Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Just In Case

CONS
You thought I was kidding...

From HuffPo:
'Confederate History Month' Declared By Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell has declared April to be "Confederate History Month," the first time in 8 years that such a proclamation has been issued in the state.

In the statement, McDonnell says that the Confederate history "should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered," and that its leaders "fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today."
...
No. its leaders did not fight for "their homes and communities and Commonwealth."

Its leaders fought for the right to keep other human being as slaves: to work them like animals and kill them at will.

Its leaders fought for the right to enforce the institution of slavery with state-sanctioned terror and murder.

Its leaders were known as "Confederates".

To preserve and defend their monstrous institution, Confederates spent centuries constructing massive social, economic, religious and cultural fortifications around it.

Like hemophilia, Confederates passed that comprehensive social, economic, religious and cultural worldview down generation after generation.

Like syphilis, to this day Confederates continue to spread that social, economic, religious and cultural worldview everywhere they go.

About 40 years ago, the Confederates changed their name.

Now they are known as "Republicans".

45 comments:

harmfulguy said...

If Virginia students are lucky, this means they'll only spend a month talking about the Confederacy every year. In Mississippi, history teachers spent so much time teaching the Civil War that we barely found out that anything else had ever happened in this country.

Anonymous said...

Let's have simulated slave auctions, and lynchings, savage rapes of slave women by their owners....Let's celebrate!!!

Joe Huffman said...

You got a couple things mixed up. The anti-slavery people were Republicans and the pro-slavery people (including the racist bigots with their Jim Crow laws up through the 1960s) were all Democrats.

Other than that minor error I think you are pretty close.

Gay Veteran said...

Joe, the full story is that those Souther Democrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Mike W. said...

Joe is correct. It was the DEMOCRATS who did all they could to block passage of any civil rights legislation for blacks.

BTW Gay Veteran, Senator Byrd, who still serves as a DEMOCRAT today was one of the most strident opponents of the 64' Civil Rights Act.

KWillow said...

It was Southerners who opposed civil rights. They may have called themselves Dems, but they were actually racist cretins. And they still are. And they are PROUD to be racist cretins.

dan of steele said...

this is a bit of a letdown from your usual insightful commentary. It is not quite that simple to say that the South was willing to fight to keep slaves. it was hardly the reason why they decided to opt out of Union (which they believed they could do when joining). There are financial reasons concerning northern factories wanting cheaper raw materials from the south, northern industrialists exerting control through the federal government and the trodding of state's rights.

you do know that even after the Emancipation Proclamation, it was still legal to own slaves in the North, only the Southern slaves were freed.

it is fun to ridicule southern crackers and a lot of them deserve all the scorn you can heap on them. still, it is better to tell the whole story.

AM said...

The longest solo filibuster in Senate history was given by a Democrat, opposing the Civil Rights act.

And yes a lot of "Southern Democrats" became republicans. But only because of two issues, guns and abortion. The "Republican Revolution" of 94 happened because of the AWB.

The Democrats lost the South on those two issues, not on racism.

In fact, the stereotype that "Southerners are Racist" smacks of elitism all on its own...

Mike W. said...

AM - It's unsurprising. The standard Liberal response when they don't agree is to simply cry "racism" and label those they disagree with as "racist." It's childish, but it allows them to deflect and obfuscate rather than have an intelligent, adult conversation.

The longest solo filibuster in Senate history was given by a Democrat, opposing the Civil Rights act.

And that was Senator Byrd IIRC, a Democrat who is still currently a sitting Democrat in Congress.

watchdog said...

Amazing, I had a similar discussion on Amazon. I suppose you'll say that the Republican Southern Strategy was about economics as well (like certain revisionist try to claim the Civil War was really about tariffs).
Yes, the people who were most opposed to civil rights were Democrats....Conservative Democrats. After the sucess of the Southern strategy, a majority of southern Democrats (Dixiecrats)became Republicans and still are.
This has never been about Democrats vs Republican, it's about liberal vs conservative

dan of steele said...

fwiw here is the Georgia Secession

it is also about slavery, the North was doing the right thing but for the wrong reasons.

Anonymous said...

I am continually fascinated to see the mental gymnastics performed by people to defend the confederacy. Slavery is wrong. Period. End of discussion.

