Harry Reid: Racist or Window on America?

I Bet Spike Lee Thinks its Racist

There appears to be quite a flap over the comments that Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, made in reference to then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. I understand the remarks and I am not yet convinced that they were meant to be taken in the way that many in America will take them. But I guess the real question for me is whether the remarks make him a racist, at least in the form that the word is used today, or whether the comments that Reid made really are nothing more than a brief look into the true heart of the average Congressional member, or for that matter, into the heart of the average American citizen. Because while I don’t necessarily believe that the average American is a “racist” in the sense of the word as it is normally meant, but that does not mean that the average American has yet gotten to the point where they do not see color at all.

Now, before I get into the conversation, I would like to say up front two things about the Harry Reid situation. First, I find it hypocritical for the Democrats in Congress to have no issue with what Reid said while many of those same people screamed for the head of Republican Trent Lott when he made what I think were fairly ambiguous comments at a dinner honoring Strom thurmond in 2002. Second, I expect people in positions like member of Congress to be a little bit smarter and more aware than the average person. After all, the 535 idiots continually do what they do in Congress against the will of the people under the premise that the “common folk” are not smart enough to make the call. If they really are that much smarter than the average American, I would expect that they would be smart enough to not make a “mistake” in the wording of something as controversial as race issues. I am no member of Congress, but I sure do try to think all the time about how something I want to say may be perceived. As a result a single sentence sometimes ends up with an entire paragraph explaining what I am trying to say.

Let’s first cover the hypocrisy. Trent Lott, at that fateful dinner for Thurmond, made the comment:

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

I wonder if Reid will get a similar "Time" Cover?

No reference to race there. But if you know Thurmond’s platform when he ran for President, then you know he ran on the idea that segregation is a good thing, and he was not very up on the idea of civil liberty for all. So you can infer that Lott was espousing support for the idea of integration being the cause of “all these problems over the years.” But he did not say that. For the record, I do believe that he meant that. Lott’s own record on civil rights for blacks in America is sketchy enough on its own, so I understand the assumption made by the left on what Lott meant. They screamed for his head, and Lott was forced to resign because of the comment.

Now we have Reid talking about then Candidate Barack Obama and saying, according to a newly released book, that Obama had a good chance of winning the presidential election because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t have a Negro dialect except when he wants to. This comment, in my opinion, is directly related to race, as opposed to inferred in Lott’s statement. For the record, I do not believe that Reid’s statement, in and of itself, is racist. It is an observation of what he believes. I myself have made the statement that America would not elect a black man as President if he spoke like Snoop Dogg. You must be well spoken to get elected, no matter your skin color. That Reid pointed out that there were things in Obama’s favor in terms of electability does not necessarily translate into racism. Observation is not discrimination.

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t hypocrisy. That the left is willing to give Reid an automatic benefit of the doubt while automatically assuming Lott’s guilt is a great example of party politics at play. Throw in Al Sharpton on that boat as well, as he has no issue with Reid’s statement, but was up in arms about Lott in 2002. Of course in Sharpton’s case, it is a matter of not biting the hand that feeds you. Democrats in Congress control funding and exposure for minorities in America. Even though the Democrats have ran on the same failed promises for 50 years, the assumption from most minorities is that the left is the side that fights for them.

More troubling for me is former President Clinton’s comment to Senator Ted Kennedy that “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Again, this statement can be taken a couple of different ways. Does he mean that because he is black that he would be in a servant position? Or did he mean that as a junior Senator, he would have been treated like every other FNG and told to fetch coffee? Hard to say, but this comment at least feels more racist. Apparently Kennedy felt so as well, as it is reported that he was highly offended and subsequently threw his support behind Obama rather than Hillary during the Democratic primaries.

But what I think of all this rhetoric is that Reid is more of a window into the American soul. Are there racists in America? You bet. But I don’t think they are a large percentage of the population. But that DOES NOT mean that America is at a point where the majority “don’t even see color when looking at people.” Of course we see color. It is in our psychological makeup to automatically put all people into groups. And skin color is simply one of the groupings that Americans see.

Sadly, with grouping comes some level of stereotyping. This is natural and not necessarily a bad thing. Stereotyping exists for a reason. Patterns evolve from observation. But one must be careful with stereotyping, to ensure that it doesn’t become too general or that there are not actions that are unfair associated with the stereotype.  For example, We have a group: Blacks in America. To stereotype all blacks as fitting the disrespectful mode of a hip hop performer is insane. But it is not too far off to stereotype someone in that vein when they enter your space wearing pants at their knees, drop 5 f-bombs per sentence, and act in a disrespectful manner towards others. At that point, the stereotyping of future actions might actually be a fairly accurate endeavor (it could, of course, be wrong as well).

I think that this is the point where many Americans are. They are not racists. They were not opposed to a black man being President. But it could not have been just any black man. He had to be well spoken. He had to have the right message. He had to appear clean cut, intelligent, and within the norms of society. For the record, these same standards are applied to every WHITE candidate as well. Read them again: Well spoken, good message, intelligent, clean cut, and within norms. Requirements of ALL national candidates, no matter their race. Yet race was not one of the requirements.

That is America as we now know it. People, for the most part, don’t really care what color your skin is. They see it. They know it. But they simply do not care. They judge you on your appearance, intelligence, message, ability. And that is how it should be. Again, we have those rogue 10% who are racist one way or the other (and yes there are as many black racists as there are white racists). But the majority are not. And I believe that this is the reality of what is out there. And that is why 90% of Americans get really offended when they are called racist. It is certainly why I get offended. I don’t see the world that way, so when it is thrown at me, I see it as a blatant attempt to use a false front to undermine my otherwise flawless argument 🙂 .

So I don’t believe that Reid’s statement falls into the realm of racism. Is he a racist? Who knows… and for my part, who cares? I find it terrifically funny that now the very same liberals that threw racist calims at their opponents only a few short weeks ago now have been found to make statements that actually could be seen as racist (Let’s not forget Reid’s comment recently that opponents of the health care bill were like those who “dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough about slavery.’). There is nothing better than when liberals, who use the race card so often it is beginning to lose its effect, get that same card played on them. Whether or not he is a racist is irrelevant. The point is that I don’t think you can assume so based simply on this statement from him, much as you couldn’t do so based on the statement alone from Lott.

That being said, I don’t think it matters if he is a racist or not. He is up for re-election this year. And all indications are that the most powerful Senator in Congress will be swept away by voters because of the corrupt way that his constituents view the actions of Congress. We can only hope that Pelosi suffers the same fate, and that whoever replaces her has some shred of sanity remaining.


  1. Hi USWeapon,

    I agree with you on this. Dingy Harry made an observation, and a fairly accurate one at that. O could have had a career in Hollywood with his looks and acting ability, dialects included. We shouldn’t be upset with Old Harry for making this statement. There are so many other reasons to be upset with him!


  3. Good job USW. You really put the racism issue in perspective. I agree with most of what you said. I do think Reid’s comments were over the line though, I wouldn’t say racist but thats my opinion.

    For me it’s like this. Blacks are way to uptight about it. I’ve been called a honkey plenty of times. So what. Larry the Cable Guy is a Redneck. Do you think he really cares what they call him? He’s made plenty of cash being a redneck. Eminem is a wigger. Think he cares? I don’t get it. We are all just people. It all depends how you present yourself.

  4. Buck the Wala says:

    Good post today USW. I agree with you – Reid’s statement was not racist. Both the ‘light-skinned’ remark and the ‘Negro dialect’ remark are Reid’s (and many others) observations as to Obama’s electability and not meant to denigrate nor discriminate.

    Also, there is most definitely a “negro dialect”. Excuse me for not being PC with the correct terminology. But there is a cadence, a way of speaking, and terminology used among the black community. One of Obama’s greatest strengths as a candidate in his public appearances is his ability to slip between dialects depending on his audience. It allows the public to better connect with the candidate – “Hey, he speaks like me!”

    I also agree with you on Clinton’s statement — much more problematic. Not overtly racist, and we may never know Clinton’s intent, but it sure “feels” like a racist comment. Its funny because when I first read the statement, my first thought was also is it because Obama is black or because he’s a newbie.

  5. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I never saw him as being “black” while he was running for President, at least not until I became aware of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I was only concerned with his political positions. Now after getting to know him much better I see him more with a deep shade of Marxist Red than black. All I can say about Reid’s comment is the thought would never have entered my mind, but I am not as old as Harry.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @ A Puritan Descendant

      What about Jeremiah Wright makes Barack Obama black or more black?

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        GM Ray, I suppose it was simply because of Wright’s anti-America remarks which I took at the time as being anti-white, as if the Rev. had an axe to grind with past misneeds by whites upon blacks. As for now I don’t hardly remember what the Rev. said.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Gotcha – I haven’t listened to him in a while – cannot stomach the guy.

        • A church that uses Black Theology as its foundation; makes it pretty black.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Kathy – just so long as one can recognize that they are not mutually exclusive. I have attended Lutheran Church for 38 years but would never formally recognize myself as formally Lutheran nor should I be forced to.

            • Ray,
              Would try to claim that although you had sat in that church most Sundays for the last 38 years, and nothing that was said there influenced you? That you never heard anything you disagreed with?
              Then Candidate Obama tried to claim just that. Although reverened Wright had sttod on that pulpit for at least 20 years spouting hate-filled tirades, that none of that had any influence on the future President.

              • Ray Hawkins says:


                There has been much that has influenced me – both positively and negatively.

                I’m not sure what POTUS claimed or disclaimed with respect to Rev Wright

        • I also got the feeling that Wright was including racial teaching along with religious.

  6. Hey Buck…morning to ya. Have a small issue with you here.

    Buck said : Excuse me for not being PC with the correct terminology. But there is a cadence, a way of speaking, and terminology used among the black community.

    As a reference to : . Both the ‘light-skinned’ remark and the ‘Negro dialect’ remark are Reid’s (and many others) observations as to Obama’s electability and not meant to denigrate nor discriminate.

    Seems to me my friend, you were being PC. 🙂

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I was trying to be. Just not sure the correct term for ‘negro dialect’ if there even is one. Perhaps that is the term.

      How’s your morning going?

      • The term is “Ebonics.”

        And you’re going to love this: In LA public school, classes are taught in English and Spanish. There was a proposition on the ballot not too long ago to.. wait for it.. add classes in Ebonics!

  7. USW..I have to disagree with you this time, my brother in arms….

    I think that your interpretation is tantamount to being a “little bit pregnant”. However, that said….

    Here is the final analysis, according to the gospel of D13: When you agree with democrats, you are not racist. When you agree with Republicans you are racist. So, if you champion the democratic mantra ” I know Senator Reid’s performance over the years for the causes of black America, I take no offense”. (Meaning, he votes for us so he can say anything).

    To Trent Lott saying that “Thurmond did good work” but because Thurmond sometimes championed segregationists policies, then that makes him racist. So when Lott made an observation, he was racist because NOTHING in his speech that I read even comes close to racists remarks.

    Finally…..to much air time on this and the Repubs have more important work to do than to harp on this. Let it go and defeat the Health Bill. I am hopeful that Reid is not re-elected and I am doing everything that I can to make sure, in Nevada, that he does not. Have rallied several hundred retirees out there and we are working to defeat him. Clark County is tough though but I am helping the bandwagon out there.

    Have a great day, my brother.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      D13 – that is a puzzling statement about Mr. Thurmond: “Thurmond sometimes championed segregationists policies”. Maybe that is a clever way of saying he only publicly shoved his foot in his mouth a few times?

      He ran as a Dixiecrat in ’48 whose platform include a fairly stout anti-desegregation plank. (http:// en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Dixiecrat OR http: // http://www.npr.org /templates/story/story.php?storyId=865900)

      Given the opportunity to explicitly reject his segregationist past he declined to do so. (http:// http://www.slate.com /id/2075662)

      Who can forget his filibuster against the Civil Rights Act in ’57? (http:// http://www.foxnews.com /story/0,2933,90552,00.html)

      And while I find some other parts of his record admirable – supporting MLK Day, staffing hiring practices, etc. – I must ask you – to what of Strom’s record do you suppose Mister Lott was pointing to? Strom was a racist through and through – and likely very conflicted knowing he had donated sperm to create a mixed race child.

      I will say I find it profoundly puzzling that the good citizens of Nevada (those on the right) will so vehemently oppose a Harry Reid as someone violating their core principles while they give a philandering scumbag like John Ensign a free pass. I don’t get it.



      Need to go find some wood to chop.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Gee Thurmond didn’t explicitly repudiate his dixiecrat segregationist past when given the opportuinity to do so, and when Byrd was asked to repudiate his KKK past, all he could come up with was basically, “I had no idea what they really did!”

        So what?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Peter – not sure where you read that.

          Far more revealing and speaking to his own checkered history in this space:

          Robert Byrd —-> Biography —-> Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields.

          Back in your court bub.

    • D13 said: “Repubs have more important work to do than to harp on this. Let it go and defeat the Health Bill.”

      Therein lies the whole issue; if Harry is somehow taken down, the already fragile healthcare bill might go down with it.

      This isn’t about being a racist at all – it is about ramming the healthcare bill through. What a bunch of hypocrites (and worse) that the Dems will even put up with Harry’s inappropriate comments that they would love to call racist if they came from across the aisle, just to get the damaging agenda through.

