled in an absolute ton of money, and let's not forget Tom Tancredo...

Arpaio is a local sheriff and Tancredo hasn't been in office in years.

we'll have more elections in 2014, in 2016, etc - and seeing clear demographic trends, I hope that, electorally, most Republicans continue to think just like you.

Yes, we will, and if Obama and the Dems thought immigration was a net winner, they would have moved legislation back in 2009 when they had complete control of the federal government. Absolutely nothing would be better for the GOP than for Obama and the Dems to try to jam an immigration bill through in the lame-duck or in 2013. We all saw what happened in 2007, and the good times were still rolling back then.

Could you provide a single example of Mitt Romney doing any of the above?

Ha... you mean, you missed the "47%" video?

Or - do I need to walk you through how communities that have heard 'welfare queens' or been told of 'leeches' to clog up emergency rooms or need to stop being 'victims' for better than a generation might strongly suspect that when Romney talked about having no hope of getting 47% of the vote because they're "victims" and "dependent" - he just might be referring to them especially.

Could you provide a single example of Mitt Romney doing any of the above?

Mitt Romney represents the party. He is therefore guilty of the party's sins. That's just the way these things work, Joe.

Joe, is it fair to say that you believe the main reason Latinos vote Democratic is because of government handouts to Latinos? (Since presumably more Democrats in power = more handouts).

Thus you think that all the other reasons people are bringing up are fringe issues that do not explain the central voting pattern?

NOTE: Sam, I tried a couple times and got bounces. "Sam dot H at Bell South dot net" did not work. Was I suppossed to spell out the last name? Was the dot between Sam and H? Am I being the biggest idiot ever?

Analysts, voters and politicians said that a series of episodes here in Ohio — where exit polls showed black voters accounting for 15 percent of Tuesday's electorate, up from 11 percent in 2008 — were seen by African Americans as efforts to keep them from voting, stirring a profound backlash on Election Day.

Gosh, if only these stupid Negroes had realized that this was all about preventing voter fraud.

The "I'm going to make life so unenjoyable here that they'll want to pack up and move out of the country" stuff probably didn't help much, either.

Nah, it's just that those illegal swimovers have a chip on their shoulders. Just ask Sheriff Joe.

Your posting history, your attitude, and your espoused worldview. You demonstrated the point prefectly on this page, when you dismissed what fdp as "faddish gibberish."

It is faddish gibberish. If he'd write better, I might pay closer attention.

The one piece of faddish gibberish that warrants addressing further is this: "Individuals get to negotiate meanings in their own contexts, and bring their own experiences to the table in doing so."

When I commented on Andy (and others) I brought "my own experiences to the table." I've had the experience of seeing plenty of white people condescend to and patronize black people. I brought that "to the table" and was accordingly able -- as were others -- to easily identify it.

Nor, of course, is he truly willing to let "individuals ... negotiate meanings in their own contexts." Only certain people get to do that, so long as they "negotiate" certain meanings.

In all seriousness, it seems that Joe's had conservative propaganda foisted upon him for decades. We in the northeast get our liberal propaganda as well, which is partly why there's such high-affect arguments between ideologues.

sam

change is a hard thing.

i wish my party members would remember president reagan's golden rule about not speaking ill of other republicans. it distresses me that folks are attacking the governor.

Blacks and Latinos got to the polls last Tuesday while a lot of Teapers lazily sat on their asses at home. That was a material factor in the result.

i am a strong proponent of immigration. it's the number one way to have a vibrant source of innovation. closing borders stifles creativity.

i find the work visa notion ridiculous. companies should be able to hire the best candidates, period.

you are welcome to shut yourself in but you cannot shut the world out.

it's a fool's errand

NOTE: Sam, I tried a couple times and got bounces. "Sam dot H at Bell South dot net" did not work. Was I suppossed to spell out the last name? Was the dot between Sam and H? Am I being the biggest idiot ever?

