In the effort to squash turnip-top Trump rather than respond to Obama's speech following the state of the union address last week, Nikki Haley lied.
Apart from the fact that she appears to have done nothing to slow the Trump momentum among the stupid party voters, it is revisionist history to assert that the United States has not passed laws against anyone on the basis of race or religion.
Hello - anyone remember Jim Crow, so serious a blot on the history of Haley's own state of South Carolina?
Anyone remember the laws passed in support of segregation, including those which discriminated against Jews? We've had them.
In addition we have had laws in this country which precluded Latinos and Hispanics and people of Asian descent, notably Chinese, from owning property or holding office.
The notion that we should do something similar against Muslims has a long and ugly history in this country, one that is closely linked to conservatives historically and to conservatives in our modern era.
When faced with inconvenient or embarrassing facts, conservatives lie. They rewrite history, they deny, they pretend, to make themselves feel better, and then they try to justify it in the name of so-called patriotism.
Trump is appealing to the bigots on the right; own them, they are yours, they are you.
Showing posts with label revisionist history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revisionist history. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Saturday, November 8, 2014
And the Wall Came Tumbling DOOOOWWWWWWNNNNNNN!!!!!
This seemed a worthwhile lead in to a piece on the Berlin wall, since the Biblical account of the fall of Jericho and the archeological version of events seem to have some significant points of difference -- including the archeological evidence that the events of the Jewish captivity and subsequent Exodus from Egypt never took place.
Twenty-five years ago tomorrow, November 9th, the Berlin wall came tumbling down. That is, more or less -- mostly less. Badly educated Americans, at least some of them, have bought into the revisionist history/propaganda and mistakenly give credit for this event to Ronnie Ray-gun. They might as well give the credit to Ronald McDonald. The reality of the Reagan speech is very different than the myth. The Guardian newspaper in the UK does an excellent job of urban myth-busting:
------------- It is unlikely that Gorbachev ever knew of the challenge Reagan nominally directed at him, in a blatant display of American-oriented political theater. Also, NO, the wall really didn't come down on November 9 1989; more on that in the Chicago Tribune piece. Gorbachev, NOT Reagan, was quite properly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, for his courageous actions in the USSR/Russia and Europe. Kudos to the Chicago Tribune for consolidating some of the myths about the Berlin Wall, and then busting them. The entire piece deserves a widespread read. But to specifically address the part about Reagan :From Reagan to Hasselhoff: 5 people who didn’t bring down the Berlin Wall From Ronald Reagan’s ‘tear down this wall’ speech to David Hasselhoff’s bizarre ‘looking for freedom’ serenade, countless urban myths have sprung up about who was really responsible for the fall of the wall. Do any have any merit? "...One popular theory says that while the collapse of the iron curtain may have looked inevitable, it took the intervention of some great minds to provide the crucial nudge. Never mind Polish trade unionists, Soviet politicians or East German dissidents, it was British and American politicians and popstars who made all the crucial interventions, right? 1) Ronald Reagan The words went down in history: “Mr Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And lo and behold: soon after the US president Ronald Reagan had voiced his bold demand to the Soviet president in front of the Berlin wall, the borders opened. As John Heubusch, executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, has put it: “One cannot ignore how [Reagan’s] powerful conviction ended the cold war by firing a verbal salvo, an oratorical demand to let freedom prevail.” But one also shouldn’t ignore that Reagan gave his speech on 12 June 1987, a good 29 months before the actual fall of the wall. And there is little evidence that it had much impact on the dynamics of the dissident movement in East Germany, or on Soviet politics at the time. Some 45,000 Berliners witnessed Reagan’s wall speech, compared to the 450,000 people who attended John F Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963 – in other western parts of the city, there were demonstrations against the US president’s visit. Coverage of the event was only published in the back pages of the major international papers. German weekly Die Zeit did not even quote his request to Gorbachev.Reagan had made similar speeches before, in 1982 and 1986. The only new element was him addressing Gorbachev directly. Reagan had been losing support domestically, so this show of strength may above all have been directed at an American audience. In that respect, it undoubtedly did the job.