    • D13,

      I wouldn’t claim that Lott’s statement in and of itself was racist. Only he knows what he meant by it. But Lott had a fairly documented history of supporting segregation ideas and opposing civil rights. My conclusion was that Lott himself may be a racist but you couldn’t claim his statement was a racist comment on its own. You had to know Lott’s past to infer what was meant by it.

      Reid, while a douchebag, does not have a racist history that I am aware of, so I saw his comments as an observation, not a judgement of Obama’s character or a judgement on blacks in general. It more seemed an awareness of what is politically accepted and what is not.


  8. I find it hypocritical for the Democrats in Congress to have no issue with what Reid said while many of those same people screamed for the head of Republican Trent Lott when he made what I think were fairly ambiguous comments at a dinner honoring Strom Thurmond in 2002.

    Agreed. But you didn’t go far enough with this. While is is certainly hypocritical of the Democrats, it is equally hypocritical of the Republicans who defended Lott to now be leading the which-hunt against reed, no? None of that “they started it” bull – this back and forth has been going on for a long time and I find it unfair that you only called out one side in this inanity.

    (and yes there are as many black racists as there are white racists)

    Disagree, but possibly this is just a miscommunication. I’ll stipulate, in the absence of evidence, that the percentage of the black population which is racist is the same as the percentage of the white population which is racist, but there are lot more whites than blacks (African Americans) in this country. Further, whites are in the position of power. So the white racists are definitely more influential and dangerous as a population than the black racists. This is an important distinction.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Matt, curious as to your opinion on this: Do you see any difference between Lott’s statement and Reid’s statement?

      • I don’t know.. I tend to think both were overblown. Lott may have been referring to Strom’s segregationist platform, but I personally find it more likely that he was just offering a generic compliment (ie, things would have been better if you were in charge – but not any one thing in particular). Likewise, I think Reid was making an observation exactly as Weapon described above.

        Both sides just use minor slips like this as an excuse to axe members of the opposition. You have to understand that, given enough time in the public eye, you will say something which is open to interpretation. And your enemies will seize upon it in order to oust or weaken you. It’s the game they all play, and it’s stupid, but it’s a rule of the road if you want to be a senator.

        I just object to the attitude that it’s somehow only the fault of the liberals that this is going on, that the republicans are just using our tactic against us and we’re the hypocrites, but not them. Both side are hypocrites and both sides should be called out for it.

        Further, I think this kind of stuff is one of the reasons good people tend to shy away from political careers – nobody wants to have this happen to them in response to an honest and frank (and non-racist) comment. I, personally, have said and will say far too many things which could be misconstrued to ever be electable – they’d come back to haunt me and I’d be painted as a racist. I wouldn’t be willing to take the chance. Would you?

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Would I? Definitely not.

          At first blush I find Lott’s statement much worse than Reid’s as it seems more overtly racist. Is it though? Who knows. What was Lott’s intent? Given the context it would appear more benign than it did at first blush – he was talking at a function honoring Thurmond; what was he supposed to say, that the country would have been worse off and we are fortunate Thurmond was not elected?

          • Buck and Matt:

            And here is the saddest fact of all, in my humble opinion.

            If the R’s had stood up in unison and told the D’s to GO TO HELL over the Lott trap we may not have had to suffer this garbage since then.

            By turning on their own they “validated” a stupid political accusation. Allowing the issue to be used again and again and again.

            I still don’t think their current accusations are “hypocritical” from a purely logic standpoint. But they are certainly stupid.

            Because Reid and the Dem’s have given them a chance to once more kill this B.S. behavior once and for all.

            I hope you are both well.

            • How is it not hypocritical for the Republicans? (we’ve already agree it is for the Democrats). They may have succummed to pressure with Lott, but they still defended him and called the Democrats out on the petty witch-hunt tactic at the time, now they use that same tactic. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Am I missing something?

              Last I checked, the “they did it first” argument does not eliminate hypocrisy. Both sides should be recognized as equally guilty.

              But no, if the Republicans has stood up more to defend Lott, they would have taken further damage. “They all rally behind the racist” kind of charges would fly. The whole party would have been smeared instead of them just cutting their losses. Even Lott and Reid are just expendable cogs in the machine.

              • Ahh but you see, the whole thing is just one of those “gotcha” moments. Lovely to behold the squirming that goes on. A waste of time mind you but lovely nonetheless.

              • Matt:

                Lets try a different approach for a change.

                You need to present a “logical” case as to how this is hypocritical.

                You made the initial accusation without substance. Time to put some meat on those bones.

                As I said, this is a technical issue not one of disgust about both sides behavior.

                Rule 1: Please address your viewpoint relative to Mr. Steele’s comment.

                • Matt:

                  You can ignore this question as I just saw your response below regarding the difference between Steele’s comments and those of Fox n friends.

                  That was my point. To argue that it is hypocritical to point out someone else is being hyprocritical with respect to their stated position or action creates a logical circle in which hypocracy ceases to exist.

                  However if the argument deals with action one compared to action two then the analysis passes the logic test. The beginning point determines the validity of the claim.

                  In short, I think we are in agreement. I just don’t equate Fox n friends or most talking heads with “The Republicans”.

                  I suggest you also keep the “political party folks” separated from the media. And yes, that includes the Dems. I do not view MSNBC as The Dem Party. I do view most of their coverage and commentary as being in line with the “progressive movement” just as most Fox commentary is more in line with the “conservative movement”. Most of the MSM covereage is biased to left of center but you should know by now that I place both the modern liberal and conservative on the LEFT.

                  Lets move on to Spock.

                  I’ll start a new thread at the bottom.


            • I agree JAC. The R’s have been slow to learn and need to pick up on the D’s way of handling controversy, “nothing here – go away”. Just plain don’t address it. This Adm. has shown time and time again this is the best way to not allow any issues to come forward.

              Taking the high road does not work with D’s and I guess R’s just need to follow suit in order to be on their level. Not what I’d like to see, certainly, but more practical.

              • Kathy:

                Its not that controversy should be ignored. And I, of all people, would not suggest that the R’s abandon their values. If only they could figure out what those really are. I just saw it as a chance to bury the race card.

                If they didn’t respond, or responded with something akin to “everyone misspeaks once in awhile, lets stay focused on real issues”, it would have disarmed future attempts by the D’s to keep the game alive.

                Kind of like, who stops shooting first…..Israel or Palestine. Until one takes action they feed on each other as motivation for continued bad behavior.

                Best wishes to you and yours this morning

    • Matt:

      “While is is certainly hypocritical of the Democrats, it is equally hypocritical of the Republicans who defended Lott to now be leading the which-hunt against reed, no?”

      While I agree with your sentiment I think that “technically” the answer is no. It would be incorrect to accuse someone of hypocrisy for pointing out hypocrisy.

      I have not thought much of Mr. Steele’s leadership of the Repub. Party but I think he had the best statement of all presented. It was in effect “If Lott is the standard then Reid needs to step down”.

      This avoided the hypocrisy upon hypocrisy you mention and clearly puts the “entire” matter back on the D’s to justify. I brilliantly constructed statement for a politician.

      Aside from Steele’s comment the Repubs should have simply answered with “what’s wrong with you people? The country is on fire and you want to talk about who came to visit two years ago? Get a life”.

      As soon as I get young one off to school I would like to resume your Spok discussion.

      A grand good morning to you

      • re Spock: I look forward to it

      • While I agree that it is not hypocritical to hold someone to their own standards (as your Steele quote seems to do), I do not see the Republicans by and large doing that. They are in full witch-hunt mode. I saw Fox & Friends* the other day where they made no mention of Lott at all, but just roasted Reid for being racist, saying that he needed to go. Can you defend that?

        *yes, I do sometimes watch Fox News, if only for opposition research. Too much though, and my eyes start to bleed.

        • No sir, I cannot defend Fox News for the harping on that at all. There is no defense, although they have softened their rhetoric some and have quoted Lott. That is not the issue, as I see it Matt…It seems to me that saying something nice about someone that disagrees with a philosophy of the “other side” and then claiming racism…is over the top.

          Too much time wasted on this trivial crap….there is a health bill and immigration bill to quash.

          • The world’s on fire, but hey, look over there! Harry Reid said something that might have possibly been slightly racist! Pay attention to that.. nothing to see here… move along, move along..

  9. What Reid said was more a reflection on society (certainly his party) than anything personal. Still, there was an obvious odor to it; an expectation that a black running for President needed to be light skinned and have the ability to turn “dialect” on or off at whim.

    It doesn’t bother me half as much as the fact his President is governing like a Republican giving the store away to Wall Street (it was good to see Goldman Sachs is doing so well on our dime).

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Our President is not governing like a Repubican, he is governing like EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since 1913, perhaps earlier.

      Once you figure out that it is one party, two shirt colors (or maybe tie colors) you will FINALLY star to get it 🙂

      • You’re right, Peter … that was my frustration. It is ONE Party … my bad.

        Hey, what’s the line on the Colts-Ravens this week?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I am not a betting man in general, so I don’t follow the line much. The Ravens decimated the Patriots (which made my day as a Colts fan), and they have a good running game and strong defense.

          Generally I would say toss-up, but home field advantage to the Colts, so MY line on the game is Colts by 2 1/2 (I believe 2 1/2 is generally the generic advantage given to the home team).

          Not sure what the Vegas line is, but it probably is close to my line 🙂

          • Baltimore +6.5 Vegas Line
            Cowboys +3
            Cardinals +6.5
            Jets +9

            This is the average of 6 top bookmakers in Vegas as of today.

            • Thanks, D.

              And to think this used to be one of my business (back in my capitalist days) …

              If the Colt defense plays well, it’ll be a blowout but you’re right, Pete, the Wes Cravens looked great last week. I too was very happy they bumped the cheaterfaces.

              As much as I hate rooting for the Cowgirls, I do hope they knock off the vikings … mostly because I hate it when teams with an obvious home field advantage (the cold), give it up (a dome). I love it that they haven’t been back to the dance since they domed themselves.

              Not sure the Jets can score enough to beat SD and I don’t much care about the Saints game. I guess I’ll be rooting for whichever team wins between the Colts and Cravens.

              • Hard for me to fathom the Jets by 9…thinking about that one…Jets by nine…hmmmmmm.

                cannot bet for or against the Cowboys,,, I never know which team shows up. Hard to see where they are favored over the home team with a bye…although, it is said that the Cowboys are the healthiest team left. Brett does not like being hit and gets fancy feet with a strong rush…so we will see… Romo on a roll picking up blitzes….

                Cardinals by 6….no way.

                I like Baltimore in the game by 3…not 6.

                • D13;

                  Colonel, you are misreading the Vegas line

                  Take the jets and get 9, they are no more than 9 pt underdogs.

                  Take the cowboys and get 3, meaningt the Saints are no better than 2 1/2 pt favorite, ie. take the Saints and give 2 1/2 (-2 1/2).

                  Cardinals are the underdog but expected to lose by no more than 6 1/2.

                  • Citizen:

                    It’s guys like y ou that put guys like me out of business. 🙂

                    Never explain a line …


                    • Charlie:

                      And there in lies the difference between a Leftist (You) and a Rightist (Me).

                      Free market capitalism depends upon honest and open interaction. Deliberate deceit is just another form of coersion.

                      Hope you are well.

                    • I do not share JAC’s broad statement about deceit.

                      Lying is not an act of violence. Unsupported acceptance of the word of another man is stupidity on the acceptor … “Buyer beware” also applies to ‘buying’ the word of a stranger.

  10. I have to admit, I find this idiocy amusing. I suppose you could make the argument that either Reid’s statements were racist or that he is saying that Americans are racist because they will elect a “light skinned” black man over a “dark skinned” black man. I don’t think his statements mean he should resign in any case. If his electorate doesn’t like it, they will not reelect him (please, oh please).

    I would disagree with your thought that Americans are not racist on the whole. How many people think it is ok for black people to get scholarships because they are black? I know quite a few (who are white, btw). Until we stop making ANY decisions based on race (including diversity issues and voting for a black man for president because he is black), there will always be racism, by definition. The same goes for gender issues.

    In order to have true equality, we can not make concessions for any type of difference (race, gender, religion, etc). I personally don’t think this will happen, but the closest we can come would be nice.

    • JB…you are right. The entire WORLD is racist. It cannot help but be that way….there are, in fact, DIFFERENT races. Why is this so hard to figure out for so many. Races are not intended to get along….that is the way of the world. Hell, Arabs hate Arabs…if you are of different tribes. The South Vietnamese hated the Montgnards and the Nungs..Why? Because they were different even when fighting for the same cause.

      There is no Star Trek world out there.

      So Lott and Reid stuck their foot in their proverbial mouths…both sides are trying to justify it and they need to shut up.

      Focus on these damn bills and the economy.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        You miss something VERY CRITICAL here.

        The more time they spend bickering about completely irrelevant crap, the more time they gridlock the government.

        The more time the government spends in gridlock, the less of our freedom and money they are actively taking from us.

        You should fully support this partisan BS and actively try to extend it ad infinitum if at all possible.

        WE DO NOT WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO “ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING” EVER, because anything they do accomplish ALWAYS amounts to a loss of freedom, liberty, and hard-earned money for you and me.

