Founding Babydaddies
People often try to justify their opinions by saying that the “founding fathers” agree with them. They often are guilty of selective use of history. A good place to start would be to define what we mean by the phrase founding fathers. This is a repost
The FF word was not used before 1916. A senator from Ohio named Warren Harding used the phrase in the keynote address of the 1916 Republican convention. Mr. Harding was elected President in 1920, and is regarded as perhaps the most corrupt man to ever hold the office.
There are two groups of men who could be considered the founding fathers. (The fathers part is correct. Both groups are 100% white male.) The Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, which cut the ties to England. Eleven years later, the Constitutional Convention wrote the Constitution that governs America today. While the Continental Congress was braver, the Constitution is the document that tells our government how to function. For the purposes of this feature, the men of the Constitutional Convention are the founding fathers.
Before moving on, we should remember eight men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and later attended the Constitutional Convention. Both documents were signed by George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Read, Roger Sherman, and James Wilson. George Wythe left the Convention without signing the new document. Elbridge Gerry (the namesake of gerrymandering) refused to sign the Constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights.
The original topic of this discussion was about whether the founding fathers owned slaves. Many people wonder about this. If you go to google, and type in “did the founding fathers”, the first four answers are owned slaves, believed in G-d, have a death wish, and smoke weed.
The answer, to the obvious question, is an obvious answer. Yes, many of the founding fathers owned slaves. A name by name rundown of the 39 signatories of the Constitution was not done for this blogpost. There is this revealing comment at wiki answers about the prevalence of slave ownership. “John Adams, his second cousin Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine were the only men who are traditionally known as founding fathers who did not own slaves.
Benjamin Franklin was indeed a founder of the Abolitionist Society, but he owned two slaves, named King and George. Franklin’s newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette routinely ran ads for sale or purchase of slaves.
Patrick Henry is another founding father who owned slaves, although his speeches would make one think otherwise. Despite his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, he had up to 70 slaves at a time. He did apologize from time to time. He knew it was wrong, he was accountable to his God, and bemoaned the “general inconvenience of living without them.”
Patrick Henry was a star of the Revolution, but not present at the Constitutional Convention. The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was in Europe during the convention. Mr. Jefferson not only owned slaves, he took one to be his mistress, and kidsmama.
One of the more controversial features of the Constitution is the 3/5 rule. Here are the original words “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” In other words, a slave was only considered to be 60% of a person.
This is offensive to people today. It was a compromise. The agricultural southern states did not want to give up their slaves. The northern states did not want to give up Congressional representation. This was the first of many compromises made about slavery, ending with the War between the States. This webpage goes into more detail about the nature of slavery.
The research for this feature turned up a rather cynical document called The myth of the “Founding Fathers” . It is written by Adolph Nixon. He asks : “most rational persons realize that such political mythology is sheer nonsense, but it begs the question, who were the Founding Fathers and what makes them so great that they’re wiser than you are?” (The link for this information keeps changing. Here is the latest source. This is not a totally reliable source.)
Mr. Nixon reviews the 39 white men who signed the Constitution. He does not follow the rule, if you can’t say anything nice about someone, then don’t say anything at all. Of the 39, 12 were specified as slave owners, with many tagged as “slave breeders”.
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, have served America well. However it was intended, it was written so that it could be amended, and to grow with the young republic. It has on occasion been ignored (when was the last time Congress declared war?). However fine a document it is, it was created by men. These were men of their time, who could not have foreseen the changes that America has gone through. Those who talk the most about the founding fathers know the least about them.
How Black Is BHO?
Episode 35741 of bloggingheads.tv is another edition of the two black guys, @JohnHMcWhorter and @GlennLoury. They had plenty to talk about. PG has been burned out on racial discussions, and kept turning it off and on. Finally, at the 43 minute mark, PG realized that it was just fifteen minutes to go. He might as well listen to the rest of the show.
At 46:11, there was something to listen to. Dr. McWhorter had been talking about the eulogy BHO gave at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pickney. The message was set in the rhythyms of the black church. It was very well received.
BHO was raised by white people. He lived in Hawaii and Indonesia. BHO attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School. When BHO came to Chicago, and began a political career, it was suggested that he find a church. This church affiliation is essential to an identity as a black politician. The act of speaking, in a black church, in the manner of a black minister, is something that BHO learned as an adult.
