Republican senate approves gay marriage bill...
..maybe there's hope for some of the righties after all!
Friday, June 24, 2011
Good comeback!
.......................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/23/1697353/we-need-dick-pusts-voice-as-next.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1QEXqcZDT
UPDATE:
Look at what I just happened to see before it disappeared! A moderator must have been reading at the time..... or maybe "radec" gets automatically deleted now?
UPDATE 2:
Hmmmmph, it's back-- X2.
.......................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/23/1697353/we-need-dick-pusts-voice-as-next.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1QEXqcZDT
UPDATE:
Look at what I just happened to see before it disappeared! A moderator must have been reading at the time..... or maybe "radec" gets automatically deleted now?
UPDATE 2:
Hmmmmph, it's back-- X2.
.......................................
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Top Enlisted Marine on ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/21/straight-talk-from-top-enlisted-marine-on-dont-ask-repeal/
“You all joined for a reason: to serve,” he continued. “To protect our nation, right?”
“Yes, sergeant major,” Marines replied.
“How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?” Sgt. Maj. Barrett continued, raising his voice just a notch. “Right?”
“You all joined for a reason: to serve,” he continued. “To protect our nation, right?”
“Yes, sergeant major,” Marines replied.
“How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?” Sgt. Maj. Barrett continued, raising his voice just a notch. “Right?”
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Another complaint (unfounded this time!!) about The Zero's moderation
..............................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/21/1696009/olympia-council-turns-down-trillium.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Q4w3RhMQ
..............................................
So..... where is Gina's apology? [snort]
..............................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/21/1696009/olympia-council-turns-down-trillium.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Q4w3RhMQ
..............................................
So..... where is Gina's apology? [snort]
..............................................
And the lefty's would have been screaming from the mountain tops about how the Republicans are o.k. with criminals having guns. Notice how silent they have been on this. Sweep it under the rug, move along there's nothing to see here!
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/22/1695916/atf-stands-on-sidelines-while.html#ixzz1Q1wn9uyv
The ATF is not a political party. It isn't - and will not be - the first government department to "go rogue" in an attempt to accomplish its mission. Take a short look at the history of the American military and some of their debacles in Vietnam and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh...and by the way....who was minding the store when the DC Sniper got ahold of guns????????? Should we blame a party?
You kiss your mother with that mouth?
More descrete charm from a Winger.
animalmuther
Racist and homophobic. His mother must be so proud.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
As a matter of fact, fucknuts
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1PyTHHAfy
Pageviews during the past 30 days:
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
Tammy McGee
Dear Tammy,
There is an evil bigot on your comments section. Theeaglehaslanded has spent a week writing things that if they had been directed towards women or non-Caucasians would have been outside the realm of civilized conversation. You owe it to your integrity, your employer, and the rest of our community to cut off this unhinged homophobe.
There is an evil bigot on your comments section. Theeaglehaslanded has spent a week writing things that if they had been directed towards women or non-Caucasians would have been outside the realm of civilized conversation. You owe it to your integrity, your employer, and the rest of our community to cut off this unhinged homophobe.
Monday, June 20, 2011
SCOTUS bought off? You gotta wonder!
...........................................
UPDATES about Clarence Thomas' ethics below!
..........................................
Class Dismissed The Supreme Court decides that the women of Wal-Mart can't have their day in court.
Today the Supreme Court decided what may well be the most consequential case of the current term, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a sweeping class action suit filed almost 10 years ago that has yet to be litigated on its merits. Filed on behalf of the more than 1.5 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 1998, the suit alleges that the company favored men over women in decisions about pay and promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Today, the Supreme Court told them all to go home.
Writing for the court's five conservatives—and all but one of its men—Justice Antonin Scalia found that the women seeking to be certified as a single class did not have enough in common to go forward with the lawsuit en masse. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, seems to have figured out that the key to low-cost discrimination lies in discriminating on a massive scale. In Scalia's words, all these disparate women with their multiple claims about "millions of employment decisions" lacked sufficient "glue" to be permitted to move forward together.
A lot of critics are saying that this decision has created a new rule: Some companies are simply too big to sue. But that's only half the story. The other half is that in the court's eyes, sex discrimination is simply too pervasive to be a problem.
[snipped]
This isn't the first time this term that the court has narrowed the scope of class action litigation. And it isn't the first time the justices have ignored the evidence—and, worse yet, passed judgment on facts not yet in evidence—in an ongoing effort to prove that the only discrimination that can ever be remedied is the kind that comes right at you with a big blue sign and a greeter.
