Thinking About Teddy
I've been casually watching the wall-to-wall coverage of Ted Kennedy's demise and his legacy and one thought keeps occurring to me: Just how small, petty and sad most of the rest of our esteemed Senate looks compared to him.
I make no illusions about Kennedy's well-known human frailities. A boozer, a skirt-chaser, and someone who played a very suspect (to say the least) role in the Chappaquiddick incident. No question, either, that the young Kennedy was a bit of a slacker, and someone who just could not be taken that seriously.
But whether it was his sordid role at that fateful bridge accident, or his humiliating defeat in the 1980 primaries, or a combination of both, he clearly made up his mind to begin earning the reputation that came with the family name and legacy. And that he did.
Here was what a Senator is supposed to be. Someone who works his tail off passing legislation that protects, bolsters, improves and enriches the lives of the bottom half of the American population. Perhaps the most extraordinary testament to Ted Kennedy is that for the many decades he spent in the Senate, he NEVER sought a leadership position (that would have been his for the asking). Instead, he chose to stay in the trenches and fight like hell (and then party hearty afterward). Indeed, all of his personal flaws and foibles stemmed from that same very human core that was his wellspring of compassion, justice and equality. He never faltered, never, when it came to fighting for civil rights, for rule of law, for health care and against the senseless war in Iraq. He spoke up against it loud and clear while the majority of the exalted Democratic leadership -- from Dick Gephardt to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton-- pissed their pants readily boarded the Bush-Cheney ride into hell.
Compare Ted Kennedy to those shriveled souls and laughable clowns like Senators G*assley, Baucus, Chambliss or even the Sarah Palin-lovin' John McCain and what you find is a pack of Lilliputians standing around the fallen corpse of a giant.
Even the young, more frivolous Ted Kennedy showed more gumption and integrity than the third-rate crew that currently inhabits the upper house as evidenced in this clip of Teddy speaking at the time of MLK's death.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I’ve been thinking much the same thing. Well said.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
yep.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:40 am
I like Senators who do nothing. The less Congress meets, the better off we are.
Kennedy was compassionate with other people’s money. Why does he get credit for that? I’d love to see how much he left to the “average American” in his will.
He sure died at the perfect time, though, right before the Bush tax exemption of estates is being allowed to expire by the Democrats. Out of compasson, maybe he ordered his estate to pay the higher taxes on estates that he championed rather than what the Republicans passed.
To honor Kennedy in a manner truly worthy, bury him at sea.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Make up your mind, Woody. Which is it? Was TK one more chump who owed his position to inherited wealth, like George W Bush, or should we repeal the estate tax? You can’t work both sides of that.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:39 am
I don’t know why, but your post here most concisely sums up my thoughts about the guy. Though I’m sure I disagree with him on a few issues, immigration in particular.
Woody, when I think of disasterously busy big-government social engineers that push trillion-dollar imperialist projects, demographic makeover projects in the guise of immigration reform, corporate welfare, and public sector ineptitude, the first thing that comes to MY mind is the last Republican President and the last Republican Congressional leadership.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Synchronous to TK talk is this news item of a new doc out. Sounds rather fantastic:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/08/27/anatomy.of.hate/index.html
If it could only be absorbed as suppository Woody could shove it up his ass.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
On the other hand, Alexander Cockburn, who apparently has started writing for the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles, skewers him quite humourously here, in a fact-filled style that reminds me quite a bit of Marc:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/08/28/hollow-champion/
Here’s a Cooperesque quote:
“The campaign plane shot backward and forward across America, seeking photo opportunities. On one typical morning, we left Washington, D.C., at 6 a.m. and headed for the Rustbelt, where Kennedy stood outside a shuttered Pittsburgh steel mill and pledged to get the steel industry back on its feet. We shot west to Nebraska so Kennedy could stand outside a corn silo and swear allegiance to the cause—utterly doomed—of the small family farmer. Then we doubled back to New York so he could stand on a street corner in a slum neighborhood in the Bronx and promise a better deal for urban blacks and Hispanics.
“I asked one of Kennedy’s campaign people why they didn’t simply equip a studio in Washington with the necessary backdrops—steel mill, silo, urban wasteland—but he said it wouldn’t be honest. As things were, the locations we flew to may have been genuine, but the campaign pledges were as dishonest as a studio backdrop, which is why Kennedy—bellowing out his speeches like a mammoth stuck in a swamp—sounded utterly fake.”
August 28th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I almost never agreed with anything EMK stood for. But I met him in Sept, 1963 in my Sr. Year in HS and was impressed with his easy grace as the talked to us (about 10 or so HS students) about a variety of topics. He is the reason I voted for HHH in 68 (that and I always thought Nixon was a crook).
If nothing else, I admired him for bucking the Democratic leaders in arguing against the Iraq war, though I supported the invasion. That took guts. Perhaps the only time I admired him for any thing political.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
GM,
You always manage to sound so much more reasonable and even-tempered than your little dauphin Woody. Maybe you couild give him some lessons.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:03 am
And Alexander Cockburn is a worthless, marginal, washed up hack. Always. On everytyhing.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:14 am
“bellowing out his speeches like a mammoth stuck in a swamp”
Well I guess Cockburn would know what that sounds like.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Better.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:58 am
BTW, it is 10:57 in our state, Marc, not 9:57, and I am referring to your column, not some of the quite drecky comments here …
August 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
This is the third time you’ve pointed out the time discrepancy on the site. You’ve become so insistent, Ive decided to leave it as is.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Bill Bradley – you’re nitpicking !
(I mean about some of the comments being “quite drecky”)
August 28th, 2009 at 11:29 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AbpBqm_XzA&feature=PlayList&p=6856AF535D0E9D3E&index=0
More bellowing from the swamp of the Senate.
Mammoths are now officially extinct and all we will get in their place is the sound of weasels scratching to try and get up into their chairs, and their snouts trying to reach the microphone.
Long live mammoths!
August 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Ted Kennedy sure wasn’t compassonate when it came to the producers and taxpayers of this nation.