The talk about economic issues, democrats and republicans, poor strategy on the part of the Lincoln, etc., are nothing but grade-school level red herrings.

And if the Southron still act like racists and decorate their personal possessions with the American swastika, then we'll keep calling them out as racists.

The United States Blues

driftglass said...

Long reply here: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2010/04/brief-history-of-sham.html

Anonymous said...

You've arrived, Driftglass. Staff Dartmouth undergrads troll your comments. Mah'vlous! Biff, Muffy.

Chris said...

Slavery may have been wrong, but it was legal back then. Your moral supremacy does not trump historical fact, anonymous.

Southron? I'm surprised you don't call them Orcs.

American swastika? Did the Confederacy nationalize key industries, annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, and invade Poland?

Pere Ubu said...

"the first time in 8 years that such a proclamation has been issued in the state"

Arrrgh, what happened now that didn't happen in the last eight years that might have prompted this...? Guuuuh, I know the answer to this one... starts with "B" and ends with "a".... hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Oh, it can't be that nice man in the White House... Republicans haven't acted racist about him!

elmo iscariot said...

This has never been about Democrats vs Republican, it's about liberal vs conservative

Maybe so. But of course, back then "liberal" still meant liberal. Liberals in the 19th century still advocated leaving the individual the hell alone, and respected the crucial importance of personal autonomy and self determination.

Since the word has been hijacked by collectivists who want to regulate individual behavior and take individual property for the sake of a "greater social good", modern liberals have no more claim to the abolitionist movement than modern Democrats do.

Mike W. said...

Elmo - Yup, "Classical Liberalism" has been dead for decades.

Modern Liberalism is little more than collectivist, totalitarian, UK-style nanny-statism.

They've perverted the term "Liberal." Of course modern "Conservatives" have likewise perverted that term. (See GWB)

driftglass said...

"Modern Liberalism is little more than collectivist, totalitarian, UK-style nanny-statism."

I used to believe such things too.

Then I hit puberty, moved out on my own, got a real job, and stopped masturbating to "Atlas Shrugged".

AM said...

Driftglass,

Now that you've stopped masturbating to "Atlas Shrugged" to what do you yank your wanker?

Inquiring minds want to know!

elmo iscariot said...

Of course modern "Conservatives" have likewise perverted that term. (See GWB)

True dat. It sure would be nice to have good guys as an option now and then, wouldn't it?

watchdog said...

Elmo the only people I see who want to regulate individual behavior are the republicans.
As for perverting the term liberal, Limbaugh did that painting liberals as some sort of evil socialist plot to take over the world. Now Glenn Beck is attempting to villify the word progressive as well.

Mike W. said...

Then I hit puberty, moved out on my own, got a real job, and stopped masturbating to "Atlas Shrugged".

You masterbated to Atlas Shrugged?"

Ayn Rand isn't a woman most would consider hot, but hey, different strokes for different folks I guess....

elmo iscariot said...

Elmo the only people I see who want to regulate individual behavior are the republicans.

My god, this is incredible. Do you realize what this means?! We've actually stumbled upon interdimensional communication! A channel through which it's possible for a conversation to take place between two people who must clearly be living on completely separate worlds!

Scientists and experts should be notified. There may be a Nobel in it for us, if we play our cards right.

Mike W. said...

Elmo the only people I see who want to regulate individual behavior are the republicans.

See, there's the problem. While some of us live in reality, others live in la-la land where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

I'm sure la-la land seems like a wonderful utopia, but I prefer reality.

elmo iscariot said...

And since I don't want to just give some "OMG they just throw insults" ammunition...

If you don't think Democrats are regulating individual behavior, you must be conveniently excluding the right to make one's own economic decisions--to choose what charities to donate or not to donate to, for starters. But that's okay. I can answer without fighting that battle:

I'm a lifestyle polyamorist who'd like to marry both of his partners. I'm a gun owner who'd like to exercise his Constitutional right to bear arms. In my home state of New Jersey, the Republicans are telling me who I may marry and the Democrats are telling me what objects I may carry with me for self defense. I just want both of them to leave me the hell alone, but each party thinks that forcing me to toe their line is better for the "common good".