..........................................
UPDATES:
To the Supreme Court money is justice
[snipped]
In fact they [the justices] have voted 5-4 in favor of big corporations every single time a law suit against a corporation reaches the Supreme Court. It certainly does more than defy the law of probability that every single time someone files a suit against a corporation Justice Antonin Scalia can invent some judicial principle that makes the suit groundless. ...
[snipped]
... Scalia, Alito and most of all Clarence Thomas appear more like partisan hacks than justices for the highest court in America. All three have attended Republican fund raisers and have helped raise money for Republican and Right Wing causes according to Think Progress.
[snipped]
Probably the largest conflict of interest is yet to come however and if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself I think it would be time to start demanding his impeachment. His wife has recieved lots of money to lobby against Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. This bill has been pushed from many directions by Conservatives so they can get it before the Supreme court for another 5-4 decision making it Unconstitutional. Thomas refusal to recuse himself already tells you the fix is in.
[snipped]
..........................................
Justice for sale or rent
Justice Clarence Thomas received a gift worth $15,000 from the American Enterprise Institute. He voted in their favor in three U.S. Supreme Court cases. Given his rigid right-wing orthodoxy, it's fair to argue that Thomas didn't need to be purchased. He still shouldn't be taking expensive gifts from people who make arguments before him.
[snipped]
..........................................
UPDATES about Clarence Thomas' ethics below!
..........................................
Class Dismissed The Supreme Court decides that the women of Wal-Mart can't have their day in court.
Today the Supreme Court decided what may well be the most consequential case of the current term, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a sweeping class action suit filed almost 10 years ago that has yet to be litigated on its merits. Filed on behalf of the more than 1.5 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 1998, the suit alleges that the company favored men over women in decisions about pay and promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Today, the Supreme Court told them all to go home.
Writing for the court's five conservatives—and all but one of its men—Justice Antonin Scalia found that the women seeking to be certified as a single class did not have enough in common to go forward with the lawsuit en masse. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, seems to have figured out that the key to low-cost discrimination lies in discriminating on a massive scale. In Scalia's words, all these disparate women with their multiple claims about "millions of employment decisions" lacked sufficient "glue" to be permitted to move forward together.
A lot of critics are saying that this decision has created a new rule: Some companies are simply too big to sue. But that's only half the story. The other half is that in the court's eyes, sex discrimination is simply too pervasive to be a problem.
[snipped]
This isn't the first time this term that the court has narrowed the scope of class action litigation. And it isn't the first time the justices have ignored the evidence—and, worse yet, passed judgment on facts not yet in evidence—in an ongoing effort to prove that the only discrimination that can ever be remedied is the kind that comes right at you with a big blue sign and a greeter.
..........................................
UPDATES:
To the Supreme Court money is justice
[snipped]
In fact they [the justices] have voted 5-4 in favor of big corporations every single time a law suit against a corporation reaches the Supreme Court. It certainly does more than defy the law of probability that every single time someone files a suit against a corporation Justice Antonin Scalia can invent some judicial principle that makes the suit groundless. ...
[snipped]
... Scalia, Alito and most of all Clarence Thomas appear more like partisan hacks than justices for the highest court in America. All three have attended Republican fund raisers and have helped raise money for Republican and Right Wing causes according to Think Progress.
[snipped]
Probably the largest conflict of interest is yet to come however and if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself I think it would be time to start demanding his impeachment. His wife has recieved lots of money to lobby against Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. This bill has been pushed from many directions by Conservatives so they can get it before the Supreme court for another 5-4 decision making it Unconstitutional. Thomas refusal to recuse himself already tells you the fix is in.
[snipped]
..........................................
Justice for sale or rent
Justice Clarence Thomas received a gift worth $15,000 from the American Enterprise Institute. He voted in their favor in three U.S. Supreme Court cases. Given his rigid right-wing orthodoxy, it's fair to argue that Thomas didn't need to be purchased. He still shouldn't be taking expensive gifts from people who make arguments before him.
[snipped]
..........................................
Luck of the draw....
I rarely visit The Olympian website - unless something in ThurstonBlog prompts me, as was this case. I just missed our resident lurker....
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PpnDSCIb
Sorry to say I'm not Sage, radec....but.....FUCK YOU. If our content bothers you, stay the FUCK off our website several times a day, you pervert.
One of these days The Olympian will truly have the balls to eliminate you for good. I can't wait for the screaming of "freedom of speech"
It's not you I hate....it's your hypocrisy. Now how's that for a both sides of the mouth Christian statement?