Tax votes by Ted Kennedy:
•Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
•Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
•Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
•Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
•Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
•Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
•Voted NO on permanently repealing the “death tax”. (Jun 2006)
•Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
•Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
•Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
•Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
•Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
•Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
•Voted NO on eliminating the “‘marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)
•Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
•Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
•Rated 17% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
•Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
August 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Woody, you know better than to keep trotting out the “marriage penalty.” You must know perfectly well that the great majority of married couples pay *less* income tax than they would if they were single.
Secondly, stop calling the Paris Hilton fee the “death tax.” Its formally charged against the dead person’s estate, but rather obviously it’s really paid by people who are receiving completely unearned windfalls. It should be 100%.
Maybe you could get your accountant to explain this stuff to you.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Dan O. Why is it that I only sound more reasonable if I say something that prgressives can agree with. When they don’t agree I’m a vile, nasty-bad rethuglican; that and a few other things.
I don’t presume to tell the Woodster what to think as I suspect you aren’t willing to tell some of the more foul mouthd individuals here anything.
by the way, I strongly modified a post by some nasty tongued right-winger on my blog today, he came back with the same dreck, but without the cursing.
http://www.gmsplace.com/?p=2426&cpage=1#comment-1463
August 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Woody:
With a super-majority in Congress maybe the Dems can organize something to lower the deficit and at the same time help me.
Tax the Republicans, and place a super-tax on Woody because, Woody, you are taxing my patience.
One of the reasons you feel broke, Woody, is because the leg-tingling across the board mail-out rebates you got from Herr Bush actually increased the income gap between you and the other Republicans; the ones who joined the party for money.
If lower taxes are you thing Woody, move South of the Border… they get by with the mordidas.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
GM, Well I was trying to pay you a compliment.
I meant that you don’t seem to be quite so willing to make all kinds of wild generalizations about liberals and you display a certain willingness to see nuance. I’m sure we disagree about 90% of politics, but those are traits that I admire in whoever has them. You put your chips on the table when the death wishing was flying around as well. I detect principle there; another thing I admire.
The Woody line was a joke–surely you knew that.
You display a much greater sensitivity to foul language than I do. In fact, I’m a wicked mouthed vulgarian most of the time, but I try not to do it around here too much, because I don’t think it helps the tone of the discourse.
Having said that, there is a large difference between foul words and foul ideas. There is an odd puritan strain that finds the word “fuck” offensive but somehow has no problem with the notion of calling a certain Congressman stumpy. I’ll leave it to your conscience to decide which is the worse offense. I’ll leave it to you to decide which is a violation of decent human compassion and which isn’t.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
PS, Woody, people should pay *higher* taxes on capital gains than on money they worked for, but CG rates are generally lower than OI ones. Frankly, that’s because only rich people get CG. CG rates should be doubled, and there should be Social security and Medicare taxes on them.
And you’re *against* increasing deductions for college tuition? That’s like opposing rescuing kittens from trees.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“If nothing else, I admired him for bucking the Democratic leaders in arguing against the Iraq war, though I supported the invasion. That took guts. Perhaps the only time I admired him for any thing political.”
This is a very important principle you’re speaking to which many on the right did not adhere to under Bush. That dissent, in the face of the status quo, often takes courage and that opposing state policies, even wars, can be a noble act. Its helpful that you point this out because surely you know that this sentiment isnt shared by many of your ideological companions. But you speak for yourself, so good on you.
Your comments do seem sensible, open to nuance and what not, signalling to me that you’ve thankfully calmed down from the days when you were hopelessly enamoured with Sarah Palin and announced loudlt that the (in my opinion far too cautious, centrist Obama) was nothing more that a radical marxist, a black seperatist, jew hater, a-rab ass kisser and the like
August 28th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
reading this message board and the regular cast oc characters on it makes me want to drown myself. No wonder we are doomed.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
GM Hoakster Says:
August 28th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
reading this message board and the regular cast oc characters on it makes me want to drown myself. No wonder we are doomed.
—
GM is a passionate reader.
For curiosity sake it might bell worth holding off on that trans-pacific swim until 2013.
The Doomsday clock will have been set yet again and there will be no nagging questions regarding the end-times as you head off into the void.
Conversely you may find illiteracy life affirming.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Dan O: “The Woody line was a joke–surely you knew that.”
Actually, sadly, I missed it… Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
I’m somewhat inured to the name calling, I didn’t overly object to who-ever-called me fat… I am, in fact, fat. When people ask me how I’m doing, I tell them “Alive and well, Fat and sassy and not necessarily in that order.” And I mean it. And while I would never have used that kind of language for the Senator from Georgia (I taught Rehabilitation at university) It is not much different and not necessarily worse than what has been called of conservative or even right of center folk by many in this blog.
The foul language is something else, it indicates to me that the person using has already lost the argument and being unable (or perhaps unwilling) to use an occasional “four letter word” as emphasis, resorts to using it in a “stream of consciousness” exercise.
Foul language is like good Scotch… better to be used judiciously or not at all.
Ahmed, don’t go there bud. Obama has been a disaster, from the appointment of so many “Czars” which don’t require senate approval, listening to Dr. Emmanuel (have you read the quackery of that man’s ideas on letting the elderly and infirm die?) His mishmash of accomplishing any real health insurance reform (hell, even the netroots are ticked off at him)(and there is an example of the judicious use of a four letter word) to allowing the congress critters to award bonuses to their staff very close to the bonuses paid to many of the functionary’s at AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. He has squandered the TARP money and there has been no accounting of those funds to date, the deficit is 3 times what you progressives rightfully excoriated Bush for, he has sent the wrong message to friends and foes alike with his constant kowtowing to left wing and Islamist dictatorships and lastly, he can’t rationally discuss his plans without his teleprompter and his side to side headswing while cocking his head slightly down for emphasis. Now, could Palin have done any better? Who the hell knows, maybe not, but then again, maybe.