SamH. Not Sam.H. My bad! Last attempt got through successfully.

sam

i promise to not give your email address to any known 'nutters' in my party.

just your address

Mitt Romney represents the party. He is therefore guilty of the party's sins. That's just the way these things work, Joe.

The Dem leader in the Senate for decades was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, but that was OK. But Mitt Romney and the GOP apparently can't win elections because of a few wingnuts who hold no power within the party. Very convenient.

***

In all seriousness, it seems that Joe's had conservative propaganda foisted upon him for decades. We in the northeast get our liberal propaganda as well, which is partly why there's such high-affect arguments between ideologues.

Joe is from the Northeast, and Joe's parents are essentially non-political.

The biggest influence on my politics over the past 20 years has probably been Thomas Sowell. Maybe some of the lefties here can tell us about "tolerance" as it pertains to Sowell and the slurs regularly hurled at him by people on the left.

i understand the connections you are making and that's fine.

and if you want to dismiss me as ignorant stooge that's fine too. i have been branded as worse

I certainly never ascribed any such status to you. C'mon, you're talking to the Yankee Redneck!

but every party has their members with curious beliefs.

Granted, but there are "curious beliefs" and then there are "vehemently ignorant anti-scientific beliefs which imperil the future of our nation, flaunted proudly for the edification of simpletons." If you "conservatives" really want to give China a nice boost in the coming decades just keep pushing for more Bible-based education.

i am not the googlemeister like you and matt so you win that battle hands down.

Googlemastery aside, all you really need to do is pay attention. I'm a scientist, so of course I have more of an interest in this that your average Brewers fan, but surely the general anti-science bent of the Republican party as currently constituted can't have escaped your notice, even if the specific names and quotes have.

but i am not aware of any gop effort to thwart, stop, or end scienctific efforts.

Now you may have noticed I listed several Republicans on the House committee on science. What does this committee do?

"The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over all energy research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories; astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities; civil aviation research and development; environmental research and development; marine research; commercial application of energy technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; National Weather Service; outer space, including exploration and control thereof; science scholarships; scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor."

Now are any of these areas of oversight ones where having virulently anti-science (or, if you want to be exceedingly generous, just damn ignorant) members might pose a risk to applying the best solutions after serious consideration of the best data? For example, does the bible contain any valuable insight into atmospheric chemistry? If not, why would anyone reference it as an authoritative source, assuming they didn't just simply hate science?

if you are going to toss out climate change i know there are many climate skeptics in the party and out

I doubt you know any "climate skeptics". You probably know many climate denialists. Sadly, you won't find any resolution to denialism in the bible or in far-flung conspiracies where scientists are given $5000 (from unknown but presumably nefarious sources) for signing a position paper. But these are the people the Republican party have charged with making such assessments.

personally i am open minded on the topic knowing first that the earth has been around a long, long time and our time on it is very brief but also that humans are a new addition (in earth time) so it's very reasonable to think that humans have impacted the world around them. but to make the direct link from one to the other i don't know. i get that the global temp has increased. is that 'us'?

That sounds like a question for scientists involved in serious science. I'm not sure if that's the sort of question best addressed by people who think "evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell". I'm sure our enemies would be delighted if we adopted such opinions as policy.

There's really no way around it - hating science is hating America. We didn't beat the Russians to the moon because we outprayed them.

(And before Andy jumps in with another screed about the evils of "self-deportation," please keep in mind that (1) "self-deportation" was Obama's policy for well over three years and remains his policy for non-Dreamers, and (2) there's nothing nativist or racist about it. This whole idea that illegal immigrants are an aggrieved party not only deserving of amnesty but entitled to amnesty is one of the most bizarre ideas in American politics. If some people crash your Super Bowl party and they're still at your house on Easter Sunday, they're not the aggrieved party.)

Except that assumes that one can clearly make life miserable for the those in the US illegally and those people that look like them on the surface but who are here legally. Self-deportation measures are likely to bother many who were born in this country. Is it unreasonable for a 20 year old hispanic male born in the US for example to think that he is going be inconvenienced during this effort? If so, why?

i am a strong proponent of immigration. it's the number one way to have a vibrant source of innovation. closing borders stifles creativity.