Oh....and......
![]()
radec
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PpnDSCIb
Sorry to say I'm not Sage, radec....but.....FUCK YOU. If our content bothers you, stay the FUCK off our website several times a day, you pervert.
One of these days The Olympian will truly have the balls to eliminate you for good. I can't wait for the screaming of "freedom of speech"
It's not you I hate....it's your hypocrisy. Now how's that for a both sides of the mouth Christian statement?
Oh....and......
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Don't try to impose your beliefs on others
.................................
Excellent summation in response to LTE decrying the "gay lifestyle"....
The usual batch of homophobes have spewed their usual swill in the comments!
.................................
sane012672
Here's the thing you get to believe what you want and not impose your beliefs on everyone else. That goes both ways. You have a choice not to support things but you also don't have a right to impose your belief system on the rest of us. If someone is gay then I don't have the right to tell them how to live and they don't have the right to tell me how to live. When either imposes on the other's freedoms then that's a problem....trying to repress people who are gay and claiming that because they offend you can impose your morality on them and anyone associated with them is utter garbage. The problem with your view of them being "sad" is why do you even care? What affect do lifestyle choices have on you so that you care so much about it?
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PkkHrMVQ
.................................
Excellent summation in response to LTE decrying the "gay lifestyle"....
The usual batch of homophobes have spewed their usual swill in the comments!
.................................
sane012672
Here's the thing you get to believe what you want and not impose your beliefs on everyone else. That goes both ways. You have a choice not to support things but you also don't have a right to impose your belief system on the rest of us. If someone is gay then I don't have the right to tell them how to live and they don't have the right to tell me how to live. When either imposes on the other's freedoms then that's a problem....trying to repress people who are gay and claiming that because they offend you can impose your morality on them and anyone associated with them is utter garbage. The problem with your view of them being "sad" is why do you even care? What affect do lifestyle choices have on you so that you care so much about it?
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PkkHrMVQ
.................................
Moran is as Moran does.......
radec
It seems the regulars at the hate blog are stalking the Olympian comment thread on a daily basis!
How does a person "stalk" a commercial website that encourages readership??????
![]()
It seems the regulars at the hate blog are stalking the Olympian comment thread on a daily basis!
How does a person "stalk" a commercial website that encourages readership??????
GOP is becoming a minority ethnic party
.......................................
The Party of Lincoln Needs To Look In The Mirror
Earlier this year, a tape of NPR’s head fundraiser, Ron Schiller, making remarks critical of the GOP and the Tea Party surfaced. In the tape, Schiller referred to the Republican Party as “anti-intellectual” and described the Tea Party as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” and “xenophobic.” He went on to opine that “Jews” control America’s major newspapers.
Schiller’s bizarre and conspiratorial anti-Semitic remarks are disturbing and offensive. His remarks about the GOP and the Tea Party, though, warrant further analysis for a simple reason: they are perceptions widely shared in our society.
Conservatives reacted to Schiller’s comments with anger. In their eyes, it was just one more example of a liberal establishment standing ever ready to portray Republicans and conservatives as ignorant racists and bigots.
That reaction was a mistake. In truth, Schiller created an opportunity for discussion and critical self-analysis about racism within the Republican Party. This was an opportunity, not for anger, but for self-examination.
Simply put, it’s time for the Party of Lincoln to take a good look in the mirror.
Although conservatives were quick to dismiss Schiller’s remarks, there is ample evidence available that would lead reasonable people to such conclusions. One can point to examples such as Sharron Angle’s 2010 anti-immigrant campaign television ads, Renee Ellmer’s overtly Islamophobic “Ground Zero” ad, Sen. Rand Paul’s remarks about the alleged unconstitutionality of portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the career and associations of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (the man who sponsored Arizona’s infamous SB 1070), and Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck’s recent suggestion that illegal immigrants should be hunted down and shot like feral swine. Indeed, just last week, a Republican State Representative in Massachusetts, Ryan Fattman, stated that unauthorized immigrant rape victims “should be afraid to come forward” and report the crimes to authorities.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
According to a February, 2012 survey by Public Policy Polling (“PPP”) done prior to the release of President Obama’s birth certificate, 51% of likely Republican primary voters believed President Obama was born in a foreign country. Some 21% were “not sure.” The accuracy of this polling data was illustrated by the meteoric rise of Donald Trump as a potential Presidential candidate after he publicly embraced and began promoting the birther canards. Other data suggests that a significant percentage believe the President is secretly a Muslim. Even more troubling, a separate April, 2011 PPP poll found that 46% of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be a crime while a substantial group, 12%, indicated that they are “not sure.”