Now, before anyone takes a verbal swing at me for any of the above comments, remember Randy Pauls quoting Orwell:
I now quietly step down from my soap box and retire to the drawing room.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Oh, and Dan O, I thank you for the compliment.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Anyone who thinks Palin coulda been a contender doesn’t rate being called anything but a fool…not to mention you crazed remark about kowtowing to the left wing and Islmaist dictoatorships. Just makes you sound a raving berk.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
GM, would calling you a fatso be considered bad language?
August 28th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
For what it’s worth, while I was doing some work/research stuff, I ran across this 2004 endorsement in the SFBG:
President
John Kerry
No, he’s not the ideal candidate. No, he’s not running the perfect campaign. No, he won’t bring us universal single-payer health insurance, or dramatically shrink the wealth gap, or restore urban programs to the level they were at in the 1960s.
Yes, he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and was awfully weak in the early days of the war. Yes, he’s against same-sex marriage and supports (limited) federal money for faith-based programs. Yes, we realize that, when it comes to his voting record, the senator is no Ted Kennedy.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
da link thingy
http://www.sfbg.com/39/01/cover_endorsements.html
August 28th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“he can’t rationally discuss his plans without his teleprompter”
Utterly dishonest horseshit…
But I could care less. These fools don’t matter anymore. They’re paving their own path to oblivion.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“Its formally charged against the dead person’s estate, but rather obviously it’s really paid by people who are receiving completely unearned windfalls. It should be 100%.”
Theirs or yours, X?
August 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Where’s the real health care ?
August 28th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
The featured speech was pretty much a manifesto of Kennedy liberalism:
We mourn Medgar Evers but not Malcolm X (who went too far and got what was coming to him),
the horror of his brother’s war against the people of South Vietnam – the centerpiece of the last speeches of MLK Jr – gets a brief, vague mention,
this decade (the 60s) is a time of hate and divisiveness (not a period of enlightenment when the rights of women, native Americans…issues of ecology etc came to the forefront) which, if we aren’t careful, will be repeated in the 70s.
the looters, unaware of the Judeo-Christian values that made this country great, are responding out of hate (not from any sense of powerlessness as the last of their leaders was gunned down).
The current heir to the Camelot thrown is getting his behind handed to him for having the hopeless audacity of putting forth a meager set of corporate-friendly health care ‘reforms’. As we blog, health insurance lobbyists are busy writing giant loopholes into legislation that will be passed with much fanfare in a few months by Democrats masquerading as an opposition party.
This is not the time for mythologizing.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
That’s cute, Marc.
We would not want you to have to bestir yourself to the extent of sending a brief email to our mutual webmaster …
>Marc Cooper Says:
August 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
This is the third time you’ve pointed out the time discrepancy on the site. You’ve become so insistent, Ive decided to leave it as is.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Well, if you want a bitchfest over the the obvious …
>reg Says:
August 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Bill Bradley – you’re nitpicking !
(I mean about some of the comments being “quite drecky”)
August 28th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
It’s the internet Bill…we get what we pay for.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
EdWatters: I mourn Malcolm X…and the notion that “he got what was coming to him” is perverse, at best.
If Malcolm had lived a lot of the crazy bullshit that paraded as “black nationalism” and “black revolution” would have been tempered by the presence of a much more mature leader of the “radical” wing of the black struggle than the 20-somethings who ran rampant. And that doesn’t even address the fact that he would have totally eclipsed the egregious Louis Farrakhan. If MLK, Malcolm X and RFK had lived, this would be quite a different country IMHO.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Bill
you stirred me to do it myself. Now I’m exhausted
August 29th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Hey Woody:
Nice list you put together on Uncle Teddy. Every bullet point an endorsement for him. But not to worry… there’s a whole lot of folks who feel compassion for the wealthy and the privileged and even vote consistently in their interests. That’s why God invented and blessed Republicans (and many Democrats too).
Edwatters: You are one TWISTED case, boy. You have a strange politics. You’re like an an ultra-extremist Democrat.. like a miltant an zealous wishy washy moderate. Your line about Malcolm X getting what was coming from him I am going to laminate and put in my wallet. Right next to the line about gals wearing short skirts begging to get raped. Wow.
Ditto on what Reg says: An RFK presidency with a MLK led social movement pushing hard from below would have changed the outcomes of history. No Nixon, no invasion of Cambodia, no Black Panthers, and no Watergate. Not bad.
August 29th, 2009 at 3:37 am
GM,
I suggest that you have nuance and then you run right out and embarrass me. Thanks a lot dude!
Your list about Obama is sillier than Jerry Lewis. Principle would be on display if you had been as concerned about Bush’s unprecedented imperial presidency (showing up in the form of his signing statements, for example) as you are about the phantom problem of these “czars” (a practice started by Nixon if memory serves). Again, it’s a matter of proportion, like foul language vs. foul ideas.
Signing statements for Bush, were simply a tool to ignore Congress and subvert the constitution. Pretty serious stuff. I don’t recall you objecting to this practice. But setting up policy advisors in the White House sends the chill of fascism down your spine.
I don’t understand.
August 29th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Dan O, Because thou drinkest at the font of progressivism, thou hast difficulty in detecting let alone understanding conservative nuance forgetting for the nonce that nuance is not a sole possession of the left.
Now, heaving that bit of BS aside, you are one hundred percent correct when you say the “czar” problem was started by Nixon… but then remember that I too said he was a crook and I believed that dating back to before the ‘60 election and I was then years away from voting for the first time.
Since I surmise (being the astute observer that I am) by your last comment that “signing statements” are bad, then I can expect that you will be equally dismissive of any that Obama makes and he too has continued that practice. I might add in defense of both Obama and Bush and Reagan and Clinton that signing statements are not encouraged or prohibited by the constitution, have no force in law and a prez can issue all he wants and it mittel nichts
(means nothing) in the overall scheme of things.
The Congressional Research Service notes, regarding signing statements:
This last March The NY Times noted a new type of countable… the “sections” of a bill.
Maybe Obama will break in a new metric also… the dreaded “clause” or even perhaps the “phrase.” I suggest, with this last comment that sarcasm can also be “nuance.”
