Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Open Thread

One of my favorite of Dr. King's quotes:

That old law about "an eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing. (He was quoting Mahatma Gandhi who said, "An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."


Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.

Among my favorite long pieces: Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam and Letters From Birmingham City Jail.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."


And, of course, his I Have a Dream sprech.

From Crim Prof Blog a few years back, here are some reported cases involving Dr. King.

In King v. State, 119 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. App. 1961), the court upheld a conviction for a traffic offense but vacated the sentence of 12 months in the work house. Dr. King was a defendant in Gilligan v. King, 264 N.Y.S.2d 309 (Sup. Ct. 1965), aff’d, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (App. Div. 1968), a libel action pursued by a NYPD Lieutenant who killed a 15 year old black which set off rioting in New York. Article here. He was also a defendant in the New York Times v. Sullivan action, a libel case in which the plaintiff was a police executive criticized for brutalizing and/or failing to protect protesters. Parks v. New York Times Co., 195 F. Supp. 919 (M.D. Ala. 1961), rev’d, 308 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1962), certiorari denied, 376 U.S. 949 (1964). As Mark Eckenwiler pointed out, he was convicted of criminal contempt for violating an injunction against picketing in Walker v. City of Birmingham, 181 So.2d 493 (Ala. 1965), aff'd, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). He was the plaintiff in King v. Mister Maestro, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1963), an intellectual property action protecting his copyright on the “I Have a Dream” speech, and in Bond v. Floyd, 251 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ga.), rev’d, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), an action protecting Julian Bond’s right to a seat in the Georgia legislature in spite of his opposition to the Vietnam war.

Alternet had a good round-up a few years ago of memorable quotes from Dr. King. And here is his famous speech, I've Been to the Mountain Top.

It's sad that while his teachings have become so accepted, we've made so little progress towards achieving many of them. We need to try harder.

On a more humorous note, here's Bush Attorney General, John Ashcroft, invoking Dr. King in a 2003 speech at an MLK event:

More eloquently than any attorney general before or since, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of making justice -- quote -- 'a reality for all God's children,' " Ashcroft told a gathering of civil rights lawyers and supporters at the Justice Department.

"From the first days of our administration, honoring the diversity of the American people has been a priority for President Bush and for me," Ashcroft said.

< Jon Huntsman Folds, Will Endorse Romney | Zappos Hacked, 24 Million Account Holders Info Taken >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The MLK Memorial (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:59:32 AM EST
    Has mis-quoted him - in marble, and it will now have to be fixed.

    Yes, there was (none / 0) (#2)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:37:49 AM EST
    a flurry of complaints about the "quote" when the memorial was first unveiled, although the architect at first insisted that the words would stay as is.
    The full quote:  
    "Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice.  Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter."

    Well, it DOES change the meaning (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    "I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness," the monument says. What an odd choice for a quote, I thought, when I visited in August before its scheduled dedication. It sounded almost . . . conceited. And it was past tense, as though King was speaking from the grave. It didn't sound like King at all.

    I went looking for the context, read the whole speech and found there was a reason it didn't sound like him. "If you want to say I was a drum major, say I was . . . " is how King began his statement. As many have since pointed out, the "if" and the "you" entirely change the meaning. To King, being a self-aggrandizing drum major was not a good thing; if you wanted to call him that, he said, at least say it was in the service of good causes.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    And the arrogance of the architect!  And the sculptor!  After the original full quote had been approved, they decided to change it to a shorter version, without consulting the people who had initially approved the plans.  
    Asked if the inscription could be altered in any way, the architect said, "No."

    "The space is not there" and the overall design and layout of the inscription on the statue would not permit it, he said. "We don't have an enormous palette here."

    He said he has had no official calls for the inscription to be changed.

    Well, he's got the "offical call" now.

    I'm no Spacial Designer... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    ...but in college I changed the font, not just size, to squeeze out that last half a page or so.  Pretty sure that could be reversed engineered in this case.

    Not Rocket science, either tell the people who decide or switch to a smaller font.


    I have no idea (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    about the workings or mechanics of sculpture, but looking at the left side of the King sculpture (to King's left, where the disputed "quote" is), there seems to me to have been plenty of room to have included the full quote, especially if, as you suggested, they used a smaller....well, I don't know if the word "font size" applies exactly in chiseling words in stone, but somewhat smaller lettering.  There weren't all that many words that would have to have been added.

    not to mention the fact (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    that assuming it is to long its not like there is a shortage of MLK quotes.  surely they could find another of acceptable length.

    seems a silly reason to turn an actual quote inside out.


    The state judicial counsel finally (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    amended its rules to bar putting more lines on a page and/or smaller font.  I guess the judges got tired of squinting and reading overly lengthy writings by lawyers.  Don't really blame them!

    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    I'm betting that the judges aren't exactly youngsters!  As we get older, even with reading glasses or bifocals, smaller type does become an annoying problem.   ;-)

    I think a pig just flew by (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    I agree with you.  IMO the quote on the memorial stands the meaning of the original statement on its head.

    Chris Hedges this morning.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    living Martin's vision:

    Why I'm Suing Barack Obama

    Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.
    I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have "disappeared" into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.


    Can't get to the link, but I am really glad to (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    see this. Hope it has legal legs.

    Yes, they seem to be having server problems (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    over at TruthDig.com today. Should be temporary.

    There is an embedded copy of Hedges' filing there, on the second page of that link...


    I wonder if his lawyers (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    have ever heard of Article III, sec. 2, of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court for half a century, at least?  The requirement that the courts adjudicate only "cases" and "controversies" requires that a plaintiff have "standing" -- some sort of personal injury to complain of, rather than a general complaint as a citizen or taxpayer about policy he disagrees with -- and the related "political question" doctrine?  Really, we may agree with him politically, but legally this is foolish grandstanding.  In fact, I wonder if his lawyers have heard of Rule 11(b) & (c) of the Federal Civil Rules?

    Yes, if the complaint does not (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:51:14 PM EST
    first get dismissed for naming the wrong person as defendant, namely, a "Barak" Obama.   It does seem as though we are dealing more with efforts for grand standing than concerns for standing.  However, too little attention has been given to the potentially dangerous provisions of the NDAA.