Nor is the depth, breadth, and intensity of Tea Party rage explicable without reference to the presence of an African American, with a foreign sounding name, in the White House.
And then there are the e-mails. Nationally, Republican staffers and local party officials have made headlines forwarding racist e-mails about the President to friends and colleagues. And lest we forget, there is also the case of Audra Shay, who was elected Chair of the national Young Republicans despite the fact that she had replied “You tell em Eric! Lol,” to a friend’s Facebook comment that said: “Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”
Most recently, the reaction within Republican circles to an offensive cartoon distributed by a local GOP officer and Tea Party activist, Marilyn Davenport, led a prominent African American leader active in the California GOP to leave the party. The cartoon at issue “depicted President Barack Obama and his parents as chimpanzees, while simultaneously implying that the president is not a legitimate American, but rather an African-born interloper.” Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Ken Barnes (the leader who left the GOP) notes that “[h]ad this been an isolated event, it could be set aside as a mere aberration. However, when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea party-conservative Republicans, there emerges a disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.” That “pattern of extreme intolerance” includes the “use [of] long-held racist imagery in portrayals of Obama” such as in depictions of him “as a communist witch doctor, a man inclined to plant watermelons on the White House lawn, and… on an ‘Obama Bucks Food Stamp’ along with stereotyped pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs, Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.” For Barnes, the chimpanzee cartoon was the final straw.
The practical electoral implications of this mindless fear and hate were brought home to me on a trip to Washington, D.C. with representatives of Esperanza, a national faith-based Hispanic organization. One pastor spoke of a young man in his congregation – a young, conservative, Christian man – who was deeply torn over his choices in the 2008 Presidential election. In the end, he voted for Obama because, as he said, “I can’t be in a Party that hates me.” I don’t blame him.
How did the Party of Lincoln come to such a pass? I think the answer is simple. For far too long, we have refused to confront, and condemn, the vestiges of political racism that have, over the course of the past 30-40 years, found a new political home within the Republican Party. I’m speaking here, primarily, of the movement of the segregationist Dixiecrats (and kindred ideological spirits) out of the Democratic Party, and into the GOP- a movement personified, in some ways, by the late Senator Strom Thurmond. This alliance has poisoned the very soul of American conservatism by tying it to belief systems that are reprehensible, and indefensible. It has permitted a dangerous pathology to survive, and today, at a moment of great social stress, despair, and anxiety about the future, to move back towards the political mainstream. It was, and remains, a fundamental betrayal of the founding ideals of the Republican Party.
And, as a consequence, in a United States growing increasingly diverse, the GOP is devolving into an ethnic/regional party. Worse, it will be a minority ethnic party incapable of winning national elections. Remember, today Caucasians, the group from which the GOP draws the vast majority of its support, make up less than half – 49.3% – of children under 3 years of age. According to U.S. census projections, by 2019, Caucasians will make up less than half of Americans aged 18 and under.
As Harold Meyerson has observed, “[w]hat these numbers mean is simply that the Republicans have an existential problem. As America becomes increasingly multiracial, the Republicans have elected to become increasingly white.”
A more diverse, majority-minority America is inevitable – the GOP, and conservatives in general, need to adjust and adapt to this reality if they want to remain relevant over the long-term. A future GOP that serves as a bastion for angry, resentful and embittered, “white minority politics,” would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation and for the health of our democracy.
Truth and decency need referents in the world, especially during difficult times. Today, it is essential that Republicans of good will confront the racists and the xenophobic elements in our midst. As Ken Barnes has correctly observed, “[t]hese are not issues which pit moderate against conservative views, but rather consequential matters which transcend political positioning and speak to universal human values.” In doing so, we are keeping faith with the best traditions of our Party, and preserving an alternate, more welcoming and inclusive vision of political conservatism in America- one in which Conservative is not synonymous with Confederate.
.......................................
The Party of Lincoln Needs To Look In The Mirror
Earlier this year, a tape of NPR’s head fundraiser, Ron Schiller, making remarks critical of the GOP and the Tea Party surfaced. In the tape, Schiller referred to the Republican Party as “anti-intellectual” and described the Tea Party as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” and “xenophobic.” He went on to opine that “Jews” control America’s major newspapers.
Schiller’s bizarre and conspiratorial anti-Semitic remarks are disturbing and offensive. His remarks about the GOP and the Tea Party, though, warrant further analysis for a simple reason: they are perceptions widely shared in our society.
