Slashdot Mirror

No. Obamacare was always about the rich/healthy subsidizing the poor/sick. Nobody ever said that everyone's premiums would go down.

It turns out, that Obama (you know, the guy after whom "Obamacare" was named), gave an Address on Health Care at George Mason University on March 19, 2010, where he said this:

Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.

Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.

Care to comment?

[...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

In your wet dreams. Have you read the op-ed? [nytimes.com]

Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.

I agree, it is very unlikely that yesterday's anonymous editorial was a false-flag written by Donald Trump. For example, what do the following words have in common?

exasperated, adversarial, discernible, discourse, diligently, amorality, precipitate, impetuous, malign, like-minded, whims, astute, hellbent, unsung, tribalism, inclinations, misguided, autocrats, espoused, impulsiveness, moored, thwarting, civility and lodestar

Answer: None of these words are found (or at least never spelled correctly) in trumptwitterarchive going back to 2012 but all of them are in yesterday's anonymous Whitehouse insider opinion piece.

So who wrote it? My guess is James Mattis. His 2017 commencement speech delivery at West Point was subdued but the words were powerful and showed that he understood and cherished the kind of honor, integrity and leadership that seem to be an anachronism. I can also see why Donald Trump will soon fire someone who would write something so far beyond his understanding of what American leadership and sacrifice really means:

...In terms of serving something larger than yourself, yours is the same oath that was taken by the young men of ancient Athens. They pledged to “fight for the ideals and sacred things of [the] city...to revere and obey the city’s laws" and "do [our] best to incite a like [reverence and] respect” in others, and to pass on their city-state far "greater and more beautiful than" they had received it.3 In that sense, it is fitting the cadet cover you wear today, for the last time, features the helmet of the Greek goddess Athena, echoing respect of the civic duty that’s found in a democracy, and in a nation, in President Lincoln’s words, "of the people, by the people, for the people."

After four years at West Point, you understand what it means to live up to an oath; you understand the commitment that comes with signing a blank check to the American people, payable with your life.

My fine young soldiers, a few miles northwest of Washington, D.C. where I work today, at Antietam Battlefield Cemetery is a statue of a union soldier standing at rest, and overlooking his comrades’ graves. It is inscribed with the words, “Not for themselves, but for their country.” How simple that thought. So long as our nation breeds patriots like you, defenders who look past the hot political rhetoric of our day and rally to our flag, that Army tradition of serving our country will never die.

To a high and remarkable degree, the American people respect you.

We in the Department of Defense recognize that there are a lot of passions running about in our country, as there ought to be in a vibrant Republic. But for those privileged to wear the cloth of our nation, to serve in the United States Army, you stand the ramparts -- unapologetic, apolitical, defending our experiment in self-governance... ...
If you wish to be a credit to our nation and to your family, you must carry West Point’s ethos everywhere you go and practice every day the integrity that builds your character -- for when destiny tap

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -MLK

You guys would tear him apart these days for the things that he said, if you ever even bothered to read them!

Good thing this is a republic then!

See my other reply, but also see e.g.

• Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "The Great Arsenal of Democracy" speech
• Dwight D. Eisenhower: "We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
• John F. Kennedy, “For, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'holds office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities."
• Lyndon B. Johnson: "There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our Democracy in what is happening here tonight" (from the We-Shall-Overcome-Speech)
• ...and, skipping a few:
• Ronald Reagan: "Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

But then, these are all dead white men, so what do they know!

Terrorism now or in the near technological future has the power to deconstruct human civilization. That's the Irresistible Force and it's real.

Democratic nations who in practice abandon their liberty securing foundations will devolve into corrupt autocratic regimes of the very worst sort and likely stay there forever. This true fact makes those liberty securing foundations an Immovable Object- an object which must at all costs resist disintegrating forces, both from within and without.

Clearly, the US Government has, in practice, thrown the US Fourth Amendment in the garbage. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face. These devices are some of the gory details of how they do this.

It's a slippery slope into an corrupt autocratic regime and we're sliding down it. We just are. /.ers don't need me to prove this to them but there are many things to think about which have not been properly teased out of the headlines. This is just one of them:

For decades, the police have been using the NSA as the actual source of their knowledge of drug smugglers' (and other criminals) travel itineraries. Using this knowledge, they have pretexted pulling those smugglers over, for say failure to signal, and then searched the car for drugs. The fact that the NSA was the real ultimate source of the tip was deliberately and systematically withheld not just from the defense, but from the entire judicial system - judges grand juries and sometimes prosecutors alike.

