Republicans and Tea Party usher in school segregation in Wake County, North Carolina


No comment here, just the facts:  Republican school board in N.C. backed by tea party abolishes integration policy

This entry was posted on Monday, January 17th, 2011 at 3:25 pm and is filed under Civil Rights, Education, Education quality, War on Education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

54 Responses to Republicans and Tea Party usher in school segregation in Wake County, North Carolina

  1. Nick K says:
    January 23, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    should have been “That’s quite curious.”

    If you want to make this real simple, Morgan. I hate Osama bin Laden. I want him dead. I want his head on a spike 20 feet tall either in Central park or more preferbly in downtown Riyadh as a warning to the next 10 generations of religious extremists, of any stripe, and terrorists, of any stripe, to not **** with us. I wish him every ill and I wish him dead. That or I want him locked in a room with all the families of the people he killed. That is hate, Morgan.

    But that isn’t the emotion I have for your party. I don’t wish them ill nor do I wish them dead. Well…I suppose wishing them out of power for a good long time so they get their heads out of their lower orifices might be wishing them ill in a broad sense but it still isn’t hatred on my part.

    Sorry, you don’t get to chide me about not liking your party when you don’t like mine. Nor do you get to do so when you show no evidence of chiding those on your side who “hate” my party far worse then you don’t like it or I don’t like yours. Sorry, I’m under no obligation to suffer your hypocrisy on the subject.

    Now since I don’t want to hijack the blog as I did a few days ago, I’m going to switch topics to what Eugene Robinson said. And I’ll make it short.

    You can turn your nose up at the idea of a public option or single payer if you want. You can think that doing so means you won’t have to pay anything. But the fact of the matter is that as more people lose their insurance either through losing their jobs or their jobs simply stop providing that benefit you are going to be paying more and more. As I said, emergency care is far more expensive then regular health care. And as more and more people can’t afford regular health care that leaves only emergency care. And when they can’t pay for that, Morgan……you will. So you’re going to end up paying either way. The only question is this: Do you want to pay a whole lot more through emergency care..or do you want to pay a far lesser amount through a public option or single payer.

    Like

  2. Nick K says:
    January 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Morgan writes:
    I don’t hate the Republicans, conservatives or the right wing.

    It certainly isn’t love.

    You certainly don’t love Democrats but somehow that I don’t love the Republicans is a sign of something wrong with me but that you don’t love the Democrats isn’t a sign of a problem with you?

    No, I don’t love the Republicans. They disappoint me, they at times annoy me. They routinely fail any morality test. And as I said I disdain, pity and to some degree have contempt for them. I used to be a Republican, Morgan, I know what it means and I know what it takes to be one. And frankly..the Republican party of today fails that miserably. I grew up Republican, my father is a lifelong Republican. his father was a lifelong Republican. And I can assure you, Morgan, that the party that holds that name today is a pathetic excuse and a dishonor to the name.

    But again..you continue making this a personal thing about me..instead of even attempting to prove what I said wrong. That’s q

    Like

  3. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 23, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    I don’t hate the Republicans, conservatives or the right wing.

    It certainly isn’t love.

    Like

  4. Nick K says:
    January 23, 2011 at 10:06 am

    I love how Morgan once again resorts to nothing but a personal attack against me. And doesn’t event attempt to counterpoint what I said.

    The reason: Even he knows he can’t. But instead of being honest he spouts more bullshit.

    Like

  5. Nick K says:
    January 23, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Morgan, do yourself a favor and quit trying to pretend that you’re a psychologist every time you get painted into a corner and can’t get yourself out of it. You have no idea what my feelings are, you have even less idea how my temper works. All you’re doing every time you spout that crap is make yourself out to be the world’s biggest moron.

    I don’t hate the Republicans, conservatives or the right wing. Hate is a strong emotion and they’re simply not worth it. I pity them, I disdain them, I even have contempt for some of them. But hate them? Sorry, I have better things to do then sell my soul and my morality to bring myself down to their level.

    As for the rich, I don’t hate them either. I don’t begrudge them their success, I don’t want their wealth all taken away. But sorry, when they used to pay 90% in taxes and now they don’t even pay half that we have cut their taxes enough. And I see no reason to cut their taxes anymore and shift the tax burden onto the middle class and make no mistake that is what is happening. Quite a lot of rich people do quite a lot of good with their wealth and I applaud that. They’ve bothered to remember that they earned their wealth on other people’s backs and want to help better others and society. But others…like for example the Koch brothers seem to think they are entittled to their wealth simply because of their existance. That helping those who earned them that money is an unbearable nuisance and somehow grievously harms them. They have forgotten that it was due to the hard work of others that they have as much money as they do. They have forgotten they have an obligation to those around them to help improve society. Their greed has overtaken their morality, Morgan. And your party seems hell bent on making sure the wealth of this country is in as few hands as possible.

    The Republicans say they want to cut spending but that they will absolutely not touch the military budget. 50% of all government spending is on the military..and that’s not counting the wars. Do you remember what happened to the Soviet Union when it overspent on its military? We spend more on our military, Morgan, then the next 18 countries combined. They also say they won’t touch Medicare or Social Security. Putting aside my belief that claim of theirs is a straight out lie how do you think they’re going to cut spending if not by harming the middle class and the poor?