        Remember that 🙂

        • Oh, sir…not lost on me at all.

        • Kristian Stout says:

          Um, this isn’t distracting them from their agenda, this is distracting us from their agenda.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I think that you are partially right, but they have spent a whole lot of time yammering on about it, which IS actually keeping them from doing “more important” things, at least for a short while.

            Let us hope that short while lasts as long as possible!

            • Kristian Stout says:

              I’d be willing to bet that even as stupid as we think they are they’re very good at multi-tasking. That being said I really hope that you are right Peter and this is keeping them from other things.

            • I disagree Peter. I don’t think that this is keeping them from their agenda in the slightest. The only ones distracted are the media and the citizens. Congress marches on without a missed step.

              Do not underestimate their ability to show the left hand while working with the right. This distraction to us doesn’t affect their work in the least.


  11. Let us all agree here that Sen. Reid and Sen. Lott are stupid. Explains it all.

    Lott was trying to make the 100 year old guy feel good at his birthday party. Of course, Lott is not bright enough to have a clue as to what was Thurmond’s platform in ’48. Reid, only a few years older than me was certainly aware, in his youtjh, of the black power movement in the ’60’s and ’70’s yet he never seemed to connect the words coming out of his own mouth with what transpired in that era. Like I said, stupid, the both of them. Insensitive and elitist also come to mind.

  12. The right of association is supreme.

    Those that wish to take freedom away give punishment for making associations.

    They wish to push disassociated groups together – which incites tension and conflict.

    When conflict arises, the Elite step in with more pogroms to ‘solve’ it – in actuality, they are simply more prohibitions on all people.

    The Elite then continue to push even harder the dissassociated groups together – attacking language.

    The end – conflict, tension while at the same time total loss of community and close association based on culture, creed, religion history or language. Thus, the individual – tense and in conflict – with no support.

    • Excellent observation this morning. We’re on similar tracks I think.

      I was just thinking that the entire issue is mischaracterised. It is tolerance we need to strive for, not blindness.

      To create a mythical existence where people do not see or “think” a color when they see it is illogical and a denial of reality. And thus, it is also a denial of identity.

      One of my best friends in high school once said “for someone to tell me they don’t see black when they talk to me is to deny my existence”.

      The best to you by pirate friend.

    • Yup!!!!

    • Divide and Conquer. You’d think more people would understand. How many times have I been scoffed at for pointing it out? Most folks will never see it.

      • Cyndi:

        Actually the premise is that by “forcing” unification you create discord and confusion, even anger among those forced to associate in ways they don’t want to.

        In this regard the argument is “unify and conquer”.

        Your warm thoughts are here in spades. Warmed to right around 32, now we have a skating rink everywhere. School buses running two hours or more behind. You could play hockey on the street in front of my house right now.

        Blessing to the pacific islands.

        • That’s still part of the divide and conquer strategy. Its no different than having a department at work where one or two people spread rumors and cause all sorts of problems between co-workers and management just so the trouble makers can look like heros. I’ve seen it many times. This isn’t any different.

          We are forced by law to integrate, then we have politicians, community/civil rights activists, and their lackies in the media spread rumors, and setting people up for failure. Pretty soon the people are at each other’s throats with the pols and activists being the heros, who are then able to do as them damn well please because citizens now see their fellow citizens as the enemy.

  13. USW/SUFA with special note to Ray:

    Now for my more devious political observation. This will be keenly fit into the story I have been telling for some time (Ray, you listening?). This comment by Reid was made over two years ago as part of some book. That means it was “KNOWN” by someone or many someone’s all this time. Those someones would be sympathetic to the Dem party, even if just the editor/publishers, which I doubt were the only ones.

    So my apprentice political types…….WHY NOW?

    Can anyone say the word EXPENDABLE?

    The Dems now have a clear light to support a young Donkey to run against Reid in the primary, in hopes of holding the seat.

    When one lives by a philosophy that the individual may be sacrificed for the greater good, then one will die by that same philosophy.

    Politicians don’t just leave their wounded behind, they actually feed on them. Immoral bastards.

    Ahhhh, feelin so fine this morning.
    Best to you all.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Hey JAC,

      How are those meds treating you?

      Interesting theory you got there, but I think you look into things too much. This sort of thing happens all the time in politics. How many statements were made by Bush lackeys that only came out when someone defected and wrote a book one, two, or three years later.

      Occam’s Razor — which is simpler: that the Dems held onto this statement for 2 years and decided to just now release the statement in an attempt to force Reid out, inject a young Democrat into the primary and retain the Senate seat? OR, that the statement was uttered largely in private two years ago, not given much credence until the author came across it while doing research and conducting interviews for his book? (If the former, why is Clinton’s statement coming to light now as well?)

      For me, I’ll go with the latter explanation.

      • Buck

        I admit I may be wrong, or I may be right. My comments are based on personal experience.

        Does not mean I am absolutely correct, but I think it means there is greater chance I am correct in more ways than we all may want to admit.

        And that is Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation must also be grounded in reality. Experience is a validation of reality.

        See my comments to Ray regarding the conspiracy theory. I may have presented in a way to cause you confusion as to my meaning.

        To answer the Clinton question you must ask who released it, who used it and for what, and who benefits. This appears to be related to the local race in NY and not the Dem party efforts. Kennedy’s against the Clinton’s. Its an old feud.

        And I am willing to go out on the limb and say Clinton was referring to Obama’s lack of experience and freshman status. Clinton is an elitist, he and her felt “entitled”. It was her turn and the established rules were being turned upside down and Kennedy was working that side. He was a hard core leftist as was Obama. Clinton had placed himself as a centrist and took Hillary with him. Remember the race card played against Hillary during the primaries? This is just part of what happened back then.


        • Buck The Wala says:

          I too tend to believe Clinton was referring more to Obama’s freshman status than to his race, but a stupid comment regardless.

    • JAC

      Nicely said but I wonder if other things are not going on also. This morning the White House announced that it would not support former congressman Harold Ford’s run against Kristian Gillibrand in NY for the Senate seat. Despite the fact that Ford is a carpet bagger, but NY loves carpetbaggers, he probably would have a great shot at holding the seat which Kristian doesn’t, especially against somebody like Peter King.

      I wonder if the White House is starting to realize how unpopular they have become, how badly they may be going down to defeat and the fuhrerbunker mentality is starting to kick in, ie. he is willing to take the party down with himself.

    • WOW…JAC…better living through chemistry still? Glad to see you back. How are you feeling, my friend. I missed the real JAC.

      • D13:

        I feel chemical free. Therapy yesterday may have pushed the stuff hidden in the system through. Was very goofy following the therapy session.

        Feel very focused this AM, perhaps all the sleep the past three days. Or perhaps lingering chemicals. That’s the thing with chemicals, we think we aren’t but we really don’t know because they fog our brain.

        Turned out to be a bone spur with some torn muscle tissue, and full recovery is expeced in 4 to 6 weeks. Had major shoulder surgery on other side a few years ago, it took 6 months to get back to 80%. So things look very bright at the moment.

        Sorry to hear about McCoy. Suffered the same injury many years ago. Med tech is much better but it surely will affect his NFL value. But then a bad concusion would have been worse. It also taints a championship game when either team can’t put the best on the field that got them to the dance. But then, that is part of the game.

        More cold and snow comin yer way. Sorry

        • Actually…snow outta the forecast now…just an inch or so of rain…but the cold is coming again..I only own one coat but it is good down to zero or so.

          Yeah…hated to see McCoy out of that game. It would have been interesting..getting real tired of this Bama t shirt tho..lost a several bets…here. Have to even have a bama bumper sticker for two more days….LOL.

          Hang in there, friend JAC…glad the chems are out of the body tho…pretty dreams?

          • D13

            No dreams but…..I have a painting of a mountain man meeting a group of indians in a big meadow surrounded by mountains. Those are covered by aspen and fir, in full fall colors. Beautiful.

            I commented to Spousal Unit Leader, as I lay on the couch staring at said picture, “You know dear, I never noticed before but you can see the Aspen swaying in the breeze.”

            I’ll see if I can get you some Boise State Bronco gear. It will break up the shame. OTFLMAO.


            • oooohhhh. I prefer watching the Aspens swaying in the breeze………….of a painting. THAT is cool.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      JAC – sounds too conspiracy theory-ish to me. I doubt Heilemann and Halperin had any motivation other than to collect as much ‘behind the scenes’ stuff they could pull together in a piece that could make them a few bucks and stir the pot – a pot btw stirred apparently on both sides of the aisle. I think you merely took a conclusion and worked backwards with this book as the conduit – the book reveals far more warts than needed if the goal were to toss aside Reid for a younger buck.

      • Ray:

        Don’t get me wrong. Not a conspiracy in the sense that they cooked it up. It is more of an “opportunity” given current state of affairs.

        I have seen the inner bowls of political operations and so I admit it causes me to suspect all types of things. Once you have seen a white wolverine you know they exist.

        In this case, I am saying that the comments were probably known by others. No big deal, just keep em quiet. Then Harry turns into a potential liability and looks like he will lose re-election. So go ahead and let the info. out and let it run. Or, once it gets out, let it run. Do the usualy, we support our leader in public but behind the scenes the little minions are scrambling to make this work to their advantage. And that includes undermining Reid’s re-election primary if they feel it is needed.

        It is the action of political opportunity, not a pre-planned conspiracy. But these SOB’s do this all the time. And YES, both sides play this game. The individual is sacrificed for the good of the party. Party, is all that matters.

        The point is that as this unfolds we are manipulated by press releases, very carefully constructed statments and media coverage to think one thing, while something else is in play. That is one reason the R’s should have stayed quiet. If Reid goes down they will be blamed for destroying his carreer by “playing the race card”. That will help motivate their base in Clark and Washoe county to turn out the vote. In this case I think it will fail.

        But don’t think for a minute these folks don’t operate in this manner.

        As I said……..immoral bastards. All of them.

        Yours in liberty

        • Greeting Jac,

          I’m glad to see you’re feeling better. I know about those bone spurs, though mine were in my feet. I had three rounds of surgery, twice with both feet in sutures and bandages. Hopefully, your spur won’t grow back. One of mine actually did, Sheesh!

          Anyway, I agree with your assessment. Its more likely to be an opportunity than something that was set up.

          • v. Holland says:

            I’m getting really depressed here-my hubby has bone spurs in his neck-he’s on medication to try to get rid of them but I am beginning to suspect the medicine isn’t gonna work.

            • V.H:

              Don’t know your hubby’s particulars but don’t be depressed. If reacable the removal of plain bone spurs may be no big deal.

              I suspect the type Cydndi had are related to shortening of tendons in feet. Very common. Causes bone build up around the attachement.

              Mine was due to some time of injury, such as tendon or other bone rubbing against the bone. Guessing your hubby’s is similar to mine.

              Stay upbeat my dear. Don’t let the winter trolls and goblins get to you. Perhaps Buck could lend you a Utah Raptor to stand guard at night.

              Big Smiles to You and yours

            • V.

              Have a friend with similar problem, switched to a low gluten diet with significant results.

    • JAC,

      Sorry, my friend, but I have to disagree. The media knew about this two years ago and did not report it because it would hurt their agenda. A couple of them put it all together as a book to make money.

      The big story is our economy, and the hit it will take with healthcare. This is smoke and mirrors media, don’t look behind the curtain. While Reed is saying sorry to the cameras, what is congress doing?

      • LOI

        Not sure how your point is in opposition to my point? Seems to fit quite well.

        Just another twist or variation of the same thing. And yes, it also makes for a nice distraction in the media so we don’t have to follow the real issues of the day. But that tactic is wearing thin with the general public, I think.

        Best to you this AM. Thanks for the funny story the other day. Did make me chuckle.

        • JAC,

          You say expendable, I say distraction. Its probably both.
          I wonder how many Dem’s are falling on their swords to pass healthcare? And what their payoff will be? And how come McGuire waited until now to make his steroid announcement?

          Glad you are feeling better, Skelaxin has become my prefered serious pain medication. Non-addictive with few side effects. Glad you liked the humor. Speaking of humor, with topic tie-ins…

          • LOI

            You have me on the floor, tears squirting everywhere.

            Oh, how I crave the days when we could make fun of ourselves openly and without fear of the speech police.

            Thanks for the hard laugh

          • THAT…is funny. And I am one of the weird ones that liked Blazing Saddles…..go figure.

          • LOI

            I’m cracking up here. Very interesting that for the first time I let my 11 year old son scroll up & down the screen here reading the comments.He stopped at this video, began watching it gave it maybe 20 seconds and said “uugghh this is dumb!”

  14. Not sure if this discussion should stay in the realm of politics. Racism is racism.

    Consider this: Bill Cosby v Red Fox, Dr. Huxtable v Fred Sanford. All of them made their way just fine. They earned it. And the American people love all 4 of them.

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Trent Lott’s comment was not racist, and neither was Harry Reid’s comment. Since both comments were not racist, they should be held to exactly the same standard.

    We already know what standard Lott was held to, so let’s see if they hold Reid to the same standard for his equally non-racist remark.