Now what this implies is it possible to rely on just the average local cop and apparently prosecutor to withhold knowledge of mass, ongoing Constitutional violations. This is a big deal because it is proof of a conspiracy, a conspiracy of silence, sustained for decades by thousands of the very people sworn to uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution. A conspiracy not to keep secret things secret but to keep unconstitutional processes a secret from the American system of justice.

It has been normalized to the point where veteran officers consider both the use of this technique and the hiding of its use from courts to be "bedrock police technique".

http://www.reuters.com/article...

The easy conclusion, that cops are bad, has to be false. Cops are (self) drawn from the general population and if there's any reason to think they're non-representative, it's probably to the better side of non-representative with respect to rule following and lawfulness; they are likely better than you would get from just a random draw of citizens.

So it has to be something else. Group dynamics, identification with a group, loyalty, etc. are all at play, but it's also possible that they rationally -and correctly- judge themselves to have been forced into an untenable position where they cannot do their larger job - keep society safe- and also abide by the rules we have set out for them. Giving up the NSA program would result in a worse outcome for the nation overall and giving up using the NSA information would result in a worse outcome for their communities.

In a certain sense it's our fault because we Americans cannot, in the words of Nathan R. Jessep, handle the truth.

http://www.americanrhetoric.co...

I am not saying I agree with this reasoning, I don't but for complex reasons having to do with human psychology and the dangerous dynamics of "the broken window" phenomena where a little bit of bad, seen to be unanswered, brings on an avalanche of Very Bad. Still the cop's position (as guessed at by me) is rational and motivated by a desire to do good, and moreover it may accurately describe the reality of what has to be done in order for policing to be effective. That may just be the truth of the situation.

Going on 15 years after 9-11 and 3 years after Snowden, I still see no dedicated widely

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

Richard Clarke's sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission. Clarke was President Clinton's terror czar. Too late by the time the Bush Administration took over. Per President Clinton's own terror czar. I know, facts and sworn testimony are always an issue when you have a political axe to grind...

While you're not wrong you forgetting one key thing.

Consciousness grows at different levels. (Both at an individual and national level.)

An analogy: You don't place a child in Grade 12 until they have had time for their mind to grow, understand, and internalize the concepts started in Kindergarten (or Grade 1), ALONG WITH demonstrating that they understand all of the preceding prerequisites.

It look Americans ~200 years to spiritually grow up and realize slavery was wrong.

Sometimes the only way to learn whether X is good is to have it, then you realize you _don't_ want it.

We can discuss all day how morally bankrupt politicians are but we need to keep in mind that, Politicians, which are just people, only reflect what society _currently_ values. They are the spiritual barometer of the nation.

As a famous teacher once said:

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

As a species we still kill one another using any excuse and justification we can. We are not _yet_ sick of war. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best:

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane [, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, ] cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

* Full transcript & audio of the brilliant speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.co...

So pointing out how spiritual ignorant and immature our brothers and sisters are "solves" nothing. Focus on the problem, not the people.

I leave you with this advice:

"Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words." -- St. Francis of Assisi

No kidding! This "justification" for "war" is sounding like a broken record.

Wasting money to kill others (who disagree with you) is spiritually retarded.

When are people going to demand that violence is NOT the solution -- it is precisely part of the problem in the first place!

I'm reminded of MLK Jr's speech who said it a little more eloquently:

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

* Full transcript & audio of the brilliant speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

From http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm:

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white

i'm confused

this is either a whoosh on my part or people don't know about eisenhower's famous speech

everyone should read eisenhower's farewell speech

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

here's an excerpt, but the whole thing is extraordinary and prescient and should be mandatory slashdot nerd reading

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

eisenhower, on the flip side, was the guy who put "in god we trust" as the motto of the usa and "under god" into the pledge. boooooo. i understand he was a religious guy, but he completely screwed up the whole separation of church and state. like any man, brilliant and some respects, moron in others

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

I can't find a cite offhand for "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security".

Please don't make the US out to be this enlightened culture.

I know. It's nothing but anti-islam all the time from the conservative redneck hicks running the country, amirite?