Rachel Dolezal was discussed on the show. Here is a white woman, who presented herself as black. After a while, she was roundly criticized for doing so. It was said that she has not suffered the hardships, and oppression, that comes with being black. Therefore, this light skinned woman is the object of derision for claiming to be black.
BHO was raised by white people in Hawaii and Indonesia. Arguably, he has suffered little, if any, of the oppression that most black people face. He chose to attend a black church in part because he wanted a political base. And yet, this half white man with dark skin is routinely accepted as a black man. Racial labeling, like beauty, is skin deep.
Pictures are from The Library of Congress.
Paula Deen Two Years Later
Two years ago, the media racism carnival centered around Paula Deen. A disgruntled former employee was shaking down the celebrity. The DFE, who was white, claimed racial discrimination. Many say the DFE was exploiting the oppression of black people for personal gain.
A few things have happened since this story was published. These three links tell part of the story. Race-based claims thrown out in Paula Deen lawsuit, Paula Deen lawsuit appears to be over; settlement a possibility, Paula Deen closes restaurant at center of harassment lawsuit.
This story is a repost. Some of the links in this story no longer work. The link to Deposition of plaintiff Lisa T. Jackson vs. Paula Deen Enterprises, etc. does work. Pages 15 and 153 are interesting. On page 267, Lisa Jackson says that Jim Crow is a singer.
The New York Times did it’s liberal media duty Saturday with a story about Savannah, and the Paula Deen controversy. There were three curious words in paragraph four. “The predicament that Ms. Deen finds herself in began when a former employee — a white woman who is now managing restaurants in Atlanta — filed a discrimination lawsuit in March 2012.”
This thing has seemed, er, fishy from the get go. The restaurant industry is full of disgruntled former employees, few of whom are paragons of virtue. DFE worked in a restaurant partially owned by a famous person. It is uncertain how active the famous person was in the day to day operation of the restaurant. DFE has a lawyer, who gets famous person to say embarrassing things in a deposition. Somehow, this deposition is leaked to National Enquirer. And now we learn that DFE is white.
Confirmation of the ethnicity of DFE is tough to come by. Few pictures are available. You have to ask Mr. Google repeated questions. A law industry blog called Huseby (spell check suggestion:Houseboy) has a good story on the matter, with a couple of links.
The attorney for the plaintiff, Matthew Billips, has a few issues. “The case began with an “inflammatory letter seeking over a million dollars for forgo filing a lawsuit and allow Deen ‘a chance to salvage a brand that can continue to have value,’ ” Withers’ document said. (Tom Withers, attorney for Bubba Hiers, the brother of Paula Deen) In the motion to dismiss Billips, Withers quoted a tweet by Billips in which he said “suing Paula Deen is a hoot.” Withers also referred to a sexually laced tweet Billips directed at Deen “even more concerning.” In it, “Billips promises to symbolically undress and have sex with” Deen, Withers said. “Billips has posted sexually explicit tweets using extremely graphic and profane language and imagery. He has used the “N” word,” Withers’ motion said.”
Huseby links to an article in the ABA Journal that is downright fascinating. This feature confirms that Lisa Jackson, the DFE/plaintiff, is melanin deficient. The Deen-Hiers legal team has filed a motion, that is highly entertaining. Unfortunately, the pdf is not copy friendly, so the ABA summary will have to do. If you have the time to read the legal motion, you will enjoy it.
“The motion by lawyer Tom Withers says the plaintiff pursuing race-based claims has no standing to assert them because she is white, the Savannah Morning News reports. The plaintiff, Lisa Jackson, had claimed she was sexually harassed and worked in a racially hostile environment at a restaurant owned by Deen and her brother. Withers represents Deen’s brother and the restaurant.
According to the motion, Jackson claimed she was offended because her nieces “are bi-racial with an African-American father.” But the motion says there is just one niece, and she is related to Jackson’s partner, who said in a deposition that the niece’s father is Hispanic and she hasn’t seen the girl in years…. “Jackson cannot enforce someone else’s right, and she has no actionable claim for feeling ‘uncomfortable’ around discriminatory conduct directed at others … Jackson must show that any harassment was directed toward her because she was white, but at her deposition she alleged she was treated more favorably than African American employees at the restaurant.” (p.153)
Pictures are from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library”.
