#3
Wow. My eyes are burning from the caustic rant!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/27/2008 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As the son of an Irish immigrant (he came here in 1912 at age 8) I agree completely with this article. The prejdudice and outright discrimination experienced by my father and his family rivals anything any of the "people of color" experienced. Thank you Ms. Graybar.
#10
What's that woman doing as a Dem? She's way too smart for that nonsense; she needs to be with us. We could certainly use her guts and ability to write.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
04/27/2008 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Not to be too rude, Wolf, but I didn't realize your 1912 ancester came over on a wooden ship in the Middle Passage, chained to several hundred other Irishmen, and then sold at an auction block.
Very few of our ancestors went through what the Africans went through. Let's just remember that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/27/2008 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#12
And let's not forget that African slaves were turned to for the labor because the ruling class ran out of enough whites to do the work and the natives couldn't handle the body degrading work dying off too fast. Losers faced either death or exile to America in many instances, ask the decedents of the Monmouth Rebellion or the '45. Even later when the republican movements were crushed in '48 throughout Europe another wave found our shores rather than serfdom or death. Toss in the pogroms that routinely ran through communities to the east. Yep, big choice, death or departure. They certainly came here as 'free spirits'. The Africans didn't have the means to escape their 'idyllic' homes, instead their neighbors raided their villages and dragged them to the ports to sold to the Euros. How many would have opted like the Euros and Chinese and others, if there were the means otherwise not available to migrate on their own.
As the lady relates, life for the immigrant laborer wasn't much above that of slaves either. Just enough to keep the home and family together in meager existence, till the next generation might have the opportunity to progress.
#13
very true, SW, but those that imposed that and those that suffered that, are long dead. I feel no need to pay a single friggin dollar to a racial grievance whiner. I pay taxes, and unfortunately they get more than they should from those. All that reparations-demands do is harden my position.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/27/2008 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The immigrant experience of most blacks is so qualitatively different from that of any other immigrant group that relative comparison is foolish and actually impossible. That fact is why the assimilation of blacks into America remains problematic while that of more recent arrivals is complete.
#15
My apologies for interjecting here S. White...
But,uh "Let's just remember that..." is a bit rich, don't you think? "Not Remember"? Just WHEN would WE ever get an opportunity to "NOT Remember"- you effing ASSHOLE
#16
"Not to be too rude, Wolf, but I didn't realize your 1912 ancester came over on a wooden ship in the Middle Passage, chained to several hundred other Irishmen, and then sold at an auction block."
Very true, but in 1912 very few African-Americans arrived that way either.
However if you were to go back a few years, things were different.
On a pro-rata basis the Irish were probably the largest group sent to the Americas as slaves.
#17
Slavery was horrible, but my ancestors were too poor to own slaves and my wife's family didn't even arrive until 50 years after emancipation. Those two cases probably excuse most white Americans. Blacks need to forget reparations and stop wallowing in the 19th century.
#18
Blacks have more opportunity and less willingness to take advantage of it than any other group in America. For what other reason than his skin color is an empty suit like BO the odds-on favorite to become the next President?
I have no sympathy for blacks; they've more than recouped any reparations owed in their predations on the rest of America's citizens.
Look at their crime statistics. Even according to the USG blacks commit more than half the violent crime in America--as 13% of the population. And if you want the real reason behind most Americans' absolutely adamant refusal to give up personal firearms, just read the crime reports. Or Google Christian Channon or Christopher Newsom or the Wichita Horror. If you haven't a clue, you soon will have.
I've worked with lots of blacks in my career. Some have been pretty decent; none have been outstanding. I was never lucky enough to run across a Condi or a Thomas Sowell. Far too many, however, truly justified the stereotype of the feckless, incompetent, perenially aggrieved employee who was willing to blame anything other than his poor performance for his/her failure to get ahead. I've also worked with other minorities and found them to be head and shoulders above their black co-workers--and hated for it by blacks as a consequence.
Again, my sympathy for blacks is gone and I think Steve White's excuses are ridiculous. They should be treated no differently than anyone else in normal society, and quite probably should have their criminals treated worse. That might discourage their ethnic group from producing so many of them.
Our country's days of being rich enough to afford this type of pandering, parasitic idiocy are coming to a close. For some of us, it can't come soon enough.
#19
Steve you are fking wrong. Sure they came over chained as slaves - but you idiot, THAT is not the time in question you context changing moron!
It that doesnt change the FACT that the Irish were treated like crap too, especially by that time in US History, they were treated every bit as bad as blacks, and in some ways worse.
LGF
This is an absolutely blatant attempt to rewrite history by Barack Obama, documented at ABC News Political Punch.
First, I honestly dont care much whether a person wears a flag pin, and you can certainly be a patriot without wearing a badge proclaiming it. The issue for me: Obama's reasons for taking off that pin.
Barack Obama on his refusal to wear a flag pin, now:
Obama then referred to the time last October, when a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, TV reporter asked him why he didn't wear a flag pin.