    The congress and administration have done their best to confuse and obfuscate the applicability of the provisions to US citizens, including temporary assurances of the presidential signing statement that seem to be functioning as a  citizen's lullaby.

    Certainly a frivolous legal challenge will not serve us well but the worrisome provisions do complicate "standing" determinations given the nature of the likely injury to be evidenced  (e.g. disappearance/indefinite detention) coupled with the non-communication requirements of the Patriot Act.


    I don't know, Peter (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    As a lawyer you would be in a better position to evaluate it than I am, I'm sure.

    What does this last sentence in the first paragraph of your link on "standing" mean to this situation?

    The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

    Does not Hedges - and all Americans for that matter - have something to lose here?


    The key to understanding why the answer is no (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:20:47 PM EST
    is your parenthetical, Edger: "and all Americans for that matter ...."  If the plaintiff's interest in the outcome is held in common with "all Americans," then the plaintiff does not have Article III "standing." The issue of the mere existence of the law is a "political question" by its nature.  Of course, when and if the law is used unlawfully -- or perhaps even if it is concretely threatened to be used -- then a person or group that is the subject of that threat or use can challenge it.

    I think I follow you here, Peter (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    It sounds like what you referred to in you first comment above - "a general complaint as a citizen or taxpayer about policy" is what sort of 'disqualifies' standing for Hedges?

    Peter, I did see (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    on commenter at RawStory suggest that...

    what [Hedges is] really doing is inviting the DOJ to challenge his standing.  The DOJ really likes to challenge standing, saying citizens don't have rights to bring suits because they are not proper parties-not harmed by a statute.  Here, Hedges is inviting them to limit the scope of the statute by raising the defense to establish that the statute is not as broad as it can easily be read to be.  If he loses on standing, he and we win--the statute is admitted to be limited in scope.

    Any thoughts on this interpretation?


    "must demonstrate hardship or loss" (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    Meaning Hedges - and anyone else - should wait until they are... ummm... Padilla'd or Boumediene'd, or disappeared, before complaining? ;-)

    I also agree (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    that it's grandstanding, btw. ;-)

    Probably one of Hedges main motivations here is to keep it in the public eye and not let it stand unchallenged through lack of political and public opposition?


    Is there any way (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    his arrest in front of Goldman Sachs could be construed to be applicable?

    Not under any provision of this law (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:21:09 PM EST
    that I have read or read about.

    Personally, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    I don't think that anyone in government cares very much for the teachings of MLK.

    I see no signs that his "teachings" have received much acceptance.

    They emphasize the "dream" part.
    It is non-threatening.
    Keep dreaming, chumps, sayeth the powerful.

    But talk about civil disobedience? Huh uh.

    And where is the mention of his opposition to American wars of conquest - such as the War in Vietnam? Huh uh.

    Glorify dreaming.

    And its current cynical incarnation: hope.

    I am celebrating MLK Day by listening (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    to my CDs of Bayard Rustin singing and talking.  Rustin was the African-American, gay, Quaker agitator who organized King's 1963 March on Washington.  He would have been 100 this year.  I got my disks from the Rustin Institute, but they no longer seem to be offered on the website.

    Here's a place (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:26:11 PM EST
    you can get one of them, "Bayard Rustin, Singer."  I only wish the credits were more clear on recordings from the 1940s (before he went to prison for refusing the draft in WWII, and after that became one of the first Freedom Riders, in 1947), when he made his living as a backup singer for Lead Belly and for Josh White and his Carolinians, sometimes at Cafe Society, where they performed in New York (one my father's youthful hangouts).

    There is also (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:56:18 PM EST
    a good video of King's I have A Dream speech at the 1963 March, at the top of the page of the NPA site...

    Often when I open a post here (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    it will load the header image, the sidebar, and the post, but not the comments, and then just sit there forever loading, and waiting for sitemeter.com....

    I'll have to refresh the page five or six times before it will load properly.

    Anyone else experiencing this?

    Yep. W/blue background. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    Grayish green background... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:15:57 PM EST

    Same here (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    Gray, with a bit of green.

    oculus (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:57:30 PM EST
    didnt understand the comment about being "forgetful" about fishtales?



    Referring to your reefer magnet. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    ah (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:05:59 PM EST
    I suspect we all have things around us that effect our opinions and reactions to things that we have gotten so used to walking past everyday that we do not credit them for doing it.

    I know it's annoying (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    especially because when you refresh it marks the posts as 'read' even if you haven't read them yet.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    Makes it hard to figure out what I haven't read yet, especially on the longer threads.  I thought it was just the peculiarities of my ISP!  Apparently not.

    Yes, happens to me, too. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    Vey annoying. Is there anything that can be done to stop it?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:38:50 PM EST
    except that I don't refresh.  If I do I lose all the [new] tags.  I usually just go do something else (or read something else) until the page finally loads.  Eventually it does.  For me, anyway.

    Yes, me too (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    It is always when I click to read the comments - the main post loads fine.  If it takes a long time loading the comments I go away for awhile.

    On a good day I get back to it. On a busy day I miss all your comments and you are deprived of mine!


    Yes (none / 0) (#138)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:57:24 PM EST
    I seem to remember it being due to the links to the blog ads on the sidebar......think it's been discussed previously.

    Krugman's opinion piece about (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    applying Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to today in U.S.  Income inequality/mobility. NYT

    Jury finds that U.S. government killed King. (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    I cannot believe I did not know about this trial. In 1999, attorney and King friend William Pepper filed a civil suit that claimed Dr. King was, in fact, assassinated by the United States government. The jury agreed.

    Since childhood I have been a religious reader of whatever my local daily newspaper has been and a voracious consumer of TV news. How is it that I did not know about this trial and this jury verdict? I am baffled. It almost makes me think there is some sort of conspiracy of silence from the press.

    I have always doubted that James Earl Ray, acting as a lone fanatic, killed Dr. King. And in full disclosure, I do not believe that Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy, nor have I ever believed the Warren Commission's report on Jack Kennedy's assassination. I don't have any special insight into those cases. Still, the official stories never made sense to me.

    Ever read this, Casey? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    The Taking of America 1,2,3
    by Richard E. Sprague

    from the introduction...