    If they’re not going to touch the military budget or touch Medicare and Social Security how do you think they’re going to pay down the deficit and the debt while simutaneously giving more tax cuts to the rich, exempting all businesses from the federal income tax, getting rid of the estate tax and more then likely the capital gains tax? There isn’t enough in the budget that remains to accomplish that, Morgan. They would have to cut everything but the military, social security and medicare. That includes the CIA, FBI, FAA, FDIC, Secret Service, NIH and pretty much everything I could name. Do you think that’s a good idea? Do you honestly think that the middle class and the poor should be the only ones to make any sacrifices? And lest I forget..do bother to remember that national sales tax that I said Representative Ryan wants to institute is a regressive tax…it hits the poor and the middle class far more then it hits the rich. Furthermore, the next time we’re in a recession the funds that sales tax would create would drivel up like a flower in a 5 month like drought.

    I don’t want the rich to be destroyed, Morgan, I want there to be balance. I want everyone to get a piece of the proverbial pie, not just a few. I have a cousin who between her and her husband they pay nearly a third of their yearly salary to their health insurance company. Between the two of them they make about 80 grand but they pay 25 grand to their health insurance company. Neither one of them has any major medical problem, their kids are all grown and married. It’s just the two of them. And I have seen no Republican proposal that would actually help them. All of my family have busted their asses all their lives working but it’s their taxes that should be raised but not Bill Gates? Or the Koch Brothers? Or Warren Buffett? What made them the sacred cows? With success, Morgan, comes responsibility.

    Because that’s the rub, Morgan. Your party can’t do what it says its going to do without raising taxes on someone. Your party can’t cut enough to deal with the defecit or the debt. It simply can’t. It will have to raise taxes somewhere. So the question I have for you, Morgan, is simple. Should it be on the ones who can most afford to pay? Or the ones that can least afford to pay?

    And I have no idea how your side can sit there with a straight face and claim that “Big Government is potentially a threat to the freedoms of the people” and not also realize that if government is potentially a threat to the freedoms of the people then sure as hell Big Business is. Hell even a former leader of your party..the party I used to belong to, recognized that one. But then I believe that Teddy Roosevelt, like Lincoln, would spit on the Republican party of today.

    And to explain my position, Morgan, my family farmed about 1000 acres that we got lucky enough to sell for development at the height of the housing boom. Rich yes..but on the lower end of the scale and certainly not like the Koch Brothers. But this idea that taxes should be voluntary is bullshit and you know it. that you even pull that line, Morgan, is only proof of how far from intelligence you are. But you’re not rich, Morgan. You will probably never be rich. But how long do you think it will be until the Republicans put your head on the chopping block in order to preserve the wealth of the ones that bought them the House of Representatives in the last election? You should pay more but the Koch Brothers shouldn’t? Because mark my words, Morgan, if your party gets its way you will be expected to sacrifice and they won’t be.

    So I suggest, morgan, that you start looking after your own interests. Because so far…you’re not even close to doing so.

    For the last 30 years the middle class has been stagnant. For the last 30 years, Morgan, your party has been the dominant one. Nothing you say or think will change that fact. So you better start looking after your own because for damn sure your party won’t.

    Like

  6. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 22, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Ah, so you’re rich! And you want the rich to pay more.

    Well…send it on in. Nobody’s stopping you.

    There, now we can all get along.

    Like

  7. Nick K says:
    January 22, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Morgan, hate to break this to you. I don’t hate the right wing. I pity them. I pity that they’re oh so willing to let themselves be screwed over by their own party that they’re willing to sell the rest of the country down the river with them. As for unhinged thinking…that would be you. You are a member of a party that says its for low taxes..but wants to raise your taxes just so it can cut taxes to the rich. Plus they want to raise your taxes so they can take a swipe at abortion. Gee…I thought your party was oh so for individiual rights? Then where does it get off trying to punish people for having abortions?

    And as for class envy, sorry no. You see…I can’t exactly be envious of a class I belong to. But unlike you, at least I recognize that the system has gotten unbalanced in favor of my class and disadvantageous to your class. I have never said destroy the rich or any of that claptrap. All I have said is that the system should be better balanced. All I have said is that your party has overseen the tipping of the scales so far in favor of my class that your class is being destroyed.

    IT isn’t me that has class envy, Morgan, its you. You’re so besotted with the rich that you’re willing to let yourself be screwed over if it means that the rich have it just a little bit better then they already have.

    And getting back to unhinged thinking..that is also you still. Lets do remember you were the one trying to deny a group of people their equal rights just because a small little group of that population did something terrible.

    All you’re doing in what you just said, morgan, is nothing more then projecting your own faults on to others.

    Like

  8. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 22, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Nick,

    If I owned the blog, I’d upgrade it. It’s horribly slow. And I don’t mean that as a slight against our host, it seems to be loading slowly because it’s overloaded with last-minute thoughts from you.

    Seriously, you should go start one. It’s important that people get to know liberals like you. The hatred, the lopsided thinking, the failure to stick to any one subject, the hatred again, the general unhinged-ness, the propping up of bad ideas by harping on the “those guys on the other side are bad bad people” thing. The class envy, and did I mention the hatred?

    Like

  9. Nick K says:
    January 22, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Because its much more entertaining to be here and have to deal with your ignorant and self-destructive bull excrement.