I will also note, that Mr. Obama has already run afoul of Congressional Democrats and Republicans with his use of signing statements. This of course flies in the face of his “intent” to limit the use of “signing statements” himself.
Another point, vis-a-vis, Randy’s quote of Orwell, Ole reg has already started with
Reg of course has a vested interest in his master being oh-so-very eloquent, having been on his knees before the mighty O long before many commenters in this blog. But the fact of the matter is that Obama’s use of teleprompters has entered the realm of cliche which is almost always based on some element of truth, and even, I would guess, some on the left have (if they are honest) noted the reliance thereon and his halting, nay almost Bushian incoherence without a pre-prepared speech and a teleprompter to deliver it from.
And lastly:
“GM, would calling you a fatso be considered bad language?”
Bad in the sense of cursing, not at all. But since being overweight is considered in some circles to be a handicap (especially since I have only one and a half lungs, severe post-thoracotomy syndrome and a nasty case of peripheral neuropathy in my lower extremities all definite handicaps) it would be no less bad form than using the indelicate phrase “stumpy.” Of course, I also consider making Chappaquddick jokes to be pretty poor form too and EMK reportedly loved them.
August 29th, 2009 at 7:07 am
If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. So…. After Kennedy’s Death: Silence from the Pope
Maybe Ted Kennedy found religion on his death bed before it was too late. If so, he can apologize to God for the millions of aborted children of whom he found against their defenders.
August 29th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Mr. X, the estate tax amounts to taxing the same income twice. Once when it’s earned and again when its given to the kids. Not fair at all, is it?
August 29th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Oops. In the 7:07 comment, “found” should be “fought.”
August 29th, 2009 at 8:28 am
GM: You must have been the inspiration for Jabba the Hut.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Ted Kennedy was hardly the 100% do-gooder crusader you blowjob hagiographers make him out to be. He voted 100% with AIPAC, the leading Israeli espionage organization in the US, to support the racist Zionist entity.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Anna, as assuredly as you were the inspiration for Medusa!
August 29th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Woody, when a person who get his/her money by *working* earns it and then spends it on most consumer items, he or she really is taxed twice, once with when he earns it, and once with a hideously regressive sales tax.
On the other hand, a very large proportion, probably most, of the assets that count towards the Paris Hilton fee are capital gains that have never been taxed. And, you ignore my point, which is that *none* of the money was earned by the people who effectively pay the tax, the heirs.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:46 am
He voted 100% with AIPAC, the leading Israeli espionage organization in the US, to support the racist Zionist entity.
Well, another thing I think I liked about Mr. Teddy!
August 29th, 2009 at 8:47 am
“…the leading Israeli espionage organization in the US, to support the racist Zionist entity.”
Bawahahahahaha, Matter, you belong in Comedy Central.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:50 am
>he can apologize to God for the
>millions of aborted children…
you know, a lot of those kids were his in the first place. Are you saying you wanted more TKs running around?
August 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Now, now GM,
You know perfectly well that adding up the numbers of signing statements says nothing whatsoever about their content or the context in which they are being used.
As a tool to lodge some concern, they don’t bother me. As a means of aggrandizing power to the president by asserting an unconstitutional right to ignore congress, they do.
Bush broke virgin ground in this area, and if the description “aggressive” belongs to anyone on this topic, it belongs to him.
He was claiming the unilateral right to accept or reject whatever laws he wanted, which, I’m sure you as a reasonable person will agree, is the very source of tyranny. For Bush it hardly “means nothing” and you’re bordering on the disingenuous with that one. This was a power grab pure and simple.
Besides, that was just one example I could have pulled from your list declaring a president 7 months into his term a disaster.
P.S. If Obama uses signing statements the way Bush did, I’ll be equally critical.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
matter, that’s not true. AIPAC ( and Biden, Kerry, and Hillary ) gleefully supported the US Empire’s assault on Iraq. Ted did not.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Clearly, signing statements can be good or bad depending on who is doing the signing. Your guy or theirs.
I am against signing statements period. They undermine the balance of powers our founders wisely understood, in favor of a one-man controlled executive, just what our founders were afraid of.
There is no doubt, with the Executive Branch now regularly issuing Statements of disagreement with Laws they are empowered to enforce, and the Judicial Branch regularly declaring them null and void, the branch of the elected representatives of the people are at a clear power disadvantage.
If the Executive doesn’t like a piece of legislation(Law), then they do not have to sign it period. But, they cannot sign it and then pick and choose what they will enforce. It must be vetoed and sent back to the power of the Legislative Branch to either override the Executives objections, or not, as our Constitution requires.
And these bastards are sworn in, in order to declare specifically and before us, they will uphold the Laws and Constitution of our, the peoples, not their, Republic? Hell, they haven’t ever read the Constitution, or apparently the Laws they vote in No time.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I guess you get the respect you earn. Right now the Legislature ain’t getting much…..from us or the other two competing Branches.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Thats right, GM, and if you don’t watch your stumpy ass I’ll turn you stone.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
By the way, Medusa was considered the symbol of ultimate female empowerment.
Like I said…watch your fat ass.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Matter is correct that like many on the American liberal left, Kennedy, who I retain much affection for, embodied PEEPism (Progressive on Everything Except Palestine) to the fullest even running against Jimmy Carter to the right on this issue. The good Phillip Weiss breaks it down for us
p://mondoweiss.net/2009/08/brave-ted-kennedy-could-also-be-craven-when-he-had-to-be.html
August 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“I’ll turn you stone.”
Would it be OK then if I got er, uh, “stoned” first?
August 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Fat ass (large) or stumpy ass (abbreviated)?
You don’t get it both ways kiddo!
August 29th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Dan O… go back and read the quote from the CRS… Presidents of both parties have used them. That a particular president (Bush) used them in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean that Bush could use them the way he thought he could. Lawrence Tribe said it pretty well methinks.