Conservatives reacted to Schiller’s comments with anger. In their eyes, it was just one more example of a liberal establishment standing ever ready to portray Republicans and conservatives as ignorant racists and bigots.
That reaction was a mistake. In truth, Schiller created an opportunity for discussion and critical self-analysis about racism within the Republican Party. This was an opportunity, not for anger, but for self-examination.
Simply put, it’s time for the Party of Lincoln to take a good look in the mirror.
Although conservatives were quick to dismiss Schiller’s remarks, there is ample evidence available that would lead reasonable people to such conclusions. One can point to examples such as Sharron Angle’s 2010 anti-immigrant campaign television ads, Renee Ellmer’s overtly Islamophobic “Ground Zero” ad, Sen. Rand Paul’s remarks about the alleged unconstitutionality of portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the career and associations of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (the man who sponsored Arizona’s infamous SB 1070), and Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck’s recent suggestion that illegal immigrants should be hunted down and shot like feral swine. Indeed, just last week, a Republican State Representative in Massachusetts, Ryan Fattman, stated that unauthorized immigrant rape victims “should be afraid to come forward” and report the crimes to authorities.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
According to a February, 2012 survey by Public Policy Polling (“PPP”) done prior to the release of President Obama’s birth certificate, 51% of likely Republican primary voters believed President Obama was born in a foreign country. Some 21% were “not sure.” The accuracy of this polling data was illustrated by the meteoric rise of Donald Trump as a potential Presidential candidate after he publicly embraced and began promoting the birther canards. Other data suggests that a significant percentage believe the President is secretly a Muslim. Even more troubling, a separate April, 2011 PPP poll found that 46% of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be a crime while a substantial group, 12%, indicated that they are “not sure.”
Nor is the depth, breadth, and intensity of Tea Party rage explicable without reference to the presence of an African American, with a foreign sounding name, in the White House.
And then there are the e-mails. Nationally, Republican staffers and local party officials have made headlines forwarding racist e-mails about the President to friends and colleagues. And lest we forget, there is also the case of Audra Shay, who was elected Chair of the national Young Republicans despite the fact that she had replied “You tell em Eric! Lol,” to a friend’s Facebook comment that said: “Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”
Most recently, the reaction within Republican circles to an offensive cartoon distributed by a local GOP officer and Tea Party activist, Marilyn Davenport, led a prominent African American leader active in the California GOP to leave the party. The cartoon at issue “depicted President Barack Obama and his parents as chimpanzees, while simultaneously implying that the president is not a legitimate American, but rather an African-born interloper.” Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Ken Barnes (the leader who left the GOP) notes that “[h]ad this been an isolated event, it could be set aside as a mere aberration. However, when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea party-conservative Republicans, there emerges a disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.” That “pattern of extreme intolerance” includes the “use [of] long-held racist imagery in portrayals of Obama” such as in depictions of him “as a communist witch doctor, a man inclined to plant watermelons on the White House lawn, and… on an ‘Obama Bucks Food Stamp’ along with stereotyped pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs, Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.” For Barnes, the chimpanzee cartoon was the final straw.
The practical electoral implications of this mindless fear and hate were brought home to me on a trip to Washington, D.C. with representatives of Esperanza, a national faith-based Hispanic organization. One pastor spoke of a young man in his congregation – a young, conservative, Christian man – who was deeply torn over his choices in the 2008 Presidential election. In the end, he voted for Obama because, as he said, “I can’t be in a Party that hates me.” I don’t blame him.
How did the Party of Lincoln come to such a pass? I think the answer is simple. For far too long, we have refused to confront, and condemn, the vestiges of political racism that have, over the course of the past 30-40 years, found a new political home within the Republican Party. I’m speaking here, primarily, of the movement of the segregationist Dixiecrats (and kindred ideological spirits) out of the Democratic Party, and into the GOP- a movement personified, in some ways, by the late Senator Strom Thurmond. This alliance has poisoned the very soul of American conservatism by tying it to belief systems that are reprehensible, and indefensible. It has permitted a dangerous pathology to survive, and today, at a moment of great social stress, despair, and anxiety about the future, to move back towards the political mainstream. It was, and remains, a fundamental betrayal of the founding ideals of the Republican Party.