    Now answer me this question. Where does it say you own this blog? Because between the question you asked me and your rant a few days ago against Ed and how dare he not back you up on something you were driveling about you sure seem to be thinking that you have some say on what goes on here.

    Oh and way to blithely ignore the point I was making…that your own party wants to screw you over.

    You really should read Representative Ryan’s plan…you might learn not to be such a trained seal.

    Like

  10. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    “bending”.

    Nick, why don’t you have your own blog? I’m serious.

    Like

  11. Nick K says:
    January 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Yeesh.

    Should be “You must be so proud for bending over so willingly for them.”

    Like

  12. Nick K says:
    January 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    So Representative Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, wants to halve the taxes the rich pay, make it so that corporations pay no income taxes, institute a national sales tax, and raise the taxes of everyone who makes less then $200,000.

    Oh and privatize Social Security.

    Congratulations Morgan, you and your fellow middle class Republicans are being played for suckers and are about to be ****** up the *** by your own party.

    You must be so proud of yourself for being over so willingly for them.

    Like

  13. Nick K says:
    January 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    I wrote:
    translators in languages of countries that either are enemies or potential allies.

    *sighs* That should read “…either are enemies or potential enemies.”

    Like

  14. Nick K says:
    January 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Morgan writes:
    Conservatives say, if it isn’t working then let’s try something else. What intelligent, mature, results-oriented people do.

    *falls over laughing* Morgan, your conservatives have shown no ability to recognize that something isn’t working so lets try something else. For four decades now your party has been preaching that cutting taxes on the rich will lead to job creation, higher government revenue, and better economic prospects for the middle class and the poor. Have you paid attention to the last ten years? The economy tanked, job creation when the Republicans were in charge was the worst in nearly the entire history of the country, the country ran up a huge defecit where before it was running a surplus, and the only ones that have been getting ahead in the last ten years is the rich. And lets not forget that the Middle class has been economically stagnant if not ouright declinding over the last 4 decades.

    And what’s the Republican solution to that now? more tax cuts to the rich.

    DADT cost the military tens of thousands of people who were doing important jobs…among them translators in languages of countries that either are enemies or potential allies. And what’s the Republican solution? Maintain DADT at all costs.

    Conservatives love to claim that abstinence only sex ed is so much better then comprehensive sex ed. And yet under abstinence only sex ed the % of teens having sex is higher then those under comprehensive sex ed…so what’s the Republican solution? More abstinence only sex ed.

    The health care system in this country is fundamentally broken unless you’re rich..and whats the Republican solution? Continue the status quo and in fact make it worse for the middle class and the poor.

    Just like your party wants to go back to the “solution” of segregation despite the fact that isn’t a solution at all.

    Your party, Morgan, is the direct opposite of intelligent, mature, results-oriented people. In fact..it hates them. It actively mocks them. It actively does anything but be intelligent, mature or results oriented. It actively opposes any change, any improvment and it fights any such attempts tooth, nail and claw.

    The only way someone would believe what you said, Morgan, is if they’re stupider then you. Unfortunately for you, Morgan, Ed and I are not stupider then you.

    Like

  15. Nick K says:
    January 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Morgan, have fun trying to argue that your party doesn’t have a problem with hate of minorities and racial prejudice:

    – In a widely linked post, “Governor Christie’s Dirty Islamist Ties,” blogger Daniel Greenfield writes that “New Jersey, the Garden State, has just taken its first step toward becoming the Sharia State,” and criticized Christie for being “willing to stand up to the teacher’s union, but not to the terrorist’s union.”

    – Hate blogger Pamela Gellar, in a post titled “Governor Christie’s Hamas Pick for Superior Judgeship,” declared Christie’s political career over: “Governor Christie looked and sounded like he could be presidential. He’s not. He’s in bed with the enemy. All the other stuff doesn’t matter if you don’t have your freedom.”

    – At Commentary magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a post about Christie’s “troubling appointment,” and charged that Christie’s “appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the court shows that his judgment on the issue of support for terrorism is highly questionable.”

    – The Investigative Project on Terrorism warned Christie’s appointment of an “Islamist” to a judgeship “betrays either naivete or calculation. Either is troubling.”

    – PowerLine blog took extra pains to note that “The attorney’s name is Mohammed, first name Sohail — Sohail Mohammed.”

    Of course, these Islam-haters know nothing of Mohammed, other than his religion.

    Mohammed has been a consistent advocate for increased dialogue between the Muslim community and law enforcement. The New York Times noted that Mohammed “helped arrange a law enforcement job fair at a Paterson mosque in which young Muslims were encouraged to apply for jobs with law enforcement agencies. The session also featured a question-and-answer session for mosque members with the police and prosecutors.” Mohammed has also given F.B.I. agents training sessions on Islam and Muslim culture. One would think this type of outreach would be appealing to bloggers who claim radical Islam is the nation’s greatest threat.

    Because it’s humorous that your party is now eating its own in the name of that prejudice and hatred. Source is: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/christie-muslim-judge/

    Like

  16. Nick K says:
    January 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    I wrote:
    And conservatism just says “We’ve come far enough, we don’t need to go any further” endlessly, like a broken record, paying attention only to the results of today and not how much more still needs to be done.