Many Americans believe that Ronald Reagan's June 1987 speech in Berlin ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") led to the wall's fall in 1989. However, Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms in the Soviet bloc were far more important than Reagan's speech, as were the actions of the East Germans themselves. When the wall started to fall on Nov. 9, it was a mistake. In the face of mass protests against the regime in 1989 and thousands of East Germans seeking refuge at West German embassies in Eastern Europe, East German leaders waived the old visa rules stating that citizens needed a pressing reason for travel, such as a funeral or wedding of a family member. East Germans would still have to apply for visas to leave the country, but they would supposedly be granted quickly and without any requirements. Yet the Communist Party official who announced these changes, Guenter missed most of the key meeting about the travel procedures and went unprepared to a news conference on Nov. 9. In response to reporters' questions about when the new law would take effect, he said, "Immediately, without delay." Schabowski left the impression that people could immediately cross the border, though he meant to say they could apply for visas in an orderly manner. Over the next several hours, thousands of East Berliners gathered at checkpoints along the wall. Since the country's leaders hadn't intended to completely open the border, the supervisors at the crossing points had received no new orders. The chief officer on duty at the Bornholmer Street checkpoint, Harald Jaeger, kept calling his superiors for guidance on how to handle the growing mass of increasingly angry East Berliners expecting to be let through. Jaeger finally gave up around 11:30 p.m. and allowed people to pass through en masse. Guards at other crossing points soon followed suit. The East German regime never fully regained control.
Don't expect the correct version of events to appear in any Tea Party school board dominated history books; they call it being un-American if you tell the truth.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
GOP = Radical, Crazy, Inaccurate Right-wingnut Revisionist History
From Right Wing Watch:
You can't make up B/.S. like this; it is classic right wing revisionist history. I would also point out that CONSERVATIVE hearts and minds were fighting FOR, not for ENDING slavery.
You can't make up B/.S. like this; it is classic right wing revisionist history. I would also point out that CONSERVATIVE hearts and minds were fighting FOR, not for ENDING slavery.
Jim DeMint Asserts The Federal Government Played No Role In Freeing The Slaves
Heritage Foundation head Jim DeMint appeared on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries last week, where he insisted that “no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.”
DeMint, a former US senator from South Carolina, told Newcombe that “the conscience of the American people” and not the federal government was responsible for the end of slavery.
In the interview, DeMint seemed to confuse the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence and implied that William Wilberforce, a British politician who died almost thirty years before the Civil War, did more to end American slavery than the federal government.
Heritage Foundation head Jim DeMint appeared on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries last week, where he insisted that “no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.”
DeMint, a former US senator from South Carolina, told Newcombe that “the conscience of the American people” and not the federal government was responsible for the end of slavery.
In the interview, DeMint seemed to confuse the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence and implied that William Wilberforce, a British politician who died almost thirty years before the Civil War, did more to end American slavery than the federal government.
DeMint, a former US senator from South Carolina, told Newcombe that “the conscience of the American people” and not the federal government was responsible for the end of slavery.
In the interview, DeMint seemed to confuse the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence and implied that William Wilberforce, a British politician who died almost thirty years before the Civil War, did more to end American slavery than the federal government.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
I Hate Bad History
This congresswoman made a century mistake. Apparently she meant the 1700s / 18th century, not the 1800s. There was slavery in New York state, including Brooklyn and the rest of New York City, until 1826. There were Dutch slave auctions beginning in the 1600s; at one point, nearly half the households in the state, including that part of New York, owned slaves - 47%. During the Revolutionary War, the British offered freedom to any slave who would fight for the royalist side, and after the end of the war many of those freed slaves continued to live in New York City. The state of New York phased out slavery by declaring children born to slaves would be free, but had to serve a period as indentured servants first, compensating slave owners for giving up their claims on them as property, until slavery was outright abolished.
What the Congresswoman is getting wrong about the significant date of 1898 (I had to look it up) is that was when Brooklyn was annexed into the rest of New York City as one of the five boroughs. It had nothing particularly to do with slavery or freeing slaves. At the time, Brooklyn was the third or fouth largest city in the U.S.. and had the largest population of black people of any northern colony / state during the 17th, 18th and well into the 19th centuries. That might have something to do with the otherwise imexplicable mistake about the facts of slavery, as part of getting her centuries mixed up here by the Congresswoman. I expect this poor woman is going to be mortified when her office and her constituents call her on this; it is a big thing about her district to get wrong.