Actually, that's is a bit of a lie. Democrats aren't doing any more than Republicans to respect my right to marry. But since they're better on average than Republicans with regard to gay marriage, we'll say they're a _bit_ closer to getting their laws out of my family.

Myrtle June said...

Ew.... I didn't know Drifty's was a Crazytrain Express stop.

You can tell because there's a WHOLE lot of comments, with like words and such, and yet don't say one goddam fucking sane thing.

But while you're here... Tell me WHERE have YOU been for the last 30 years while our economic system was being looted? Okay, maybe you can't recall... as usual. Let's try just the period from 2000 to 2008 when little boots was handing out deficit direct "bush tax cuts" and war corporate welfare check?

WHERE was your outrage then? Why were you NOT screeeeching about the deficit when it was exploding upward? Becasue that was all just peachy-keen with you all now wasn't it? It was ONLY when the NORMAL MAJORITY elected a black man did you suddenly scratch around in the dirt on your kitchen floors and come up with this fantasy about the Democrats and President Obama taking away your individual freedom and run up the deficit. Now run along and wash those fucking white sheets you're all so fond of.

You all are incapable of having a SANE conversation about anything. Stupid fuckers.

More tea?

elmo iscariot said...

Mike W. said:
Of course modern "Conservatives" have likewise perverted that term. (See GWB)

To which I replied:
True dat. It sure would be nice to have good guys as an option now and then, wouldn't it?

Then Myrtle June said:
Tell me WHERE have YOU been for...the period from 2000 to 2008 when little boots was handing out deficit direct "bush tax cuts" and war corporate welfare check?

WHERE was your outrage then?


You know, one of life's little pleasures is watching the fringe element of any party show up and illustrate--far better than you ever could--just how completely irrational and thoughtless that party's defensive stereotyping is.

The last time I saw it was in a discussion of ditching Don't Ask Don't Tell, in which a hardcore social "conservative" showed up to scream about his son being recruited by "the homosexuals" who'd just cut and run in combat anyway if they didn't have to pretend to be straight. Or something. It more or less shut down the anti side, as most of the moderate anti-gay faction was embarassed into silence.

This is my new gold medalist. To step into a conversation in which two Obama skeptics just finished expressing their disapproval of Bush, and trot out the simpleminded "OMG YOU WERE FINE WITH TEH DUBYA" presumption takes either some serious balls or a level of willful ignorance that would impress the Phelpses.

Tossing on the presumption that any opponent of Obama's must be a racist just clinches the win.

I actually really, really hope the Democratic fringe keeps on leading the party, and that their acolytes keep screaming "racist teabagger" at anybody who disagrees with them. The grown-ups in this country are really getting sick of it. With Republican cred destroyed by Bush/Cheney and Democrat cred being destroyed by Obama/Pelosi, we actually have a slim hope of getting a decent candidate in office someday soon.

Myrtle June said...

.... annnnnnd that "decent" candidate for you would beeeeee..... Sarah Palin?

elmo iscariot said...

And just one more thing, Myrtle, since you probably still believe your stereotyping is valid.

My Blogger account is too new to have any of my old anti-Bush rants on it, but had you bothered to check, the first Google result for the word "Bush" on Mike W's blog shows him saying this in the comments:

As much as I dislike Obama Bush was a terrible President as well.
They don't call the GOP the "Stupid Party" for nothing.
...
Bush started much of this mess with bailouts & out of control spending, Obama has kicked it up a notch. Bush started the unwinnable "War On Terror" and Obama has continued it. Both parties are equally complicit in the failed "War on (some) Drugs."
Oh, and both parties routinely shit all over the Constitution. The Liberal ideology as a whole does more damage to the Country, but ultimately it's just a difference of magnitude. (especially given the modern GOP)
...
The Republicans talk a big game about fiscal responsibility, respect for Constitutional Rights and general limited government. The problem is that in practice of late they abandon those principles the moment they're in power and instead start acting like Liberals.


He and I are both committed to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights, and call out the politicians who ignore them for the sake of their agendas, regardless of what party they belong to.

You're making assumptions about people you know nothing about, then using your stereotyped assumptions to dismiss them. Then you're complaining about racists. I truly, honestly hope you'll be able to see the irony in that.

elmo iscariot said...