    Actually that should be “We’ve come too far. THings were better in the past. We need to go back to that time period and never change anything because change is always bad and never good and everyone was better off back then.” endlessly like a broken record.

    Or to be a little more blunt, Morgan, if conservatives had ruled this country for the last 250 years the United States wouldn’t exist, Britian would still have its North American colonies, blacks would still be slaves, and women couldn’t vote.

    Because, morgan, and you ain’t going to like this but it’s still the fact…the things that changed all that falls under the definition of “liberalism.”

    Like

  17. Nick K says:
    January 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    So far in the last year, Republicans have gone after Hispanics, Muslims and now Blacks.

    And you seriously want to pretend that your party doesn’t have a problem with minorities, Morgan?

    Lets see…they think that every Hispanic in the country should have to carry documentation proving they’re either here legally or are citizens all the time. Which is something they sure as hell aren’t asking us caucasians to do. What? Your party is pretending that there aren’t illegal immigrants who are white, morgan?

    Then they go after Muslims for that whole mosque thing plus the whole nonsense “Sharia law is invading” bit and also they throw a fit when a company that makes soup makes soups that meet Halal requirements. When was the last time, Morgan, any member of your party threw a fit over Kosher foods?

    Then there is what the tea party did in North Carolina with reinstituting segregation. And all the racist signs that kept popping up at tea party rallies. And lets also remember the term “maccaca.” And going back further in history..the Republicans…especially Regan’s support/turning a blind eye to apartheid in South Africa. And more recently…the Republicans attempt to blow a hole through the 14th amendment with regards to citizenship granted automatically upon birth.

    And last but not least this one fact: If Barack Obama was white…there would be no “birther” movement.

    Like

  18. Nick K says:
    January 20, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    WHy thank you, Rob, you proved my point beautifully.

    Now I’m sure that wasn’t your intention but thank you anyways.

    Like

  19. Nick K says:
    January 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Morgan writes:
    Liberalism just says “come a long way, there’s still a long way we have to go” endlessly, like a broken record, paying attention only to intentions not results

    And conservatism just says “We’ve come far enough, we don’t need to go any further” endlessly, like a broken record, paying attention only to the results of today and not how much more still needs to be done.

    Morgan writes:
    And then the “our way or no way” liberals come along and call them racists.

    Am I summarizing the situation unfairly?

    oh you mean like “our way or no way” conservatives who come along and call those who disagree with them unAmerican or socialists or Communists or immoral or unpatriotic? Or their recent favorite term “they hate the United States.”

    Sorry, Morgan, we showed you the evidence. That you want to sit there and pretend otherwise isn’t our problem.

    Like

  20. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    In my experience, in Washington and on “Main Street,” it’s conservatives who are bugged about race, to their great, great detriment.

    Now that you’re in a mood to provide examples, maybe you can back up this one, which seems to be central to what all the fuss is about.

    On the contrary, Ed became quite famous back in our AOL days for his humility and fair-mindedness.

    Heck, I didn’t even comment on the North Carolina school board story — Morgan is putting words into my mouth for that.

    “Fair-mindedness” would involve coming out & saying what you’re trying to say. As opposed to accusing conservatives of being racists, and then claiming words were put in your month when people simply take note that you’ve taken this position.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:
    January 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Liberalism just says “come a long way, there’s still a long way we have to go” endlessly, like a broken record, paying attention only to intentions not results.

    I would say, paying attention carefully to results, plus intentions and hopes.

    We made great strides in the civil rights movement era, circa 1950, or Brown v. Topeka Board of Education through 1980.

    But that was not enough. Expanding opportunities to some minorities did not expand opportunities for all minorities. Expanding opportunities for some poor did not expand opportunities for all poor. Integrating baseball, football, the NBA and education did not integrate the board rooms, nor the churches.

    Much work remains to be done; some new work also needs to be done.

    Corporate change consultants tell our major corporations to analyze their history to see where they have come from and what they have achieved, before making plans for where they will go and what more than will achieve.

    That’s not a flaw of liberals; that’s a wise way to plan, it’s what the wise men have been saying for millennia.

    We shouldn’t need W. Edwards Deming to tell us that.

    That’s what Ed and Nick do every time they say “these people who don’t like our plan want to turn the clock back.” You have to support the plan, in order to demonstrate your decent desire for the clock to go forward…

    In each case I cited, it was the conservatives who ended integration plans, pined for the White Citizens’ Councils, or in other ways demonstrated a yearning for less-integrated times. Heck, I didn’t even comment on the North Carolina school board story — Morgan is putting words into my mouth for that.

    Those who can’t win the rhetorical fight, Morgan, shouldn’t pick it.

    Conservatives say, if it isn’t working then let’s try something else. What intelligent, mature, results-oriented people do.

    In these cases, conservatives are saying, ‘Despite the fact that it’s working well, let’s break it.’ That’s not what mature, results-oriented people do.

    And then the “our way or no way” liberals come along and call them racists.

    Am I summarizing the situation unfairly?

    Liberals? You mean like Jesse Jackson, who worked out voluntary agreements with Coka Cola, Inc., and dozens of other organizations, rather than rely on the law — to the benefit of Jackson’s agenda and Coke’s bottom line? You mean, like Bob Crandall at American Airlines, who discovered that when he let it be known his ticket agents spoke Spanish, his revenue shot up from Spanish-speaking passengers? Liberals, like the University of Kentucky and Adolph Rupp who discovered they could win with African American basketball players?