An interesting historic observation, the Brooklyn flag dates back to those Dutch settlers, including the slavers, with the motto, still in the original Dutch, Eendraght Maeckt Maght, which translates into Unity makes strength, relating to the unity among the different Dutch cities, which at the time New York was under the authority of the Dutch included the Bronx which was a spelling variant for Jonas Broncks, the Dutch founder. The Bronx were annexed to NYC at the same time as Brooklyn in 1898, so I guess you could say they continued their earlier unity, in a new 19th century adaptation.
It looks like Cobert did his homework; all things considered, he could have been rougher on her. But he did work her mistake pretty thoroughly. It underlines the importance of knowing history, or you might be doomed to worse things than repeating it.
What the Congresswoman is getting wrong about the significant date of 1898 (I had to look it up) is that was when Brooklyn was annexed into the rest of New York City as one of the five boroughs. It had nothing particularly to do with slavery or freeing slaves. At the time, Brooklyn was the third or fouth largest city in the U.S.. and had the largest population of black people of any northern colony / state during the 17th, 18th and well into the 19th centuries. That might have something to do with the otherwise imexplicable mistake about the facts of slavery, as part of getting her centuries mixed up here by the Congresswoman. I expect this poor woman is going to be mortified when her office and her constituents call her on this; it is a big thing about her district to get wrong.
An interesting historic observation, the Brooklyn flag dates back to those Dutch settlers, including the slavers, with the motto, still in the original Dutch, Eendraght Maeckt Maght, which translates into Unity makes strength, relating to the unity among the different Dutch cities, which at the time New York was under the authority of the Dutch included the Bronx which was a spelling variant for Jonas Broncks, the Dutch founder. The Bronx were annexed to NYC at the same time as Brooklyn in 1898, so I guess you could say they continued their earlier unity, in a new 19th century adaptation.
It looks like Cobert did his homework; all things considered, he could have been rougher on her. But he did work her mistake pretty thoroughly. It underlines the importance of knowing history, or you might be doomed to worse things than repeating it.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Better Know a District - New York's 9th - Yvette Clarke | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Disasters and Disastrous Right Wing Revisionist History
This week marks the sixth anniversary of the Bush-botched disaster that was Hurricane Katrina and the levee breaches which disrupted and nearly destroyed New Orleans for a time, with some 80% under water. As of this date, the population of New Orleans is still 30% smaller than it was prior to those events; much remains destroyed and/or abandoned.
In contrast to the recent Hurricane/Tropical storm Irene, which has done a great deal of damage, in New Orleans alone some 1600 people died from Katrina and the levee floods, with another 260 dead across seven Gulf states, most of them in Mississippi and Louisiana. There are, in contrast, only some 40 deaths attributed so far to Irene, with extensive damage across seven eastern seaboard states.
In this context, we have one of the Texan candidates for the 2012 Presidential race, a recurring high-poller on the extreme right, coming out with an improbable statement that is typical of his variety of microscopically small government. Between Bush, Ron Paul and Rick Perry, I'm beginning to wonder if Texans are not substantially crazy.
Except that it isn't only Ron Paul making these Texas-crazy statements. We have Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, one of the states devastated by Irene. Romney is also now one of the crazy right wing candidates.
I wonder how the people in Joplin, devestated by the tornado there, feel about the cuts to their funding so that the east coast could receive assistance for Irene? In what world does that make any sense whatsoever?
A far better appreciation of how we are interconnected in our nation, in our society and civilization was this commentary from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another state affected by Irene.
The right wing ideology of independence remembers history, or outright rewrites history in a not-factual way, to promote their positions. It is a history that was never the way they describe, a history we have learned from, changed as a result for the better. Those changes have made us stronger through the broad cooperation of our citizens, through the support of our government as the organizing, stabilizing entity.
The right would have us go backwards, by glamorizing and glorifying a false reality, a stupid reality that they would impose on our present. They believe in a world that never was, by denying the facts of our history, by failing to be reality based.