    • v. Holland says:

      Not sure we should hold onto stupid standards-The ability to talk has been limited enough by the fear of being called a racist. Let this go-so the next time someone is accused of a remark that wasn’t meant to be racist, then the answer will maybe be-he didn’t mean it that way, quit being so sensitive.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The only problem I have with that is that it is crystal clear that the Democrats hold THEMSELVES to a MUCH DIFFERENT STANDARD than they hold the Republicans to.

        It is currently IRRELEVANT what standards the Republicans hold ANYONE to, they have no power.

        The Democrats themselves need to be consistent, regardless of whether they are judging a member of the opposition party or one of their own.

        If the Democrats use a DIFFERENT STANDARD to judge a member of their own party compared to how they judge a Republican, then they are indeed hypocrites (not that we didn’t know this already).

        So, for your idea to work, a Republican would have to make a quasi-racist statement, and the majority of the Democrats would have to say, “that obviously wasn’t intended to be “racist” and everyone should back off!”

        Until they do that, there is no political advantage for the Republicans to ignore the Reid issue. And let’s face it, that is all this is about, political advantage. Don’t fool yourself into thinking it has anything to do with racism or anything else. The Democrats used it against Lott for political advantage, the Republicans are using it against Reid for political advantage.

        All’s fair in love, war, and politics. Has nothing to do with race whatsoever, other than using it as a tool to gain an advantage.

        • Peter:

          You missed part of the reason.

          The Dem’s are consistent. When have they ever urged or preached about moral values? Other than rationalizing govt theft of our property that is.

          The Rep’s are to blame because they dared to run on “values” many years ago. The effort has been to destroy that strategy ever since. Of course it is easy when a political party sets value standards that they themselves can’t adhere to.

          This is at its heart a religious war.

          I think the R’s do have a potential political advantage in ignoring this. The public is getting very tired of the childish games. The more they talk about this the more they sound like the children they were accussed of being during the last election. The more Mr. Obama starts to look like the adult because he is deflecting to bigger issues.

          And absolutely this is all about political advantage. They will do anything to achieve it.

        • v. Holland says:

          You have a valid point-and from the coverage I have heard most of the comments have been about the standard needing to be the same-I just feel they need to stress that the reaction to Lott’s statement was stupid-not that Reid is a racist. Guess I’m just really tired of the bull.

    • As the Duke used to say,

      “That’ll be the day”.

  16. Newsbusters has several examples of hypocritical media coverage. For myself, I do not find his statement to be racist, just not politically correct. It is very strange that 60 Minutes, on of the most watched NEWS shows did not mention this slip, but spent the majority of their report on a “former” political candidate.


    Fox News Nails ‘60 Minutes:’ CBS Show Spent Ten Minutes on Palin, Skipped Reid’s ‘Negro’ Remark

    By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
    January 11, 2010 – 15:32 ET

    Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn on Monday hit 60 Minutes for spending ten minutes out of a 13 minute segment highlighting negative dirt on Sarah Palin. At the same time, the news magazine ignored racially charged remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Shawn analyzed Anderson Cooper’s January 10 interview with the authors of Game Change, observing, “…Most of the CBS story was critical of Sarah Palin.” [Audio available here.]

    He explained, “The story did not mention Reid calling then-candidate Barack Obama light-skinned with no Negro dialect, comments for which the Senator has since apologized.” This is despite the fact that authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin broke the “Negro” story. Shawn noted the segment ran 13 minutes and three seconds. He then broke down the numbers: “That means that Sarah Palin was the focus for just over ten minutes, ten minutes and four seconds. Hillary Clinton, 90 seconds. President Obama, just under a minute.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/01/11/fox-news-zings-60-minutes-cbs-show-spent-ten-minutes-palin-skipped-r#ixzz0cPOWQN25

  17. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – I do have to disagree with you here

    Even as vague as some may paint it, how else can Lott’s words be interpreted to mean something not inherently wicked and ugly about our past? Trent Lott spoke in a manner supporting segregation. Plain and simple.

    Harry Reid statements were made to observe what is – that Barack Obama’s chances were increased by the fact he is lighter skinned and that the speech and speaking he uses is not reflective of a dialect that is more Jeremiah Wright or Snoop Dogg or Fred Sanford, but more akin to a Cliff Huxtable.

    There is no hypocrisy there – just more right wing whining that folks on the left aren’t (gasp) politically correct enough.

    • As I said above, just trying to make the old (100 year old) man feel good at his birthday party. Stupid, elitist, insensitive yes racist, not hardly. Lott and Reaid may be stupid but they are not dumb.

    • Ray….I gotta be missing something here. I will admit to being cold…but let me see if I understand you…

      Ray said: Trent Lott spoke in a manner supporting segregation. Plain and simple.

      D13 asks: Are you saying that if I say something good about someone who has some segregationist thinking, then I would be racist but that it is ok if I make an “observation” that a “light skinned and non dialogue” speaking black man would go far, is not racist? Do I have this correct?

      Now, my observation of your statement is thus: If you disagree with say….segregation…no matter the color…and I agree with it…then I am racist and you are not?

      On a lighter subject…how are you doing up there in the cold country? Do me a favor….take it back….the cold, I mean. I wish to be “segregated” from it. 🙂

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        D13 – racial segregation I am referring to.

        Trent Lott was referring specifically to the Presidential run (which was almost entirely centered on segregation) – there is no other way I see to break the language and words down, not something else laudable like supporting MLK Day or whether he walked old ladies across intersections..

        • Point well said….have fun? Chopping wood….it will be 55 here today and there is something big a yellow in the sky today that puts off heat…I think it is called a sun.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            D13 – I have no grass to cut so I chop wood. 🙂

            Still smarting from my Eagles laying a big ugly egg two weeks in a row.

            • Yeah…how bout that. I did not think the Cowboys could pull off a three peat in the same season…I figured a really close game. McNabb does not like to be hit, tho and he seemed more flustered in the pocket than I have ever remembered. But, I guess if you have a WARE that is bearing down on you…my attention would be diverted. Something about being hit by a lineman that is traveling at mach four weighing in at 300….that could be damaging.

              That incidental him on McCoy in the Texas game put him out and that was 340 pounds that did not look like it hit him that hard….but slow mo showed a pretty good lick under the shoulder blade.

              Chop lot’s o wood, my friend…looks like a cold winter up there.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        And D13 – we have enough cold up here. Don’t need yours also! Time to go chop wood.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Back up your assertion with facts please. All Trent Lott said was that perhaps the country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won the Presidential Election in 1948.

      He did not say WHY he felt that would have been the case.

      Yes, it is highly probable that he knew Strom’s prior stance on segregation, but it is also highly probable that his comment had NOTHING whatsoever to do with that.

      Unless you are a mind-reader and have some actual hard evidence that Lott’s comment was specifically designed to show support for segregationist policies, I would suggest to you haven’t supported your accusation very well.

      Provide me with proof of intent behind Lott’s remark, and then I will be much more inclined to see it your way.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Peter – you’re being argumentative – perhaps Trent Lott can only factually prove what he intended by his comments. But suffice the following:

        From USW: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

        So – when Strom ran for President he ran as a Dixecrat. Their slogan was “Segregation Forever”. Their predominant and almost singular platform was segregation. That has been covered numerous times (Kari Frederickson, Jack Bass and Keith Finley among others in well researched works I have read within the last 6 months – in case you’re wondering I wrote a paper on Thurmond as a ‘dark leader’).

        So – if Trent Lott claims that ‘we’re proud of him’ with respect specifically to his Presidential run – then it is no leap in logic to extend that in supporting the candidate then one supported their platforms and policies. Therefore Trent Lott, by his own stupid remarks would support Strom’s segregationist views from ’48. I don’t buy the argument that he was just trying to make an old codger happy. Thurmond’s history has never been a secret – ever.

        There is your proof Peter – it was right in front of you the whole time.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          First of all Ray, was Trent Lott old enough to vote in 1948? Perhaps, but it would have been close.

          Secondly, there were a LOT of people (both Republican and Democrat) that supported segregation in 1948 (does the name Robert Byrd ring a bell?)

          As a matter of fact, more Repubicans voted for civil rights legislation than Democrats in the 1960s.

          Basically, things change over time. It is highly likely that Trent Lott, his family, his friends, and virtually everyone around him where and when he was brought up were for segregation.

          It is POSSIBLE to interpret his comments to mean that he STILL WAS, in 2002, FOR SEGREGATION, but I highly doubt it.

          So no, you still haven’t proved his intent.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Yes Peter – I am well aware of Mister Byrd: http://www.slate.com/id/2075662

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Peter – essentially your only explanation for Trent Lott’s comments – in specifically referencing Strom’s Presidential bid on the segregationist platform – was something like “I was kidding”?

            Sorry – you’ll have to do better than that.

            The only way I can imagine proving (supposed to mean 100% proof?) his intent is if he said before hand and after wards that he would intend to make such a remark. I think he made an off the cuff remark in what he thought was a discrete event and not realizing that the filters in his brain were not firing fast enough to stop him from saying what he believed. That is the problem for folks like him that lead very scripted lives and usually measure everything they say.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              No Ray,

              I am not saying he was kidding at all. I am saying that his belief that if Thurmond would have won in 1948 is not equivalent to saying he supported segregation in 2002.

  18. Warning Moviequote! Warning Moviequote!

    From Sidney Poitier (student) to Glen Ford (Teacher) in 1953’s “Blackboard Jungle” . “If you’re white you’re allright, if you’re brown stick around, but if you’re black, Stand back.

    See how far we have come in half a century.

    • Oh wow..SK….bad thing about it is…I remember the movie. Oh my….

      • But then I remember Speedy Alkaseltzer, Ready Kilowatt, Edsels, Burma Shave signs, The Nestle’s Dog singing about chocolate, Felix the Cat, the ORIGINAL three stooges, The Hardy Boys, Amos n Andy, Red Sketon and Jackie Gleason shows, sing along With Mitch, Lawrence Welk, Rawhide, Death Valley Days, Boraxo Soap, the first electric can opener, the first color tv when only the Peacock was in 5 colors, black and white tv’s as big as a piece of furniture, Ozzie and Harriet………….oh god…….BANG !!!!

        • FYI,

          The western channel is finally broadcasting “Have Gun Will Travel” re-runs. Enjoy!

        • Hahaha… Wow, D.. maybe this will make you feel better:

          I was born after the internet.

          I had a computer in my house at the age of 8.

          I cannot remember a time before I had a color tv bigger than 13 inches.

          Reagan was President when I was born. Clinton is the first President I can remember.

          Kerry was the first Presidential candidate I was eligible to vote for.

          I have had a cell phone since I could drive.

          I have never had a manual transmission (and I probably never will).

          I have never owned an 8-track or betamax. I own a record player purely for retro value.

          There has not been a smallpox infection anywhere in the world in my lifetime.

          John Lennon died before I was born.

          Have a nice day, old timer 🙂

          • It is even a sadder note when my son asked… Dad, who were the Beatles?

            • How old is your son?! I listened to them ever single day when my dad drove me to school. I knew their entire anthology by the time I could do addition.

              • Let’s see…I have to admit this…umm…he is 38 now….ok god. However, I have to give him his due for I did NOT listen to the Beatles…so he would have had to go elsewhere.

                Mr Ed, huh….hmmmm…I remember Mr Ed. How about Huckleberry Hound?

                • Sure, I remember Huckleberry.. how about F-Troop and the Dick Van Dyke Show*. You remember that?

                  If I really stretch myself, I can go as far back as a few episodes of Patty Duke

                  *Seriously, how hard it is to walk around the ottoman?

                • D13

                  OK Colonel, one last memory.

                  My absolutely FIRST favorite TV show. We had one channel in Black and White and this show came on after I got home from school.

                  “Hawkeye and the Last of the Mohicans”

                  As I recall the shows sponsor was Nesbitt Orange Soda.

                  Speaking of which, $0.25 for a bottle of soda in a chest type machine you had to slide the bottles around this maze to get to the place you could pull it out. Bottle cap opener attaced to the side.

                  Tipping one to you dear sir.

          • But on another note, I’ve never seen a segregated lunch counter. I’ve never known anyone with an iron lung. I’m not worried about missiles in Cuba. The Germans and the Communists* aren’t a major threat to my way of life. So maybe my generation has it good.

            *yea, yea, yea.. I know what you’re thinking..

            • LOL…Matt….you did not go through nuclear strike drills in elementary school? You missed out. However, living in Fort Worth next to Carswell AFB ( a major SAC base then ) with General dynamics on the other side of it…crawling under my desk at school with ground zero 2 miles away somehow did not register back then….

              I was in grade school during the McCarthyism…but I remember my dad talking about it. But I remember well in 1962 the Cuba blockade and the Kennedy assassination.

              But my fondest memory, since I had to feed the dog, was getting an electric can opener when they came out. I thought that was the cat’s meow, then.

              BUT…even your parents may not remember, the ice man coming to bring ice to the box, the milkman coming in the back door (left unlocked), groceries delivered, firemen getting cats out of trees, and policemen that would actually give you directions.

              But, in my first car ( a 1967 Tyro Blue Firebird 400 with Ram Air, 4-speed with Henke clutch and a .300 over bore, 350 horsepower positrac (limited slip differential) I had am 8 trac stereo with front and rear speakers and leather seats. THAT, my friend, was a BABE MOBILE DELUXE. (the gals really liked hot cars back then).