        This book is not about assassinations, at least not solely about assassinations. It is not just another book about who murdered President Kennedy or how or why. It is a book about power, about who really controls the United States policies, especially foreign policies. It is a book about the process of control through the manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential election process. The objective of the book is to expose the clandestine, secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have been hidden from the American public.

         Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in this control process. They have been important only in the sense that they are the ultimate method used in the control of the election process. Viewed in this way, an understanding of what happened to John or Robert Kennedy becomes more important because it leads to a total understanding of what has happened to our country, and to us, since 1960. But the important thing to understand is the control and the power and all of the clandestine methods put together.

    I have not read that, but I will now (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:42:55 PM EST
    seek it out. Thanks, Edger.

    The full book (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    is online at that link...

    Thx to Casey and Edgar (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    for bringing up the issue of questions about the assassination.  I'd thought I was about the only poster here interested in that.

    Sadly we won't likely be seeing the liberals at Msnbc like Rachel and Ed bringing up anything but the usual official version.  I don't recall even Keith daring to challenge TPTB on that one or any of the major political murders of that time.  

    Even the outspoken media liberals draw the line at being outspoken about certain things.


    I was eleven when JFK was killed. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    When the Warren Commission Report came out, the whole thing was still very vivid in my mind's eye. To this day I can close my eyes and roll the film of Ruby shooting Oswald. I can also run the entire Zapruder film.

    Anyway, I was young and stunned and didn't question the Warren Commission until years later.

    When both Dr. King and RFK were assassinated I was 16 and very skeptical about both killings. I read everything and watched everything and nothing in the official stories made sense to me.

    I don't know what happened in those three murders. Like everyone else, I don't have the facts. I do know that we have been lied to consistently about these three events.


    I'm a bit older than you are, casey (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    I was 15 when JFK was assassinated, 20 when MLK and RFK were assassinated, and by that time I was vary politically involved.  I, too, do not know what actually happened in any of these assassinations, but I was skeptical from the first reports about all of them, and I still am.  We may never know the truth.

    I remember this trial (none / 0) (#88)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:11:44 PM EST
    I think Judge Mathis, from TV courts was the judge.

    1999??? (none / 0) (#93)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    I hadn't heard about this either.  As to the other assassinations: the official stories can only make sense if you ignore all the evidence.

    At the cite Casey gave youll (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:04:09 PM EST
    see it noted by reporter-author (JFK and the Unspeakable) James Douglass that only he and one local Memphis reporter attended the trial from beginning to end.  Compare that with the large number of reporters who covered both OJ trials in the 90s.

    The media had other priorities obviously.  And beginning right around the time of the MLK civil case or not long thereafter, the MSM did bother to report on stories of King intrafamily squabbling over various things like management of the King Ctr, then more reporting later about controversy surrounding the family and licensing of Dr King's image.  One of MLK's prominent biographers, whom Dexter King believes has ties to the FBI, was involved at that time in stirring up King family differences in the pages of major media.

    Curious situation.


    Oh, for crying out loud (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    Headline on the front page of today's Washington Post:  Telling kids they're great isn't so good, schools find.  Well, no kidding.  Way back when our kids were in middle school, the local school district decided to begin a "self esteem" program.  They actually proposed to pull kids out of their regular classes and have little "self esteem" sessions.  They sent a questionnaire home to the parents to solicit our opinions on this.  We basically said, "We think that self esteem is earned by what the children themselves are able to accomplish.  If they are challenged, are learning new things in school, working hard, and doing well because of their efforts, they will acquire 'self esteem' on their own.  Pulling them out of their academic classes to tell them that they are 'wonderful' is totally counter-productive and a complete waste of time.  Use that time to teach them more academics."  Did they listen to us?  No.  Did the academics suffer as a result?  Yes.  What a dumb idea, and I'm shocked that it took so long for the schools to figure this out.

    Part and parcel with that is the ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:21:47 PM EST
    mandate that every kid get a trophy. If all that is needed to snag a trophy is attendance, then what encourages the kids to improve their skills? Doesn't it simply diminish the value of the trophy?

    When the kids are very young (4-7, say), then, yes, everybody plays and everybody wins. The idea then is to develop an interest in the activity and start to learn some skills. I'm fine with not keeping score officially, although everybody is keeping score on the side.

    As kids get older the trophy or the ribbon or the sticker or whatever, needs to be the result of effort, something for which the kids work. Teams through elementary school should still play every kid, but the winners win.


    I think (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    all this came about due to the craziness and obsession with winning and using it to beat statistics over the heads of other kids who did not perform as well.

    That being said, this isn't the solution either. We do have sports in my area though that are not really competitive and the kids just play for fun. There are serious leagues and fun leagues.


    I absolutely agree (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:54:21 PM EST
    If, by the time the kids leave elementary school and enter middle school, they are not starting to learn that it is their own efforts and hard work that count....well, they'll probably never learn it.  I have absolutely no problem with elementary school kids getting "atta-boy" or "atta-girl" rewards for trying to do new things or playing sports, or whatever.  But as they get older- no, they need to start learning that it is up to them to "try harder."  Then we have the problem of "helicopter parents" who swoop down on the schools, the coaches, etc, when their kids are not tagged as "the best of the best," even when the kids do not deserve these accolades.  How are these kids going to learn that hard work and effort pay off, if they're always being propped up?  Eventually, they are going to be in an environment where they have to produce good results on their own.

    They'll never learn it (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    and they'll blame teachers for it.

    It's very sad to see students trained in this when they get to college -- and finally have to face that they are past the age when laws require that schools retain them, that teachers pass them.

    It's also very costly for such students, of course -- often for years to come, with student loans.


    WI recall (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    this is awsum.  they needed 540,000 and are expected to turn in 1.5 million signatures tomorrow.

    bub-bye Scottie

    Next Tuesday, Wisconsin organizers attempting to recall Governor Scott Walker, Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch and four Republican state Senators will turn in their petitions, and they expect to have well above the number of signatures to trigger recall elections in all those races.

    Hurray for the NY Giants! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    I predicted that Green Bay would go down in the playoffs. Nearly got hurt patting myself on the back.

    Ravens - Giants. Superbowl 2012.

    Pretty Sad To Hijack a MLK Post to Brag (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    Wait for a football or Open Thread.