If we revert to that fake past, our nation will be weaker, our individual citizens will be poorer, our economy will be devastated. We do not dare to elect leaders who will take us down that dark road. We need the light of history, of having learned from our mistakes, of having grown and improved our lives.
It is significant that Ron Paul DOES have Galveston in his congressional district; but to stop there would be to ignore the important details, the substance. There was a major hurricane, Hurricane Ike, which struck Texas, including Galveston, in mid September 2008. Ron Paul voted against disaster aid for his district in the months which followed. In Texas, some 40 people died, the same approximate number as in Hurricane Irene across all states (so far), with another approximately 30 dead from the storm across other states from Ike.
In a recent interview on Fox News, Ron Paul took great pride in having been on the show some 28 times prior to that interview. Ron Paul went to his home district after Ike, to Galveston which was among the hardest hit communities, exactly once, just long enough for a photo op with then President Bush. He did not return to assist in any way with the storm recovery. I believe that those actions speak louder than words about where Ron Paul's priorities lie, and in a larger context tells us a great deal about the conservatives on the right.
A state senator was quoted, after Ike:
The right benefits only one constituency, the corporations - specifically the executives who profit disproportionately from their policies, and the very richest 1% of this country's people. If you don't fit into either of those categories, you should be opposing the religious right, the conservatives, the GOP and the Tea Party. Vote them out, or recall them even sooner if you have the opportunity. They are not good for you and they are not good for this country. They will ruin us all.
FEMA, and conscientious government, from Obama, and agencies, on down through cooperation with the states governments and governors, resulted in better response, better preparation to reduce damage so far as that was possible. We have the choice of government doing what government should do, or not.
In contrast to the recent Hurricane/Tropical storm Irene, which has done a great deal of damage, in New Orleans alone some 1600 people died from Katrina and the levee floods, with another 260 dead across seven Gulf states, most of them in Mississippi and Louisiana. There are, in contrast, only some 40 deaths attributed so far to Irene, with extensive damage across seven eastern seaboard states.
In this context, we have one of the Texan candidates for the 2012 Presidential race, a recurring high-poller on the extreme right, coming out with an improbable statement that is typical of his variety of microscopically small government. Between Bush, Ron Paul and Rick Perry, I'm beginning to wonder if Texans are not substantially crazy.
What Ron Paul appears to fail to remember about the 1900 disaster that affected Galveston, was this:
Mass funeral pyres is a far cry from doing just fine, and I doubt that is what anyone in their right mind, as opposed to right wing mind, would want. Had it not been for the first significant discovery of oil in 1901, it is highly questionable that Galveston would ever have recovered to the extent that it did. It is not a model on which to build in other parts of the country, not unless you can guarantee an oil discovery like what occurred in 1901, or something similar - which is unlikely if not impossible. It is certainly NOT something on which one relies.
So while yes, more than a hundred years later Galveston has recovered, it does not make that disaster and the 1900 disaster recovery a desirable model to emulate. Far from it, rather any time an area, a community, a state or a region is so devastated, the longer it takes for that geographic area to recover, the weaker we are as a country, the weaker and more devastated our economy; it is mistake not to appreciate that it harms all of us, either directly or indirectly.
I wonder how the people in Joplin, devestated by the tornado there, feel about the cuts to their funding so that the east coast could receive assistance for Irene? In what world does that make any sense whatsoever?
A far better appreciation of how we are interconnected in our nation, in our society and civilization was this commentary from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another state affected by Irene.
The right wing ideology of independence remembers history, or outright rewrites history in a not-factual way, to promote their positions. It is a history that was never the way they describe, a history we have learned from, changed as a result for the better. Those changes have made us stronger through the broad cooperation of our citizens, through the support of our government as the organizing, stabilizing entity.
The right would have us go backwards, by glamorizing and glorifying a false reality, a stupid reality that they would impose on our present. They believe in a world that never was, by denying the facts of our history, by failing to be reality based.
If we revert to that fake past, our nation will be weaker, our individual citizens will be poorer, our economy will be devastated. We do not dare to elect leaders who will take us down that dark road. We need the light of history, of having learned from our mistakes, of having grown and improved our lives.