              Not too mention that the only car that beat me consistently in the 1/4 mile was that damned Shelby Cobra GT..I never could beat that car. I was cracking 14.5 in pure stock. Shelby GT was always right at 14.1 CRAP…never beat that SOB. But I was better looking. 🙂

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Your generation does, by and large, “have it good”; but the majority of your generation have absolutely no understanding of how or why this came about.

            • Matt:

              Hell boy, I’ve sat in segregated bars.

              In B.C. Canada.

              Men had to sit on one side and the women on the other.

              Pub’s were mixed but the bars were segregated. The bar itself acted as the divider so you could see each other, and talk across the back bar but you couldn’t sit on the same side.

              • Fifteen years ago, I desegregated
                a bar(private club). They did not allow blacks. My business spent a fair amount of money there, and had a black customer to entertain. A few minutes talk, and they decided it would be OK, since he was from out-of-town.

                A few months later I returned with a local friend who was black. Same discussion, same result. We started going there every week. After a few months,
                others joined the club as well.

    • SK

      So wouldn’t that make the poet/preacher’s comments at Mr. Obama’s innaugeration a “plagerism”?


      Having a little laugh to myself

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    As I pointed out in a reply to D13 above, why should we the people want them to stop this sort of idiocy?

    This sort of idiocy grinds the federal government to a halt. Grinding the federal government to a halt is the only way to ensure that they are not actively taking away more of our freedom, liberty, and hard-earned money.

    I wish they would argue about stupid crap like this all day, every day. That way, we could be ensured that they would never “accomplish anything”. I think we all know by now that when the federal government “accomplishes something” that is usually bad news for our freedom, our liberty, and our wallets!

    • I think Dear Reader will use this opportunity to sign another sneaky EO or make more dodgy political appointments. While the masses are busy argueing with each other, he’ll sign something and almost no one will notice.

  20. Off Topic:

    Kathy and JAC,

    Check out RedState.com today considering the tea party in general and Sarah Palin lending her support to the movement.

    • I’ve been following this Anita. I had considered travelling to Nashville but then had some questions about it and the redstate site has been forthcoming with concerns as well. Now that Palin is a news comentator, it changes her status there somewhat.

    • Anita:

      Thanks for the heads up. I was completely unaware of a “national tea party convention”. Don’t know who’s behind it so can’t comment on its authenticity.

      But I did note these comments by the author in a linked editorial:

      “Full disclosure: I have asked several of the tea party organizations that, early on, I was supportive of to stop using my name and RedState’s logo. I think the tea party movement has largely descended into ego and quest for purpose for individuals at the expense of what the tea party movement started out to be.”

      I have been concerned about just this thing happening from day one. That is why I kept screaming to anyone that would listen……..we don’t need any LEADERS, and ……….keep all existing political types off the stage.

      I would have done it differently but lets not forget it does cost money to hold a convention. No hotel is going to put out their meeting rooms for free. The 500 fee is about the going rate for any large group gathering that includes meeting rooms, beverages and a small meal or two.

      I will do some more homework on the convention to see what I can find.

      As for Palin, she was asked to speak at the convention. I don’t see how that creates a risk for her. Her new media status no more changes anything than New Gingrich’s status as a fox contributor. He still does what he does outside the media forum.

      I will confess that I have heart burn with RedState.com. Far too “modern conservative” for my liking. But I also think that all efforts should be evaluated and allowed to run. We as a people need to have a serious converstation among ourselves regarding our future.

      All this confusion, groups, talking heads, etc is just the beginning of that conversations. It will all work as long as we don’t let the professionals start to control the efforts.

      Now that is my take.

      What is it that you were thinking?

      • JAC: Don’t know if you saw my comment to you last week, the night before your surgery. In the end I commented that you may just have captured my vote. Remember that I had sided with V’s approach.

        I have been aware of the tea party convention. Sounds like a fine idea. Continue with a planned message. I almost have to agree with Erick Erickson that the Tea party is starting to get lost in itself and risks losing its message. Hopefully this convention will firm up a plan for plunging forward.

        As for Sarah’s involvement. I say more power to her. She’s still letting the people know what her stance is. No other “leaders/celebs” though Maybe Beck could put his two cents in occasionally. That’s it.

        As for my vote: I don’t know again 😦

        • Anita:

          On Sarah Palin. She needs to be who she is and ignore all the handlers and experts.

          Sarah just be Sarah.

          Then we can decide based on reality instead of a manipulated and calculated image.

          I want honesty and principled positions. Then it is up to me to decide if I share those principles and will support her, or anyone.

          I did see your comment regarding capturing your vote. Thank you. That was nice. But I was thinking of giving you mine.

          Stick to your principles. It is time to cure this disease. Just think what is going to happen if the R’s win back a bunch of seats without being held to a set of new principles. All those tea partiers will fade away because they will assume they fixed the problem. The vast majority don’t understand the core problems. They just want someone to listen and to take care of the budget imbalance.

          Another way to think about it is this. What would have happened if in 1774 the King and Parliament had given in on a few of the Colonists’ demands to defuse the situation. What if they had given us representation in parliament? Do you think the anger would still have become large enough to cause the Declaration of Independance or to invent a new form of govt based on individual freedom and liberty?

          Did that help get you back on board?

          Best wishes to you.

          • JAC:

            If you run, I’m on board. In the meantime you gave me a headache. I can’t argue with anything you said.

            Question: Assume the Ds win because the Rs & Ts are split. Don’t you think we’ll be in deeper trouble? That’s what scares me.
            (yabit… it should be sorted out in primaries). The answer assumes the Ds win. I know you want me to stick with principles and you had me last week. Today, I’m scared. What if it doesnt work?

            You’ve been busy today 🙂 Heading to mom’s for dinner. Maybe catch up to you tonight

            • Anita

              I am sorry if I gave you a headache. I would hope that once you realized your principles were solid, you should feel an inner peace and not pain.

              To your direct point I give a direct answer.

              Question: Assume the Ds win because the Rs & Ts are split. Don’t you think we’ll be in deeper trouble? That’s what scares me.


              Our economy is about as bad as it can get and the Fed will not let it get to much farther. Too many elites with too much at stake to let the whole thing go down. If they did want to let it go,there is nothing a few dozen Republicans are going to do to stop it.

              As for the rest of the agenda, there is nothing they can do that can’t be reversed later. I know we assume it will be hard as people get used to handouts, but remember the economy will not allow it to go without pain for everyone.

              And, perhaps once most Americans come to grips with what fasciolism really looks like and who gets the cookies and who gets the screw, well maybe it will be easier to convince them to dump the whole concept once and for all.

              Meanwhile, we should support anyone who wants to run from a principled position (ours) and remains true to those core values. They will mess up the Congressional balance, regardless of what uniform they wear. But realisticaly they would be wearing a Libertarian or Republican shirt.

              I doubt even the blueest of D’s would admit to a VDLG type set of values. But I sure might think twice if I lived in a D controlled area and they stood firm on just one principle……..Balance the freaking budget and do it now.

              Don’t be scared. In fact for the first time in my life I see a chance for lasting change in favor of liberty and true prosperity. It will be painful to get there but there is actually a light at the end of the tunnel, if we only stay on the tracks.

              I hope dinner with your Mom was good.

              Big warm bear hug for you tonight.
              Sleep well and peacefully.
              Dream of freedom and a full life.
              Wake happy.


              • Ok JAC
                After reading your post twice (or was it three) I’m on board. I keep forgeting that they are all the same. D or R. So the only answer is to vote on principle not party. Why did that seem so difficult? What’s my job?

  21. Well, that’s what I get for boycotting the inauguration. Assuming he paraphrased the line, then it was stolen from Evan Hunter. Hunter wrote “Blackboard Jungle” based on his experiances as a teacher in one of NY city’s vocational High Schools. He later went on to greater fame as Ed McBain writing the “87th Precinct Stories”.

  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Unabashed thread hijack.


    Interesting to note that almost all market activity in the European “Carbon Markets” is simply fraud.

    Of course, AGW is a fraud, so in reality 100% of “carbon trading” is fraudulent by definition….

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    Morning Everyone.

    First of all, let me say this. Being from Nevada, I can honestly say, that the people here want Reid out, and out for good. His numbers are way low, but he is determined to run again, and he feels he has a good chance of winning again. There are at least 3 to 4 other people who are planing on running against him, and their numbers are considerably higher than good ol Reids. People here are fed up with him, and his lying to the people here. He has made statements of producing jobs, and bringing money into the state. I say, bull, haven’t seen any jobs yet. If there are, I’d like to know, because there are still a lot of people here out of work, me included.

    The city of Reno is doing major cut backs and letting people go, and they consist of police officers, fire fighters, and many more that work for the city. There are still people who are facing foreclosures due to job losses. Reid hasn’t done one thing for the people of Nevada like he says he has.

    As for what he said about Obama, funny after wards, it’s not what he meant to say. Well, what exactly did he mean? Oh, it’s okay for them to say things, and not get reprimanded for it, but let the other side say something, then they want their heads on a silver platter. If people don’t mean what they say, but meant something else, then maybe they should either keep their mouths shut, or stop and think first before they say anything. Just like when Reid said if you don’t agree with this health care bill, then you believe in slavery. What does that have to do with anything? If you don’t agree with the bill, then your considered a terrorist, stuff like that. But if it was anybody else who said that, then by golly heads are going to roll.

    You better believe when it comes time for voting this year, I will be one of them to vote Reid out. I will go with Lowden , Tarkanian, or Angle, anybody but Reid. Time for him to retire, go back to Searchlight Nv., and live a quiet life and never be heard from again. That’s the best thing that can happen for Nevada. He is nothing but a self centered jerk, who does not have Nevada in his best interest.

    Hope you are all doing well today.


  24. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    One question that comes to my mind since the whole Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond 2002 issue has come up again as a result of this whole Harry Reid mess is the following:

    By objectively measureable standards, are minorities (and blacks specifically) materially better off in aggregate than they were 50 or 60 years ago as a result of all our government has done for them?

    I don’t necessarily know the answer, but when you look at the following areas:

    Education level
    Percentage in poverty
    Stability of families
    Illegitimacy rate
    Teen pregnancy rate

    I would say that one or two of these 5 categories have been stable or shown improvement, but 3 or 4 have actually deteriorated.

    I know my personal answer for why I think that this is. Anyone else care to comment?

    • My comment is simply this- a comment

      I live near Detroit. The Dems have been around here strong since I can remember. I remember the early days of Coleman Young.

      In my lifetime Detroit has gone from bad to worse. But there is still Obama cash. I don’t get it.

    • It’s Bush’s fault!!!!

      That was easy.

    • Two things. I go with Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s views on the success of “poverty programs” and the black family. Secondly, years ago, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote a piece regarding the inaugration of the CCC and other New Deal work programs in the thirties. In it, he mentioned a round table discussion in the White House where he was present. One of the participants complained that it would be easier and cheaper just to send checks to the unemployed rather than insist on a work component. No less a New Deal Liberal/Socialist than Harry Hopkins jumped all over him. His position as I remember it was that it would destroy people to be given money for nothing. It would sap their will, make them drones and destroy families. I always wondered what rocket scientist in the ’60’sfinally made it possible to destroy an entire generation or two or three.

      • The more welfare is provided, the less inclined they are to earn for themselves.


        higher non-welfare income obtained by the family during a boy’s childhood was associated with higher earnings when the boy became an adult (over age 25). However, welfare income had the opposite effect: The more welfare income received by a family while a boy was growing up, the lower the boy’s earnings as an adult.

        Typically, liberals would dismiss this finding, arguing that families which receive a lot of welfare payments have lower total incomes than other families in society, and that it is the low overall family income, not welfare, which had a negative effect on the young boys. But the Corcoran and Gordon study compares families whose average non-welfare incomes were identical. In such cases, each extra dollar in welfare represents a net increase in overall financial resources available to the family. This extra income, according to conventional liberal welfare theory, should have positive effects on the well being of the children. But the study shows that the extra welfare income, even though it produced a net increase in resources available to the family, had a negative impact on the development of young boys within the family. The higher the welfare income received by the family, the lower the earnings obtained by the boys upon reaching adulthood. The study suggests that an increase of $1,000 per year in welfare received by a family decreased a boy’s future earnings by as much as 10 percent

  25. Matt: RE SPOCK

    Lets start with your question regarding the movie.

    As we can’t hear the question lets first try to find what might fit.

    How do we solve the statement:

    “It is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.”

    First lets try to identify the relavent questions. You asked only one the other day. And that is can there be something that is morally obligatory?

    While that is a good question, and I believe there is, it is not necessarily the correct question for the problem. The statement could assume that no such thing exists, and thus something is ???????????? if it is considered praiseworth but not obligatory.

    First, we must agree on what the concept of MORAL is.

    Second, I suggest we need to determine HOW we know when something is moral.

    You first.

    • Moral: principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

      Something is moral if it is not in conflict with the first principles of morality (to be determined).

      • Matt:

        Right and wrong; or, good and bad?

        Principle ?????