    "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    and Open Thread"

    hahaha (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    I was about to say

    "someone's team lost this weekend"

    But I shouldn't be too giddy.  That could all too easily be me next week.

    I really wanted Houston to win that game.


    [new] Football Picks (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:29:15 AM PST

    [...]As a lifelong Packer fan [...]

    Uhhh...this IS and open thread, as the (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:43:02 PM EST
    post title clearly states.

    But, that being said, I can understand your testiness, and all I can say is that if the Ravens had lost yesterday, I would not be feeling nearly as bad as you are that the Texans lost, because my Ravens really didn't play well.  They couldn't get much going on offense and didn't have much answer for Foster.  What they did was capitalize on Texans mistakes - Yates' three picks had rookie written all over them - you just can't take chances when Ed Reed and Lardarius Webb are waiting downfield to jump a route.  And Jacoby Jones will have the mishandling of that punt on a loop in his head for a long time - I don't envy him, but maybe it makes him a better player in the future.

    And, if memory serves, you're also a Wisconsin native - so, with the Packers losing, you really got the double whammy, Scott - that really bites.

    The Texans will be back, of that I'm sure - and I'm sure the Pack will be, too - small consolation, I know, but it's more than some teams can say, right?  Are there more than a handful of people who thought the Saints and the Packers would not still be standing, getting ready to meet at Lambeau for the NFC championship?  I always thought that, of the two, the Saints were the more vulnerable team, and  the Giants - well, they seem to have the fire that Green Bay was clearly lacking.

    So, next Sunday, I will be rooting for my Ravens - we kicked NE's butt once in the playoffs - gave them their first playoff loss at home, if I recall - and I know they have the ability to do it again; the question is. will we see it?

    Another week of pins and needles and purple everywhere - not sure I can stand it, but guess I don't have much choice.


    It was a good game (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    Did Martin play? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    It was a boring game (none / 0) (#56)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    as advertisers stuck in the latter part have noted.

    I expected my Pack to lose -- in part for a reason that, interestingly, the sports-of-all-sorts writers do not want to deal with in their usual pack (lower-case) mentality of protecting teams rather than committing acts of journalism.

    But I thought it would be more exciting, more like the contest that continued almost to the end of their last matchup.  Two boring games in one weekend turn me off, and I'm not going to give that many hours again to the chances of another boring Super Bowl.  

    So I have baseball to look forward to -- but when I have to look for baseball to bring back some excitement, that says something about football.


    I'm pulling for (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    Pats - SF

    Although many around here would like to see a pats-giants rematch, I'm not sure my blood pressure can handle that kind of baggage going into the big game.

    On another note, I was really pulling for Houston.  The Ravens are scary.  Even if they don't beat you they hurt you.


    I would like it (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:34:21 PM EST
    if the outcome changed.

    The only real problem I have with it is that it requires me to root for the Giants in the next game (and the last one for those I was with).

    That's just something I don't have in me.


    Yup, I feel your pain. (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    I'm in the same position.

    you want (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    the outcome changed???



    Surprising and sad (none / 0) (#8)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    to see the Pack implode on offense with unforced and forced errors galore.  Particularly the inept passing game.

    Meanwhile the red hot and confident Giants will be even tougher for my 49ers to beat than were the Saints.  And their organization has a pretty good history of playing the Niners tough at Candlestick.

    As for the Ravens they won't beat the Pats unless their offense steps it up scoring TDs and/or the Ravens D manages to rattle Brady consistently, which they are perfectly capable of.


    My son is (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    a rabid San Francisco fan (he was born there, although we moved when he was very young- must have been something in the water in San Francisco that imprinted him).  He was thinking that the 49'ers might have a chance against the Giants, because they beat them in the regular season.  I don't know, though- they're definitely going to be tough to beat.  At any rate, he's enormously pleased that the 49'ers have gotten this far.  (And we're going to have a problem here if it winds up being San Francisco-Baltimore in the Super Bowl, since I have a certain fondness for the Ravens.  Although I admit that I'm not anywhere near as interested in football as I am in baseball.)

    The tragedy last week (none / 0) (#57)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    in the life of the crucial offensive coordinator did have an impact, I think, and as I feared.  But nobody is willing to say so.

    And it was a management mistake to have Rodgers and other key players have three weeks off, despite the reasons to avoid allowing Detroit's mobsters do their dirty work and cause injuries.

    That long layoff became quite a local debating point, but the boosters -- the team flacks and the local media hacks -- kept saying that the "rust" could be shaken off after the first three minutes, and all would be fine.  Ridiculous.  Three weeks is a long time, especially when it turned out that practices were cut owing to the tragedy.  And even three minutes is a long time in a playoff game.


    "Detroit mobsters"? (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:17:12 AM EST
    Really?  After the Pack got 14 points  (and wonderful write ups to the backup quarterback) off bad calls by the ref?  A Detroit touchdown that was not called and a Pack Fu ble that wasn't (but both should have been).  Seems to me it was the Lions who got mugged by the thugs in Green Bay that day.

    Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek Cover (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

    "By misunderstanding Obama's strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, [the left] have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game. He did this with his own party over health-care reform. He has done it with the Republicans over the debt. He has done it with the Israeli government over stopping the settlements on the West Bank--and with the Iranian regime, by not playing into their hands during the Green Revolution, even as they gunned innocents down in the streets. Nothing in his first term--including the complicated multiyear rollout of universal health care--can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, he will have won a battle more important than 2008: for it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible."


    My guess: No one here will have anything to say about that piece.


    I generally agree with the piece obviously.  It's a fairly good statement, in long form, of why I think he's done a good job.  I know people here tend to hate Sullivan, but I was glad to see the whole case laid out fairly clearly from both a left and right perspective.

    My conclusion: when the far left and the far right are so adamant in asserting that he's a corporate puppet/communist simultaneously, they are almost certainly both wrong.  He's a left/moderate pragmatist.

    The only thing that has changed since 2008 is the assumptions/projections placed on him IMHO.

    Why is (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan so dumb is the question I would like the answer to. Obama is not playing a game. Sullivan has been played for a fool once again. There is no 11 dimensional chess game going on. That was all a fantasy. Obama doesn't have any core beliefs and that is a point that Sullivan seems to ignore.