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

From a speech delivered on September 17, 2001. By President George W. Bush, delivered at the Islamic Center of Washington.

I'd call that fairly enlightened, doubly so for George Bush, given the reputation he has among liberals. I'd also say it's fairly ballsy to deliver that message 6 days after the 9/11 attacks, when people were getting beyond their shock, and starting to say... "whose ass do we kick?" He got plenty of shit for Iraq, and rightfully so. But he also stood up to the people saying "let's just nuke the entire middle east back to the stone age," and drew a clear distinction between "the people who did this" and "muslims."

There need to be more people standing up and delivering this message today, but let's not pretend it's nothing but backwards, stone-age thinking here in the US, either.

I mean, the original radio broadcast - it was suggestive enough to cause moderate and short-termed, but state-wide panic during the middle of the actual broadcast. People fleeing their homes, calling for emergency services and so on.

I think there's a huge difference personally.

More than half the War of the Worlds radio show was in the form of a news broadcast during a time people were worried about potential war. The current state of things is a pretty good example of how it's not hard to make scared people more scared, especially when you use a medium that's also used for news. This movie is only in theaters and its message of doom and gloom is not on any news channels in any meaningful form.

If people are seriously considering stockpiling supplies and/or killing themselves before the inevitable destruction of the world as we know it those same people should not be allowed in theaters due to their inability to distinguish fiction from fact.

I mean, the original radio broadcast - it was suggestive enough to cause moderate and short-termed, but state-wide panic during the middle of the actual broadcast. People fleeing their homes, calling for emergency services and so on.

Gordon Gekko, is that you?

Obama's going to take care of my Mortgage AND Gas!

These people actually voted and voted in large numbers. A black friend (no he wasn't African American. He was Jamaican) asked me what I thought about the first black president during the time they were showing all the celebrations. All I said is that anyone who voted for him (or against him) simply because of his skin color needs to be deported.

Vote for his policies, senate voting record, anything but race.

Then again I do hope that Obama gets up and gives a speech like Bill Cosby gave to the NAACP and this time people actually listen.

But then again I'm racist for thinking any of this, right?

But enough hammering the workers. As you can see they are not the problem.

Whenever I read a little Republican screed, I always think of this from an American master of rhetoric:

To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here. -- Malcolm X -- Message To The Grass Roots

Little Republicans would make me laugh if it didn't mean we all had to deal with Big Republicans. Big Republicans are smart, they know that there is practically no class mobility in this country and that their policies are transferring what little wealth the working class, including the Little Republicans, has managed to aquire into their own pockets. (They also know that they have more in common with Wesley Mouch than Hank Rearden, and they don't care because they think Rearden was a chump.)

Speaking of which, his speech at Harvard Law is one of my favorite modern speeches:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm

Yeah, because in the two world wars last century the U.S. immediately jumped to everyone's defense...oh wait, they didn't.

And after those two wars, the attitude was condemned as isolationist... The first post-WW2 president — Truman (a Democrat) — said the following:

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

Very respectable words, justifying and explaining our post-WW2 engagements in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both times), Kuwait and Iraq, as well as more mundane help to Taiwan, Israel, etc.

I think you missed my point. Do I think it's OK for Presidents to fire attorneys when they take office. Yes. Is it fair? No. Is it OK for a President to fire his attorneys in the middle of the term? Just as before and for the same reasons, Yes. Is it fair? Depends on the reasons for the firings. The thing is, legally, what's the difference?

Fact is that the only difference between Bush firing his attorneys and Clinton (or Bush41 or Reagan or whoever) is WHEN they were fired. Bush bucked the trend and offered some of Clinton's attorneys a job. Many took that job. Bush ignored the D or R behind their names and gave them a chance. Lets face it, Clinton had a top notch legal team. Bush recognized that. He considered their qualifications to be more important than their party affiliation. That is something that no president in recent times has done, Democrat or Republican. So what happens to a president that judges men NOT by their party affiliation, but by the content of their character? He gets subpoenaed.

You can try to spin it any way you like. You can call it non-traditional, unheard of, unprecedented or whatever. Fact is that the presidents before Bush fired their attorneys for no other reason that politics and partisan bigotry. Just as they are allowed to fire their attorneys for whatever reason they like, fair or not, the current president has the same right to do so. Applying different rules to the current president than any president in the past for no other reason than his party affiliation is what I mean by "hyperpartisanship".