Yes. There is plenty of room in America. America is not a "pure bred" we are a mongrel. Woof.

SBB: Nearly 80% turn out in MN. Does my heart good.

Arpaio is a local sheriff and Tancredo hasn't been in office in years.

Tancredo has been out of office for 3 years - but he's also managed to stay in the news by running for governor - and frankly, I don't know of any Republican that has made any effort to denounce or otherwise put daylight between themselves and Tancredo publicly, but whatever... we can look at -

current US Senators David Vitter and Tom Coburn both ran reelection ads in their last elections that were Willie Horton-esque variations of brown looking hands grabbing cash for 'services'... You can find no shortage of Republicans that have sought or have publicly praised groups like the 'Minutemen'... We can look at things like the brouhaha over the 'wise Latina' comment from Sotomayer...

But hey, I'll say it again -- if you think the GOP's (growing and growing more significant) problem with Latinos is so simple, well -- I heartily encourage you to continue to think that and by all means, help reinforce the idea within the GOP.

The Dem leader in the Senate for decades was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, but that was OK.

Which decades, in particular, were those, Joe?

This, from yesterday, is #1 in my all-time (not very long) post-election tirades.

This guy needs to hook up with Elaine Benes, so they could be the King and Queen of Confrontation. And in the spirit of this "Libertarian Republican" (which is what he calls himself), anyone who doesn't like quotes can just #### off:

....Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Democrat friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Democrats from your Facebook account.

Boycott Business who accept Welfare payments

Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Obama and Democrats in public places. To some extent I already do this. Example:

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other libertarians and conservatives will eventually join me.
What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "EBT is for Welfare Moochers." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every convenience store or grocery store that has a sign out saying "EBT Accepted Here." I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "EBT is for Welfare Moochers," sign, and waving to passers-by.

If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.
Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Democrats are Communist Pigs," or "Welfare moochers steal from hard-working Americans," "Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws" or "No Smoking Ban: Nanny-Staters go #### Yourselves."

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the communists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Jim informed and he can report on my activities here at LR.

current US Senators David Vitter and Tom Coburn both ran reelection ads in their last elections that were Willie Horton-esque variations of brown looking hands grabbing cash for 'services'... You can find no shortage of Republicans that have sought or have publicly praised groups like the 'Minutemen'... We can look at things like the brouhaha over the 'wise Latina' comment from Sotomayer...

This was a bigger deal than I think a lot of people recognized at the time. Spanish-language media covered the Sotomayor nomination very closely, and all the "affirmative action!" crap made a big impression. There's some good polling from Latino Decisions on the effect of racist anti-Sotomayor rhetoric on Latino voters (not just Puerto Rican voters, though especially among Puerto Ricans).

The Dem leader in the Senate for decades was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, but that was OK. But Mitt Romney and the GOP apparently can't win elections because of a few wingnuts who hold no power within the party. Very convenient.

Byrd was in the Senate for decades, but unless I'm forgetting a lot of Senate history - he was only Senate majority leader for 2 (I believe he did another 4-6 as minority leader).... Even then, he was no more and no less a 'party leader' than Strom Thurmond... and luck of luck, they're both dead - so I'd propose we call that one a wash.

the % of party members who support teaching "intelligent design" in science classes; the % of party members who openly deny climatology.

I don't think these things are exactly the same. One is outright rejection of science because it contrasts with religious beliefs. One is questioning science because it conflicts with economic beliefs. And evolution is on much firmer scientific ground than climatology (which doesn't make denies right or even useful).

Most people in the world have some religious beliefs about creation myths etc. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that ALL THE FOLKS the think that their religion has the right - nay - DUTY to overrule "Secular Reality" (not to mention other religious beliefs) have aligned themselves with the Republican party.

Really, I don't care if you believe how the world was created in 6 days or 80, or whether or not humans are the sole exception to biological evolution or whether the moon is really made of green cheese. What matters is how one "forces" their religious beliefs on others by attempting to modify teaching curricula etc, or deny EASY access to birth control (not to mention abortion).