It is significant that Ron Paul DOES have Galveston in his congressional district; but to stop there would be to ignore the important details, the substance. There was a major hurricane, Hurricane Ike, which struck Texas, including Galveston, in mid September 2008. Ron Paul voted against disaster aid for his district in the months which followed. In Texas, some 40 people died, the same approximate number as in Hurricane Irene across all states (so far), with another approximately 30 dead from the storm across other states from Ike.
In a recent interview on Fox News, Ron Paul took great pride in having been on the show some 28 times prior to that interview. Ron Paul went to his home district after Ike, to Galveston which was among the hardest hit communities, exactly once, just long enough for a photo op with then President Bush. He did not return to assist in any way with the storm recovery. I believe that those actions speak louder than words about where Ron Paul's priorities lie, and in a larger context tells us a great deal about the conservatives on the right.
A state senator was quoted, after Ike:
State Rep. Craig Eiland of Galveston said, "I think his actions are irresponsible."State Rep. Eiland was correct; Ron Paul's position was irresponsible and IS irresponsible, Rick Perry's positions are irresponsible, Mitt Romney's positions are irresponsible, Michele Bachmann's positions are irresponsible, Eric Cantor's positions are irresponsible. They do not work, they harm individuals, they do damage to our economy and to our country. They are not patriotic, they are not true to our founding principles or the example of our founding fathers (and mothers). They are wrong, they are bad, they are harmful and neglectful. Revisionist history is a lie. Sometimes it is a lie of omission, sometimes a lie of commission, but it is a lie.
Fellow politicians on the ground aren't all that impressed.
Eiland asked, "If the whole Congress followed his lead, where would we be in the recovery?"
The right benefits only one constituency, the corporations - specifically the executives who profit disproportionately from their policies, and the very richest 1% of this country's people. If you don't fit into either of those categories, you should be opposing the religious right, the conservatives, the GOP and the Tea Party. Vote them out, or recall them even sooner if you have the opportunity. They are not good for you and they are not good for this country. They will ruin us all.
FEMA, and conscientious government, from Obama, and agencies, on down through cooperation with the states governments and governors, resulted in better response, better preparation to reduce damage so far as that was possible. We have the choice of government doing what government should do, or not.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Happy Bastille Day! Musings on Revolutions Past and Present
"Our public monuments are memorials to the Enlightenment."
"Now defined as art, the totem has lost cult, taboo, and custom."
"Your argument defends an ideology; mine defends the truth."
- Mason Cooley,
American Aphorist, Professor Emeritus of English, Speech, and World Literature
1927 - 2002
Today is the French National Day, La Fete Nationale, their equivalent of our Independence Day on the 4th of July. It is a day I enjoy celebrating, for a variety of reasons, including that I am something of a francophile. It celebrates the storming of the Bastille, a fortress turned jail, that sometimes held political prisoners; it was an important turning point in the beginning of the French Revolution, in 1789.
One of the reasons I am a francophile is I hold a deep appreciation for the Age of Enlightenment, which was centered in France and arising from French intellectuals of the period, before spreading to other parts of Europe. In part it was the political and philosophical contribution of the French during the Age of Enlightenment which contributed so intensively, both directly and indirectly, to the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers of our American Revolution which preceded, and in turn influenced, that French Revolution celebrated on July 14th in modern France.
So it particularly pains me to see those who give empty lip service to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, while demonstrating an appalling ignorance of our history and thoe very principles under revisionist history mislabeled as patriotism. The Age of Enlightenment, aka the Age of Reason, promoted the scientific method, it developed the idea of the Social Contract of government, of the Rights of Man and Self Determination, and Natural Law.
The worst instances of this are personified by the right wing-nut GOP theocrat candidate Michele Bachmann, who most recently asserted that our rights come from God, not from government. Although Nut Gingrich runs a close second with his claims that the 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed in the Bible. Without getting too deeply into a dissertation of the historic contribution of classical liberalism and classical republicanism to our political system, it would be safe to characterize one of the main components of the political philosophy of this era that human rights were universal, that they occurred everywhere innately in all human beings, and was in direct opposition to the premise of the divine right of kings. It was in essence, a philosophical opposition to the belief political and civil rights were divine in origin, in opposition to religious political oppression generally, and in particular in opposition to inequality of rights among human beings. It postulated that our inalienable rights exist among all human beings, across nations, cultures, and yes, religions.