Google says it was from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

His speech on political correctness, delivered 16 February 1999, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard University Law School:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm

*I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people." There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: if my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty, your own freedom of thought, your own compass for what is right.*

Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what lives in your heart. I'm sure you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you, the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up a little. About a year or two ago, I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms of American citizens. I ran for office. I was elected, and now I serve. I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know, I'm pretty old, but I sure Lord ain't senile.

As I've stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are -- are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain accepted thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- and long before Hollywood found it acceptable, I may say. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life -- throughout my whole career. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out the innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution I'm talking about, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that. You are using language not authorized for public consumption."

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys -- subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that

"blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly twisted on us --

I read the whole fucking article. The author has some vague plans about boycotts and electing the right people. Nothing we haven't heard before — or is likely to overcome the huge political and financial clout of the telecoms. It's just an incoherent rant. I think he's channeling Howard Beale.

I recall a story about a university not backing up the students, but backing up the economical system instead. It was the university depicted in the movie "Scent of a woman".

Here's a part of the speech that Lt. Col. Frank Slade gave to the audience at the end of the movie, and let's see if the words apply to universities today.

(Source: American Rhetoric)


Slade: Mr. Sims doesn't want it. He doesn't need to labeled: "Still worthy of being a 'Baird Man.'" What the hell is that? What is your motto here? "Boys, inform on your classmates, save your hide" -- anything short of that we're gonna burn you at the stake? Well, gentlemen, when the shit hits the fan some guys run and some guys stay. Here's Charlie facing the fire; and there's George hidin' in big Daddy's pocket. And what are you doin'? You're gonna reward George and destroy Charlie.

Trask: Are you finished, Mr. Slade?

Slade: No, I'm just gettin' warmed up. I don't know who went to this place, William Howard Taft, William Jennings Bryan, William Tell -- whoever. Their spirit is dead -- if they ever had one -- it's gone. You're building a rat ship here. A vessel for sea goin' snitches. And if you think your preparing these minnows for manhood you better think again. Because I say you are killing the very spirit this institution proclaims it instills! What a sham. What kind of a show are you guys puttin' on here today. I mean, the only class in this act is sittin' next to me. And I'm here to tell ya this boy's soul is intact. It's non-negotiable. You know how I know? Someone here -- and I'm not gonna say who -- offered to buy it. Only Charlie here wasn't sellin'.

  Trask: Sir, you are out of order!

Slade: Outta order? I'll show you outta order! You don't know what outta order is, Mr. Trask! I'd show you but I'm too old; I'm too tired; I'm too fuckin' blind. If I were the man I was five years ago I'd take a FLAME-THROWER to this place! Outta order. Who the hell you think you're talkin' to? I've been around, you know? There was a time I could see. And I have seen boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off. But there isn't nothin' like the sight of an amputated spirit; there is no prosthetic for that. You think you're merely sendin' this splendid foot-soldier back home to Oregon with his tail between his legs, but I say you are executin' his SOUL!! And why?! Because he's not a Baird man! Baird men, ya hurt this boy, you're going to be Baird Bums, the lot of ya. And Harry, Jimmy, Trent, wherever you are out there, FUCK YOU too!

Mr. Trask: Stand down, Mr. Slade!

Slade: I'm not finished! As I came in here, I heard those words, "cradle of leadership." Well, when the bow breaks, the cradle will fall. And it has fallen here; it has fallen. Makers of men; creators of leaders; be careful what kind of leaders you're producin' here. I don't know if Charlie's silence here today is right or wrong.

I'm not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this: he won't sell anybody out to buy his future!! And that, my friends, is called integrity! That's called courage! Now that's the stuff leaders should be made of. Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard. Now here's Charlie. He's come to the crossroads. He has chosen a path. It's the right path. It's a path made of principle -- that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey.

    You hold this boy's future in your hands, committee. It's a valuable future. Believe me. Don't destroy it! Protect it. Embrace it. It's gonna make ya proud one day -- I promise you.


Makes you think, doesn't it... Is the University of Washinton is just like "George hidin' in big Daddy's pocket"?

You decide.

"What do they think as we test our new weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?"

-- Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence (April 4, 1967)

The real effect of such a bill would be to disuade people speaking their mind. I suspect such is the motive around similar legislation. With the current free for all Internet it's difficult for the people of influence to control the story. Gore Vidal once wrote that in order to divert the electorate politicians regularlly get into a save our children frenzy. It's also ironic that the politicians are quite happy to take money from the major communications companies, some of which are major involved in the porn industry. Lookup who owns Vivid Entertainment and who owns a satellite porn channels. I'll give you a hint his 'news' channel is refered to as 'Faux News'.

The 'stars' of such entertainment which invariably come from abused backgrounds usually at the hands of their own relatives. As if there was something OK with adult porn. It's degrading to those who do it and those who watch it. Lastly the porn industry grosses bigger than legit Hollywood. It's only beaten by the drugs trade, remember, the pretend war the US is fighting in Columbia and elsewhere. Now Senater when are you going to bring in leglislation to lock up the pornographers.

Howard Beale: I want you to go to the window, open it, stick your head out and yell: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

I am a "navy brat". If you don't know what that means, look it up. I also attend UCSC. If you think you know what that means, I bet you're either a graduate or using some stupid list.

I have a dream in which the military and the hippies in America come together to fight those who are interested ONLY in their own power and money.

I too feel that such speech is dangerous. But I Respect this man more than I repsect my fear.

I believe his story. It sounds very, very true to me. I am not willing to say that it "is" true. But it fits perfectly with my perception of Lockheed Martin and "the military industrial complex". If you think you know what "the military industrial complex" is, please: don't. Listen to Eisenhower's words and then think about what they mean.

Please don't kill me.

He really knows how to present your case. (Ya gotta watch the video version to get the full impact.)

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

Any Democrat using language like that today would be labeled a religious extremist, Neocon,... or even Presid

I don't expect perfection. That's why we have to watch over them with a microscope. We can't just hand over that kind of power without keeping a close eye. As it is now, we are lazy. We just want somebody else to deal with the "problem". This is why the law is handled so sloppily(?) now. It's pretty much a case of just lock 'em up and throw away the key. The people in power, like kids and puppy dogs, will always do what they can get away with, just like everything else in nature. I've never said there is anything conspiratorial about it. It's simply the way things work.

I always balance Joe's "bush-is-shit.com" with Jane's "bush-is-god.org" and the Trib and many others. I don't mind having fact checkers, but I do want the opportunity to check all the facts myself, also. I don't like being denied access. As long as we have the alternative, I'm perfectly willing to check out mass media. I don't limit myself to the internet. I find bias everywhere I look, but I need both sides. Mass madie won't give us that. They have to stay in business. Somebody has to "check the checkers"(love the dog) :-)

These speeches arn't any huge feats of oratory. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but a talented writer could probably crank out these kind of speeches without much difficulty. They're fairly short, they contain not much original thought, they are filled with platitudes (like "Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand", what does this even mean?) and some fairly meaningless but deep-sounding religious truisms ("The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today").

If you have genuine writing talent, as presidential speechwriters do, these things are no great feat. Hell, go to any funeral and hear the priest speak, you will hear similar rhetoric. If you wish to see something which is genuinely great, look at something like Dr. King or the Checkers speech (maybe except the "I hate communists"-part). I loathe Nixon as much as the next guy, but when I first saw that speech I was ready to go volunteer for the Eisenhower/Nixon campaign. Well, I would have, had I been, you know, alive back then.

Reagan's speech after Challenger

Bush's speech after Columbia.

Reagan's speech after Challenger

Bush's speech after Columbia.

They've got a huge pile of US dollars and have to spend it somehow...

"The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back!..."

This argument also underestimates the capability of countries to very rapidly switch their focus of production in the event of a war, which has been seen several times in history.

Yes, this is true. GM was able to convert their auto plants into tank factories relatively closely. However, never in history has a country had basic materials outsourced to the point that we do today.

Anyway, I don't really think of myself as a "classic" protectionist. Though everyone likes to label everyone else in extreme camps, I actually think that globalism could lead to more peace than we've ever had in history (think Jensen's speech in the movie Network -- ok that's extreme). But the bottom line is that there's no guarantee that other countries are going to play by the rules we set up. Globalism means counting on everyone else to be slave to the financial implications of doing bad things... sometimes that just isn't true.