.... annnnnnd that "decent" candidate for you would beeeeee..... Sarah Palin?

Oy vey, everything's a Republican conspiracy with you, isn't it?

"A decent candidate" isn't a coded reference to any person. I just want any candidate who'll uphold the Constitution, rein in our hyperregulatory government, and generally stay the hell out of the people's lives.

I'll settle for any candidate--of either party or of a third party--who'll get us the hell out of Iraq, stop trying to solve all social ills with more laws, appoint Supreme Court justices who're devoted to the Constitution rather than to social ideology, and generally stop kowtowing to the socialists or to the religious right in the eternal quest for fringe votes.

Myrtle June said...

Honey, you're going to have to bait up that hook with something better than that cheese you nibble on with your whine.

I don't want your fucking anarchy. GET THAT. I don't want your return to re-battle the Civil Fucking War. GET THAT. I also don't want to live in the fucking 1800's. GOT IT?

Face it. You just want to piss and moan. Fine with me. Do not have the expectation anyone gives a shit about your pretend conversation just because you strap a hard cold steel substitute penis on your thigh.

Now, IF you want to bring it with a solution looking FORWARD you might have a shot. I have a solution and damn good one too! It's called MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS this year.... and 2012.... and 2014... and until we get all the crud of the last 30 years flushed from our government. These things take time. I'm sticking with it!

If you're not on board with THAT then, no, I got nothing for you.

I understand PERFECTLY you're here to whip up some anti-dem shit and we're all supposed to throw up our arms in disgust because it's not happening as fast as we all would like... and you're pissing in the wind there buddy. Go clean yourself....ew.

What you're saying there is you DON'T have a solution ... or a candidate. I have both, thanks :-)

Nice try though LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

elmo iscariot said...

Again, I think you've made my point far better than I ever could have.

I wish you no personal ill will, and hope that our country comes out of this era strong and free, whichever of us is right.

elmo iscariot said...

A note to anybody still hanging on here (and congratulations, by the way!):

...just because you strap a hard cold steel substitute penis on your thigh.

My carry gun, when I'm in a free state and can do such a thing, is a tiny plastic pocket pistol named Elsie, with a two-inch barrel. She's nearly identical to the handgun my fiancee carries. I had no idea how hard I (and she!) was failing at compensating for the size of my obviously microscopic penis!

My wife and fiancee are the ones with substitute penises they can strap to their thighs. As I'm sure are you all, I'm highly offended by Myrtle's anti-butch attitude, dismissively impugning strapons as she does. ;)

Mike W. said...

Don't you just love the intellectual capacity of the folks here?

Dick jokes. It's sad, yet utterly predictable behavior from anti-gun folks.

Anonymous said...

Wow, your comments are usually so informing, and informed...

Anonymous said...

So, to summarize, "Wolverines!"

skunqesh said...

"You're making assumptions about people you know nothing about, then using your stereotyped assumptions to dismiss them."

and a hearty dose of hypocritical pomposity, to boot. Mikey, arrogance doesn't make you erudite. It just makes you a dick.

kisses!

HeavenlySword said...

Hey man, you realize Abraham Lincoln, President Of the United States, Creator of the Emancipation Proclamation, was a Republican?

Repeat after me:

I will check wikipedia before making (potentially) controversial statements on the internets.

I'll say that both the republican and democratic part have changed a bit since then, but I'm fairly certain that 'our' politicians on both sides, stupid as they are, understand slavery is wrong.

Hopefully.

Mike W. said...

Skunquesh- you should read & think before insulting me. As it is you've just made yourself look terribly foolish.....

Mike W. said...

"I don't want your fucking anarchy. GET THAT. I don't want your return to re-battle the Civil Fucking War. GET THAT. I also don't want to live in the fucking 1800's. GOT IT

Calm down and think before you type. Where has Elmo or anyone else in this thread advocated anarchy, re-battling the Civil War, or living in the 1800's?

You're railing against things that no one is even discussing, which makes you look silly.

elmo iscariot said...

You just don't get it, Mike. She knows better. She knows this is all just an act we're using to corrupt Democrats.