Like You Rate A Restaurant
PG was minding his own business when the phone rang. It was an automated voice, that wanted to take a survey. The perp company was 20/20 Insight. The machine caught PG at a weak moment, and he agreed to the survey.
The first part was asking you to rate names. It went from one to five, just like you rate a restaurant. The first name was Barack Obama. The second name was J. Max Davis.
It was soon apparent that the survey was about Brookhaven politics. The name Rebecca Chase Williams came up. She is the acting mayor of Brookhaven, and is all but certain to run for a full term. It is too bad that zero, or negative one, is not an option.
Mrs. Williams is married to Dick Williams. He used to write a column for the fishwrapper. Mr. Williams is a terrible, terrible man. His column was full of hatred for gay people. In one memorable tirade, he compared gay people to Richard Speck, Charles Manson, and Sirhan Sirhan.
The survey was fast and efficient. You gave your answers by touching buttons on the phone. You had the “not sure” option on most questions, which is good when asked what you think of how the city of Brookhaven is doing. It is not especially bad, so far. If the city decides to spend thousands of dollars shutting down the Pink Pony, it would be doing worse.
Before the phone rang, PG was listening to bloggingheadstv. Glenn Loury said that Mike Brown brought his troubles on himself. PG was called racist after making a much milder comment about Mr. Brown last November.
Pictures today are from The Library of Congress.
POTUS WTF
There are two words that are considered politically incorrect to use. This is the F-word, and the N-word. According to the NATO Phonetic Alphabet, this is Foxtrot and November.
Marc Maron is a comedian by trade. He is the perp behind the WTF podcast. This is not Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Mr. Maron opens the show by saying welcome whatthefuckers, what the fuckadelics, what the fuqstix, etc, etc. He finagles Foxtrot into the fucking furniture.
Today was episode #613 of WTF. The guest in the garage was @POTUS himself, Barack Obama. In honor of the occasion, Mr. Maron dispensed with the Foxtrot litany. The show began right away, without commercials or monolog.
The guest made up for the absense of Foxtrot. At 46:40, BHO said the N-word. This is what people will be talking about this week. Rachel whatshername can resume her search for a new hairdresser in private. Global warming will not be affected.
@bob_owens The white half of @POTUS is racist for using the “n-word.” @tuxedotomybowti Someone said President Obama is racist for using the n-word. Seriously? We have had presidents own slaves. Wth @MattyIceAZ Fox News cares more about the N-word taken out of context than any scientific expert taken in context.
PG has felt for a long time that America does itself no favor by getting hysterical over November. Yes, it is hurtful to a significant portion of our population. The problem is, when you make a federal case (literally) out of using November in public, you give six letters more power than they deserve.
As BHO noted, racism is more than saying November. Not using the magic word will not make Police kinder and gentler. Dropping those six letters will not create economic opportunity, end the war on drugs, disconnect the school to prison pipeline, or make sperm donors fulfill their duty as fathers. November is a symptom, not the disease. It remains to be seen if the disease is treatable. Euthanasia cannot be ruled out. Pictures are from The Library of Congress.
Stars And Bars
@KenSimonSays The Confederate flag began flying over SC Capitol in 1962 as protest to desegregation. It’s not “heritage”, it’s racism. #TakeItDown
As Richard Nixon might have said, let me make one thing perfectly clear. PG is no fan of the stars and bars. Whatever value the “Confederate Flag” may have as a symbol of southern heritage has been obscured by its use as a symbol of hatred for black people. South Carolina should not fly the “Confederate flag” over the state capitol.
On the other hand, PG does not like being lied to. If you are offended by a symbol, then say you are offended by a symbol. Don’t rewrite history to support your cause. If your cause is so wonderful, then you should not need to conjure up so called facts from history.
In 1956, Georgia incorporated the stars and bars into the state flag. In 1993, people wanted to change the flag. So far, so good. The flag was an aesthetic eyesore. The flag was offensive to a significant portion of the state population. The flag eventually was changed, and changed again.