    You’re not exactly summarizing the situation unfairly — because you haven’t summarized the situation at all.

    Here in Dallas, the schools are no longer under court supervision to ensure civil rights. Dallas has a tough, tough situation — but our difficulties are caused more by lack of money than by race of our students.

    In my experience, in Washington and on “Main Street,” it’s conservatives who are bugged about race, to their great, great detriment. Money and good policies don’t come by race, but it’s often difficult to tell if one listens solely to the conservatives.

    Like

  22. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 20, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    They’re asking for a return to the race discrimination of the 1850s.

    Alright, so to pick up accurately what Nick is trying to say, we need to read something into it, do his “what I meant to say was…” on his behalf.

    Fair enough. So, do we have some strong evidence that Republicans want a return to race discrimination of the 1850’s? Because if the piece you have linked is supposed to provide that for us, it doesn’t quite get there. As I’ve already pointed out, there are many reasons expressed about why it’s desirable to roll the existing system back and they don’t have to do with race…

    In fact, if the system has been in place just so many years but the problem with isolated blight & stratified terraces of poverty & wealth is still there, wouldn’t a rational person say something needs to change? Or at the very least, that the status quo isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do?

    I’ve been saying for awhile that nowadays this is the real difference between conservatism & liberalism…in the last few years. Liberalism just says “come a long way, there’s still a long way we have to go” endlessly, like a broken record, paying attention only to intentions not results. That’s what Ed and Nick do every time they say “these people who don’t like our plan want to turn the clock back.” You have to support the plan, in order to demonstrate your decent desire for the clock to go forward…

    Conservatives say, if it isn’t working then let’s try something else. What intelligent, mature, results-oriented people do.

    And then the “our way or no way” liberals come along and call them racists.

    Am I summarizing the situation unfairly?

    Like

  23. Jim says:
    January 20, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Hello Rob!

    Could you please provide some specific examples or instances in which Ed has expressed hate for those who disagree with him? I am sure you understand that it is quite possible to hate what someone believes or even practices without hating the person. For instance, I hate the fact that Glenn Beck (on 6/10/10) called on his viewers to shoot liberals in the head. I don’t hate Mr. Beck.

    I’m eager to read what you have to say.

    Have a super day!

    Jim

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:
    January 20, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Been hallucinating long, Rob? Do you use organic, or chemical means to do it?

    Like

  25. Rob says:
    January 19, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Hating the people of the United States that disagree with him.

    Still all swole up with himself. That’s Ed Darrell.

    Like

  26. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    Morgan writes:
    To objectively measure which party is more full of prejudice and hate is a place you don’t want to go.

    No, Morgan, to objectively measure which party is more full of prejudice and hate is a place you really really do not want to go.

    Hell, George H Bush’s declaration that nonChristians really aren’t US citizens buries you just by itself.

    Like

  27. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    And also the economic situation of back then. Back when the rich and the powerful controlled all and the rest barely had enough to get by if even that. And any attempt to more equitably tip the balance of the economic scale was fought against tooth, nail and claw. Back when the government’s purpose was to make damn sure the rich and the powerful were protected at all cost and to make sure that they gave up nothing in order to better the situations/lifes of those beneath them. back when there was no consideration for worker’s rights or worker’s safety or environmental protection. Back when child labor was perfectly legal and viewed as an acceptable thing.

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:
    January 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Morgan wonders:

    What political party has ever longed for previous halcyon days in which it had yet to achieve measurable influence?

    Republicans, now.

    Nick didn’t say that Republicans want to be Republicans in the 1850s — heck, they didn’t even really have a party until 1856. Nick said they’d just like to turn back progress to that point. Nick wasn’t saying that Republicans even liked Republican stands of the 1850s. Both Nick and I have pointed out that Republicans of 2011 probably would disagree with the Republican platform of 1856, 1858, and 1860 — and they’d do what they could to keep the candidates of those years out of the party.

    You’re missing the whole point of the allusion, Morgan. It’s not the Republican Party of the 1850s the modern Republicans want. They’re asking for a return to the race discrimination of the 1850s.

    Like

  29. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    To quote Jim:
    becomes little more than a carcicature and a chew toy for those who have finally tired of discussing in good faith.

    Hence my description of him being like Knocky.

    Morgan, if you go and look at how Ed and I dealt with Shea you might notice that we didn’t insult her intelligence, say she was insane, failed to grasp logic or any of that.

    But I do love your Sarah Palin act. That everything is about you and you are the eternal victim.

    But sorry, conservatives by definition like things to stay the same, like things to remain as they were and hate and distrust any change. That’s part of the definition of “conservative.”

    From dictionary.com:

    Conservative: (1st definition given)
    disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

    To be a bit geekish I suppose but your political side tends to be the Denethor of politics. And by that I mean when in the LOTR books he says “‘I would have things as they were in all the days of my life, and in the days of my long-fathers before me…”

    Everything from gays serving in the military to gay marriage to health care refom to school prayer to teaching evolution to race relations to culture to who has power to who has the money to politics your party wants things to go back to either how they were…or how your party thinks they were. There’s no progress with your party, there’s only stasis and regression. It’s never about making things better with your party…it’s about keeping things the same or restoring them to how they were at some supposedly vaunted almost sacrosanct point.