"Then I was asked about this in Iowa," Obama said. "And somebody said 'Why don't you wear a flag pin?' I said, well, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I said, although I will say that sometimes I notice that they're people who wear flag pins but they don't always act patriotic. And I was specifically referring to politicians, not individuals who wear flag pins, but politicians who you see wearing flag pins and then vote against funding for veterans, saying we can't afford it."
Barack Obama on his refusal to wear a flag pin, then:
(What Obama said last October was: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.")
Obama then proceeds, in a magnificent example of hypocritical chutzpah, to call bloggers who accurately reported his words liars.
Obama continued, saying "so I make this comment. suddenly a bunch of these, you know, TV commentators and bloggers (say) 'Obama is disrespecting people who wear flag pins.' Well, that's just not true. Also, another way of saying it is, it's a lie."
Obama's two radically different versions of his reasons for not wearing the pin are there for you to read. . . . You decide who's telling the truth.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/27/2008 07:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bloggers and the new media. Learn it or die by it, politicians. You can no longer duck your old statements or your past and it WILL come back to haunt you.
#3
hope and change! changey hope we can believe in!
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/27/2008 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bring it on, 'Bama! Bring it on! McCain's going to hand you your semi-black ass in the general. You'll be joining McGovern as one of the two worst-beaten candidates ever. But please keep running your mouth--please! Every time you open it you make more Johnny Mac voters!
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
04/27/2008 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
"Ultimately, we will have to fight with the Indian army. That is the situation. Therefore, we have to take into account the Indian army. When the Indian army comes in with thousands and thousands of soldiers, it will be a very big thing. But we are not afraid of the Indian Army because, in one way, it will be a very good thing. They will give us lots of guns. And lots of people will fight them. This will be a national war. And it will be a very big thing. They will have many difficulties intervening. It will not be so easy for them. But if they stupidly dare...they will dare, they will be compelled. They will do that stupidity. We have to prepare for that. And for that reason we are saying we will also need a particular international situation. And for us this has to do mainly with India, Indian expansionism. When there is an unstable situation in India and a strong mass base there in support of People's War in Nepal and there are contradictions within the Indian ruling class-at that point we can seize, we can establish and declare that we have base areas, that we have a government." ----Prachanda, the Nepalese Maoist leader in an interview to a Latin American journalist. Please see my article titled "THE MAOISTS OF NEPAL: Three perspectives" dated July 13,2001, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers3/paper277.html
As a successful democracy, India cannot support a military coup in any country.
2. But sometimes, in our national interest, we may have to close our eyes to a military take-over or to the evils of a military rule in a neighbouring country.
3.As we have been doing in the case of Myanmar for over a decade now.
4. As we did in Bangladesh last year when chronic political instability seemed to be pushing the country into the hands of jihadi terrorists of various hues and various vintages.
5. We may be well-advised to do so if the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) decides to prevent the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) led by Prachanda, which has emerged as the leading party in the recent elections, from using its position as the leader of the Government to convert the RNA with its glorious traditions into the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of Nepal patterned after the PLA of China and North Korea and after the Cuban Army.
6. In his statements and interviews before the elections, Prachanda has given clear indications of their priorities if the Maoists came to power. First, have the monarchy abolished and proclaim Nepal as a Republic with a Presidential style of Government. Second, himself assume office as the President of Nepal. Third,abrogate all existing agreements with India and re-negotiate those of them, which are considered to be in Nepal's interests. And four, merge the armed cadres of the Maoists into the RNA to convert a royalist army into a people's army.
7.After Mao Zedong's PLA captured power in China in 1949 and proclaimed the People's Republic of China, the PLA became the army of the State. The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party proclaimed China as the "rear base" for all communist movements in Asia. It assisted North Korea in its war with the US-led coalition, North Vietnam in its war initially against the French and subsequently against the Americans and the South Vietnamese Army and the communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Northern Thailand and Myanmar and helped the Indonesian communists in a big way till the military coup staged by the Indonesian Army under President Suharto saved the country from falling into the hands of the communists. The Burmese Army under Gen.Ne Win similarly captured power in the early 1960s to prevent their country from falling into the hands of the communists and other ethnic insurgent groups. In 1979, after 30 years of trying to export Maoism, Deng Xiaoping changed this policy and stopped exporting the revolution to other countries.
8. After capturing power in Cuba in the early 1960s, Fidel Castro converted his armed guerillas into the army of the state and embarked on a policy of exporting the Cuban revolution to other Latin American countries, with Cuba serving as the rear base. The death of Che Guavera, who was asked to have this policy executed, allegedly at the hands of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) put an end to Cuba's communist dreams in Latin America, but till today, the Cuban Government and Communist Party continue with their attempts at political subversion in the Latin American countries.
9.Only Vietnam proved a refreshing contrast. After they defeated the Americans and the South Vietnamese Army in 1975 and re-united their country, they concentrated on developing the country and avoided all ideological adventures abroad.