We may pretend we disapprove of Bush too and want limited government for the sake of all people's rights, but what we really want is to return the white patriarchy to its rightful place above the pitiful women and minorities, reestablishing our empires, restoring slavery, and once again establishing women as the property of their husbands! Our grand Empire of Jesus will once again rule the world with the iron fist of our master race! Woe betide the inferior vermin, for we shall crush them beneath our Teutonic heels!

In short, she knows that the best fit for this half-Irish, long-haired, kinky, polyamorous atheist book-nerd who runs the tech crew for a burlesque troupe on the weekends is rural Alabama in the year 1860, and that I'll do whatever is necessary to drag the world back there. ;)

watchdog said...

responding to Elmo from above
Elmo, you appear to be equating people who want some useful guncontrol, with the people who claim the Democrats are out to ban all guns (NRA, no one wants to ban all guns). Is that all you have or is there more?

Mike W; I'm not the one living in a world of make-believe.

Mike W. said...

Really? No one wants to ban all guns, including the Dems who are on record as saying they want to ban all guns?

What about Obama and all those other folks who supported DC's gun ban, did they not want to ban guns?

Ignorance is a sad thing Watchdog.

Also, what is "useful gun control?"

elmo iscariot said...

Watchdog, I've looked over what I posted before, and honestly have no idea where you got that from.

FWIW, I'm not convinced there _is_ useful gun control; it's failed to lower murder rates everywhere it's been tried (a Canadian friend compares it to abstinence education: "policies whose failure is held up as evidence that we need more of them" ;) ). And there are plenty of people who want to ban all guns. A whole lot more would ban all practical self defense guns, leaving only "sporting guns", with so many restrictions that very few would bother with it. This is the current policy in the UK, for example. All social movements use incrementalism, and it's a mistake to conclude that extreme policies aren't the endgame because organizations make reasonable noises right now (yes, this goes both ways in the gun debate).

But putting that aside, gun bans were never my point. My point was simply that Democrats (as a party; individual Dems obviously vary widely) have a colorful history of regulating individual behavior, and my home state's gun policy is a good example. Lest you doubt, I'll run you through the basics. I won't be offended if you skip it; it's a _looong_ summary:

In New Jersey, buying any gun requires a "Firearms ID card", or FID. To get an FID, you need to undergo a background check, pay a fee, release your mental health records, get fingerprinted (which many anti-gun PDs schedule only for one hour a week during work hours, requiring the applicant to take a day off from work), pay another fee, supply two character references, and then wait. NJ law gives the police 30 days to process the application, but in reality they issue FIDs in anywhere from 2-6 months, with waits of up to a year in the anti-gun big cities. During this time, the police notify your employer, who has a de facto veto on the application. Eventually, you'll be issued an FID, which must be imprinted with your thumbprint (another day off from work).

The FID entitles you to buy rifles and shotguns. To buy a handgun, you need an individual "pistol permit" for each gun. The application process is the same as for the FID (they even use the same forms), but the PD may waive the fingerprinting requirement. After another 2-12 month wait, you're issued your pistol permits. You can apply for multiples at once, but last year our legislature passed a "one gun every 30 days" bill, so in practical terms--because the pistol permits expire 90 days after issuance--you can only use two (three if you can make a purchase the same day the permit's issued).

And after all this, federal law still requires an instant background check at the time of purchase, rendering all that time, money, and aggravation almost completely redundant.

We have a confusing and arbitrary "assault weapons" ban; we have a confusing partial ban on the hollowpoint bullets that are the standard for police and civilians across the country. And our "discretionary" concealed-carry permit system is the most prohibitionist in the nation; in real life they deny, as a matter of firm policy, every applicant. We have gun transportation laws that make it a felony (on the same level as premeditated murder) to stop at McDonalds on the way home from the range with an unloaded handgun locked in your trunk.

Incidentally, the anti-gun Brady Campaign gives us a 74 out of 100. Our laws just don't go far enough for them.

Whatever you think of guns, these is not "reasonable restrictions". Our laws are wildly excessive, especially in light of the fact that none of our gun laws has ever reduced the murder rate it was pushed to address. In this case, NJ Democrats undeniably support arbitrary, ideological regulation of individual behavior as far as the peaceful possession of guns is concerned, which was my original point.