Thursday, September 22, 2011

Texas Tea Party c. 1860

I just ran across this in a book I was reading.  It proves some things do not change, especially in the Lone Star State. -John


Perhaps the feistiest Southerner of all was Louis T. ‘Wigfall, a freshman senator from Texas. If Crittenden represented the past, this new man from a new state might represent the future—though there were many who devoutly hoped not. His very face was that of a man who, whatever his other endowments might be, found it unbearable to hear more than three or four words spoken consecutively by anyone else. His beetling eyebrows clenched and unclenched when he talked (which was almost incessantly), and his pugnacious black beard seemed to jut out perpendicular to his face. Even his nose, an English journal­ist wrote, was somehow “argumentative.” But his eyes, the writer con­tinued, were most dangerously transfixing: “of wonderful depth and light, such as I never saw before but in the head of a wild beast. If you look some day when the sun is not too bright into the eye of a Bengal tiger, in the Regent’s Park, as the keeper is coming round, you will form some notion of the expression I mean.”32
By the age of twenty-five, Wigfall had managed to squander his considerable inheritance, settle three affairs of honor on the dueling ground, fight in a ruthless military campaign against the Seminoles, consume a small lakeful of bourbon, win an enviable reputation in whorehouses throughout the South, and get hauled before a judge on charges of murder. Three years after that, he took the next logical step and went into Texas politics. Of all the Southern fire-eaters in the Senate, Wigfall was the most flamboyant—and inflexible. He scorned the very idea of compromise, openly relished the prospect of spill­ing Yankee blood, and crowed the war would end only after Southern troops had cut a swath of destruction across the North, with the final capitulation signed in Faneuil Hall.33

Excerpted from 1861 – The Civil War Awakening by Adam Goodheart, Knopf, New York, 2011

Monday, September 19, 2011

Who Raised the Debt?

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Republican Lust for Death

If you didn't see Nancy Giles on CBS Sunday Morning, here it is.

GOP Right to Death Party

Friday, September 16, 2011

Insightful Comment on Tea Party from Art Woodstone


Someone recently said,  "Religion was the first politics." Sounds right.

But when politics become the very source of worship... Sounds wrong.

Worshiping a political party, treating it with the same abiding passion and faith as you would Christianity or Judaism, reacting  angrily to criticism,  hating disbelievers, even exhibiting delight at the deaths of human beings whom these true believers find inferior and unGodly....Isn't that a  definition of religious fanaticsm?

When was the last time you heard someone becoming outraged  because his political party was  the subject of criticism.

I was asked a couple of months ago  a beautiful woman asked me how I felt about the Tea Party.  When I answered, she shocked me by calling me a bigot.  You'd think I'd just attacked Jesus and and all the Jews in the world.

Most Democrats don't take it seriously when someone attacks their party; most Democrats these days don't even take the Democratic Party seriously.

But the Tea Partyers and so many Republicans  have transformed themselves into  crusaders, eager to defend  the new, true faith against their  enemies. And they see enemies everywhere. 

You are ostracized if  you so much as hint  that these new and still novel religionists worship false idols, or that their responses are unbecomingly joyful  when told that renegades and other lesser humans have died.

This morning I received an  email from a furious neighbor  in Ocala. He was incensed that I dared strike out against his party by accusing
Tea Partyers  and their right-wing GOP allies of callousness. .  He took such offense at my lack of virtue that he cast me out and vowed never speak to me again.

Twenty-four hours earlier,  I  had observed in an email to him that the audience at a debate sponsored by the Tea Party loudly applauded  the news that Texas had run up a record number of executions on  Rick Perry's watch  as governor. 

I was reminded of "The  Tale of Two Cities."
Each time the guillotine lopped off another head, the mob cheered.

So at one debate the right-wing audience  applauds executions.  At a second debate, the Republicans and  Tea Partyers in the pews  actually  cheer Ron Paul for declaring that if an American died because he chose not to invest in health insurance, that--in our free society-- was  his own problem.

These worshippers profess to be charitable.  Perhaps, but if so, it is a charity governed by whim. 

They  show no charity toward those of us, not  all of us murderers,  who in their eyes can never measure up to the faith. Our crime against the Church of the GOPTP is less one of criticism than of failing to accept the truth.
On the other hand, when the devout members of this historic church sneer at liberals, they are being, forgive a familiar expression, fair and balanced. If we cannot accept that gospel and keep our mouths shut, it only proves we  have no place in the new god's  America.

It doesn't take  much imagination to  guess where these protectors of the faith might lead us next. 

Art  Woodstone

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Bachmann - immunizations - retardation



According to Michelle Bachmann, immunizations cause retardation.  Apparently she has had all her shots.
Click on the following link for the entire clip:
Anderson Cooper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MheCHKSNpyg

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

How the Right abuses language

Please click on this link for a You Tube link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwMKPdvRIMI

The following pictures are from Tea Party rallies.


Aren't those code words wonderful?


And here is a wonderful glossary of conservative terms:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/176347-conservative-media-glossary-of-terms.html

A voice from where?

Thanks to Ellen Roberts for this sign!



the New Obama


Received from a friend: Art Woodstone 


A note on our contributor:
Art Woodstone started his career 63  years ago writing sports for the first Newhouse paper, the Staten Island Advance and who progressed through Variety, the Sunday NY Daily News, the Herald-Tribune to BBC and, so help me, Helen Gurley Brown's Cosmopolitan with several other media outlets along the way.








May the Force protect us from my incisive brethren in  the  media.

Read this typical lead paragraph reporting the President's new get-tough attitude:

'President Barack Obama bluntly [italics added] challenged Congress Monday to act immediately on his new jobs plan, brandishing a copy of the legislation in the Rose Garden and demanding: "No games, no politics, no delays."'

What's wrong with that paragraph?   What's wrong with his speech last Thursday and his statements since?   What's wrong with Obama?

What's wrong is that this very bright,  overly self-controlled man still cannot bring himself to openly identify his real foe.  It's not Congress,
it's the Republicans in Congress. Does Obama think that by treating  the Democrats the same "tough" way  he treats the Republicans in Congress, he will  ingratiate himself with the right, softening them up so he can pass his jobs bill--or any other  important legislation?


If so, he has a short memory.  He hasn't grasped what a blunt President needs to do to grind down an intractable,  belligerent foe. If he cannot grind them down, he can at least impress on voters that GOP intransigence and hostility are undermining   progress toward solving the nation's awesome problems. 

The time for diplomacy  passed,  almost from the day Obama took office.

That's key to understanding a man who has  missed countless opportunities  to speak bluntly.

What is equally troubling to me personally is that so many reporters  chose a word like blunt to portray the new Obama when  bluntness means narrowing in on the source of a problem and naming it.  Instead, eager to find a new Obama [new make news], the press corps  deliberately redefined vagueness as bluntness. 

In his speech, Obama was neither blunt nor candid.  His tone was harder; his repeated message of "now" theatrical.  But style should never be mistaken for bluntness.
Where the is the new Obama?

Despite help from a disingenuous press, I fear that when it comes time [if ever] to vote on a jobs bill,  the President will settle for scraps.

His probable collapse should not be taken as  recognition of reality.

I console myself with the thought that if it isn't Obama in 2012, it will be something worse.



Monday, September 12, 2011