Did you see the Bush 'bullhorn' speech he gave in NY post-9/11? The one where he said "I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people - and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"? You can see it here.

I know it was given a few days after 9/11 and feelings were running extremely high, but for me, that chanting that took place after he said that (USA! USA! USA! USA!) kind of epitomizes the reason why the US is having civil liberties problems now - there was and is still this kind of communal feeling that this is the US vs 'some evil enemy', it doesn't matter who it is; and to feed their anger they have to attack someone. It almost soudned like they were at a football match, unquestioning supporters of their 'team'. How often do you ge that kind of reaction to words from a president? An unscrupulous administration could, and to some extent did, use that anger to push through illiberal reforms, amongst other things. I think that reaction to Bush's words is a useful way to see how many US citizens take this stuff.

To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here. -- Malcolm X: "Message To The Grass Roots"

Jesse Helms? Strom Thurmond? The Southern Manifesto? Yeah, real upstanding bunch.

All the people who reelected Reagan in 1984 would probably disagree with you. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Are you better off than you were 25 years ago? To the tune of $8.2 Trillion better off? No, not in the slightest. I've got a quote you might recognize... "To continue this long trend [deficit spending] is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals... government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Oh, you don't remember that? Let me refresh your memory with the #1 and #2 google search results.... Oops!! I guess hearing that Ronald Reagan uttered the words "Government is the problem" just isn't politically correct any more. You'll have to check the other results for ronald reagan 1981 inaugural address because #1 & #2 have simply edited that little bit out. Hmmm, I wonder how long it will be before results 1-30 don't mention the actual words spoken. But hey, now we're way off topic.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for the Democrats. I'm simply pointing to evidence of the truth contained in the article we're supposed to be discussing. Did you even think before you typed out your post? It sounds like you retrieved duckspeak directly from memory to me.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -FDR

I agree- some of this is neccesary- especially temporarily. Searches are better than bombs.
How about a bit of WWCD? (What would Churchill do?) We will fight them on the beaches, and in the streets....
Regarding American knowledge of the Allies bravery:
Every American (or 99.99999999%) who has ever served , or studied history, knows about the Brits. (One of my grandfathers was a US pilot in WWII, my other flew in the RAF). No matter what your opinion of Ronnie Reagan is- this speech (free MP3) will send chills up your spine. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rreagandd ayaddress.html The attitude "we were only part of a bigger effort" is much more common in the US than you may believe. Most of the chest thumping America saved the day in WWII have never worn a uniform.
I think I know what you may be thinking right now -- thinking "we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day." Well everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him. Lord Lovat was with him -- Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry, I'm a few minutes late," as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken. There was the impossible valor of the Poles, who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold; and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back. All of these men were part of a roll call of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore; The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots' Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet," and you, the American Rangers.

For those interested enough to read the full text of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech which the parent incorrectly quoted, related briefly enough to provide no context, and attributed incorrectly (the Jr. at the end of the name matters) you can read it online at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimet obreaksilence.htm Here is the paragraph from which this particular line was paraphrased by the parent, "My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."

"Confidence is high! Repeat! Confidence is high!"

This line is heard in War Games, but is also quoted in the rather curious Dark Side of the Moon (a 1990 film, not the Pink Floyd album).

But now, I've had it. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

Ahhhh... Who doesn't like a cool, balanced opinion?

Dude, it's a famous movie quote.

In an absurd coincidence, I got that DVD from Netflix yesterday.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

God, how I love quotes.

I think this might apply here also.

Thinking of governments per se is old school now...

Has been for a very long time.One of my favorite speeches. Should be read by all.

Family values are such a touchy issue that if a President brought their opinions in there, it would likely be a breach of the separation between Church and State.

Every Republican candidate at least since Reagan has made a promise to restore Traditional Family Values part of his campaign.

Either you're 3 years old and have never witnessed an election before, or you're accusing Reagan of harboring theocratic leanings.

Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion, as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either in the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident, or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the policy immediately.

"So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"
Howard Beale (Peter Finch) - Network (1976).
The whole speech is here. Inspirational - and it was 1976!
Bah - there's nothing on tv i want to record anyway. Watch dvds, it's better for your health.
Bah bah bah. Humbug.

You're conflating two different ideas