It's whether or not you reject the separation of church and state - and while many, many republicans are on the right side of this - the vast majority of those who reject this and are politically active, are active via the GOP.

Now to be fair - there are plenty of liberal behaviors that mimic this (from a non "religious" standpoint) and are also loathsome (lets say... political correctness or general nanny-state ism).

So they voted for the guy whose policy proposals matched their interests, and also happened to not be running as the candidate repping the party that alienates and hates on them with vigor? Weird.

You know Latinos are supposed to be very devout. Perhaps running an actual Bishop from a secretive cult that posthumously baptizes non-members without their family's consent gave them pause. Not that the librulmedia would harp on such things as a white man's religion, but people are known to talk.

Am I being the biggest idiot ever?

That can be your new handle!

And for Joe: "There you go again."

And for Robinred: "Like I said to ____". Or: "He is a pol."

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other libertarians and conservatives will eventually join me.
What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "EBT is for Welfare Moochers." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every convenience store or grocery store that has a sign out saying "EBT Accepted Here." I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "EBT is for Welfare Moochers," sign, and waving to passers-by.

this is incredible stuff

To be fair I want to present a measured opinion from a liberal telling us we should all calm down a bit.

Summary: It was a close election, was not a watershed. Not the beginning of a new Democratic era, and not the end of Freedom and Liberty.

Tactically I agree, strategically long term I am not sure (except for the part about the rise of the machines).

If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.

You simp, there's about zero chance of you engaging in any of those actions because you're a sackless blowhard secure in the knowledge that you'd quickly find yourself in the kind of confrontation that would force you to cry for the minions of big government to save you.

The biggest influence on my politics over the past 20 years has probably been Thomas Sowell. Maybe some of the lefties here can tell us about "tolerance" as it pertains to Sowell and the slurs regularly hurled at him by people on the left.

Thomas Sowell is like Michael Barone: Great when he reports data, not so great when he goes into his rants. His first book is a classic that's well worth reading and re-reading every few years, and his many empirical studies on race and ethnicity are all very good as well. He's kind of like a Noam Chomsky of the right, in that you have to separate his knowledge from his opinions. His main problem is that like a lot of people, he's not that great of a listener, and he never seems to grant anyone the slightest bit of a point if it's not in lockstep with his own opinion.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Family values!!

That can be your new handle!

I remain sad no one would bet handle swaps with me. Oh well.

this is incredible stuff

It's also Exhibit A for why I sometimes like to copy stuff instead of just leaving everything buried in the link. Though what I quoted was only the concluding paragraphs.

Family values!!

Hey don't discourage him. As a single liberal guy I want all those folks divorcing Liberal/Democratic women. More for me to choose from.

To be fair I want to present a measured opinion from a liberal telling us we should all calm down a bit.

Summary: It was a close election, was not a watershed. Not the beginning of a new Democratic era, and not the end of Freedom and Liberty.

Tactically I agree, strategically long term I am not sure (except for the part about the rise of the machines).

Heh... I like Kevin Drum, I really do - but he's a professional lefty killjoy ;-)

I don't disagree with him, though - we've got some tough issues coming up and I can guarantee that there are going to be deals made that will lead to liberal teeth-gnashing (I expect to be doing some gnashing of my own)... but this is the week for mirth and merry!

this is incredible stuff

There are military families on food stamps. So he must hate our troops.

Byrd was in the Senate for decades, but unless I'm forgetting a lot of Senate history - he was only Senate majority leader for 2 (I believe he did another 4-6 as minority leader)....

Byrd spent a solid decade as the Dems' leader, and another two decades among the Dems' top 2-3 Senate leaders.

If the theory is that Romney can't win because of Arpaio, then it's kind of a strange theory, since the vast majority of blacks seemingly had no problem voting for Dems while the Dems had a former Klansman atop their hierarchy for 30 years.