        I don’t agree that can be both a principle and habit. If OK with you lets dump habit because whether one acts out of habit or out of random would have no affect on whether that act is right or wrong, or good or bad. Agree?

        • Agree, dropping “habit”.. I just stole that from dictionary.com anyway (is that theft, and therefore immoral?).

          Let’s stick with right and wrong, rather than good and bad. Good and bad is an effect. You can do the right thing and bad things still happen.

          So, now I think we have our definition: Morality is adherence to principles derived from the First Principles of Morality* which govern what is defined and considered to be right and wrong action or intent**.

          How’s that?

          *to be named later

          **Intent is every bit as important as action. If I, say, shoot you because I think I am protecting my family, it is moral. The fact that you were not, in fact, a threat means I was mistaken, but not immoral.

          • Matt:

            “(is that theft, and therefore immoral?).”: NO but lets stay on task for now.

            “Good and bad is an effect. You can do the right thing and bad things still happen.”: My young Vulcan, you have taken your first mis-step.

            Good and bad is NOT an effect, it is a value judgment against action. Is it not?

            Where as right and wrong are more concrete in terms of consistency with reality. Are they not more of a measure of outcome?

            “So, now I think we have our definition: Morality is adherence to principles derived from the First Principles of Morality* which govern what is defined and considered to be right and wrong action or intent**.” NO WE DON’T!

            First of all, the proposed definition uses morality, proposed as “adherence”, to define morality, “to principles derived from………of morality”.

            It also uses “First principles” as the source of “moral principles” again using itself to define itself.

            But lets get to the real proof that the definition is flawed. The proof provided by you.

            “If I, say, shoot you because I think I am protecting my family, it is moral. The fact that you were not, in fact, a threat means I was mistaken, but not immoral.”

            Your instincts seem good to me when you say your action is moral. The facts turned out that your decision to act in what you know is a moral way resulted in a wrong conclusion. So you acted morally but were mistaken and thus got the wrong results.

            This precludes right and wrong from measures of that which is moral. Because you have just shown you can act in a moral way and be “wrong”.

            Also, how can principles come from morality? This would infer that “morals” exist as the primary entity and stand alone, and we discover or develop principles to match those morals.

            So once again, what are morals? Lets focus on their essence and not some technical definition for now.

            • You clearly have something in mind.. care to share it with the class?

              • See my comments following the Wiki and John Rawls definitions.

                If I just give my answers it could prevent a great discovery!

                Wouldn’t want to do that would we?

                I did want to point out that using LOGIC you proposed a definition and then provided your own proof against it.

                This is the flaw that enters many of the examples used by everyone, me included, when we are debating various positions or views. Concepts start getting mixed up to the point where examples don’t fit the orginal question, and we wind up chasing the rabbits that have no real connection.

              • Matt:

                Lets focus discussion below my 3:51 post (wiki definition).

                I would rather keep to one discussion for now. Lets not lose track of other ideas or questions as they come up. They may all fit together later.

      • Matt:

        Just watched the movie segment again. You can hear part of the question and Spocks answer.

        “When is an action ??????? (sounds like he says “suited” as in “suitable” but fades out.)

        “When it is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.

        If that is the question it raises an interesting another interesting question. But for now just wanted to share my discovery.

        • supererogatory?
          1. going beyond the requirements of duty.
          2. greater than that required or needed; superfluous.

          • Will play with sound system. I may be able to separte the tracks on my speakers.

            Didn’t sound that long but they were tailing off the question.

            The key point from the question, which fits my line of questions above is that the answer relates to an “action”.

            Will get very interesting if that was in fact the word though.

          • Matt:

            Very, very sure it is:

            “When is an action said to”, then it stops, no trailing off.

            So I would presume the next most logical words would be..BE.

            So we are looking for an action that can be classified as something that is praiseworthy but not obligatory.

            • So supererogatory fits..

              When is an action said to be above and beyond the the call of (moral) duty? When it morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory.

              Works for me..

              • Lets not introduce bias or rabbits so early in the chase.

                But if you intend on chasing this one you will have to define DUTY in addition to MORAL.

                • I’ll play with you another time.. got snowed under at work today, sorry.. what you’ve written is interesting and we will discuss another time, I promise.

                  But for now, time to call it a day.. good night, and good luck.

      • Matt:

        Before we get to far, and thus lost along separate paths, and to reduce the time needed to get to the heart of the matter, I copied the following from WIKI for your consideration.

        “Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) has three principal meanings.

        A moral is sometimes factual based on religion and your conscience. In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be “common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time.” The arbitrariness of morality stems from the observation that actions that may be deemed moral in one culture in time may not be classified as such in others or in a different time. The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not seem to cause overt harm may be considered immoral, e.g. marrying someone of the same or opposite gender, being an atheist or a theist, etc. Descriptive morality does not explain why any behavior should be considered right or wrong, only that it may be classified so. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they cause benefit or harm, respectively. However, this is not by any means an all encompassing criterion; it’s possible that many moral beliefs are due to prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.

        In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct which would be preferred by the sane “moral” person, under specified conditions. In this “definitive” sense, claims are made such as “Killing is immoral.” While descriptive morality would not necessarily disagree that killing is immoral, it would prefer to say, “Many believe that killing is immoral.” A refined adherence to this latter position is known as moral skepticism, in which the unchanging existence of a rigid, universal, objective moral “truth” is rejected.[1]

        In its third usage, morality is synonymous with ethics. Ethics is the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).[3]

        In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and wars of invasion.

        In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified.

        In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms “moral” or “immoral”. Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers’ sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (universal prescriptivism); or falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.”


        “It is essential to keep in mind that in a teleological theory, the good is defined indepednently fromt he right. This means two things. First, the theory accounts for our considered judgments as to which things are good (our judgments of value) as a separate clsss of judgments intuitively distinquishable by common sense, and then proposes the hypothesis that the right is maximizing the good as already specified.. Second, the theory enables one to judge the goodness of things without referring to what is right.”

        Got to love these philosophers don’t ya? Keep it as fuzzy as possible. Of course Rawls selects teh teleological definitions shown here because it fits his predetermined cocept of social justice and justice as fairness.

        In summary, I make a distinction because I believe in the “meta-ethic” or “moral realism” theory. Meaning I think there are certain moral principles that can be objectively (logic and reason) identified and that apply in all cases. These “core” principles then form the basis for all other moral principles, regardless of whether we call them good or right. We can pick one but if we do we just need to realize that some see the words as having different priorities in the structure of meta -ethics.

  26. First, really stupid comments by Harry Reid. No doubt about that.

    But I thought you guys didn’t like the idea of being politically correct? 🙂

    But seriously, context matters. Making these comments about someone you support is different than making these comments about someone you oppose.

    If Reid made similar comments about Michael Steele, that would be different.

    The context of the setting also matters. Lott made prepared comments to a room full of people. Reid made a private comment to one or a few people.

    Historical context also matters. As you said USWeapon, Lott’s own record on civil rights for blacks in America is sketchy enough on its own.

    Reid has been a supporter of civil rights.

    The hypocrisy runs both ways. Democrats complained about Lott, and Republicans defended Lott. Now Republicans complain about Reid, and Democrats defend Reid. Both hypocrites.

    But in the end it was the Bush Administration and Senate Republicans who pushed Lott out because they were embarrassed by his comments and the damage it was causing. If Reid’s comment stay active for a few news cycles, he could suffer the same fate.

    And Clinton’s comment – yikes! Agree it could be taken either way, but…

    Kennedy should have responded: “A few years ago, your wife would have been getting us coffee.” 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Todd,

      Agree, I don’t think it was racist, and the outrage is PC bulldookey. That said, I think media coverage of this says a lot. They are supposed to present news in an un-biased manner. Commentators like Bech and Mathews get a pass on that, but news reporters should not sound like commentators.

      It is very strange that 60 Minutes, on of the most watched NEWS shows did not mention this slip, but spent the majority of their report on a “former” political candidate.


      Fox News Nails ‘60 Minutes:’ CBS Show Spent Ten Minutes on Palin, Skipped Reid’s ‘Negro’ Remark

      By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
      January 11, 2010 – 15:32 ET

      Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn on Monday hit 60 Minutes for spending ten minutes out of a 13 minute segment highlighting negative dirt on Sarah Palin. At the same time, the news magazine ignored racially charged remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Shawn analyzed Anderson Cooper’s January 10 interview with the authors of Game Change, observing, “…Most of the CBS story was critical of Sarah Palin.” [Audio available here.]

      He explained, “The story did not mention Reid calling then-candidate Barack Obama light-skinned with no Negro dialect, comments for which the Senator has since apologized.” This is despite the fact that authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin broke the “Negro” story. Shawn noted the segment ran 13 minutes and three seconds. He then broke down the numbers: “That means that Sarah Palin was the focus for just over ten minutes, ten minutes and four seconds. Hillary Clinton, 90 seconds. President Obama, just under a minute.”

      (May get a double post here, sorry for poor proofreading.)

      • Oh come on LOI, you don’t find that strange!! It’s par-for-the-course for the MSM!! 😉

        Maybe it’s because Reid’s comment had no effect on the election? And it wasn’t made public for 2 years?

        Or because Reid is one of Obama’s biggest supporters and encouraged him to run for president?

        Or because Sarah is such a fun and easy target??

        • What effect would this have had if reported two years ago?
          Reed, Clinton and company? Maybe very little, but then why is it newsworthy today? Would seem it would have been even more worthwhile back then.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      It must be remembered that the MSM has a double-standard as well.

      The (former) “major networks” were NEVER going to drop the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond story back in 2002 until they achieved their objective, which was to get Lott to step down.

      Currently, the (former) “major networks” are anxious to talk about ANYTHING BUT the Harry Reid remarks, and are eager to get the whole thing to blow over.

      In my real, honest opinion, neither the Trent Lott remarks nor the Harry Reid remarks were actually significant in any way, but of course due to the seeking of political advantage, the Democrats were never going to ignore/forgive what Lott said, and the Republicans probably aren’t going to shut up about what Reid said either, at least while they think it might give them some advantage.

      I do agree with JAC that it would probably give the Repubs a bigger advantage if they wouldn’t have manufactured so much feigned outrage over it in the first place and had just shut up about it for the most part.

  27. Judy Sabatini says:

    A Disturbing Double Standard

    By Cal Thomas

    – FOXNews.com

    Now it’s Harry Reid’s turn to be washed in the absolution of his fellow liberals.


    That a double standard exists for Republicans, for religion, for even whites and blacks and what they say on race and other subjects is a given. The media treat such comments differently depending on the policies of those who utter them. In fact, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia can utter the phrase “white nigger” and it barely raises an eyebrow in liberal circles. Rarely is Byrd’s background as a former leader in the Ku Klux Klan mentioned in polite liberal company. As long as the speech offender is a liberal who favors the social and political policies of the liberal media elite, he (or she) gets a pass.

    And so then-Senator and future vice president Joe Biden can describe then-senator Barack Obama as “clean and articulate” and it’s not a problem. That’s because Byrd and Biden “vote right.” Jesse Jackson can refer to New York City as “Hymietown” and he keeps a TV show he had on CNN at the time and his newspaper column. Al Sharpton signs on to defend a young African-American girl who claims she was raped by a gang of white men, including a police officer and prosecutor, and when a grand jury determines that she had created an elaborate hoax, that does not diminish Sharpton in the eyes of his fellow liberals because he pushes for policies with which they agree.

    Now it’s Harry Reid’s turn to be washed in the absolution of his fellow liberals. In their new book, “Game Change,” Mark Halperin and John Heilemann quote Reid as referring to Obama as a “light-skinned black man with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

    Reid belongs to the Mormon church, which waited until 1978 to announce a “revelation” that black people were welcome in that denomination. That is mostly ignored by the media, though reporters kept bringing up Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs — even questioning what undergarments he wore — during the last presidential campaign.

    On Sunday, “60 Minutes”ignored all of this in its interview with the authors of “Game Change.” If a Republican had said what Reid said it would have been the first question.

    Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell’s faith was a big deal to The Washington Post which kept mentioning that he attended and wrote a thesis for Pat Robertson’s Regent University.
    More importantly, Reid’s remark again shows what African-Americans are worth to the Democratic Party. They are votes, not individuals with value. White liberals have built a political culture that is little different from the plantations of another generation. African-Americans are given just enough to help them survive, but not opportunity which will allow them to escape and become independent of government programs.

    More than words, this is the greater offense. When will African-Americans realize they have been used and begin to pry themselves loose from the paternalistic grip of white liberal — and some fellow African-American Democrats?

    Senator Trent Lott was forced out as GOP Majority Leader when he joked that the country might have been better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president. Don’t look for Harry Reid to resign his post for saying worse.

    Double standard.

    But that aside, what ought to disgust most of us is that these people who are supposed to serve us are playing a game of verbal volleyball that serves only themselves. When will they get serious and behave like adults and real public servants?

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Interesting stuff in the Coakley-Brown debate last night. (The two running to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy).

    This may be a bit of a paraphrase, but the debate moderator asked Brown, “Would you be willing to use Ted Kennedy’s seat to defeat the current version of healthcare reform in the Senate?”. To this, Brown’s reply was, “It isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat, it isn’t the State of Massachusetts’ Senate seat, it isn’t the Democrat’s Senate seat, it is the PEOPLE’S seat!”