It is misstated by pseudo-patriots like Michele Bachmann that our Founding Fathers believed we were a specifically Christian nation. We are a secular nation and have been from our earliest origins, regardless of whatever personal spiritual beliefs any individual from that era may have practiced privately; there was no consensus of religious belief among our nations founders, nor was conformity to one required or expected. That we are instead supposed to be a theocratic democracy imposing Christianity has somehow become a fundamental (pun intended) tenet of the GOP.
"Now defined as art, the totem has lost cult, taboo, and custom."
"Your argument defends an ideology; mine defends the truth."
- Mason Cooley,
American Aphorist, Professor Emeritus of English, Speech, and World Literature
1927 - 2002
Today is the French National Day, La Fete Nationale, their equivalent of our Independence Day on the 4th of July. It is a day I enjoy celebrating, for a variety of reasons, including that I am something of a francophile. It celebrates the storming of the Bastille, a fortress turned jail, that sometimes held political prisoners; it was an important turning point in the beginning of the French Revolution, in 1789.
One of the reasons I am a francophile is I hold a deep appreciation for the Age of Enlightenment, which was centered in France and arising from French intellectuals of the period, before spreading to other parts of Europe. In part it was the political and philosophical contribution of the French during the Age of Enlightenment which contributed so intensively, both directly and indirectly, to the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers of our American Revolution which preceded, and in turn influenced, that French Revolution celebrated on July 14th in modern France.
So it particularly pains me to see those who give empty lip service to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, while demonstrating an appalling ignorance of our history and thoe very principles under revisionist history mislabeled as patriotism. The Age of Enlightenment, aka the Age of Reason, promoted the scientific method, it developed the idea of the Social Contract of government, of the Rights of Man and Self Determination, and Natural Law.
The worst instances of this are personified by the right wing-nut GOP theocrat candidate Michele Bachmann, who most recently asserted that our rights come from God, not from government. Although Nut Gingrich runs a close second with his claims that the 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed in the Bible. Without getting too deeply into a dissertation of the historic contribution of classical liberalism and classical republicanism to our political system, it would be safe to characterize one of the main components of the political philosophy of this era that human rights were universal, that they occurred everywhere innately in all human beings, and was in direct opposition to the premise of the divine right of kings. It was in essence, a philosophical opposition to the belief political and civil rights were divine in origin, in opposition to religious political oppression generally, and in particular in opposition to inequality of rights among human beings. It postulated that our inalienable rights exist among all human beings, across nations, cultures, and yes, religions.
It is misstated by pseudo-patriots like Michele Bachmann that our Founding Fathers believed we were a specifically Christian nation. We are a secular nation and have been from our earliest origins, regardless of whatever personal spiritual beliefs any individual from that era may have practiced privately; there was no consensus of religious belief among our nations founders, nor was conformity to one required or expected. That we are instead supposed to be a theocratic democracy imposing Christianity has somehow become a fundamental (pun intended) tenet of the GOP.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
This Is the Funniest Thing I've Seen in Ages
On the one hand, it is terribly sad, and humiliating that Michele Bachmann is a national joke, and a Congresswoman who has been elected more than once to represent Minnesota. We lose all credibility as a state with good education and responsible, reasonable citizens every time Bachmann opens her mouth.
But this IS funny, and pretty well addresses the reality of what passes for history among the tea partiers, be it Bachmann or the dumber bunny, popsie Palin.
If you are having trouble playing this video, try this link, to play it on the colbert report web site:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/388583/june-06-2011/paul-revere-s-famous-ride?xrs=share_copy
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Update: Revisionist Republican History, the Whitewash of the Bradlee Dean Prayer Scandal
Revisionist history is when someone rewrites history so that it is less factually accurate, but presents instead an account of history which is a lie by either omission or commission so as to present someone in a more favorable light, or to present the events the way they wished they had happened.
How much Dean has embarrassed the Republican and the rest of the right is measured by the extent to which they have tried to make the whole incident disappear, including from any formal record. I think this is a good measure of what kind of legs this scandal potentially has. Perhaps the GOP leadership is unaware of the possibilities of the record of that prayer being on sites like Youtube - or here and on other media.