But hey, I'll say it again -- if you think the GOP's (growing and growing more significant) problem with Latinos is so simple, well -- I heartily encourage you to continue to think that and by all means, help reinforce the idea within the GOP.

We're going in circles here. The GOP's problem with Latinos is that Latinos want more government and the GOP wants less. Latinos also generally support amnesty, which, as Republicans learned in the '80s, is a net loser for the GOP politically. What's the alleged upside here? Instead of getting 20 percent of 10 million Latino votes, the GOP might get 30 percent of 20 Latino votes after amnesty? The GOP doesn't need any stats wizards to tell us that math doesn't work.

Video of Mitt Romney not offending Latinos and Sheriff Arpaio having no effect on the Republican Party.

If the theory is that Romney can't win because of Arpaio, then it's kind of strange to suggest the Klansman atop the Dem hierarchy for 30 years was no problem.

He wasn't an active Klansman, he apologized for his actions, and he took concrete steps over many decades to rebuild his image in the African-American community. Which is what Republicans need to do to win votes.

and if you want to dismiss me as ignorant stooge that's fine too. i have been branded as worse

I eagerly look forward to your newly modified Harveys Wallbangers, ignorant stooge handle.

Summary: It was a close election, was not a watershed. Not the beginning of a new Democratic era, and not the end of Freedom and Liberty.

Tactically I agree, strategically long term I am not sure (except for the part about the rise of the machines).

I do think the biggest danger to Democrats is thinking that this was a huge win. They need to start working now with the 2014 election in mind, particularly in recruiting candidates for the house races. They are giving up way to many seats by running lackluster candidates. They did a good job with in the Senate in 2012, but they do have some tough races for 2014, so they need to keep their eye on that.

The best thing for Republicans if for the Democrats to think this election tells the future.

We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country.

Are conservatives time lords?

I don't think these things are exactly the same. One is outright rejection of science because it contrasts with religious beliefs. One is questioning science because it conflicts with economic beliefs.

I think there is some overlap, though -- at least some of the hard-core religious right question the scientific consensus on climate change because they believe in direct and active supernatural intervention by god, or don't care about it because they expect to be raptured up to heaven momentarily.

Byrd was in the Senate for decades, but unless I'm forgetting a lot of Senate history - he was only Senate majority leader for 2 (I believe he did another 4-6 as minority leader).... Even then, he was no more and no less a 'party leader' than Strom Thurmond... and luck of luck, they're both dead - so I'd propose we call that one a wash.

By the time Byrd was Senate Majority Leader, he'd long since repudiated his past racial views. When he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights bill, the leadership of his party repudiated him. When Thurmond bolted the Democrats over that same Civil Rights bill, the Republicans welcomed him with open arms and pointedly let him maintain his accumulated seniority. Byrd was a dirtball in many ways, but when it comes to nasty racial demagoguery, no prominent national politician in the past 60 years other than Jesse Helms has quite the deserved reputation of Strom Thurmond.

EDIT: half a coke to JDL

If the theory is that Romney can't win because of Arpaio, then it's kind of strange to suggest the Klansman atop the Dem hierarchy for 30 years was no problem.

From Byrd's Wikipedia page:

In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[10]

He'd quit it by 1950. You can keep hammering a guy for something he did and then apologized for and disavowed, but it's not very worthwhile.

Arpaio won reelection by 10 points.

I went to grad school in Maricopa County. It's one of the relatively few places I can think of that makes Montgomery look like a socialist paradise in comparison.

The GOP's problem with Latinos is that Latinos want more government and the GOP wants less.

I don't know what Latinos want, but Liberals want a better society, which requires (IMO) efficient and effective government.

More government in the form of random regulations, bigger defense, more TSA, more immigration authority - not so much. More government for more food and safety inspectors, IRS auditors, police, fire, and teachers - then yes up to a point. More government meaning a better safety net, more income redistribution, fostering basic research and making education affordable - again, yes up to a point.

This, from yesterday, is #1 in my all-time (not very long) post-election tirades.