There was one problem with the 1993 effort to change the flag. Governor Zell Miller, a strong proponent of flag change, said in a speech that the stars and bars were added to the flag, in 1956, as a protest against integration. Many people accepted this bit of historic revision without question.
Some did not believe that for a minute. The legislature in 1956 was not that smart. They were a bunch of white males who were, with a few exceptions, racist, alcoholic crooks. If someone had suggested a flag change as a stand of defiance against desegregation, they might have thought it a good idea, but few Georgia legislators thought like that. This was 1956. The sixties, where protest became the new national pastime, were a few years away.
PG did some research, and found a newspaper article from February 1956 announcing the new flag. The article did not mention protesting integration. Instead, the legislature said they wanted to honor the Confederacy. The cult of the Confederacy was stronger in 1956 than it is today.
@chamblee54 “flag began flying over SC Capitol as protest to desegregation” ~ do you have documentation for that claim?
@KenSimonSays link 01 (pages 18-19, et al); link 02 (para 1); link 03
The three links provided are scholarly accounts of various issues. None of them showed that the motive for flying the stars and bars was a “protest to desegregation.” This passage from link03 is typical. “The flag was first raised over the capitol in 1962, just a few years before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In its historical context, the decision to first fly the flag over the South Carolina capitol can reasonably be seen as a defiant act by a legislature determined to resist national pressure to desegregate.”
Link01 tells much the same story. “South Carolina began its official celebration of the Confederate flag in 1962 during a time when many white Southerners were resisting the end of Jim Crow Laws with police dogs and much worse. Traditionally, governments fly flags to endorse or approve what is symbolized, and not to provide history lessons.”
The next sentence is ironic. This is lawyer writing, which is mostly incomprehensible to people like PG. This sentence is probably not intended in the way PG is taking it. “In Croson, the Court established three basic principles of skepticism, consistency, and congruence concerning governmental race based classifications.” PG seldom needs encouragement to be skeptical.
@chamblee54 “in it’s historic context, the decision to first fly the flag …can reasonably be seen as a defiant act” (1)
@chamblee54 A scholar talking about historic context is not good enough I want a newspaper account from 1962 saying (2)
@chamblee54 this is why the flag is being flown they pulled this BS in GA over the state flag https://chamblee54.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/changing-the-flag/ …
@KenSimonSays Ah BS, from a man who quotes himself to try and prove a point. Hey, you’re entitled to kick your feet all you want.
@KenSimonSays And keep in mind, these are the same ppl who’ve convinced themselves that Civil War was fought over “states rigjhts”
@KenSimonSays and not slavery, so they’re very good at bullshitting themselves.
@KenSimonSays Eventually, the bigots are going to not have any more space to wriggle out of.
@Brimshack Did you really think they would actually say they were flying the flag to protest desegregation? (@Brimshack retweeted the first tweet from @KenSimonSays. PG currently follows @Brimshack, who is based in Alaska.)
@chamblee54 I went through this with the ga state flag – am no fan of csa flag – the protest integration thing rings false (1)
@chamblee54 you say it is to protest integration, a publicity stunt … of course they would say that is why they did it(2)
@KenSimonSays Not a publicity stunt. A temper tantrum codified into law. You think politicians are above such things? Or that the
@KenSimonSays flag suddenly magically appeared after almost a full century of not really being an issue…until integration enters
@KenSimonSays the picture, first in schools in the ’50s and more and more in the proceeding years. Closing your eyes to this is
@KenSimonSays what’s got a lot of people down there thinking the war was “northern aggression” over “states rights”.
@Brimshack That isn’t clear at all. This would be one of many disingenuous narratives produced by neoconfederates.
@KenSimonSays But that flag will come down eventually, it’s just a matter of time. And you’ll pout & write abt how unfair it is,
@KenSimonSays how it violates your free speech, dishonors memory of the dead, govt intrusion, all the while the real reason is the
@KenSimonSays that Yankees came down & told wealthy sadists what to do with their slaves & you side with the slave owners.
This is why we can’t have nice things. At no time did PG support South Carolina flying the stars and bars. All he did was show “skepticism,” per link01, to an statement. This statement was used to support something that all three parties agree on. People get so attached to their arguments that a little bit of “skepticism” makes them crazy. Just for the record, in case you missed it the first time: South Carolina should not fly the “Confederate flag” over the state capitol.