    Whether he truly believes that or not is an open question, but at least it was a pretty good answer 🙂

  29. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Just one more way in which the government will gradually eliminate the right to property. Sigh….

  30. Hijack: Here is the solution we’ve been looking for…

    We need to all become Amish!


  31. OK, I’m not getting the sudden problem with Detroit.

    Fox just reported a disruptive incident on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. This is the third incident from Amsterdam and an additional incident on a Miami to Detroit flight since Christmas.

    • I live very near Metro Airport. I can hear many sirens on I-94 heading toward the airport

      • Ok they say it’s under control. One passenger under control.

        YYYeah! And I’m the Easter Bunny

        • Anita

          The answer is simple.

          Westerners get on a plane headed for home. Then they are told the plane is landing in Detroit before connections the rest of the way.

          Said westerner goes bezerk figuring it is a conspiracy and he/she will be trapped in hell for days or weeks.

          And I always thought the Easter Bunny’s name was Harvey.

          Gotchya smilin huh?

          • 🙂 🙂 🙂 Yes Harvey, you did make me smile. You also helped me figure out the problem with Detroit Metro. My family and I have made a good living off the airlines. Detroit is the #2 international hub in the country, behind LaGuardia. I may be mistaken but its definetly in the top 5. Gives me more reason to be nervous. Great

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    Rory Reid’s Gubernatorial Bid Suffers as Dad Harry Faces Declining Polls


    As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seeks an electoral victory in the face of low approval ratings, so too does his eldest son, Rory, whose first-time bid for Nevada governor has also taken a plunge.

    Taken from the Clark County Commission Web site, Commissioner Rory Reid helped dedicate the Clark County Shooting Park on Aug. 25. (accessclarkcounty.com)

    Like father, like son?

    As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seeks an electoral victory in the face of low approval ratings, so too does his eldest son, Rory, whose bid to become governor of Nevada has also taken a plunge.

    The pair’s growing unpopularity among Nevadans has made each a liability for the other’s campaign — giving fodder to Republican candidates striving for wins in the Silver State.

    Harry Reid, who has been roundly criticized in recent days for racial remarks about President Obama, has a 52 percent disapproval rating in his state, according to a Mason Dixon poll conducted Jan. 5-7.

    Thirty-three percent of those surveyed said they approved of Reid’s performance as fifth-term senator and party leader, while 15 percent offered no opinion.

    The results signaled a further decline for Reid, who faced a 49 percent unfavorable rating last month, according to a Dec. 11, 2009, Rasmussen poll.

    The 70-year-old senior senator came under fire over the weekend after a new book on the 2008 presidential campaign revealed that Reid once referred to candidate Barack Obama as light-skinned and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

    Reid swiftly apologized for the comments, saying he’s “not going to dwell” on them, but the increased calls for his resignation among leading Republicans coupled with low state approval ratings have undermined his re-election prospects.

    Reid is trailing all three Republican candidates for the Senate seat, according to the poll — despite public support from Democrats defending his remarks and attesting to his 40-year record and service.

    “He’s like a bad trailer,” opponent Danny Tarkanian, a Republican, said of Reid’s campaign ads. “The more people watch these ads and know about him, the less they’re inclined to vote for him,” Tarkanian told Fox News.

    Reid’s political problems have also done nothing to help his son, Rory, who is trailing Republicans with little name-recognition in the race for governor.

    The 47-year-old chairman of the Clark County Commission boasts about his “middle-class” Nevadan roots on his campaign Web site, but he hasn’t scored high on state popularity charts.

    Thirty-five percent of constituents expressed an unfavorable opinion of Rory Reid in the same Mason Dixon poll — an increase from 28 percent in December. In a match-up of the three leading gubernatorial candidates, 35 percent favored former federal judge Brian Sandoval, a Republican, while 33 percent chose Independent Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, and 20 percent picked Reid.

    Reid, a former sports reporter for the Las Vegas Sun, has pledged to improve the state’s unemployment rate — the second highest in the country — and its $2 billion budget shortfall.

    He’s also stressed the need for job creation by broadening the state’s economy to include new industries, which he said will stop a growing number of Nevadans from leaving the state.

    “More people are moving out than moving in,” he said on his Web site.

    In attempting to make his case, the younger Reid has made few references to his father, mentioning him only when questioned by reporters.

    His campaign site is plastered with photos of family and public service activities — but only one shows father and son together on a fishing expedition when Reid was a boy.

    On his prospects of winning his first statewide office, Rory Reid said in an interview with The Washington Post, “We’re doing what we need to do to win.”

    “The early polling, I’m ignoring,” he told the newspaper. “In statewide elections, in this state, the races are close. And the candidate with the best ideas is the one who wins.”

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    Should Government Regulate Our Eating Habits?

    By You Decide

    – FOXNews.com

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is defending his latest so-called “nanny” initiative — a controversial crackdown on salt — by comparing the simple seasoning to killer asbestos in the classroom. “Salt and asbestos, clearly both are bad for you,” Bloomberg said. “Modern medicine thinks you shouldn’t be smoking if you want to live longer. Modern medicine thinks you shouldn’t be eating salt, or sodium.”

    Do you think the government should be telling you how much salt you should eat?

    Thank you for voting!
    Yes. Bloomberg’s right, and lowering salt intake is also going to lower health care costs. 3% (638 votes)
    No. This is the most blatant form of government intrusion – what’s next: regulating how much sleep I get? 95% (22,873 votes)
    No sure, but less salt can’t hurt. 2% (560 votes)
    Undecided <1% (25 votes)
    Total Votes: 24,096

    • Textbook example of a lousy poll.

      One, the sample: where was this question asked? Probably on Fox’s site, populated by Fox fans, who are predominately small government types.

      Two, loaded question: “Do you think the government should be telling you how much salt you should eat?” vs “Do you believe it is appropriate for the government to regulate the salt content of food products available for retail?”

      Three, loaded answers: “Yes. Bloomberg’s right, and lowering salt intake is also going to lower health care costs.” What if I think he’s right, but do not think that it’ll lower health care costs? What option do I choose?

      Four, another loaded answer: “No. This is the most blatant form of government intrusion – what’s next: regulating how much sleep I get?” consider this versus “no, I do not believe this to be the appropriate roll of government.” One plays on the emotions, the other is a specific and neutral option.

      Five, is that lead in paragraph above the question? It sets us up to know only that he’s trying to nanny us without giving any real facts. It also clearly stakes a position which will influence how readers feel when they go to take the poll.

      This kind of hackery is a problem when we try to get real answers to things. This is the first I’m hearing about this move by Bloomberg, but I doubt it’s anything like what this makes it seem.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Matt

        Heard in on the news last night. And I think it should be left up to the individual whether they use salt or not or pepper or any other kind of seasoning or condiment. Whose business is it anyway what people eat? Sorry, but I have to agree that government should have no part in what people eat or don’t eat for that matter.

        I don’t think this has anything to do with health insurance, or at least I hope it doesn’t. Government has more important things to do than to worry about how much salt a person uses. Personally, the only time I use it, is for cooking and that’s it.

        You sound rather annoyed by this poll. WHY? And yes, it came from fox, but so what, they have different polls for everything. No different than taking a survey for something.

        BYW, Hope you’re doing well today.

        • I am well.. a little out of it (I gave blood and now.. well.. I’m not 100% into my work). How art thou, fair maiden?

          I am very annoyed at polls like these because people use them to substantiate whatever views they want. Watch me load up the poll the other way:

          The use and overuse of sodium chloride in food preparation has been strongly linked to hypertension and several other diseases and disorders. Frequently, individuals suffering from these maladies visit the emergency room where they are unable to pay and, therefore, become a burden on society. Despite as a taste additive a preservative, there is no positive attribute to the substance’s pretense in food. Therefor:

          Do you feel that:
          A. Corporate food manufacturers should be able to use as much of this chemical in your food, causing poor, death, and financial disaster to our already over-burdened health care system.
          B. The government should regulate this substance in much the same way the do monosodium glutimate (MSG) and other harmful potential additives.
          C. Undecided.

          It’s all in how you ask. If I posted this at HuffPo, I’ll get 90% in favor. What do you want to bet?

          For the record, I don’t really have an opinion o this yet, but I don’t think we should be throwing our biased un-scientific polls. They’re dangerously misleading.

          Generally, I don’t think people are in favor of regulating salt, but I would need to know more about what he’s proposing. I, personally, heavily salt everything and would be very upset to have to cut back. (I’d start hoarding Morton’s Kosher Salt (the best salt there is.. big, big grains.. yum).

          Incidentally, and not at all relevant, I’ve heard that 90% of the world’s supply of salt is used in the US, but that 90% of that is used to de-ice roads. Not sure if that’s true, but I thought it was interesting.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Well, first off, you made me laugh when you said you’re going to hoard all Morton Kosher salt for your very own.

            Hope you had juice after giving blood, and good for you sir. Felt a little light headed after wards, did ya? Guess that’s normal.

            I am doing fine thank you kind sir, nice of you to ask.

            As for those polls, I don’t take much stock in them, I read them for the heck of it and to see the results. I generally put them up here to see what every body says or thinks of them. Why don’t you put it up on Huff’s blog, and see what happens, but I don’t make bets, so I can’t help you there. You’ll have to get somebody else for that.

            Hope you will be able to do better at work. I miss going to work, been looking, but no luck yet, but something I’m sure will come along.

            Have a good one.

            • I hope you don’t need blood any time soon, ’cause there’s some very special A+ liberal stuff out there now. One transfusion, and you’d vote for Al Gore.

              Be forewarned.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                No, as a matter of fact I don’t, besides, I’m B+ positive, but my hubby is A+ positive, and he isn’t liberal.

          • Road salt is CaCl2, more effective and cheaper. Table salt (NaCl)is also a preservative and has been used as such for centuries. Examples: bacon, salt cured ham, corned beef, pickles…. Salt is a common additive (preservative) when home canning vegetables. People that work hard in hot weather require more salt. Many now use Gatorade as a substitute. To say table salt has no value to life would be incorrect. Matt, try sea salt, it will calm you down. Sea salt has some lithium, potassium, and other minerals in it.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          “The only time I use salt is for cooking”

          But do you check just how much sodium is actually in some of the ingredients you may be using? That is the heart of the problem — pick up a box of nearly everything and take a look at the sodium content. It’s mindblowing.

          Bloomberg’s proposal (which I’ve heard offered from other mayors in other cities as well) is to attempt to limit the amount of sodium in pre-packaged foods and everyday ingredients. No one is proposing that the government tell anyone how much or little salt they can add on their own to their own meals.

          So Matt, enjoy the Morton’s Kosher Salt, but no need to rush to the store to buy them out. Though I’ve seen how much salt you use; I’m sure the groceries in your neck of the woods are already out.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Well, it is a well-known medical fact that if your potassium to sodium ratio gets out of balance too far, the result is always catastrophic, and quite often fatal.

        Therefore, if Bloomberg made the assertion that “modern medicine thinks you shouldn’t be eating salt, or sodium” then he is a complete idiot anyway.

        Sodium is a NECESSARY element for life. There is a recommended amount that you are SUPPOSED TO INGEST every day.

        His claim that modern medicine doesn’t think that you should eat ANY salt is simply ludicrous.

        Hopefully he will eliminate any and all salt/sodium intake from his own diet so that the rest of us can see how “good for us” that would really be.

        Ok, maybe that was a little harsh… even idiots shouldn’t have massive myocaridal infarctions wished upon them 🙂

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Heck, getting up in the morning can be dangerous. I’m not going to worry about how much salt I use or don’t use. . Like I said above, I’m not a salt user anyway, except for cooking.

        • Supporting Peter’s post:

          Most people don’t realize the importance of salt (and the sodium). Sodium sits between the synapses of the brain and transfer the electric connection between them.

          No Sodium.
          No fire of synapses.
          No life.

          So the order of human life requirements.

          (1) Oxygen (death ~4 minutes)
          (2) Salt/Sodium (death ~ 24 hours)
          (3) Water (death ~3/5 days)
          (4) Food (death ~20 days)

          • Then by all means, lets remove it from those NYers Can we remove it from CAians too? And how about Washington DCers? 24-hour deaths? Sheesh, we could have a lot of things cleaned up by the end of the week!!!

            (Please T-Ray, Dee and any other non-statists in these areas – move now to a safe location! Those of you that look for the government to give you direction in life….it’s been nice knowing you!)

            • you want me dead, Kathy 😥

              • Matt, this is just your government trying to control the masses….you know because people.are.stupid. You seem to love this style of government.

                Certainly don’t wish you personally dead – perhaps a move to Jersey?

            • Thanks for thinking of me but I live in the redneck part of CA. We put out salt licks for the cattle and wild life here.

              Not all people are hypersensitive (hypertensive) to salt. It is an individual thing. I agree that much packaged food (especially snack food) has too much salt. But I also remember my grandfather heavily salting celery among many other things something I copied as a kid. He was a farmer so worked hard all his like. He died of hypertension in 1956 at age 60. However, such overuse of self applied salt I think has significantly declined. My guess is the sodium induced hypertension is as much a result of a more sedentary life style than anything else. We don’t sweat it out like we did.