And, as a consequence, in a United States growing increasingly diverse, the GOP is devolving into an ethnic/regional party. Worse, it will be a minority ethnic party incapable of winning national elections. Remember, today Caucasians, the group from which the GOP draws the vast majority of its support, make up less than half – 49.3% – of children under 3 years of age. According to U.S. census projections, by 2019, Caucasians will make up less than half of Americans aged 18 and under.
As Harold Meyerson has observed, “[w]hat these numbers mean is simply that the Republicans have an existential problem. As America becomes increasingly multiracial, the Republicans have elected to become increasingly white.”
A more diverse, majority-minority America is inevitable – the GOP, and conservatives in general, need to adjust and adapt to this reality if they want to remain relevant over the long-term. A future GOP that serves as a bastion for angry, resentful and embittered, “white minority politics,” would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation and for the health of our democracy.
Truth and decency need referents in the world, especially during difficult times. Today, it is essential that Republicans of good will confront the racists and the xenophobic elements in our midst. As Ken Barnes has correctly observed, “[t]hese are not issues which pit moderate against conservative views, but rather consequential matters which transcend political positioning and speak to universal human values.” In doing so, we are keeping faith with the best traditions of our Party, and preserving an alternate, more welcoming and inclusive vision of political conservatism in America- one in which Conservative is not synonymous with Confederate.
.......................................
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Downtown Olympia sewer cleaning
GunnarWade writes...
Who knows what lurks in the sewers of downtown Olympia?
and theeaglehaslanded responds...
Larry
Who knows what lurks in the sewers of downtown Olympia?
and theeaglehaslanded responds...
Larry
From a friend of mine on another blog...
Jun 18, 2011 12:07 AM
I just cannot add anything to this actual news report:
-----------------------
...the defendant was convicted of drunk driving in May 2010, and the incident occurred on the night of his 21st birthday party. Defendant was driving on the Washtington beltway.
The details of the charges:
Paragraph 10. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour."
Paragraph 12. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female."
Paragraph13. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk."
Paragraph 14. "At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car."
I just cannot add anything to this actual news report:
-----------------------
...the defendant was convicted of drunk driving in May 2010, and the incident occurred on the night of his 21st birthday party. Defendant was driving on the Washtington beltway.
The details of the charges:
Paragraph 10. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour."
Paragraph 12. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female."
Paragraph13. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk."
Paragraph 14. "At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car."
"Our Lefty Military:" Who woulda Thought?
Our Lefty Military
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 15, 2011
As we search for paths out of America’s economic crisis, many suggest business as a paradigm for cutting costs. According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?
Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.
You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.
The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.
“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.
“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking.
The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.
While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.
“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.
One of the things I admire most about the military is the way it invests in educating and training its people. Its universities — the military academies — are excellent, and it has R.O.T.C. programs at other campuses around the country. Many soldiers get medical training, law degrees, or Ph.D.’s while in service, sometimes at the country’s finest universities.
Then there are the Army War College, the Naval War College and the Air War College, giving top officers a mid-career intellectual and leadership boost before resuming their careers. It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that.
Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector. And while the ethic of business is often “Gimme,” the military inculcates an ideal of public service that runs deep. In Afghanistan, for example, soldiers sometimes dig into their own pockets to help provide supplies for local schools.
Granted, it may seem odd to seek a model of compassion in an organization whose mission involves killing people. It’s also true that the military remains often unwelcoming to gays and lesbians and is conflicted about women as well. And, of course, the opportunities for working-class Americans are mingled with danger.
But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.
So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.
Hoo-ah!
copyright New York Times
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 15, 2011
As we search for paths out of America’s economic crisis, many suggest business as a paradigm for cutting costs. According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?
Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.
You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.
The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.
“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.
“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking.
The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.
While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.
“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.
One of the things I admire most about the military is the way it invests in educating and training its people. Its universities — the military academies — are excellent, and it has R.O.T.C. programs at other campuses around the country. Many soldiers get medical training, law degrees, or Ph.D.’s while in service, sometimes at the country’s finest universities.
Then there are the Army War College, the Naval War College and the Air War College, giving top officers a mid-career intellectual and leadership boost before resuming their careers. It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that.
Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector. And while the ethic of business is often “Gimme,” the military inculcates an ideal of public service that runs deep. In Afghanistan, for example, soldiers sometimes dig into their own pockets to help provide supplies for local schools.
Granted, it may seem odd to seek a model of compassion in an organization whose mission involves killing people. It’s also true that the military remains often unwelcoming to gays and lesbians and is conflicted about women as well. And, of course, the opportunities for working-class Americans are mingled with danger.
But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.
So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.
Hoo-ah!
copyright New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)