    I find it ironic that you are such a fan of someone who finds you to be his intellectual inferior because of your skin color. Of course, that is assuming that you are telling the truth about your skin color but maybe you aren't.


    GaDem6th (none / 0) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    You are correct. I could be lying about who I am but that would be pretty sad.  Better and easier to assume I am who I say I am anyway.

    Anyway, a consistent theme for me is that the key to a good argument is that it holds up even if you dislike the person making it.

    I think regardless of what you think of Sullivan or his other views, he constructed a good argument if you read the piece.  

    People will quibble with ACA (many here believe it is the devil's work or whatever) and others will disagree about the necessity of the auto/wall street bailouts, and many may prioritize the combatant detention policies (which Sullivan admits he disagrees with as well), but I don't think the piece can be dismissed broadly.

    The points it makes are ground in the facts of the last few years.

    The easy response is "I don't like Sullivan so the piece stinks/I won't read it".

    That seems the worst of all responses.


    there are only 24 hours in a day (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    & i already know what Sully thinks

    i just proved that by reading the article

    i want my 10 minutes back


    Oh, man, I can see you today will (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:25:51 PM EST
    go @ TalkLeft.  Maybe I'll make a bigger dent in the 900 pp. Murakami novel today!

    "I can see how today" etc. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:27:01 PM EST
    Well you disagreed (none / 0) (#26)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    with everything in it, right? No one likes to read an article that says "you, reader, are wrong and being unfair and here is why".

    I just thought it was a good summation of arguments I and others have made in pieces across many comments.

    I can see referencing it in the future.


    Although the article title labels (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    disbelievers as "dumb."  

    no, not with everything (none / 0) (#102)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    well you disagreed with everything in it, right?

    but there's a difference between thoughtful argumentation & zealous fellation - somebody ought to tell Sully


    Well, Tweety agreed with everything. (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    Mathews had Sullivan as a guest on his show tonight, and Sullivan briefed the Hardball audience on his article.  Sullivan noted that President Obama has been maligned by the right wing, because he really has governed "center-right".  Moreover, Sullivan justified his vote for Reagan then and Obama now because the are both great, but the decades are different.   Guess Sullivan thinks this will mollify Republican attitudes and  persuade liberals.   Tweety wondered why the Obama team does not brag on this record.  And, he is a political expert?

    How did (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:26:18 PM EST
    you watch that and keep your supper down?

    Sullivan thinks that the GOP hates Obama because he's governed center right??? Sullivan shows himself to be even more stupid with that comment. The reason the GOP doesn't like Obama is that they are just like Pavlov's dog's and are trained to hate anybody with a D beside their name whether they actually govern like a D or not is something that they can't compute in their brain.

    Obama's team doesn't brag on his record because nobody likes it. It's just not that great. I guess he could rerun Bush Sr.'s '92 campaign and instead of talking about Sadaam he could talk about Osama. Even I'm surprised that Tweety is that clueless but this is what comes out at the Washington cocktail parties I'm willing to bet.


    No the worse (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:28:32 PM EST
    thing is giving that POS misogynist Sullivan a hit and conveniently forget all the damage he did with his Bush apologia. No, no, according to you it's all fine now because he's an Obama apologist. Okay.

    Oh come now, Ga6thDem (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    At least sully gave a polite nod to Obama turning the country into a fascist police state with his signing into law the indefinite detentions provisions of the NDAA before he did what all Obama apologists do and changed the subject so fast all that was left were the little white curlicues in the air behind him as he exited stage right.

    Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.

    He's done amazingly well with this article today and probably completely eliminated any possibility of himself ever being disappeared in to dungeon somewhere with his fawning praise of Obama, and if by some slim chance he does end up disappeared he's at least pretty confident he won't be tortured in that dungeon.

    So sully has shown the light and the way to all Obama apologists on how to avoid the dungeon. Who could ask for anything more?

    Unless of course, as he does seem to recognize before he makes another fast stage right exit changing the subject again, he's disappeared and tortured one day by a republican president using the power that Obama gave him.

    He is also right on the money with the rest of his article and his unspoken recognition that there is no equivalency at all between Obama and any republican.

    Obama is much much better than any republican ever could hope to be.

    No republican would ever have had a hope in hell of putting over all the right wing crap on people that Obama has managed to put over on them while still hypnotizing them into contorting themselves into believing they are supporting even remotely progressive policies.


    you're probably right (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    My guess: No one here will have anything to say about that piece.

    many of us stopped reading Sully long, long ago

    the rest have probably been tuning him out since his last paean to The Bell Curve


    I could, if I had the time and (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    the energy, go through Sullivan's article and respond, one-by-one, to many of his points, but today is not that day; suffice it to say that Sullivan's penchant for inserting himself, and Obama, between two very negatively-labeled ends of a large spectrum (how many ways are there to call one group crazy and the other OCD perfectionists?), is how he tries to win the argument he wants to have.  Too bad he kind of glides over where the middle seems to have been moved to in the last three+ years, thanks to an oh-so-reasonable, ever-so-mature Obama, for whom being all things to as many people as possible has superceded that quaint notion of defined priniples and positions that are deemed to be worth advocating for, huh?  

    Further, as much as Sullivan wants to be right about what he declares Obama's "long game" to be, does he have some inside access he's not telling us about?  Have he and Barack shared beers and chewed the fat about what the plan is?  I don't think so, but Sullivan's forceful assertion seems to be based on looking at the Obama term through some pretty rose-colored glasses with a nice film of Vaseline on them, so the high-def details just fade out altogether.  

    We get it, ABG: you like Obama, and so does Sullivan - reading him, I kept wondering when the stirring music would start; what you don't get is that many of us don't hold Andrew Sullivan's thoughts and opinions in anything approaching high regard.  He's missed, and missed badly, on so many issues, and been so offensive and offensively obtuse (or is that "obtusely offensive?"), that he's just not worth the effort.

    And maybe someday, you - and Sullivan - will get that as much as you would like to attach equal weight to the pluses and minuses of Obama's term, so as to be able to claim that "on balance," Obama's been pretty darn good, that's just simplistically ludicrous.


    Oh, you're absolutely right - it was (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:00:56 AM EST
    probably a nice arugula, goat cheese and walnut salad - perhaps with a sprinkle of dried cranberries - dressed with a balsamic vinaigrette, and washed down with a nice crisp white wine...

    Andrew Sullivan tells it all, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    in his caveat: an unabashed supporter, not as a liberal, but as a "conservative-minded independent" appalled by the Bush Administration.. So his political tract is from the perspective of not only a conservative mind, but also, a conservative mind that has become appalled by Bush.

    As such, it is a decent tract, but not one that is likely to be persuasive to liberals: the aspersions to thick-headedness of those who do not see what he has come to see (although he, too, disagrees on important matters such as Libya, look forward not backward, and NDAA) are less offensive than his disparagement of "Pelosi-style reflexive defenses of all federal entitlements", or worse, his false equivalency.

    "..Attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren't out of bounds.  They're simply, empirically, wrong."   President Obama does deserve credit for DADT repeal, but Sullivan mollifies that success with overreaching on NY state's marriage equality action.  A "long-view should not be confused with an overly cautious view. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus."


    One question (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    If this is really a strategy, what has prevented Obama from sharing his long term vision?

    It is a good, provocative article, ABG (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    'Read it this a.m.  Normally, I find Sullivan difficult to take/read/stomach.  The misogynism tends to permeate (only one side-swipe comment in this article, tho). The depth & relative balance in the article make it a worthwhile read.  His discussion about the economic situation confronting us in 2009 is good.  Mostly, I appreciate his appreciation of the long-range strategy at work in so many Obama actions. Given my own preference for the quick hit, I'll admit to being baffled at first. Yet, it is becoming more & more obvious that the President is a rare long-range planner. I agree with Sullivan's depiction of the Obama style as serious, methodical, long-range, and effective.

    Agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    and that is not to say that the long term strategy is the right one.  There are surely time where a shorter term strategy is more advantageous.

    But I think Sullivan's primary point is that what many mistake for weakness or even selling out can be explained easily if you believe that Obama is viewing a 10-20 year time frame.

    Does ACA look like it solves all healthcare issues in the 5-6 year time frame? No.  But if you look it as a development in a 10-20 year time frame, it is massively important. Does a 2 year concession on the Bush tax cuts help in the 2-5 year battle with conservatives? Probably not, but the bigger battles over the principles in a 10 year time frame are aided by displaying a willingness to split the baby. Particularly if he gets a second term and can flex his powers as a lame duck with little to lose.

    The wrong view is to read the article and view it as absolving Obama of all faults/blame.  I think it serves to place the last few years in a perspective that is more realistic than our short term, 24 hour news cycle culture will often allow.

    The 2010 Tax Deal seems like years ago now given the speed of the news cycle for example. Immediate events take on a power and relevancy that they don't have in the big scheme of things.  The piece reminds us of that.


    you know what they say (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    about a stopped clock being right twice a day.  

    I saw Sully (who I basically loath) on teevee last night and he said something I thought was funny.

    "if I hear one more 50 year old person with a pony tail say they are not going to vote this year because they did not get a public option I am going to scream.  grow up"

    um, amen


    This is supposed to be (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    about Martin Luther King.

    It's an open thread (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    ABG (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    Obama isn't going to do much without the House and most likely, the Senate.

    He may try and keep making appointments that are illegal and he may be able to get us into a Constitutional crisis over his EO's....

    But that will be the size of it.


    The senate will (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:38:36 PM EST
    probably flip but the GOP is going to have a hard time keeping the house with the way the tea party has trashed it. They have brought the lowest approval rating ever recorded to the house.

    Oh, please. You're watching way (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:25:59 PM EST
    too much MSNBC and have started believing what you read on MediaMatters.

    I know this (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:38:04 AM EST
    might be hard for you to wrap your brain around but I don't watch MSNBC or any cable news. I read the news feeds, pure unadulterated news feeds.

    And the Tea Party has delivered the lowest congressional rating every recorded and they are doing a great job of destroying the GOP. Maybe I should start cheering them on.


    And news feeds are (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:58:55 AM EST
    never biased??

    The things I learn.

    BTW - People have long hated Congress and love their Representative.


    Their (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    accuracy is the best. I'm not sure anyone who relies on Fox though would understand accuracy or what is biased and what is not.

    I like reading (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    Daily KOS and Huffington post myself...

    I mean being an accuracy type...



    I wonder what Martin would think of us today? (none / 0) (#51)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    Judge by the content of your character not the color of your skin.
     I don't think he would approve of blacks voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.
     We have the highest unemployment rate every and it's only getting worse. Obama said he don't believe in policies singling out one race of people. But every other president has done just that. Obama has no plan to help poor people.
     When one group of Americans fail,we all fail. Blacks will continue to support him, even though he don't support them.

    I think he would be offended (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    by someone "blacks [are] voting for Obama because of the color of his skin."

    It's that kind of condescending "we know better than you do what's good for you Mr. Negro" type sh*t that was at the core of the problem in the first place.

    Here is an option: black people aren't idiots and can make informed decisions, as they did when they didn't support Jackson, Sharpton, Cain, or Keyes despite the fact that they were black.

    Good reminder of how stupid some think black people are.


    with the exception of you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    you can't really tell a person's race by their handle.  But for what it's worth, I believe loveed has stated she is black.

    And as for this: "Good reminder of how stupid some think black people are" coming from someone who believes in the bell curve it's a little hard to wrap my head around.

    All that aside, I agree with your comment.  Black people have been voting overwhelmingly Democrat for a while now.  I would not assume they are for Obama "just because he's black".  They might be more enthused because of the historical nature of it, but I think we all are to some extent.  Just like if it were a woman.  That aside - to your point - I still wouldn't vote for Bachmann, and "black people" still didn't vote for Cain, etc...


    I read ABG's reply as based (none / 0) (#58)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    exactly upon the knowledge that loveed also is (or, as we have to say, also states that she is) African American.

    not african-american (none / 0) (#117)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:32:25 PM EST
     I am American, with dark skin. Black American. I know nothing about Africa. Neither did my parents or there parents. My grandfather was born in Canada.
     My roots are in this country. Obama is African American.
     I resent being call this. Make me happy call me an American.