              Remember years ago all the arguments against butter in favor of oleo. Now oleo is bad and the recommended smear is 50% butter and 50% omega 3 oils. Shades of “Sleeper”

              All things in moderation.

          • Supporting Todd’s assertion about Sea Salt.

            When buying salt be aware of this:

            Most refined salt contains …. SUGAR!

            Most “Sea Salt” is refined salt without bleaching…. and contains SUGAR

            Sea Salt, the real stuff, is much better for you. It also has natural Iodine.

            Buyer beware, buyer be smarter. There is good stuff out there if you look for it (and pay for it).

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Missing is the ‘salt controversy’ is that it is completely voluntary: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cardio/cardio-salt-nsri-faq.pdf

      Fox conveniently left that fact out.

  34. D13:

    Off topic. I heard on the Rush program today that Obama signed an executive order that would integrate/synchronize the military with the national guard units for security within the United States. Do you know anything about this and can you elaborate on it?

  35. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I am going to show you a typical post from a website which is PRO-AGW, and then I am going to point out where the typical flaws are, just for fun:

    “Thanks for the quick and direct answers!

    Regarding your last point and link, is this about global warming in general? I know there are plenty of people who deny that, but I’m not one. My question is more the human piece:

    What convinced you that the warming, which is certainly happening, is primarily unnatural and due to human GHG emissions?

    [Response: The warming effect of human emissions is beyond dispute. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation; that they warm the planet is basic physics. ***FLAW ALERT*** Yes, it is true that basic physics shows CO2 to be a greenhouse gas and that it does cause warming. However, basic physics does not take into account the complexity and number of variables present in the actual atmosphere, or how CO2 interacts with all of these other variables. So, while this “basic physics” claim is technically true, it has NOT been conclusively demonstrated that IN OUR ATMOSPHERE, INTERACTING WITH ALL OTHER VARIABLES, CO2 CAUSES WARMING. ***END FLAW ALERT 1***

    No other climate-forcing agent (solar, cosmic rays, etc.) is on the increase, or has been since 1950. ***FLAW ALERT*** It is well known that solar activity was TREMENDOUS in the 1990s, and that some of the years in the 1990s had the highest solar activity on record. Also, it is known that CFCs are a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and CFCs were used EXTENSIVELY from the 1950s until the early 1990s. Basically the response here that nothing else has increased since 1950 is simply a blatant falsehood. ***END FLAW ALERT 2***

    Murder victim + suspect on the scene + smoking gun + every other possible suspect has an alibi + suspect’s fingerprints and DNA on the murder weapon and the victim. Draw your own conclusion.]***SPURIOUS BS ALERT***

    Which sets of data show that the warming we’re seeing now is outside of the realm of normal, natural warming? Does it have to come down to proxies, or is the scientifically measured data (stations, satellites) enough to show that the warming is not natural?


    Sorry to keep asking fundamental questions. These are what my students want to know, and I want to do the issue justice. You seem like a reasonable person. Thanks.”

    I hope you all found it easy to find my comments. The blog which I excised this from is supposedly from a “well-respected” scientist who supports the theory of AGW caused specifically by CO2 emissions by humans.

    The fact that he ignores all other variables, then makes the (completely false) argument that no other variables have changed since 1950, then adds some spurious crime-scene nonsense is hardly reason for me to be convinced by his “facts”.

    However, he is fun to read, and he does allow some opposing viewpoints to make it to his blog (although he ususally doesn’t bother to respond to the better thought-out skeptical commentors, mainly because I don’t think he can without appearing foolish :))


    I find it quite funny that he calls his site “Open Mind” when it is fairly clear that he does not, himself, have one 🙂

    • Peter,

      Heard a new term today, a “warmist” is a person who believes in AGW. I am waiting for more “adjusted” temperature checks against actual records. But I don’t expect the media to report such stories. Wonder how long until they restart the ice age scare?


      Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

      Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

      One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

      So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

      • LOI, Had to laugh at this one 🙂

        SYRACUSE, NY–The Chair of the Department of Environmental and Forest Biology at SUNY Syracuse says deer overpopulation is a greater threat to biodiversity in New York state than global warming.

        Speaking to the Ithaca Journal, Donald Leopold explained that “climate change isn’t eliminating species, only moving their ranges.”

        Deer overpopulation, on the other hand, does eliminate other species, he noted.

        “No other real or perceived threat is so pervasive throughout the entire state, nor eliminates the majority, if not all, of the understory of natural communities, greatly reducing the diversity of our natural communities and the function of these communities,” Leopold explained.

        “Ignoring what deer are doing… is worse than throwing litter on the highways, driving gas guzzlers, not recycling, and many other actions.”

        Leopold, who also serves as a Distinguished Teaching Professor in the program, researches “drivers of diversity and causes of varity in terrestrial and wetland ecosystems.” According to his website he has published over fifty-five peer-reviewed papers, six books, six book chapters, six invited book reviews, three proceedings, and many miscellaneous publications, all generally about topics in forest and wetland ecology, and native plants.

        Be afraid, very afraid, of the deadly whitetail 😆


        • Common Man says:


          They are a pesky breed, and I am a firm believe that each of us should irradicate (via Bow and Arrow) as many of these echological horrors as we can. And since we don’t want to add to the land fills each of those successfully harvested should be eaten; preferably with some fresh greens, garlic bread and a baked potato. Oh, and a cold beer or two would be very much appreciated as well.

          My brother-in-law, my son, my best friend and I have done our part this year having successfully harvested 14 all together.

          The freezers are full, and we all anxiously await the next whitetail season.


        • G!

          Great post! Lets bring it up on open mic, have a couple things to add.

        • In the summer time you should see the big racks under my apple trees. No windfalls to cleanup after they visit. Often there are 3-4 bucks out there are once. I can lay awake at night and hear them joisting. But it also means that I cannot grow a garden as they eat everything. The best I can do is grow corn if it is over knee high by the time the grass browns out. They seem to leave it alone after that. They eat everything else and even paw potatos out of the ground. I like CM’s solution but too many Bambi lovers around.

          We also have some big cats that visit as well. Came within 30 yds of one once. (USW: West coast cousins of the one on Mt. Nittany. I was deer hunting on Tussey Mt. above Pine Grove Mills and got snarled at by something definitely bigger than a house cat. So I am not so sure all the cats are gone in Centre Co.)

    • PeterB:

      My wife took a test for a teaching certificate on Saturday. One of the questions was about man made global warming. My wife is contesting the question since there cannot be a correct answer. The question assumed that man made global warming was a fact. My wife has to contest the question in writing and I’m very interested to see how they respond. The test was from Pearson.

  36. The most interesting part of this story is that a politician actually said what he believes to be the truth.

  37. Forgot one thing – how does everyone feel about Michael Steele’s Honest Injun comment?

    Should he step down as well?

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Michael Steele’s ‘honest injun’ comment sparks backlash

      * Dawn Turner Trice
      Dawn Turner Trice
      * Bio | E-mail | Blog | Recent columns
      * Topics
      Sean Hannity
      Michael Steele

      Dawn Turner Trice

      January 7, 2010

      Some consider the word “injun” to be as offensive as the N-word, but apparently Republican National Chairman Michael Steele didn’t know that when he tried to underscore a point earlier this week by saying, “Honest injun on that.”

      Steele was on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Monday night promoting his new book, “Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda.”

      “Our platform is one of the best political documents that’s been written in the last 25 years,” Steele told Hannity. “Honest injun on that. It speaks to some core conservative principles on the value of family, faith, life, economics. Those principles don’t change.”

      Susan Power, 85, the last living founding member of Chicago’s American Indian Center, said she was offended by Steele’s comment.

      “I’m really disgusted with him,” said Power, a longtime activist and member of the Dakota nation. “He’s an intelligent man and I know he’s probably kicking himself all over his office for saying it, but he should know better. It would hurt if he were white, but it hurts more because he’s black. How can you be so stupid?”

      She said that “injun” is one of two words — the other is “squaw” — that should never be used because they are throwbacks to a time when Native Americans were defined almost exclusively by negative stereotypes.

      “Are we so unimportant that he couldn’t have caught himself?” she said. “I would never use the N-word. I know not to. This man must know nothing about native people, that’s what’s so hard about this. Native Americans know everything about everybody else, but there’s so little interest in knowing who we are.”

      Power said that Steele needs to make amends.

      “I don’t think he did it on purpose,” she said. “But now that he does know, he should apologize.”

      The Republican National Committee did not respond Wednesday to the Tribune’s inquiries about Steele’s comment.

  38. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100112/entertainment/us_people_usher_theft

    Atlanta police say a thief stole $1 million in jewelry, clothing and other belongings from R&B singer Usher’s SUV while he shopped last month.


    Yeah, sure. Everyone drives around with a million bucks worth of Christmas presents in the SUV.

    What a crock.

    • Good article. Understanding a few more details can make all the difference. Thanks for the article, Birdman.

  39. Judy Sabatini says:

    Team Obama Keeps Pushing to Take Over Internet.


  40. I can’t resist this one. A funny for the day:

    A wealthy hospital benefactor was being shown around the hospital.

    During her tour she passed a room where a male patient was masturbating furiously.

    ‘Oh my GOD!’ screamed the woman. ‘That’s disgraceful! Why is he doing that?’
    The doctor who was leading the tour calmly explained, ‘I’m very sorry that you were exposed to that, but this man has a serious condition where his testicles rapidly fill with semen, and if he doesn’t do that at least five times a day, he’ll be in extreme pain and his testicles could easily rupture.

    Oh, well in that case, I guess its okay, said the woman.

    As they passed by the very next room, they saw a male patient laying in bed while a nurse performed oral sex on him. Again, the woman screamed, ‘Oh my GOD! How can THAT be justified?

    Again the doctor spoke very calmly . . .

    “Same illness, better insurance.’.


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi G

      You’re too much.

      How ya doing anyway? Still shoveling the white stuff? We got a pretty good rain this morning, with a lot of wind, but no rain since, just wind, still a little breezy, but not like it was earlier.

      • Hi Judy!

        Shoveled another 3 inches after work, but no snow coming till next week and we might get above freezing later this week! 🙂

        We’ve been below 30 degrees all year so far, hit single digits several times and had highs in the teens a few days as well. Other than that, life is going on as normal.


        • Judy Sabatini says:

          We’re suppose to get some rain/snow showers tonight, and more of the same for tomorrow, but not as windy as we had last night and this morning. We actually saw some sun today, and we get to see more on Thursday, then it goes back to the dark gloomy stuff.

          Been trying to find a job, part time anyway,and can’t find anything yet. Just been looking online, and in the paper so far. Going to have to get out and hoof it a bit and see what’s out there. Trying to find some cashier or secretarial work, and not a whole lot out there right now. Just have to keep plugging away at it, besides, I can’t take mom with me, would be too much for her. I’m sure something will eventually come up.

  41. Judy Sabatini says:

    Maybe his state of the union address should be like on a Saturday night when there’s nothing on anyway, then he won’t take away from people’s favorites during the week.


  42. Judy Sabatini says:

    Lowden response regarding Reid’s decision to stay in Senate race after racially insensitive comments
    Sunday, January 10th, 2010

    Link to Lowden’s live interview on Fox News Channel Sunday morning

    (Las Vegas, NV) – Today, Nevada businesswoman and former State Senator Sue Lowden issued the following statement after a spokesman for Harry Reid stated that the Senator is certain to stay in the race for re-election. The Reid spokesperson was quoted as saying, “These are difficult times for Nevada and as majority leader he is in a position to help Nevada address those challenges, as we have already seen.”

    Lowden’s statement:

    “Nevadans do not need any more of Harry Reid’s ‘help’ during these difficult times. Harry Reid uses his power for himself and his Washington liberal interests. Radical, left-wing interest groups have overlooked Reid’s pattern of insensitive remarks because they need him to do their bidding, rather than serve the interest of Nevadans.

    “His ‘help’ for Nevada has bankrupted our state and made a bad recession worse. Harry Reid is raising our taxes during the worst recession we’ve faced in a generation. He is saddling our nation with trillions of dollars of debt. He is using the tax dollars of hardworking Nevadans to bribe fellow senators on unpopular, unaffordable legislation in the Senate.

    “Harry Reid is running as the most powerful politician Nevada has ever had, yet under his failed leadership, Nevadans face the highest home foreclosure rate in the country. We face the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation. We continue to face record business and personal bankruptcies in Nevada. And now, Reid is trying to strip us of our private health care decisions and hand them over to Washington bureaucrats.

    “Harry Reid has spent the last year helping bail out financial institutions, big insurance companies, and sitting on his hands while the President was steering convention business away from Las Vegas. What has he really done for Nevada aside from making matters worse? Nothing.

    “Voters tell me everyday that they have had enough and that they can no longer afford more ‘help’ from Senator Reid. Not only do I agree with them, but I will ensure that when I’m in Washington, ‘help’ means always putting Nevada first.”

    Sue Lowden appeared this morning on Fox News Channel to discuss the campaign, Harry Reid’s recent comments on President Obama’s race, as well as the current state of Nevada’s economy under Senator Reid’s failed leadership.

    The link to the interview is here:


  43. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good night all, will see you here tomorrow.

    Have a restful night.


%d bloggers like this: