Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Sunday, January 17, 2010

Is Scott Brown an extremist?

From Talking Points Memo:

Birther Before His Time?

Part of the arcana of the 'birther' movement is the claim that Barack Obama's parents were never actually married, and that Obama was born out of wedlock. In a TV chat show appearance back in 2008, Scott Brown suggested that he also didn't think Obama's parents ever got married and that Obama was an out-of-wedlock child.

Massachusetts may elect a BIRTHER to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat:

That fits my definition of a loon and an extremist.

From the link (O)CT(O)PUS referred to in a comment below:

Revenge is the plat du jour, and it's being savored, hot or cold, everywhere. Even those viewers who gave Conan O'Brien dismal ratings when he replaced Jay Leno are now flocking to watch him as he berates the NBC bosses who tried to solve the problem.

In Massachusetts, for the "Kennedy seat" of more than half a century, polls are so alarming that the President, although overwhelmed by the crisis in Haiti, is taking time this weekend to campaign for the Democrat, whose vote will be vital to pass a health care reform bill

We are well past the by-the-numbers outrage drummed up the Tea Party promoters and into some twilight zone of national discontent that seems to be feeding on itself, no matter what the merits of the issue.

"With populist anger running strong," a New York Times analysis observes, "anything that smacks of establishment entitlement is politically dangerous." Or as columnist Gail Collins puts it more succinctly, "the voters are sending a message that they are in a bad mood.

The only problem with all this is the history lesson that, when the tide runs high to "throw the rascals out," (.i.e, LBJ and Nixon), voters end up by throwing even worse rascals in.


Anonymous said...

I really think this enthusiasm is more ANTI-Obama than pro-Brown. I will pray for Brown to win. I will also pray that he changes his mind about abortion. I know he is the best choice but I wish I had not heard he felt the same about abortion as Kennedy. Makes me so sad. But I am still praying he will win. If he had stood strong for the "Right to Life" I know God would help him win. Let's all pray about that. He is still the best choice.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I hate to say this in such a really cold and heartless manner, but I think it's time someone laid out the fact in the sun:

God doesn't give a shit about who's in office.

He doesn't care how much money you have.

He doesn't care about what kind of car you drive, or where you work.

He's not impressed by fancy clothes or Coach handbags.

He isn't going to 'bless you' with any of those things because He doesn't care about those things.

Because unlike you, God knows that all those things are material, thus ultimately temporary, and hence for all intents and purposes meaningless.

He's concerned about intangible stuff; what goes on in your heart, whether you have a relationship with Him and what kind of relationship it is. He's worried about why you say you love Him so much while you go out and do things that are totally antithetical to it. He's concerned about things you don't even think about, because you're so mired in the material, and the bizarre concept that God is worried about politics and finance, and that He's going to 'bless you' with more material shit to take your focus even further from where it belongs.

I hate to be so blunt, but that's the way it is.

I Said It said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TOM said...

Monday we celebrate Martin Luther King.
Have we forgotten the lessons? Have we forgotten our racist History?
Those who would like to pretend that racism no longer exists, seem to be making the most racist statements. Is that a surprise?
Of course there are those who want to define our President as a bastard mulatto.
Of course there are those that want to claim that his intention, is to destroy America.
Of course there are those who cannot accept a black American President.
Do we have a generation that does not recognize racism when it shows its ugly forms, or are we experiencing a rise in racism because we have a black President?
For his critics to say this is only about his bad decisions, not race; have to explain why they don't speak out louder against the birthers and other obvious racist groups and comments.
Racism is irrationality. These groups, individuals, and their comments are irrational. Yet, we are asked to believe that there is no connection, it is purity of political disagreement. BS

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

About the comment by I Said It:

This forum does not tolerate profanity and personal attacks against other readers. You are banned!

Satyavati devi dasi said...

This forum does not tolerate profanity

By rights, this ought to mean I'm banned too. So as a last word, I'm sorry, it just came out the way it did.

Pamela Zydel said...

Satyavati: No, YOUR post had MEANING behind it...passion for what you were expressing and it in NO way attacked or insulted anyone.

Right, Shaw, Octo?

Pamela Zydel said...

I will pray for Brown to win.

If he had stood strong for the "Right to Life" I know God would help him win. Let's all pray about that.

Makes me so sad.

Anonymous: Maybe “pray” that the death toll doesn’t go any higher in Haiti and leave the campaign in Mass up to the voters. As far as “God” swooping down and “helping” Brown “win” if he changes his stance on abortion…PAHLEEZE! How about we NOT pray about THAT and “pray” for all the LIVING children who are abused, neglected and mistread EVERY day by incompetent, sadistic parents who are using/abusing drugs and alcohol and who are MORE concerned with their next boy/girlfriend than their own LIVING children! You are sad, you say about the unborn? Well, I’m MAD as hell about the SUFFERING of the INNOCENT LIVING ONES!