August 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Sorry to belabor this point, but it’s not a matter of liking or disliking the content on my part, it’s matter of legality–namely the use of a legal (or at least nuetral practice) to selectively absolve himself of his required duty to execute and enforce the law. That’s the thing I care about–not the statements themselves. Bush did exactly that.
He deviated from the past practice of trying to clear up potential anbiguities, and veered into the realm of making it a selective line-item veto. Charlie Savage sums it up pretty well methinks.
By the way, Lawrence Tribe objects pretty strenuously to the actual (non)action conducted under cover of the signing statements, and merely says that the signing statements themselves are not the problem. That’s precisely the position I took in one of my earlier posts.
You get the last word if you want it, I won’t make any more OT posts on this one.
August 29th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The last word? Is this where I get to say that you are a commie, hippie, pinko lib? Or confess that I am a wingnutty neandertholic rethuglican? Nah, I’ll pass too.
August 29th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
X: that *none* of the money was earned by the people who effectively pay the tax, the heirs.
So, what? The money, already taxed, belongs to the earner to do with as he wishes.
August 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Woody’s knee jerk nastiness is of course trumped by the Pope– who did respond to Kennedy’s letter.
Whats that, Woody?…You are too much of a Christian to sneer at a dying man’s wish to ask for solace?
August 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
It’s over. Rest in Peace
August 29th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Solace? Where was his repentance? Read the article I linked.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Roper is so full of shit it’s hilarious. If he thinks that Obama, speaking impromptu in his debates or town halls or press conferences sounds anything like Bush, it speaks more to the acoustics up inside his rectum where his head resides than anything a sane or normal person could possibly observe in the real world.
Welcome back asshole. Rave on…I’ll do my best to ignore the flatulence. (Woody’s worst sin here these days is boring us.)
August 29th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
“…thereon…nay…”
You’re a pretentious idiot
“Chappaquddick jokes… EMK reportedly loved them”
Reported by who exactly ?
You’re as dishonest and full of it as they come…
August 29th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
More disingenuous, fake sympathy for someone who doesn’t deserve to be dragged through the mud by an asshole like Woody, who only “cares” about Mary Jo Kopechne because of her association with Kennedy.
There’s something about wingnuts’ obsession with Chappaquiddick that makes me think that they actually are happy that Kopechne is dead, so that they have something to whack Edward Kennedy with.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Jesus doesn’t like you, Woody.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I have the feeling that Woody doesn’t like Woody, Anna.
August 30th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Now this was a great speech!
The Reagans and the Kennedys
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376951136648912.html
August 30th, 2009 at 7:59 am
reggie boy: “Reported by who exactly ? “
Ed Klein of Newsweek is who.
August 30th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Ed Klein isn’t “of Newsweek” – once more you’re dishonest as hell. Klein used to work for Newsweek and the Times. Never again. He’s totally discredited as a “journalist.” He’s a fabricator of “bios” based on unsourced gossip. He was fired by the NYTs long ago for publishing articles that were fabricated or doctored.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908280021
Klein trades in making shit up. Of course he’d be a source for your insane natterings…
August 30th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Why is it so easy to show that Woody and Roper don’t have a fucking clue ?
This is boring…
August 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Once again, reg, you claim victory without a victory. You NEVER win an argument with me — NEVER.
And, you did nothing to discredit Roper with you pathetic reference from Media Matters, whose founders and contributors read like a list of left-wingers intent on taking over our government.
You simply deal in unimportant minutia like “Dan Qualye can’t spell ‘potato!’ HaHa.”
Talk about boring.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Your ravings will matter when Reagan rises from the dead…meanwhile you’re a fucking joke. And you know it.
August 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“You NEVER win an argument with me — NEVER. ”
You sound embarrassingly like a child. And you’re also wrong, but you already knew that–hence the childish and breathless protestations. You’re the court fool–”right” in his imagination, wrong in the real world.
August 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Reg is so predictable. He uses Media Matters who sources their stuff with their stuff and he thinks it means anything.
He’d almost be cute but his hostility to the non-progressive world gets in the way.
Of course, that means that given Obambam’s numbers, reg doesn’t like the majority of America.
August 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Your “source” isn’t credible. It’s that simple.
As for the rest of it, you really can’t stand being such a loser can you ? You’re so far out of the political mainstream it’s totally fucking absurd. You even hated John McCain until he nominated that reprehensible ditz…
GM’s Corner ? Lalaland for losers.
August 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“reg doesn’t like the majority of America”
I hope to God that the GOP adopts your rancid political agenda for at least the next decade and we’ll see about “the majority of America” and who “likes” what. I’ll even send money to help make this happen.
You’re a delusional sack of hubristic, pretentious shit…
August 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
If anyone’s interested in reading something that’s written by someone who is actually “from Newsweek” and who hasn’t lost any trace of journalistic credibility by passing unsourced rumor, here’s a good piece on the anti-health care reform “Lying Sack of Shit” Machine:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254
August 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Woody Says:
August 29th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Solace? Where was his repentance?
Woody, you are out of line. The letter to the Pope and the written reply are self-explanatory. It is a matter between a congregant and the head of the church.
You are not satisfied to excoriate Kennedy on political ideological grounds and now seek to strip him of his humanity.
Back off.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Get lost, Scott. I reported what was in an article. Plus, I’ll say what I want, especially about the scum that you celebrate.
Kyle, you’re the peanut gallery cheering on your side. You’re as wrong as reg.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Woody Says:
August 29th, 2009 at 7:07 am
If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. So…. After Kennedy’s Death: Silence from the Pope
Maybe Ted Kennedy found religion on his death bed before it was too late. If so, he can apologize to God for the millions of aborted children of whom he found against their defenders.
——
The Pope DID reply, Woody
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/kennedy/view/20090830ted_kennedys_letter_to_pope_benedict_xvi_and_the_papal_reply/
Your second point of abortion is cryptic and misleading.
What exactly are you trying to say.
Are you laying a womans fundemental right to choose at the feet of Ted Kennedy?
That’s absurd.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Woody Says:
August 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Get lost, Scott. I reported what was in an article. Plus, I’ll say what I want, especially about the scum that you celebrate.