    I voted for jessie his first run for president (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    a lot of blacks did. When Regan was asked what type of jobs plan he had for blacks, his responds "there only 12% of the population I don't need there vote". So blacks voted for Jessie. We knew he would not win, but we voted for him anyway. Jessie received more votes in SC than Obama. He had quite a few delegates when he went to the convention.
     There would be no Obama without the Jessie and the AL that precede him. I never was a supporter of Obama, he had no experience.
     Part of the reason I left the democratic party was because of the way they treated Jessie & Al. Every since Jackson ran for president he was given a speech at the convention. Al was allowed to speak also.They were respected for there part in the civil rights movement. Until Obama, they were not allow to address the convention.
      Over the years I might not agree with either. But I will never forget, how we got here.
    Both will always have my respect.
     It's funny how a man who has no clue about race relation and the struggle that blacks went through, ban those who fought.
     I live in a black community. One of the jobs I work at is 99% black. My family is black. I will tell you, they voted for him because his skin is black. And will vote for him again because his skin is black.
     I lived through the civil rights movement. If it was not for the majority of Americans wanting a change, it never would have happen.
     I will remind you blacks are only 13% of the population. It was white America that elected Obama.

    loveed, you said (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:09:15 PM EST
    "When one group of Americans fail,we all fail."  You have it absolutely right, my sister.  I supported Jessie Jackson as well in the past, even though I am white, and even though I realized that Jessie was not perfect (who among us is?).  When Obama gave his speech after his presidential election victory, I watched a shot of Jessie Jackson with tears running down his face, and that made me cry, too.  I never thought that a black person would be elected President in this country, in my lifetime. I had not supported Obama during the Democratic Primary (nor did I support Hillary Clinton- I'm way, way to the left politically of both of them).  We are all Americans, and if we cannot find a way to work together for the good of all of us (not just the wealthy), then we are doomed as a country.

    In my lifetime (none / 0) (#92)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    There have been many first. Usually they were the best and the brightest.
     I wish Colin Powell would have run.

    I liked (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    Colin Powell up until he gave his speech to the UN in February 2003, making the case for our invasion of Iraq based upon Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass destruction.  (See this, among other things.)  He lost me after that.  I think that he was trying to be "the good soldier."  It didn't work, at least for me.  He should have refused to give that speech and resigned as a matter of conscience, the way Elliot Richardson did during the Watergate mess under Richard Nixon.

    The Dilemma of 2009 & the Comeback (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:54:04 PM EST
    If Obama had done nothing or very little to help people--blacks, browns, whites, etc.--find jobs, you might raise a good issue, loveed. That is not the case. As we all recall, the country swooned almost to a Second Depression by the end of the Bush II debacle...jobs were being lost at the rate of 700,000 per month by the time President Obama was sworn in.

    Whatever other feelings we might have or whatever party proclivities we might hold, it is helpful to look at numbers in the depth of the economic mess with which 2009 arrived. First & foremost, we have moved the huge losses to increasing gains of jobs per month...that isn't easy (especially when your opposition party slows or strikes down most economic proposals the WH puts forth.) As I understand, this Administration has gained a net 2.5 million jobs...some argue more, some argue less. That commonly accepted number exceeds by several hundred thousand the number of jobs created during the complete four years of Bush II, when the economic climate (which started with Clinton's surplus) was demonstrably better than the climate under which Obama has labored.

    There are all kinds of numbers for all kinds of legislation. It doesn't tell us everything, of course; but, it tells us some important things. One particular set of numbers involves the restoration of the auto industry...a success for workers and companies hiring those workers because President Obama was willing to take the expected (and real) flak from "bailing out" some of the auto industry. Remember that a number of bystanders thought the move would fall flat...it didn't...ask the companies & the thousands of workers involved.

    And, loveed, I do second your sentiment that "when on group of Americans fail, we all fail."  That is why I wish so much that some acquaintances in my area (Denver) would think long & search their consciences about their casual remarks about the President's background...coming from Repubs, of course; but, for a professor, oil man, & police officer (said acquaintances) to focus so much on the color of his skin (complete with the jokes about Kenya and/or about animals or offensive remarks about where his loyalty is in terms of religion or country or the shape of a black woman in the person of his wife, and many disgusting etcs.)then I think Dr. King might cry for a very different reason than you note, loveed.

    While I believe that Dr. King's dream will one day be realized, inevitably realized, we have a way to go when there are definitely numbers of people who have opposed him--as witnessed with these "acquaintances" of mine--from the first day. And, why? Because of the color of his skin.


    The trap (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    is sprung.

    Can you support your argument, your first paragraph, with evidence specific to it in your second paragraph?  Not from the data I have seen.

    That is, you are arguing apples but providing evidence of oranges.


    Yes, Donald, my comment (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    should read "created" in characterizing jobs. Sloppy on my part (only excuse is that too many thoughts in the head about several parts of the original comment & reply.) Again, apologies for the sloppy use of the word "net."

    As you point out, substantial jobs have been created. And, as in the case of the auto industry proactive aid, many jobs have been saved.


    Pls see Donald's comment below (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    and my response following.  (In brief: I should have used the word "created" to modify jobs. As Donald notes, substantial jobs have been created.)

    I'll need to get back with you later after re-looking for the cite for Bush job loss as one indicator of attitude toward jobs and for the claimed number by the WH as well as economists who have also written in recent months. To be honest, they are numbers stamped on the mind because of the impression they made while reading. But--I suspect that you are aware of the various sets of numbers. Seriously tho, I'll look into the BLS summaries, etc. for the verification you request.


    That is (as I ought to have said) (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    that's what you need to do, if you want to be responsive to and persuasive about loveed's point.

    Of course, opting to deflect from her point to a different point, a different group, is always a useful debating option, if you're not caught at it.


    I just reread loveed's comment (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    If the comment beginning with the word "we" is meant to be limited to the black populace in this country, then you are correct, towanda.  Near the conclusion of her comment, she refers to the need to help "poor people." If that is an extension of the "we" as referring only to black people, then my apologies to her and you for the misread. If the comment is meant to be read in the broader context, then I would restate that the evidence about creating jobs is supportive of claims of substantial improvement.

    So...loveed: Was it your intent to refer only to black unemployment numbers today or to broader job and/or unemployment figures???


    I was referring to the black unemployment rate (none / 0) (#90)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    That's how I read your post, too (none / 0) (#95)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    obviously. :-)

    We will see if your point is addressed.


