April 19th, 2012



I was thinking about fundraising as a political candidate. Why do people give you money?
Big money comes with strings.
But why does joe-schmoe give money to a candidate/candidates campaign? How many millions of small campaign contributions have there been?

I haven't given any money to Obama. I don't plan to either.

But let me tell you what. If I thought, and had evidence to believe, that Santorum(may his campaign RIP) was going to win a general election against Obama--I'd do it. I'd pony up. I'd pay the piper. I'd pull out whatever I could--one dollar, five dollars, twenty. Whatever it took.

How bad would it have to be for you to personally donate money to a politicians campaign?

Assume the election is for the president.
Any hypothetical matchup you wish. Be real or silly. Just keep it real, y'all. PEACE

Racism vs The Race Card


The conservative viewpoint in the debate starts at 9:30 into the clip...

From comments:
We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate.
I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who.

If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters.

That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

EDIT: A bit more:
so, in your view, this justifies black panthers' death threats or the racism of al sharpton and the likes (White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires), or the racist attack mobs of black youths against white people, the fact george zimmerman is hispanic but the "post-racial" leftwing media shoved down everyone's throat that he in fact is a "white hispanic" ensuing a nationwide anti-white wave amongst black thugs, black teenagers murdering 90 year old white women, etc, etc.
Notice the same formula. The argument isn't really important. What's been written in this space isn't really important. It's a game.

[chessdev] I think this article, short as it is, is right on the money. Over and over again, we see arguments from posters here who claim to acknowledge the existence of racism -- and yet, no situation ever seems to qualify as racist.

Yes, there are people who see racism in every sentence and every gesture -- but that is extremist and rare. The problem is when even people who dont think that way and live otherwise completely integrated lives are still disbelieved... then we cross over into Denialism, and I think that viewpoint goes (and has gone) a long way into keeping the divide in this country nice and strong.
  • paft

The Sky is Brown: The Madness of the Internet

Richard Orange, Global Post: The deaths of the 77 people Breivik massacred in Norway are sadly all too real. But the killer himself looks more and more like a product of the Internet.

Salon has linked to an interesting article today on Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik and the Internet. Richard Orange’s piece touches on something I’ve described in the past as the “sky is brown” syndrome, that is, the sense of unreality that permeates not just Internet games like World of Warcraft, but Internet communities that are ostensibly discussing real world issues. On an Internet discussion board, for instance, a poster can more easily argue that “the sky is typically brown on a clear day” because in the online world, there is no actual window looking out onto a blue sky.

Collapse )

(no subject)

Judge’s Harsh Words for High Court

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to review economic regulations with an extremely deferential “rational basis test,” which requires only that such regulations be “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest.” In practice, this amounts to no meaningful review at all. Courts applying the rational-basis test have concluded, for example, that states may shut down unlicensed florists to protect consumers from the hypothetical dangers of stray corsage pins. Indeed, the test is so deferential that one federal court of appeals upheld a law that restricted the sale of caskets for the sole purpose of “dishing out special economic benefits” to licensed funeral directors.

I'm glad there's some judges (at least one) that are able to see the problems that they're perpetuating. Even SCOTUS decisions need to be reviewed and reconsidered at some point just to make sure that we don't get locked into something that is actually untenable over the long term. And this isn't even dealing with actual decisions but merely with the guidelines for how to come to a decision, which should be much more flexible than they apparently are. I totally agree with Judge Brown's opinion here.