    And to some degree that’s necessary, not all change is good and sometimes restraint is necessary. But your party has gotten to the point where it believes that all change is bad. And it fights tooth and nail even change that is necessary to improve things with the citizens of this country. It constantly puts itself on the wrong side of decency, morality, and history just to keep everything exactly as it is even if that “everything exactly as it is” hurts people.

    Like

  30. Jim says:
    January 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Morgan says, “By doing so, you’re helping to bear out what I’ve previously said about Darrellogic: Each participant’s intellect, sanity, emotional health, grasp of logic and reason, is assessed solely on whether that participant agrees with Ed Darrell.”

    Oh, the irony is deafening.

    I’ve known Ed for at least a decade now. We’ve disagreed plenty. I’ve never experienced anything like you describe, Morgan. On the contrary, Ed became quite famous back in our AOL days for his humility and fair-mindedness. And, of course, his willingness to simply “agree to disagree”.

    But since this is Ed’s blog and since you are his guest, perhaps you might wish to reconsider your participation…if only because you find Ed so oppressively frustrating and unjust.

    Ed wouldn’t say it, of course. In no small part because the last thing the poor fellow wants is for his blog to become an echo chamber. But there does reach a point where a “contributor” (and I use the term quite broadly where you are concerned) becomes little more than a carcicature and a chew toy for those who have finally tired of discussing in good faith. Perhaps you’d want to consider moving on?

    Just a suggestion. I don’t see you contributing anything of value but oh my, you’re quite good at playing the “so’s your mother” game. Sadly, this is not a fifth grade boys restroom…
    Jim

    Like

  31. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Just to tie the regulation bit to the rest…it’s proof that the Republicans want to go back to the Gilded age as well.

    Back when the phrase “hot dog” was more then likely to be a literal phrase. Plus containing human arms, feet, legs, possibly heads. And back when mining companies could blow the tops off mountains, shove said tops down into river valleys and foul the drinking water for thousands, tens of thousands and now hundreds of thousands of people.

    Like

  32. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Oh I forgot the part where Republicans have bought into this notion that there should be no or minimal regulations on US businesses and that we should continue to reward all those companies shipping jobs overseas by giving them ever more tax cuts.

    Because somehow it’s wrong to make, for example, BP pay for the cleanup in the Gulf. Or that its wrong to make sure Peter Executive isn’t using the pensions of worker Paul and worker Mary to fund his international golf game.

    Like

  33. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Ed, granted I’m not a psychologist…but I’ve determined that Morgan is an intellectual masochist. He’s like the somewhat smarter version of Knocky.

    Like

  34. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    It has very little to do with “like” or “don’t like”; the issue is forming opinions after evaluating the evidence, as opposed to the way Nick seems to be doing it which is forming the conclusion first and then filtering out or manufacturing the evidence to fit it.

    It’s really a very simple inquiry. Nick took the trouble to append something about vaunting the 1850’s and I want to know from where, if from anywhere, he got this. I’ve already pointed out why, if he made it up as I think he did, it is the sheerest sort of nonsense: What political party has ever longed for previous halcyon days in which it had yet to achieve measurable influence?

    If you’re really as confused as you portray yourself to be about where I’m going with this, then you haven’t much business lecturing me about missing a point. By doing so, you’re helping to bear out what I’ve previously said about Darrellogic: Each participant’s intellect, sanity, emotional health, grasp of logic and reason, is assessed solely on whether that participant agrees with Ed Darrell. The implications involved in having a public school teacher measuring according to such a yardstick, are obvious and I must say somewhat unsettling. Haven’t you ever said, to yourself or out loud, “this guy does agree with me but I disapprove of the method he used for getting there”? Or…”I don’t agree with the conclusion this guy reached, but his logic is sound”? Frankly I’d have more respect for you if I saw some evidence you were capable of one of those two things, but it looks like you’re not.

    As to the school board’s decision, if you read further in the article you linked there are many reasons given that are neutral on the issue of restoring discriminatory protocols. There seems to be a measurable local consensus that the system they have chosen to repeal is a classic left-wing fustercluck. In fact, I would say if the school board really wants to go back to discrimination, they’re leaving an awful lot undone. Shouldn’t someone be headed to the state legislature with a pack of Jim Crow laws to reinstate? It’s certainly lazy and dillatory to stop at repealing the forced integration plan. So on the strength of those two things, I would take issue with your “appear to want to go back to that system.” Nick-Jr.-suspicions (entirely emotional and prejudiced ones) notwithstanding, don’t you have anything better?

    Well, why am I asking you for more substantial evidence on that second point. You’re still dodging the issue on the first one.

    When teachers say out loud “I’m not here to tell the students what to think, I’m here to tell them how to think,” you’re a good archetype of the teacher that refreshes my cynicism about this. We have all those historical facts presented by the gentleman in the video I linked — all of them verifiable, as he pointed out, for anyone who wants to take the time to look them up. But if I were in your class, I would have to ignore all this, to reach the conclusion about the GOP you want me to reach, to even hope to reach an adequate grade, because it all comes down to whether or not I agree with the teacher?

    You and I are having an Inigo Montoya moment on that word “history,” my friend.