The issue of the stars and bars continues to be much talked about. The gun culture is untouchable. The concept of solving problems through violence is not challenged. The verbal abuse culture is celebrated, especially in the Jesus worship church. Denial of mental health issues has become politically correct, at least where Dylann Roof is concerned. Since none of these root causes of the Charleston tragedy are going to be addressed, people focus on a tacky historic symbol.
Pictures of Union Soldiers from the War Between the States, are from The Library of Congress.
Implicit Association Test
PG came across a link. The post was: What comes to mind when you see her headscarf? Let’s look at what your mind is seeing. Technically, this is about the hijab, pronounced eeJOB. If you google hijab, you will have the opportunity to buy one.
The article talked about the unspoken assumptions people have about a woman with a hijab. For PG, these are going to be mostly positive. Most of the Muslims PG has known are great people. The turmoil caused by aggressive Jesus worshipers is absent when dealing with Muslims.
Much of the article deals with “unconscious bias.” You are given the chance to take a “test your unconscious bias and find the areas of your perspective that need a little extra TLC.” PG is not sure that he trusts “Psychologists from Harvard, UW, and UVA.” Still, the only cost for taking this test will probably be damage to his mental health.
Before you start, there is a disclaimer. “IP addresses are routinely recorded, but are completely confidential.” There is a difference between confidential and anonymous. Big brother knows about PG anyway, so this test probably won’t make much difference. You are asked to agree to the following statement: “I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed.” Fasten your digital seat belt.
Next, you choose a test. The first page has 15 options: Sexuality, Native American, Weapons, Arab-Muslim, etc. PG chooses “Weapons (‘Weapons – Harmless Objects’ IAT). This IAT requires the ability to recognize White and Black faces, and images of weapons or harmless objects.)
The first thing to do is answer a questionnaire. You are asked how warm or cold you feel towards white people, and black people. There is a list of statements that you agree or disagree, slightly, moderately, or strongly. Some of these statements are: I think of myself as someone who has an assertive personality, I have considered being an entertainer.
The heart of the test uses photographs. There are pictures of black people, and pictures of white people. There are pictures of weapons, like a bayonet, a historic pistol, a hand grenade, and a battle ax. There are pictures of harmless objects, like a water bottle, tape recorder, camera, and can of Coca Cola. Many of these could be used a weapons; a can of Coca Cola could be thrown at someone. Many Police consider a camera a weapon.
The pictures are flashed on the screen. You hit the e key for the left side, and the i key for the right side. At first the two choices are kept separate, i.e. you choose black or white, weapon or harmless. Then the two groups are combined. The choice is left side black weapons, and right side white harmless. Then they shift sides, to black harmless and white weapons. You are shown a picture, and choose which category to put it in.
The last questionnaire is the demographics. Annual family income is not considered. Ethnicity refers to hispanic/latin, or non hispanic/latin. Religion, age, “political identity,” gender (only male or female,) and education are considered, among other factors.
The result: “Your data suggest a strong association of Black Americans with Weapons compared to White Americans. … The interpretation is described as ‘automatic association between weapons and White Americans’ if you responded faster when weapons and White American images were classified with the same key than when weapons and Black Americans were classified with the same key.”
Whatever. Maybe PG should take another test for comparison. Maybe this time, choose a subject where hateful judgement is not in your face everyday. Since the seminal article is about the hijab, maybe … “You have opted to complete the Arab Muslim – Other People IAT.”
The opening questionnaire is different.”I attempt to appear nonprejudiced toward Arab Muslims in order to avoid disapproval from others, NO spontaneous prejudiced thoughts come into my mind when I encounter an unfamiliar Arab Muslim.”
This test is different from the race test. Instead of photographs, words were used. For the two groups of people, we have names (seemingly all male.) Examples: Arab Muslim – Akbar, Ashraf, Habib – – Other People – Benoit, Philippe, Guillame. The other categories are Good and Bad. Examples: Good – Joy, Love, Peace – – Bad – Agony, Terrible, Horrible.
PG made more mistakes in the fancy part of the Arab test. He took a couple of breaks to take screen shots, one of which is included in this report. At times, he felt himself automatically blaming the Arabs for bad things. This did not happen, consciously, in the race/weapons test.
The result: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Other People and Arab Muslims. … This new test was prompted by the events of September 11, 2001. Suicide pilots, identified as Arab Muslims, crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. killing about 4,000 people.
While this may have some value to the ivory tower crowd, it does not tell PG much about himself. Arguably, IAT says more about the researchers than it does the respondents. It is doubtful that these tests will “find the areas of your perspective that need a little extra TLC.” Pictures from The Library of Congress. These pictures were not used in the IAT studied today.
RuPaul Has Striven
People are getting tired of talking about #transracial, or whatever that hairdo challenged woman was claiming to be today. An interview with RuPaul is usually more entertaining. Especially when a *possessive pronoun disputed* reality show is going to be shown in Great Britain, and needs promotion.The result: RuPaul: ‘Drag is dangerous. We are making fun of everything’
The article is about what you would expect. There was a comment about not wanting to drop “she-mail” from RPDR. This bit of language whimsy had the PC police on red alert. If you want to be old fashioned and read the article, just follow the link. The real fun starts in the comments. Pictures are from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library”.
Celtiberico Rebel who dressed like “boy who fell to Earth” Is Illuminati lizardmen conspiracy true?
The article Celtiberico links to is full of zesty quotes. “Drag Race is a brutal look at the underground world of radical homosexuality. Hosted by a lanky female serpent by the name of RuPaul … Drag Race is much more than a Gay Agenda plot to lure the heterosexual population into hardcore sodomy. By assaulting patriotic Christendom with seductively sensual transgenderism … It comes as no surprise, then, to learn that RuPaul ends each show with the ancient Freemasonic incantations of “Shan-te” and “Sa-che,” both of which are prayers spoken in the original Coptic and meant to invoke the Illuminati god of enchantment, Isis. … This unassailable evidence seems to suggest that Drag Race is an attempt to infect the media with viral images of shape-shifting sex vixens to make complete alien domination more comprehensible for the human race.”
BeckyP Although RuPaul has striven to make a positive contribution, and remains an excellent role model, the same cannot be said of Bruce Jenner..and yet Bruce Jenner appears on the front cover of Vanity Fair. Astonishing. Blythe Freeman Striven is a past participle, please rephrase. whood I strive. They strived. We are striving. They have striven. calm yourself down. RoyalSuperiority Aren’t both ‘has strived’ and ‘has striven’ equally acceptable here? Mihangelap “we strove” equally acceptable Pollik RuPaul? Positive role model? To whom? (Clue: it is not the trans community)
snecko Why not spend time being angry with people who disagree with you? I’d be willing to bet that, by and large, people involved in drag would share 99% of your worldview. I just don’t get this obsession of nitpicking at the habits of people who are essentially your comrades when there are actual bigots still out there. Drag’s ‘transmisogyny’ and racism, if it exists, is obviously not the intended message or the guiding values of the movement. To me, it seems to be about being who you want to be in a non-judgemental and loving atmosphere, which should be pretty groovy to anyone remotely on the left. I just don’t get why you would attempt to shit all over it for accidental transgressions which are debatable in the first place.
Pixles Counted Yep. The dress and all the makeup in the world cannot take all the chauvinism away from this kind of masculinist ideology. I’m sorry for whatever happened to you, Rupaul. You don’t have to follow the same cycle of abuse, you can choose to break the chains of violence. We are strong, and we don’t need your paternalistic neoliberal self-help philosophies to get us through the day. We have before you and we will after you. Step out of the way. georges1 Sorry, but who is this ‘we’? ArundelXVI Yeesh. Did RuPaul kick your dog or something?
vonZeppelinThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
bcnteacher Love Ru Paul but I am my own role model.
Toomuchstupidhere No, drag is boring and predictable – yesterday’s news. Trans is much more thought provoking. sUgadee I know this is the guardian, where British ignorance is highly valued and accepted, but the show has had a few trans contestants.
Sceptic101 I’m confused. The Guardian seems to habitually refer to transvestites, transsexuals, etc as ‘she’. Is this a new and realistic policy? chickenlover4 Either Ru specified to use the pronoun “he” or I think it’s a “he” because in the interview he is not in drag. If you’re in drag it would be “she” or “they”. I think pronouns are subjective to each individual and you just have to exercise sensitivity. People will forgive you for not using the correct pronoun. (PG is recovering from a run in with the pronoun police. *They* do not forgive.)
pineapplesage exhibitionist nihilism xesolor Self-gratifying troll.