We have yet another instance of revisionist history in the Republican treatment of the Friday May 20th Bradlee Dean Prayer scandal according to the STrib:
First of all, there have been plenty of instances where the legislative journal has included accounts of events in the legislature where no quorum was present; that is not a valid or legitimate criteria for scrubbing this embarrassment to the Republicans from the official record.
Secondly, I challenge Zellers claim that a quorum was not present, as roll call was mentioned in accounts of this scandal as having taken place - twice - once before the prayer by Dean, and again before the SECOND prayer, by St. Denis.
Thirdly, if the basis for removing the Bradlee Dean reference from the journal is because it was not part of the session.......why is there a mention of St. Denis offering the prayer, and why has there been other mentions of people offering the prayer?
No, this is one thing and one thing only. Zellers is trying to expunge a formal reference to actual historic events which he doesn't like.
How much Dean has embarrassed the Republican and the rest of the right is measured by the extent to which they have tried to make the whole incident disappear, including from any formal record. I think this is a good measure of what kind of legs this scandal potentially has. Perhaps the GOP leadership is unaware of the possibilities of the record of that prayer being on sites like Youtube - or here and on other media.
We have yet another instance of revisionist history in the Republican treatment of the Friday May 20th Bradlee Dean Prayer scandal according to the STrib:
GOP scrubs mention of prayerI question Zellers explanation.
Pastor who gave Friday's controversial invocation disappears from the record.
House DFLers are upset that a legislative journal scrubbed mention of the controversial religious leader who gave a divisive prayer before Friday's floor session.
Democrats on Saturday wanted to know why the Journal of the House, the historical record of the day's legislative work, had no mention of pastor Bradlee Dean offering the prayer. Dean had said that Jesus Christ is the "head of the denomination ... as every president up until 2008 has acknowledged."
"I am not trying to make this a difficult thing, but I think it's important to have this civic discussion," said DFL Rep. Terry Morrow, who questioned the omission of Dean's name on the House floor.
Republican Speaker Kurt Zellers, who took the unusual step of publicly apologizing to House members Friday after the prayer, said the omission wasn't out of line because no quorum was present when Dean spoke.
Dean's prayer caused such an uproar that Republicans restarted the session and had the Rev. Grady St. Dennis, the House chaplain, give a new prayer. The official House journal lists St. Dennis as offering the Friday prayer.
Zellers said the Pledge of Allegiance and the prayer are a custom on the House floor, but that they are not technically part of the session. Omitting Dean's name doesn't pollute the accuracy of state records, he said.
"It was my decision, and I stand by my decision," Zellers said.
First of all, there have been plenty of instances where the legislative journal has included accounts of events in the legislature where no quorum was present; that is not a valid or legitimate criteria for scrubbing this embarrassment to the Republicans from the official record.
Secondly, I challenge Zellers claim that a quorum was not present, as roll call was mentioned in accounts of this scandal as having taken place - twice - once before the prayer by Dean, and again before the SECOND prayer, by St. Denis.
Thirdly, if the basis for removing the Bradlee Dean reference from the journal is because it was not part of the session.......why is there a mention of St. Denis offering the prayer, and why has there been other mentions of people offering the prayer?
No, this is one thing and one thing only. Zellers is trying to expunge a formal reference to actual historic events which he doesn't like.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Vicious Psedo-patriots - We Aren't the Only Country with These People: Japan
In covering the devastating events in the Pacific Rim, currently most of it in Japan, I was shocked momentarily to see these words here:
The outspoken governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, told reporters Monday that the disaster was "punishment from heaven" because Japanese have become greedy.Previously, I had thought the not really a church Westboro Phelps family had found the lowest level to which human beings could sink in the name of spirituality. No. The governor of Tokyo seems to be in competition, and maybe to have exceeded their ugliness and lack of human decency.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Texas Then, Texas Now - Conservative Politics, Remember the Alamo!
A tip of the hat to the excellent piece on the Alamo at the blog (on our blog roll!) NotionsCapital. Thanks to Mike Licht for the link to the Texas Slavery Project, and for this illustration:
I grew up on the Dinsneyfied / sanitized version of the events at the Alamo, with no mention of slavery.