    Like

  35. Nick K says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Morgan writes:
    Personally, my opinion is Nick has opinions that fit a narrative. Ralph Waldo Emerson, consistency, hobgoblin & all that. So yeah, you and Nick are ducking the question, trying to pretend it’s complicated or convoluted when it isn’t…you just don’t want to go here. To objectively measure which party is more full of prejudice and hate is a place you don’t want to go.

    Yeah the problem is I showed you the evidence so now it’s you pulling things out of your ass to fit a narrative. That you don’t want to pay attention to that evidence is not my problem nor does it make that evidence go away.

    lets see, Republicans and conservatives want a central government in which the state governments have the right to tell go fuck itself. They want the government to leave the citizens of the country at the mercy of the rich and powerful. They want the states to have the right to secede. They constantly seek to fuck over every minority in the country. They pretend that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what the southern states were doing 150 or so years ago. They praise the confederacy but blithely ignore the fact that 1: the confederacy was defending slavery and 2: was a bunch of traitors. They praise the “Citizen’s Councils” which was just the KKK without the white hoods and robes. And they’ve flipped out that *gasp* a black man is in the White House.

    Now..either the Republicans want to go back to the 1950’s or the 1850’s-1860’s. Which is it? Of course since they want a weak federal government and want the states to have the ability to tell the federal government to go fuck itself it could be argued that what the Republicans want is to go back to the time period pre-1787.

    If you don’t recognize the importance of that year…it’s the year the US Constitution was adopted.

    So which time period is it, Morgan?

    Oh and please don’t talk about me having opinions that fit a narrative since that describes you to a t. Of course with you it’s that you have opinions that you were told to believe in to fit someone elses narrative. You know…like you did when you were throwing a fit about a certain mosque in New York..you know..when you were having a problem with it because you got told to have a problem with it.

    Like

  36. Ed Darrell says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    The red flag that is raised, is that this doesn’t fit the history of the Republican party.

    If you really don’t like what Nick wrote, why don’t you tell us what’s wrong with it? Your refusal (I don’t think it’s a failure) to understand the historical allusion is petty and childish.

    In the 1850s, discrimination was the norm. Republicans appear to want to go back to that system, judging by the school board, Haley Barbour, Trent Lott, and U.S. House majority.

    You agree? Why or why not?

    Like

  37. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 19, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Once again, I am asking for evidence to back up the statement (in bold),

    “Or to put this bluntly, once again we see the Republican’s desire to turn the clock in the United States back to the supposedly vaunted 1950′s. Or the, in the Republicans mind, even more vaunted 1850′s.”

    The red flag that is raised, is that this doesn’t fit the history of the Republican party. It’s like a Clintonista vaunting the late 1980’s, or an Obamacron vaunting the period from 2003-2006. The obvious appearance is that Nick pulled something out of his ass, and his obsessive-compulsive behavior got out in front of his brain again.

    Now if you want to just admit that, and Nick wants to admit it, hey no harm no fowl…this happens to the best of us. Not a rare occurrence. Of course, if that’s going to be ‘fessed up the question that naturally arises, is how much of the other stuff Nick writes is just thrown out there because it makes him happy to throw it out there…no support for it, no research, just sort of fits the narrative.

    Personally, my opinion is Nick has opinions that fit a narrative. Ralph Waldo Emerson, consistency, hobgoblin & all that. So yeah, you and Nick are ducking the question, trying to pretend it’s complicated or convoluted when it isn’t…you just don’t want to go here. To objectively measure which party is more full of prejudice and hate is a place you don’t want to go.

    But at any rate: I still want to see foundation for the statement above. I don’t know of any Republicans, personally, who vaunt the 1850’s. They wouldn’t want to. Republicans didn’t like the way America was in the 1850’s; that’s why they were forming a new political party at that time.

    It was just a silly nonsensical thing for Nick to say. Suggest you just admit it, although I’m sure you won’t…

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:
    January 19, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Ed, I have to wonder: You’re a schoolteacher. What do you do when you give out an assignment, and one of your students does a bang-up job answering the question he wanted you to ask, ignoring the question you actually asked him?

    I tell him the same thing I told you in my last comment, if he misses the point the way you did.

    What is your question, really? Nick referred to a time when discrimination was a rule of life, and law, and noted that today’s Republicans appear to want to go back to that time.

    You’ve done your best to avoid the original post, the history, and all the examples offered. You’ll have to suffer the consequences on the test.

    Like

  39. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 18, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    What I’ve figured out is: Nick’s statement was nonsensical on the very face of it. Republicans managed to get one of their own elected President in 1860. Why would a political party “vaunt” the years right before such an event? “Gee willikers, I sure wish things were like in the good ol’ days when it was Taylor Fillmore Pierce Buchanan…and we were still struggling to become relevant.” All these opportunities to show me a Republican vaunting the 1850’s. Nothing to back it up yet, but the two of you can’t admit Nick screwed up. Does this mean you’re delivering something soon about Republicans vaunting the 1850’s? Can’t wait to see it.

