Politics As Usual

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you counting prison guards? Cops?

No. But that was really funny. I mean it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As Not Me noted yesterday, the stories about the attack on the French mother outside Paris are coming into serious doubt. CNN reports that surveillance cameras show no images of anyone fitting the attackers' description running from the station. No witnesses have come forward and, despite the initial report that passengers just watched the attack, there are doubts as to whether anyone else was even on the train. The alleged victim has reported being violently assaulted several times before.

Interestingly, the alleged attack happened on the day that French ministers were meeting to discuss how to respond to the rising problem of racist, and particularly anti-Semitic, crimes. France has Europe's largest Muslim community (5 million). It also has Europe's largest Jewish community (600,000). The alleged attack was widely condemned by officials throughout the French government.

Despite all this, I think the Wahhabi Repubs were absolutely right to take the supposed attackers as indicative of the nature of France overall, and of the French government in particular. After all, 60 years ago one portion of France helped the Nazis slaughter Jews. In the same vein, the rest of the world would be absolutely right to see American skinheads and Klansmen as indicative of the nature of America overall, and of the American government in particular. After all, 140 years ago a portion of America enslaved people of African descent, and more recently another portion of Americans pursued the genocide of Indians.

you are so stupid its funny.

You have now required me to post everytime there is another anti-Jewish attack. By the way numbskull, semites include arabs, so these attackers aren't anti-semetic.

That the French government may want to downplay, (No tape? Atticus, would you google up the tape of the killing of Medgar Evans please) the attack is understandable. To the extent it is false, Chirac is an idiot. He went on National TV to talk about it. You of course, think we should listen to that idiot in tailoring uS foreign Policy.

Rock and a hard place on this one Sidd.




Fake?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No. But that was really funny. I mean it.

Try and think past warmed over MR quotes. The question I ask goes to cure and cause.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Andrew Sullivan is shrill.

Sullivan fisks Bush's address on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

• The process has now begun in the Congress. I urge members of the House and Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

But this, of course, is not the amendment that Bush favors. He backs an amendment that would not simply keep civil marriage as an exclusively heterosexual privilege. He backs one that would make unenforceable all "the legal incidents" of civil marriage for gay couples--that is, civil unions and domestic partnerships. An amendment simply stating that heterosexuals alone can get married has been rejected by Bush and his allies, in favor of a far more sweeping attack on the basic protections of gay people across the country. In this respect, the president is simply lying. And anyone who takes a minute to read the amendment will see this beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Presumably the Bush defenders here will say that Bush wasn't lying because he simply has no idea what he's urging Congress to do?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As Not Me noted yesterday, the stories about the attack on the French mother outside Paris are coming into serious doubt. CNN reports that surveillance cameras show no images of anyone fitting the attackers' description running from the station. No witnesses have come forward and, despite the initial report that passengers just watched the attack, there are doubts as to whether anyone else was even on the train. The alleged victim has reported being violently assaulted several times before.

Interestingly, the alleged attack happened on the day that French ministers were meeting to discuss how to respond to the rising problem of racist, and particularly anti-Semitic, crimes. France has Europe's largest Muslim community (5 million). It also has Europe's largest Jewish community (600,000). The alleged attack was widely condemned by officials throughout the French government.

Despite all this, I think the Wahhabi Repubs were absolutely right to take the supposed attackers as indicative of the nature of France overall, and of the French government in particular. After all, 60 years ago one portion of France helped the Nazis slaughter Jews. In the same vein, the rest of the world would be absolutely right to see American skinheads and Klansmen as indicative of the nature of America overall, and of the American government in particular. After all, 140 years ago a portion of America enslaved people of African descent, and more recently another portion of Americans pursued the genocide of Indians.

And even more recently, a group of white people dragged a black man around until he died. And this is the country club, slave et. al. believe provides moral leadership to the world?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The lead story in this morning's SF Chronicle is that the sponsors are in trouble to get a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds that they would need to pass it. So maybe Kerry and Edwards think this is a safe vote to miss.

I was going to say more, but S_A_M covered it.

I don't disagree, but give my discussion with Atticus last week, I want to know how his "If your not with us, your against us" approach plays here.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And even more recently, a group of white people dragged a black man around until he died. And this is the country club, slave et. al. believe provides moral leadership to the world?

You have become, perhaps, the most partisan person on these boards. When this happens in the US it is widely and loudly condemed. When it happens in Europe, a tight rope is walked in the name of not wanting to enflame the muslim constituencies. Open your eyes. Moral equivalency stops here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't disagree, but give my discussion with Atticus last week, I want to know how his "If your not with us, your against us" approach plays here.

I'm going to guess that he would distinguish between commission -- voting for Republicans -- and omission -- failing to show up to vote against them. But the difference may also be that Kerry and Edwards are pretty confident the vote will go their way. If it doesn't, they are fair game for criticism.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The statement that I heard many times in the last decade (not from Kerry) is that there are more African Americans in the criminal justice system than in college. The criminal justice system includes more than jails and prisons; it includes people on parole, on probation, or under other form of supervised release.

I don't know if the statement is true today, but the stats I saw years ago when I first heard this statement supported it.

I believe those stats are true for black males, but not black females. Which just goes to show you that racism has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the culture of the black community, which doesn't value education. Just ask Bill Cosby; he will tell you all about it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Presumably the Bush defenders here will say that Bush wasn't lying because he simply has no idea what he's urging Congress to do?

Or he recognizes the separation of powers, and that Congress, and specifically not the President, is empowered to propose constitutional amendments as they see fit.

Indeed, the Senate has already contemplated a more streamlined version more in line with the words of Bush's statement.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm going to guess that he would distinguish between commission -- voting for Republicans -- and omission -- failing to show up to vote against them. But the difference may also be that Kerry and Edwards are pretty confident the vote will go their way. If it doesn't, they are fair game for criticism.

By that logic, if I am confident that the FMA will not pass, I should get a pass in voting for the GOP, no?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Since some people on this board have scoffed at the idea that support for the war was premised on the threat posed by Hussein's WMD and support for terrorism, it's worth noting that the Republican Senator chairing the Intelligence Committee agrees with me:

• "I think the whole premise would have changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military plans. Very difficult to look in the rear-view mirror, 20/20 hindsight and say what you would have done under those circumstances. Jay [Rockefeller] has indicated he wouldn't have voted for it. Jay has also indicated that there probably wouldn't have been the votes to go to war. I think if we went back to the no-fly zones and the resolutions by the U.N. and an awful lot of talk, I doubt if the votes would have been there."

Via Andrew Sullivan.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So maybe Kerry and Edwards think this is a safe vote to miss.
.

What, and miss an opportunity to take a position?

Safe, indeed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By that logic, if I am confident that the FMA will not pass, I should get a pass in voting for the GOP, no?

Only if you see no harm at all in the use of the FMA for political purposes. No one thinks it will pass. The only reason it's being debated is that Bush et al. think they can score political points with the family values crowd by marginalizing gays.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or he recognizes the separation of powers, and that Congress, and specifically not the President, is empowered to propose constitutional amendments as they see fit.

Indeed, the Senate has already contemplated a more streamlined version more in line with the words of Bush's statement.

Sullivan's point is that the version Bush is backing is not consistent with those statements.

eta: See also, e.g., here.