Not surprising that it is Texas where there is an active secessionist movement - and has had for some time. They're not done with what they were trying in 1836:
Not surprising that it is Texas where there is an active secessionist movement - and has had for some time. They're not done with what they were trying in 1836:
In April 2009, Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, appeared to endorse a resolution supporting Texan sovereignty at a Tea Party in Austin, Texas, following a question from a reporter.
There's a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.... My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, will pay attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and a pretty independent lot to boot.—[5][6]
On April 19, 2009, the Amarillo Globe-News posted an editorial,[7] writing that Perry "uttered some words that take that discussion to a level not heard since, oh, 1861 - when Texas in fact did secede and joined the Confederate States of America. We all know what happened next."
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
MN HF7: Still Don't Believe There Is a Deliberate, Comprehensive Culture War Against Women by the Right? Look at This!
The legal phrase is res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. Here is HF7, sponsored by 22 Republicans (no Democrats) which would repeal the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act, which made government jobs less discriminatory against women in earning, but did not completely eliminate such disparities.
How does the right justify this? By proposing that if paying women less than men helps balance the budget, that makes discrimination by gender against women acceptable. Because a bunch of mostly white men don't mind taking money away from women, so long as they don't take money away from men who have more money than others. And because there is apparently, an underlying notion about returning to those 'glorious days of yesterear' when the world was ordered more to their liking: women were submissive to male 'headship' or domination, and minorities were submissive, subordinate, and knew their 'place'-----instead of getting themselves elected to the Presidency. (shocking!)
The Culture War, against women, by the political right (the Republicans, the Tea Partiers) is occurring at all levels of government - the local, the state, and the federal. How organized it is would be hard to qualify, but it is fair to say that there is a concerted attempt to remove every gain for equality and gender fairness that has taken place in the last half century or more. Who is doing it? For the most part, men, although as this from the Minnesota Progressive Project notes, there IS one woman co-sponsor of this bill.
Why in the world would the political Wrong-on-the-Right ever think they could succeed in putting this genie back in the bottle? Here's why; it's because Justice Antonin Scalia says so.
How does the right justify this? By proposing that if paying women less than men helps balance the budget, that makes discrimination by gender against women acceptable. Because a bunch of mostly white men don't mind taking money away from women, so long as they don't take money away from men who have more money than others. And because there is apparently, an underlying notion about returning to those 'glorious days of yesterear' when the world was ordered more to their liking: women were submissive to male 'headship' or domination, and minorities were submissive, subordinate, and knew their 'place'-----instead of getting themselves elected to the Presidency. (shocking!)
The Culture War, against women, by the political right (the Republicans, the Tea Partiers) is occurring at all levels of government - the local, the state, and the federal. How organized it is would be hard to qualify, but it is fair to say that there is a concerted attempt to remove every gain for equality and gender fairness that has taken place in the last half century or more. Who is doing it? For the most part, men, although as this from the Minnesota Progressive Project notes, there IS one woman co-sponsor of this bill.
Why in the world would the political Wrong-on-the-Right ever think they could succeed in putting this genie back in the bottle? Here's why; it's because Justice Antonin Scalia says so.
The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause doesn't prohibit discrimination against women and gays, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. "Nobody ever thought that's what it meant."
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Celebrate World AIDS Day Today, December 1, 2010 - Part I
Obviously we do not exactly celebrate the existence of this terrible viral disease. What we celebrate is an awareness of this pandemic, a pandemic that is our closest modern equivalent to the black death, the bubonic plague of the 14th century in Europe. Following the premise that when we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it, I would like to share with you a brief overview of other pandemics, (as distinct from epidemics) before focusing on ours. The purpose of the historic overview is to establish common patterns in the past as a foundation, a frame, a focus for looking at our approach to AIDS, in the hope of finding greater insight and understanding for our response to it.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Cold Political Calculation
George Bush recently made the rounds promoting his new book, "Decision Points." In this book he (apparently) talks about his second-thoughts and moral tugs-of-war over things like the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, and the financial collapse of 2007-2008 (and on into 2009).
On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).
On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.
In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.
On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).
On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.
In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)