—-
So start talking! (about the celebrated scum in my sphere). A few lines on Derrida? How about Neruda?,,, and young Besancenot, certainly you can find the bathtub ring among these celebrities?!! How about Recabarren?
Woody, you’re out of line twice, now. Have some class. Ted Kennedy was a human being but here you are acting less so..
BION, I am not a fan of TK. However the people of Mass. returned him to office for 46years. If you can’t find the humainty to allow a dying man to write a letter to his church without your satarizing, why not respect the voters and the process who chose TK to be their representative?
You are not a credit to your Party. You are a dessembler. Plus, you don’t say what you want; you say what Hannity and Beck tell you.
Even from a Rightist, traditionalist, or conservative prospective, you have failed to demonstrate on this board any critical thinking.
You are ‘against’ but never ‘for’.
You continue to paint any idea which is outside your ideology as a cartoon to be lampooned.
You’ve been Hannitized.
So you are a subaltern. Deferential, glad to be of use. Kneejerk (accent on the second syllable) acceptence of mass media sources without contextualization; coupled with studied anti-intellectualism as an affectation of patriotism. The kind of guy who will never admit any failing within the ranks of Republicanism, lest it be seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited.
BTW, where in Time mag did it say that Teddy needed repentance, or was that your editorial on the article you posted?
August 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“What exactly are you (Woody) trying to say.”
I think something to the effect of “I’m a puerile, annoying dick who won’t shut up !!!”
August 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Woody, you’re out of your league–you realize this, which is why you whine a lot (in all caps, even). Also, it’s been fun watching even our polite newcomer Scott smack you down. It’s amusing when someone new comes along and naively attempts to engage you, since we get to watch you demonstrate yet again the intellectual dishonesty and contradiction that you always tangle yourself up in… always the troll, always the fool. When will you learn that your trollish behavior doesn’t convince anyone of anything? You should really try to reason and dialogue in good faith for once. It would be liberating. But you need to drop the childish ego, first.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Scott, I don’t belong to any political party, and, yes, I do say what I want and come up with my own positions without listening to conservative talk shows.
If you check my comments related to breaking news, you’ll find that I beat the pundits to the punch and couldn’t possibly get my so-called talking points from them. You just don’t want to give credit for individual original thinking, something that liberals can’t do.
If Massachusett voters returning Ted Kennedy to office gives him some special right to respectability, then Strom Thurmond of S.C. must head your list of esteemed politicians.
You’re so pathetic in sounding like the Democrats attacking Republicans. (You are ‘against’ but never ‘for’.) I’m for individual freedom. If being for that means that I’m against you, then I’m for and against the right things.
You are so typical of the left of attacking me personally rather than debating ideas.
And, what is it with the word “dessembler/dissembler” that has popped up recently in liberal lexicon? You guys pick up words and begin to use them as though you are robots. (”Subaltern,” too? Where did you dig up that word? Are you trying to impress us with your inablitiy to communicate on a normal level?)
August 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Kyle, you don’t impress me and you haven’t established any position of superiority to lecture me. If I and a few others weren’t here, you guys would sound like all the left-wing sites like Democratic Underground.
I don’t expect to convince those who have been indoctrinated by government schools about anything. I’m simply calling you on your nonsense and showing that it doesn’t fool anyone outside of your club.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
You atheists are ‘against’ belief in God but never ‘for’.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Not only are you a troll, but you are a very odd one–why would you assume anyone is trying to impress you? That’s weirdly narcissistic and childish.
What you should instead be doing is trying to put together rational arguments, and respond to others points’ with some solid, non-partisan reasoning.
Go away now, and get to work.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
In addition, I assure you that you will continue to receive lectures–from anyone who cares to take the time to dole them out to you, like spoonfuls of castor oil–for as long as you need them: trollish, childish behavior entails child-like treatment. You know what you need to do to change this.
Deal with it; learn from it.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Kyle, apparently, you don’t see reason when it smacks you in the face, and your only reason is a personal attack.
I don’t see reason in praising a cowardly murderer like Ted Kennedy, who couldn’t run a business and made it harder for those who did, who voted for every tax increase, and exploited and pandered to blacks and the poor for their votes. If you see reason in praising that, then you’re on another planet.
Oh, and please quit trying to analyze me. It’s obvious that you don’t have the information or credentials to do that. (Maybe you’re trying to impress me with that, too.)
Maybe it’s you who needs to grow up.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
No personal attack: please read more carefully. I’ve referenced your behavior with each comment, so your silly “personal attack” game that you love to trot out won’t work here. Sorry.
You act like a troll, you get treated like a troll; you act like a child, you get treated like a child. It’s very simple, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with you, personally. Trying to make it about “you” is your prerogative, but this will be in your imagination, and not in reality.
Keep the issue straight.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Woody Says:
August 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Scott, I don’t belong to any political party, and, yes, I do say what I want and come up with my own positions without listening to conservative talk shows
—
Woody, just three days ago you cut our conversation short because you said, “I have to catch the news on Hannity”.
I replied that Hannity does not do news. He does comment.
BTW you are a Republican and you are not for individual freedom (or you equate freedom only in terms of reduced taxation). Republican in the sense that any unorthodox statement made is incidental. Not for freedom because you impose yourself on others here to deride their conscience.
You were not accused of slower than TV pundits. I said you lack contextualization and critical thinking: offering at best a tertiary source readily echoed by the neo-conservative panjandrum.
Now I will add that you lack erudition. If my lexicon reads Democrat or Liberal to you, Woody, that tells me that you haven’t a clue as to the ideo-underpinnings of Derrida, Neruda, Besancenot, or Recabarren; people you never heard of and don’t know and didn’t bother to check out because you took your preconceived notion and ran.
They weren’t in your textbook, are not on the test, and thus you will be held to account only in some gossamer or evanescent fashion.
That none of this matters must make you feel very good because it takes you where you want to be: Off Topic.
To juxtapose yourself between a dying man and his spiritual advisor shows how eager you are to show your manichean mind.