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Pamela, agreed. As you said, Satyavati devi dasi made an impassioned plea based on a core belief held by persons of conscience across a wide spectrum of religious and political opinion. The comment did not attack a person.

About what Satyavati devi dasi said, one will find similar moral challenges expressed in The Book of Job and Ecclesiastes, which state:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

Thus, there was NO REASON to attack Satyavati devi dasi with: "I don't give a shit about you!."

The troll attacked the person, which is a clear violation of our community standard. It was a wanton act of aggression for no reason at all.

(Not to worry, Satyavati devi dasi. We love you!)

ImAlwaysRight said...

Satyavati devi dasi .. So I guess that Profanity is just peachy cream when it suits your argument! Humm... Hypocrisy at it's best.

Shaw Kenawe said...

No, "I'm Always Right," your miss the point entirely.

When a person comes to my blog and attacks a commenter (Satyavati devi dasi did not do this), or when a person comes to my blog and delivers a rant unconnected to what I've posted, THAT person is a troll by all internet standards.

I'm amazed you still don't understand this. You will NOT be deleted if you stick to the subjecty of the post and if you can refrain from slandering the president and all liberals.

And "Anonymous" what sort of god do you believe in who would "help" a political candidate win over another while men, women and babies are dying in Haiti?

I thought you religious people believed in free will and that gods don't interfere with what we mortals do--how we work our "free will?"

Either you don't know what your religion is about, or you make god stuff up as you go along to suit your own prejudices. Which is it?


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Shaw, as you know, I have defended conservative bloggers with the same passion as I defend liberal bloggers. On the surface, one might say that (O)CT(O)PUS is being inconsistent or perhaps even hypocritical. Why, for example, would I engage one conservative in conversation but not another?

I would like to take a moment here to explain my criteria. While partisanship may divide us in many ways, there are conservatives and liberals who also share a set of core values, namely: equality, fairness, justice, and human dignity, as captured in these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Whether one is conservative or liberal, these words are our shared heritage. We honor and respect our conservative friend, Pamela, because she shares these values ... practices her beliefs as we do.

However, there "fly-by" trolls, as there are "fly-by" drivers who engage in the Cyberspace equivalent of road rage. The "fly-by" trolls hurl anger, invective, and hateful comments at you. The do not come here to engage in a civil and democratic exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

They come here to insult and taunt. They do not espouse any set of core values. I do not even see them as "conservative" because they do not articulate any sense of "moral politics."

I see them merely as marauding gangs, as thugs, as Brown Shirts, as Basiji, or any other reactionary fringe who goal is to beat you over the head with verbal clubs, to harass and oppress. True conservatives engages us with respect and are welcomed as friends. Thugs are treated as thugs ... and get deleted.

These are my criteria.

Shaw Kenawe said...

My dear (O)CT(O)PUS,

I'm happy to have you explain this very simple ideal.

I have relatives who are conservatives. I have relatives who are devout Christians, Mormons, Jews, Uni Unis, and Buddhists as well as nontheists.

We manage to be decent to one another by not hurling invective at each other.

What you have set out as your criteria is reasonable and no fair minded person could disagree.

I am discouraged by the rage and hate I see posted here in my comments and in so many other blogs.

Your position is reasonable.

A truth that is self-evident.


dmarks said...

I reserve the term extremist for those on the actual extremes who commit or threaten to commit extreme acts. I do not use it lightly with those on the left or right.

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

I don't know about Brown's extremism. I do know a republican running for office is required to say silly things about tax cuts. Less government and the like. Any "birther" garbage or cries of "socialism" are also encouraged.

Arthurstone said...


I think so. Anyone supporting the GOP platform with its God, guns and 'no killin' babys' is an extremist in my book.

On the other hand there is no doubt he's a complete opportunist. Mouthing 'conservative' platitudes seems second nature to this guy. I love how the family values aspect of republicanism dovetails so nicely with soft-core porn.

Anonymous said...

My friend and I were recently discussing about how technology has become so integrated in our day to day lives. Reading this post makes me think back to that debate we had, and just how inseparable from electronics we have all become.

I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Societal concerns aside... I just hope that as memory becomes cheaper, the possibility of transferring our memories onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's a fantasy that I daydream about all the time.

(Posted on Nintendo DS running [url=!2602F0E287041CEF!106.entry]R4[/url] DS scPost)