Andy, you failed to quote some of his comments, which were a hoot:

Eric Dondero said...
I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It's only the ###### up brother in Delaware, piece of ####, scumbag mother ###### who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won't tell me, but I'm almost certain voted for Obama.

They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.

Harsh, but a reality.

So... was this not reasonable? Should he not have done that?

(Seriously: Note from above that his own sister was too afraid of him to tell him who she voted for.)

Two great items from Drum's post that I'll highlight from BM's 5878...

Also: No matter how much you hate to hear it, long-term deficit reduction and entitlement reform really are pretty important. Just because conservatives abuse the point doesn't mean there isn't something to it.

I'm all on board with this - I've been trading e-mails with a particularly dispirited and angry, but generally rational and not prone to oversimplification talking points... He's not one of the types that uses 'entitlement reform' as a trojan to get rid of entitlements (he ideologically opposes them, but he's willing to accept their inevitably and will give a fair hearing to ideas that deal with entitlements without eliminating or voucherizing them)... I have a rather lengthy response with a couple of Medicare ideas I was thinking about posting in this thread.

The other -

Oh, and smart people on both sides of the aisle should start thinking seriously about how to handle a future in which smart machines do more and more work and humans do less and less. I'm dead serious about this.

Is a good point that I'd be interested in hearing conservative views about, especially in light of 'limited government' and 'takers/makers'...

On one hand, this debate dates back more than a century -- you can find thinkers that were wondering what would happen to farm laborers, factory workers, etc -- when new machines would lead us to fewer jobs, etc.

We always seem to have found more 'work' for human beings - even if increasingly, much of it is just 'busy work - but what does happen when the day is upon us that a really big chunk of work today is handled by machines? Even, the building of machines to DO that work comes by machines?

We'll always have innovators, inventors, etc - and they'll always need some level of other humans to support those endeavors... but in that sci-fi future where there literally isn't gainful employment to be had for more than half the population, what do we do about the other half? Let them starve? Kill 'em off? Or - in such a world, would we then accept something like certain government-provided guarantees regarding income (or - in a star trek world without money, let's say shelter, food, health care and other necessities). Further, would we then be OK with massive public funding of the arts, etc? I mean - if we have fewer and fewer such jobs for people - it makes sense to me that we might as well create programs for art, music, literature, etc to have something to do in our spare time besides sweep floors, dig ditches, or fill out reports.

By the way, a single vote which mattered. Of course post recount who knows.

Tangential to a few of the issues discussed today is this view from inside the Romney campaign.

Romney supporters point to a series of brash statements made by advisers that seem out of touch with reality in retrospect. Inside the Beltway, Republicans trained their fire on senior Romney advisers like Ed Gillespie and political director Rich Beeson for appearances on last weekend’s Sunday shows. Gillespie said the electoral map was expanding, and Beeson predicted a 300 electoral vote win for Romney.
“There were a lot of Republicans who were on calls that the campaign was having led to believe we had shots in Pennsylvania and Minnesota,” one Republican operative supporting Romney said. “I think Republicans are split right now between confused and shocked, and also I think they are wondering did the Romney campaign have numbers we didn’t have.”
In starker terms, the source questioned: “Was last week a head fake, or were they just not that smart?”
Multiple Romney sources buzzed about one number in particular: 15 percent. According to exit polls, that’s the share of African-Americans who voted in Ohio this year. In 2008, the black percentage of the electorate was 11 percent. In Virginia and Florida, exit polls showed the same share of African-Americans turned out as four years ago, something that GOP turnout models did not anticipate.
“We didn’t think they’d turn out more of their base vote than they did in 2008, but they smoked us,” said one Romney operative. “It’s unbelievable that that they turned out more from the African-American community than in 2008. Somehow they got ‘em to vote.”

How could this have surprised them? Either their own internal polling was either so flawed that it wasn't giving useful data, or they simply refused to believe (famously, like some here) in the party ID results they were getting. I mean if Pretty Pathetic Polling as Joe calls them was able to accurately gauge the electorate, why wasn't Team GOP able to at least privately know what was happening?