August 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Really, you guys are simply boring, try to parse words (Kyle), tell me what I am when I know otherwise (Scott), and are unable to even stick with the topic of this post.
Tale of Two Funerals: Network Anchors Complained of ‘Overcoverage’ of Reagan Funeral
Scott: ideo-underpinnings of Derrida, Neruda, Besancenot, or Recabarren
LOL! Oooooo. I’m so impressed. Now, let’s talk about estate taxes or the AMT.
August 30th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Scott, you are now officially a witness. And no, it’s unfortunately not for Lebron James, in this sad case. But it will be an interesting experiment to watch how Woody twists his way out of your decidedly non-reg-like approach, if you can stomach it. Of course, he will still avoid your questions at all costs, but you’ll witness a different style of grotesque acrobatics as he squirms around and deflects evidence with mouse-like skittishness.
Have fun.
August 30th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Scott Edwards,
If you have ever gone to the zoo and seen the gorilla exhibit, you may have noticed that the dominant male gorilla when he is annoyed, often throws his own feces at the humans viewing him.
That is the essence of pretty much everything Woody writes here.
As for the variety of the sources of his posts, click on one of these links to get an idea as to the level of intellectual rigor he employs in his thinking.
August 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
# Woody Says:
August 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Kyle, you don’t impress me and you haven’t established any position of superiority to lecture me. If I and a few others weren’t here, you guys would sound like all the left-wing sites like Democratic Underground.
I don’t expect to convince those who have been indoctrinated by government schools about anything. I’m simply calling you on your nonsense and showing that it doesn’t fool anyone outside of your club.
# Woody
What I love about you, WOody, is how you blow your cover.
So what schools were you indoctrinated by? Did you go to Jesus Camp?
August 30th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Wow, catching up these last posts and Woody is getting crazier and more shrill, defensive and projecting even more what he does onto others.
Very creepy. He’s cracking.
August 30th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
If you just can’t get enough of Woody making a tiotal ass out of himself, there’s this:
http://witnessla.com/fire/2009/admin/fire-weather-09/#comments
August 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Woody is a total shithead and it amazes me that you all waste your time on him.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
What Woody does not understand about Eastern Los Angeles county either is that it is conservative and Republican. So you should have some solidarity.
Environmentalists have LONG supported controlled burns. It is actually property owners that push for suppression along with business interests. Smoke from fires is not good for the economy.
I have been through the South many o times and yes they have malls. Well, mostly Wall Marts actually.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Well now that Teddy is in the ground and his family has had their time to do all very religious and proper like, it can’t help but remind one how amusingly hypocritical the democratic party leaders are.
The only time they find their religion is during another election, and when preparing for their own funeral. Of course the preparing for the funeral has nothing to do with religion. It is all about the pomp and circumstance that only a religious ceremony in a regal architecture can provide. It is all about the legacy, the last memory, the last lie.
In the space between, they are fighting for and promoting everything anti-religious. Fighting for the abortion choice over life, right up to birthing time. Fighting to get religion out of the public square, public symbols and public education. And most live their personal lives anti-religious lacking in personal self-restraint.
But being the fighter for the common man, using the common mans own tax money of course but never theirs they inherited from daddy (their personal contributions are atrocious compared to the common mans), it is time to dust off that quaint old collection of myths, funny anecdotes, and silly santa clause stories in order to get down to the level of that common man once again.
To get down and ‘dirty’ with those who they want to ’save’ by trying to convince them they believe in the god Abraham, when in reality the only god they believe in and worship, in between elections and death, is the god of government.
There is no shame.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
And when the anti-religious atheists finally achieve the big government they believe is the real and true salvation of the masses, what do they do for the masses they dominate.
First they take away their freedom to criticize the god of government, it is blasphemy. Second they take away their money earn thru self enterprise for the alter of the god of government. Third they take away their freedom of movement and choice for the good of the god of government.
Then lastly, but far from leastly, they take away the common mans very soul thru outlaw of their religion. Their regal places of worship turned into tourist attractions, without the bells. Quaint but impressive monuments to mysticism and the uneducated and unenlightened of by-gone days.
But there is nothing to be learned from history when government is your god. There is nothing to see, so just move along please. Mistakes were made, but the theory is good…..and the dream will never die.
August 31st, 2009 at 4:12 am
Jim R,
Nice fabulist caricature. You’re like the Stephen King of right wing fantasy mongering.
I’m an atheist right down to my toes, and I think you can have all the religion you like. Part of your freedom is the freedom to practice your religion. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I just also happen to think that the U.S. was unique (and I’m not using that word loosely as is in “kind of rare”), in mandating that there be no official religion. The purpose of what’s come to be called the separation of church and state is precisely to protect you and your religion from persecution from an official religion that might not be yours.
Oh, and the lie, really, here, is when Republicans and Democrats alike who are non-believers have to put on the phony show of geuflecting at the altar so they even have any chance of getting into office.
Those last two posts of yours sound freaking crazy.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:02 am
Ok. So what is Woody’s obsession with posting on LA Blogs.
Creepy. Very Creepy.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:04 am
And Jim R’s posts are crazier and crazier.
Last frenzied bellows of a dying paradigm?
August 31st, 2009 at 6:10 am
More on the “fine qualities” of Ted Kennedy:
(Are Jin R and I the only ones who can stay on topic?)
August 31st, 2009 at 7:50 am
“It’s okay for you common people, but not us Kennedy’s.”
Boston Globe: Now That Ted’s Out of the Way, Hurry Up With That Cape Cod Wind Farm
I like the idea of naming the wind farm after Kennedy. It combines a big wind with equipment that rests on the ocean bottom.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:01 am
A SOBER LOOK AT TED KENNEDY (Something that he couldn’t see in the mirror.)
August 31st, 2009 at 8:56 am
Woody, you missed the part about Kennedy conspiring with space aliens to take over the Soviet Union, just to hide the evidence of the 34 abortions teenaged Barack Obama’s concubines had while he was in training in Kyrgizstan.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:14 am
X:
Why did you and spill the beans?