10. Which model Prachanda and his Maoist followers will follow---the Chinese, the Cuban or the Vietnamese? If one goes by his past statements and interviews, he is likely to follow a mix of the Chinese and Cuban models and not the Vietnamese. He has always been attracted by the idea of Nepal serving as a rear base for exporting the Maoist revolution to India. He has also viewed a destabilised India preoccupied with internal security as in the long-term interests of Nepal. We should not allow his present charm offensive towards India make us forget his past.
11.Till now, our military planners have been worried over the dangers of India being confronted one day with a two-front war----with Pakistan and China.We now have to think seriously about the dangers of a three-front war with Pakistan, China and Nepal.
12. Once the communists accede to power---through an armed revolution or through the ballot box---- they try to see that nobody else can dislodge them. There have been exceptions, of course. Nicaragua, for example. But, there the communists were prevented from entrenching themselves through strong US support for non-communist elements.
13. It is neither in the interests of Nepal nor of India for the Maoists to entrench themselves in power and convert the RNA into the PLA of Nepal and turn Nepal into a rear base to help the Maoists in India. The plans of the Maoists for a presidential style of Government in Nepal with all powers concentrated in the hands of Prachanda and with the RNA replaced by the PLAN should be thwarted. All genuinely democratic forces in Nepal and the military leadership should join hands to prevent the communists from carrying out their long-term designs.The communists will fight back ferociously all attempts to deny them the fruits of power. The fear of a possibly bloody riposte by the communists should not deter those worried over the implications of the Maoists' plan from acting before it is too late.
The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi,and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.
Posted by: john frum ||
04/27/2008 07:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd say if India wants to give it a bit of a push, we tacitly back them and tell them where to get some cheap weapons over in Afghanistian.
#1
OBL's statement "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" has been cited thousands of times in various articles since 9/11. Can anyone provide a link to that original full statement?
Excerpts from a review, written by Elbert Ventura and published in The New Republic magazine, of the new documentary movie Standard Operating Procedure, about the Abu Ghraib scandal.
... Forget the consensus: The Fog of War [a movie, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2003, about former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Vietnam War] and Standard Operating Procedure (which won the Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival) are [Director Errol] Morris's two worst movies. Ponderous where they should be penetrating, ambiguous where they should be clear, Morris's Iraq-era docs highlight the weaknesses of his aesthetic and give us the worst of two worlds: pretentious cinema and bad journalism. ....
One problem is Morris's interview style. "I try to ask no questions at all. The idea is to say as little as possible and let the person who I'm talking to do all of the talking," he once explained. Privileging subjective experience over objective reporting, he allows his interviewees to bloviate with little interruption or follow up. The tactic allows his subjects to gallop around in their heads -- and perhaps even trip themselves up with their own words. ....
An incoherent mishmash of intimate profile, investigative reporting, and philosophical inquiry ... Morris's movie that tells us little that is new. SOP is structured around Morris's interviews with five of the seven "bad apples" who were indicted for their roles in the detainee abuse scandal. The movie argues that the guards caught in those photos were thrown under the bus by their superiors and the administration, an uncontroversial stance that Morris treats as breaking news.
SOP achieves the admirable goal of humanizing the soldiers, of fleshing out the two-dimensional villains we saw in those photos. But if it's important to hear the guards' side of the story, it is also essential to approach it with a measure of skepticism. Morris seems to take everything they say at face value. His unblinking stare and unobtrusive interrogation provide his subjects a hospitable forum to make their case. Blame is apportioned to others: the higher-ups, fellow guards, other governmental agencies at Abu Ghraib. Mitigating factors are raised: the numbing routine of prison duty, the daily threats from outside and in. The overall effect is to make us sympathize with the guards, even as the movie does little to press them on their own accountability and reluctant remorse.
It's telling that the soldiers who come off looking the worst, Charles Graner and Ivan Frederick, are the ones who don't get time on camera -- underscoring just how thoroughly the interviewees (some of whom dish on Graner and Frederick) have commandeered the movie's point of view. In the course of defending the guards as scapegoats for a corrupt policy, Morris ends up going easy on their own culpability.
.... Too much of SOP is given over to ruminations about the nature of photography, the instability of images, and the elusiveness of truth -- none of which yield anything remotely revelatory. Enamored with epistemological ambiguities, Morris spends far too much time pondering pseudo-profound questions at the expense of finding concrete answers. ....
Morris stuffs SOP with stylized reenactments, dramatizing events .... In one scene, a soldier recalls a drop of blood from a detainee landing on his shirt -- cue exquisitely lit shot of a perfect crimson orb plinking onto a uniform. In another scene that borders on self-parody, Morris illustrates an anecdote about Saddam Hussein making himself a fried egg with slow-mo shots of an egg being cracked open, dropped into a pan, and cooked in oil. ....
Morris retains the qualities that distinguished his past movies: an ear for the loopy digression, an eye for the surreal in plain sight, a speculative turn of mind. But those same gifts begin to seem like flaws when the subject moves from freaks and geeks to war and torture. Prizing meditation over muckraking, Morris has made a movie that indulges his love for opacity and abstraction -- and fails our need to know. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/27/2008 20:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