    Ed, I have to wonder: You’re a schoolteacher. What do you do when you give out an assignment, and one of your students does a bang-up job answering the question he wanted you to ask, ignoring the question you actually asked him? I couldn’t get away with that when I was a kid, and I’m glad for that. We were expected to have a handle on this by the time we graduated fifth grade. But here you are with your “I just want to talk about Haley Barbour Haley Barbour Haley Barbour,” ignoring the subject at hand, which is Republicans vaunting the 1850’s.

    When do I get to see that vaunting?

    Meanwhile, here’s some history both of you need to check out:

    It doesn’t even talk about the democrats being represented by a Kleagle in the Senate. What it does cover is plenty impressive, though.

    Like

  40. Ed Darrell says:
    January 18, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    I’m still not seeing anything about the GOP vaunting the good ol’ 1850′s. Got anything else I’m supposed to look at? All I’m doing is taking your words seriously here, and you’re failing rather gloriously at trying to back them up.

    Nah, you have six different sources which clearly show the problem. But the test is multiple choice and the instructions say “choose the best answer” — you’ll have to figure it out for yourself.

    Like

  41. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 18, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Now I expect an apology out of you for either not paying attention to your own party….or for lying about them and thinking that we wouldn’t notice.

    Sure, I’ll get right on that.

    While we’re waiting for me to do so…these democrat legislatures to which Gov. Barbour was referring. It’s in your video, I don’t know if you bothered to watch it or not, but there are repeated references to democrat Governors and democrat legislatures; do they, too, owe you an apology? And do you think this might cause Honest Abe some hesitation about joining them? Or was Barbour just making all that up.

    I’m still not seeing anything about the GOP vaunting the good ol’ 1850’s. Got anything else I’m supposed to look at? All I’m doing is taking your words seriously here, and you’re failing rather gloriously at trying to back them up.

    Like

  42. Nick K says:
    January 18, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Lincoln would spit on the modern Republican party and likely become a Democrat.

    Like

  43. Nick K says:
    January 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Yeah curious how so many Republicans keep on praising the Confederacy…and curiously forget to mention the evils of slavery.

    Here’s one:
    http://vodpod.com/watch/3413539-miss-governor-haley-barbour-defends-the-confederacy

    There, now there’s your evidence, Morgan. That and Governor Rick Perry’s declaration that Texas can secede. Also there is Tom Emmer, former governor candidate in Minnesota, putting forth the idea that states should be able to nullify federal law and his support of a statement of the state Republican party putting Minnesota’s right to secession on the party platform.

    Now I expect an apology out of you for either not paying attention to your own party….or for lying about them and thinking that we wouldn’t notice.

    Like

  44. Nick K says:
    January 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Just to explain to Morgan why i picked the 1850’s….it was the time period before the civil war. Back when the conservatives of that era thought that the states had the right to secede. You know..the era “states rights” that the modern Republicans so love to claim they’re oh so in favor of.

    Like

  45. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 18, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    So there is no one reference to the 1850’s I’m missing here, is there. Nick says that in the mind of Republicans, the 1850’s are vaunted…I ask to see some evidence of this…there isn’t any. Now you’re trying to move the goalposts and re-define the challenge to be, find some disparity between the priorities & values of 1850’s Republicans versus 2011 Republicans.

    That doesn’t have much to do with what Nick was trying to assert.

    C’mon, his opinion had to be resting on something.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:
    January 18, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Is it too tall an order to ask you to read the links? In each one, Republicans show they “vaunt” [not my term] the segregated America of the 1850s.

    I sorta doubt Nick was referring to any special incident in the 1850s. 1850s Republicans espoused policies now repudiated by 2011 Republicans. It’s quite ironic: I don’t think Republicans today would allow Republicans of the 1850s to join the party — especially people like John C. Fremont, Hannibal Hamlin, Edwin Stanton, Salmon P. Chase, and Abraham Lincoln.

    Like

  47. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    What’s with all these references to 20th century events?

    A source that demonstrates Republicans’ vaunting of the 1850’s. Is this too tall of an order?

    Like

  48. Ed Darrell says:
    January 18, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    The request was for “a source for the statement that Republicans vaunt the 1850′s”.

    Haley Barbour. Haley Barbour. Trent Lott. Haley Barbour. Republicans in the 112th House of Representatives. Too many in the Tea Party. And Haley Barbour.

    Like

  49. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    The request was for “a source for the statement that Republicans vaunt the 1850′s”.

    And if you can make it a source that doesn’t ask me to uncritically and unskeptically accept the smear against Sarah Palin about a “Sambo comment,” or the smear against George W. Bush about “the Constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper!”, that would be a plus. Something believable.

    Like

  50. Ed Darrell says:
    January 18, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Can you cite a source for the statement that Republicans vaunt the 1850′s?

    Haley Barbour.

    Like

  51. Morgan K Freeberg says:
    January 18, 2011 at 9:03 am

    Can you cite a source for the statement that Republicans vaunt the 1850’s?

    Last person I saw say anything nice about the people who were in charge in the 1850’s, was our host here.

    Like

  52. Nick K says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Yes, Robert, they are two very different things.

    Republicans are for segregation and against integration.

    Or to put this bluntly, once again we see the Republican’s desire to turn the clock in the United States back to the supposedly vaunted 1950’s. Or the, in the Republicans mind, even more vaunted 1850’s.

    Like

  53. Maitri says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Here you go.

    Like

  54. Robert Barton says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Let’s not confuse segregation and integration. Two different things.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.