August 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
At least I didn’t tell him how Comrade Ted caused Chernobyl, because he’d been too busy setting up abortions to be able to pay attention in his Harvard physics class… Oops, have I said too much?
August 31st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I see. You guys believed in Reagan’s October Surprise based upon nothing but laugh at real documentation of Kennedy’s behind-the-scenes, anti-U.S. double-dealing. If anyone deserves to be laughed at, it’s you.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:25 am
“Last frenzied bellows of a dying paradigm?”
That’s not what the polls say Anna, when citizens are ask if they believe there is a god? And further, if you are right, then why is it atheist politicians feel in necessary to grovel before the alter of belief, hell even sitting in a church for 20 years listing to the ravings of a quirky reverend, in order to pay his deity dues?
Now, what did I say above that was not true regarding the behavior of government worshipers that have gotten total power in past history. It may take 50 years, but nothing can stifle and break the spirit of man forever. And it is religious leaders in those government dominated countries atheist fear the most……and for good reason.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:54 am
Oh, and Dan, it is freedom of religion, not freedom from.
You may want to brush the dust off that quaint old document that created our country and read it, talking crazy shit about inalienable natural rights endowed to us by a freaking ‘creator’ and not a government?
Now why would they agree to think such a thing, much less say such a thing on paper. They weren’t fools were they? Maybe they understood from past experience the weakness and frailty of rights endowed by men.
This is what makes our country unique Dan, and the willingness to at least admit we are not smart enough to say we know for sure there is not a creator. Because once man gets this smart and assured of your own intelligence, is when we begin to rely on man, once again, to endow us with alienable government rights. How’s that worked out in other countries Dan?
You might want to dust off that history book as well.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Actually it’s both:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [my emphasis]
September 1st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Jim, besides plainly contradicting the text of the first amendment, that’s not coherent. Are you saying that, under the US Constitution, the government can compel someone to believe, or more realistically, to practice, some religion, just not any particular one? Do you think you can formulate a form of religion that would be equally acceptable to Muslims and Buddhists?
And there are plenty of religions, including some with significant presence in the US, that don’t assert the existence of omnipotent creators like the one in the Mosaic religions. Would you afford freedom from establishment of religion only to people who belong to monotheistic religions, on the grounds that freedom is granted by a creator, the same grounds on which you would deny it to atheists?
September 1st, 2009 at 10:57 am
And Jim, the author of those words about being endowed by a creator with inalienable rights would not have any sympathy at all for your argument.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Jim,
I love when incoherent statements are backed up with the admonition to go read something.
My characterization of the role of religion in the US government and it’s free expression, is entirely accurate. And moreover, the single wisest thing the founders did, among many wise things, was insist on the establishment clause. I think in your super-heated reaction to this you’re missing the point–official religion, always and everywhere ends up persecuting other religions, and the non-religious. That’s what the founders understood very well, and what they sought to protect their new country from.
This is well tread ground by now, but most of the foudners were deists, and not full-on Christians. They were products of the Enlightenment and their “holiest” models were the Greeks and the Romans–people like Cicero, Quintilian, and Demonsthenes.
I hate to sound smug, but you’re the one who could probably afford to crack open a book on this topic.
In one of those books you might discover the historian Richard Gummere write, “It is fair to say that Plutarch was to the rebellion what Cicero was to the Declaration and Aristotle and Polybius to the Constitution.”
No doubt religion played a role in all of this, but it was far, far from central.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Dan,
Don’t fault Jim for not knowing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Consitution as well as the Bill of Rights.
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Oh, and Dan, it is freedom of religion, not freedom from.
You may want to brush the dust off that quaint old document that created our country and read it, talking crazy shit about inalienable natural rights endowed to us by a freaking ‘creator’
Among them the right not to believe in a creator.
and not a government?
So who is the government to say that I can’t be free from religion?
Maybe they understood from past experience the weakness and frailty of rights endowed by men.
So it’s the creator of the universe, and not men, who decreed that we have the right to bear (I almost succumbed to the NRA’s misreading and said “own”) arms and to not incriminate ourselves? Just how, other than to read the decrees of men, are we to know what these rights are?
the willingness to at least admit we are not smart enough to say we know for sure there is not a creator
Torture the language much to inverse the burden? You’re the one who insists that there is a creator and we cannot be free of such a belief.
I’m with Richard Dawkins; I don’t know there is not a creator just as I don’t know that there aren’t fairies at the bottom of my garden — or a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Asgard, etc. I’m smart enough to understand just how stupid and intellectually dishonest your argument is.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“Teddy Deady?”
Actually, he was Senate Majority Whip for 2 years, but lost re-election to the post to Bobby Byrd.
>Perhaps the most extraordinary testament to Ted Kennedy is that for the many decades he spent in the Senate, he NEVER sought a leadership position (that would have been his for the asking).
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Where is Reg. I need a worthy opponent.
Clearly my posts have failed when all they have attracted are a few ankle biters.
I forgot to add another quaint and old-fashioned symbol Democratic candidates begrudgingly and irritably drag out to satisfy the uneducated (or would re-educated be a better descriptor) and unwashed masses, the American flag. How corny and demeaning.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“Clearly my posts have failed”
You can say that again. Fly weight.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
““I need a worthy opponent.”
LOL, you mean someone else who completely mangles an interpretation of the First Amendment? You embarrassed yourself with that one, dude.
You’re a nice guy, Jim, but you often write like you’re hitting the bottle. Sober up before the next comment.
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Jim R, there is a very broad spectrum of religious beliefs on the left. Many of us who do believe in G-d (or an afterlife or an Organizing Principle or Omega Point or…) do generally also believe that is unseemly to broadcast that belief as God’s imprimatur upon our political beliefs.
We believe in your right to freely exercise your religion, but resist anyone’s attempt to establish Christianity or any other religion as the National Religion, whether in name or in action.
I may not be a worthy opponent, but passing judgment on the spirituality of others is above my pay grade.