    Thank you for responding, loveed. (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    I have no answer on that score.  And, like you, I deeply wish someone did. All that can be said is that the President is trying as hard as he can in view of the Repub constraints at this point? Perhaps, I'm missing something as to specific programs/plans/actions that could be used & would be approved by Congress that would address the deplorable jobs situation to which you refer?

    Really? I've read lots of data (none / 0) (#135)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    that breaks down the jobless situation by race, ethnicity, gender, etc.  Just fyi, if you are interested; the data are out there.

    Nope, still apples and oranges. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    When your argument is about African Americans, your evidence needs to be about African Americans.

    See their job data in this depression, and then see if your argument needs to be modified.


    You may have misread (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:37:51 PM EST
    My argument (as to the jobs component) was about jobs in general. Why? Because I took loveed's comment to have a broader message than a focus on black employment alone (tho, that was certainly a portion.) She wrote of the need for jobs & more beyond the color of skin.
    So...thank you for helping me clarify my intent. Else, we would be tasting plums & pears for the rest of the thread.

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:35:14 PM EST
    I took loveed's comment to have a broader message than a focus on black employment alone

    This is her summary statement:
    Blacks will continue to support him, even though he don't support them.
    You are changing the discussion to the one you want to have.

    See response above. (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    I'm at a loss about addressing the bad job numbers in the black community. Perhaps, there is something specific--in terms of actions or programs--that either the WH or the Repub Congress could propose?  It is most significant to consider the positions of black leaders, speakers, community...and, as loveed acknowledges, they do not seem to be deserting the President. That factor, at this point, should not be taken lightly, I would think.

    I think Harry Belafonte (none / 0) (#137)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    would disagree with you.  Black leaders are not a monolith.  But as to the AA community as a whole I'm not qualified to judge either.

    In order to stop the bleeding you need (none / 0) (#91)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:23:12 PM EST
    150,000 new jobs a month, to stay even.

    Yes, loveed (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    And, we need to meet & surpass that mark more than every several months. For now, I guess that I believe the President is doing the best he can on that score. Certainly, no Republican has any plan whatsoever about putting people back to work...other than cutting taxes for the wealthy.

    It;s funny how the rich has only gotten richer (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    and the poor poorer. The color of his skin has nothing to do with. It's lack of experience.
     Bush gives taxpayer a rebate it's $600.00 Obama 200.00.
     The payroll tax cut. Low income maybe $40.00 a month. When this is spread over 2 paychecks =20.00 a pay. Over 4paychecks = $10.00 a pay. Taxes is also taken out. How does this really help a family of 4. They will spend about 30 billion form SS for such a small amount. I laughed when the dems. spent all that time arguing for some thing that helps so little.
     As far as his dream, the only important color is green.

    Are you suggesting that Bush II (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    was more helpful to the black community than Obama? Sorry to be so blunt--but there are Republican women, hispanics & blacks....and where one sits determines where one stands.

    Addition: The experience factor (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    doesn't really exist at this date since the President, by definition, has more experience in national events now than anyone else other than previous Presidents.

    facts are facts (none / 0) (#125)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:56:47 PM EST
    Do you know there has been no increase in SS or disability checks since Obama took office? This is also a first. Do you also believe the cost of living has not increased? There will be an increase this year, due to the election.

      This affect poor people.


    What role do you ascribe to the Repubs? (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:52:09 PM EST
    Everything is being cut back. As a federal retiree, there are 2 years of freezes on any increases. The Repubs are pushing for more freezes for govt & elsewhere. I know this: Because Congressional support is required in the area of $$$ changes like this, the Repub House is key. What should we ask of Boehner & Cantor?

    Ow about? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    Any legislation has to also get through the Senate? You know, the Senate controlled by Harry Reid - the way it's been since 2006?

    Be glad that you get any increase (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:31:33 PM EST
    As a federal retiree, there are 2 years of freezes on any increases.

    COLA's aren't part of most private retirement plans.


    Oh, but I am glad (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:41:54 PM EST
    ...never said otherwise.  

    Good news (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    I was flipping (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    channels the other night and came across Tavis Smiley's panel. They were discussing poverty and how to get people out of it. What stuck in my mind is that Suze Orman said this year is going to be BRUTAL. She said that everyone should be prepared for that. She said that things are not going to be as bad here as they are in Europe but it will be bad.

    back in 5, just ducking out for more popcorn (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:35:40 PM EST
    Conservatives feud over Santorum endorsement
    Some say Texas weekend gathering manipulated

    In an evolving power struggle, religious conservatives are feuding about whether a weekend meeting in Texas yielded a consensus that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is the best bet to stop Mitt Romney's drive for the Republican presidential nomination.

    A leading evangelical and former aide to President George H.W. Bush said he agreed with suspicions voiced by others at the meeting of evangelical and conservative Catholic activists that organizers "manipulated" the gathering and may even have stuffed the ballot to produce an endorsement of Mr. Santorum over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    btw that link was the Mooney TImes (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    which is probably a good place to read about republican internecine backstabbing but if you prefer a more grounded source how about the Washington Post:

    Another Gingrich supporter, Jim Garlow, pastor of a San Diego megachurch, agreed: "There was never a consensus. All the people I know of who came supporting Newt left supporting Newt."

    Garlow described himself as having been "shocked" at the subsequent announcement.

    "It wasn't a consensus and it wasn't an endorsement," added former representative J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), who was also at the session and also expressed concern at how the outcome was being portrayed.

    Oh good grief. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:28:06 AM EST
    It's anti-Catholic bigotry that's driving this train not ballot stuffing. And their whole argument about the "sanctity of marriage" goes down the drain with Gingrich. Support of Gingrich just shows how bankrupt these people and their ideas are. The sooner these people get out of the political arena the better. And what happens if the Catholic Republicans along with the Mormon Republicans get a whiff of this bigotry? That's what waiting to see.

    "anti-Catholic bigotry" (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    Im not exactly sure how since Perry was never even really seriously considered and the two candidates who were are both catholic.

    Best outcome would be for the religious (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    endorsement to have no effect whatsoever. What a concept!!!

    which appears (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    to be the case.  at least so far.  last poll I saw Ricky was 4th