Magnolia La Manga If drag is embarrassing these self-respecting gays (whatever that means), I think it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to…
HelloKittyFanClub I had to scroll to the top of the page for a moment to check if I was on the Daily Mail comments section. Some of you seriously need to get over yourselves; between the veiled and not so veiled homophobic comments and the negative know-it-alls you sure know how to drag (ho-ho) down a show that is all about fun, entertainment, light and love.
Rick Santorum Is Back
This is a double repost from a more innocent time. Former Senator Rick Santorum is running for President, again. Pictures are from The Library of Congress.
Rick Santorum is a former Senator from Pennsylvania. He wants to be President of the United States. If the voters of Pennsylvania fire you from the Senate, then you run for President. There is a certain logic to that. When you type “Rick Santorum weird” into google you get 989k results. Think Progress has a post with the prosaic title ” Rick Santorum’s 10 Weirdest Statements.”
Before we get to those, the ultimate Santorum weirdness (so far) is this quote from Letters to Gabriel, written by Karen Garver Santorum, the wife of the candidate. (Chamblee54 does not ordinarily hold personal tragedy up to ridicule. However, this is in the public record. The perp wrote a book. The children were 5, 3, and 1 at the time of this story.) The quote is from bs alert
“Santorum and his wife, Karen Garver Santorum, have six children. … In 1996, their son Gabriel Michael was born prematurely and lived for only two hours (a sonogram taken before Gabriel was born revealed that his posterior urethral valve was closed and that the prognosis for his survival was therefore poor). Karen Santorum wrote a book about the experience: Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum. In it, she writes that the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and introduced the dead child to their living children as “your brother Gabriel” and slept with the body overnight before returning him to the hospital.” And now, the rest of the top ten.
1. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be….If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” [4/2003]
2. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?” [5/22/2008]
3. On repeal of DADT: “I’m worried when many people will stand up and say, ‘well whatever the Generals want.’ I’m not too sure that we haven’t indoctrinated the Officer Corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decisions.” [2/20/2010]
4. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.” [1/19/2011]
5. “Marriage is an institution that’s a bridge too far for too many African-American woman and is not desirable among African-American males….I think [Obama] has to realize that flying to New York is…self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer.” [6/2/2009]
6. In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to….The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness. [‘It Takes A Family,’ 7/6/2005]
7. Santorum responded to the Pentagon’s decision rescind its invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at the upcoming National Day over his statement that Islam is “evil” by saying that Graham’s comment was “a reasonable statement at the time.” [3/23/2010]
8. “I think the Democrats are actually worried [Obama] may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” [3/23/2010]
9. “The creeping Sharia throughout Europe and here in this country and in Canada. The Islamization of Europe that is already on the way and will visit these shores not too soon is a concern for us and something that we need to identify and we need to talk about and we need to fight with ounce of our being. [2/28/2009]
10. “Now we have the Attorney General confirming to Osama bin Laden just bide your time and the effeminate and pampered Americans will cower away.” [2/28/2009]
Bonus If this is not enough, be sure to visit spreading Santorum. The more hits the site gets, the higher it’s google ranking is. The fun never stops.
The facebook friend (who is pretty cool in real life) started this adventure with this comment: “If one more person posts that bogus Santorum quote as fact, I will shoot myself. Satire is lovely, but not when people don’t even bother to fact check anymore. In other news, I’m out of cigarettes.”
This inspired three comments. “any negative publicity that brings that asshole into question is worth posting. God forbig anyone post any untruths about our President. Anyone should verify the source of any information beyond “saw it on the internet”. LOL In other news, I miss your face!””Google “bogus Santorum quote” and you get 98 million results.””I mean the one about gay porn and the Taliban going viral right now.”
Rick Santorum is a loose cannon. (The frothy mix is generally a loose product as well.) With a personality like that, it is tough to tell real from fake. With Americans dreading the rest of this Presidential campaign, it is only natural to exaggerate the strange things said by the former senator.
The offending misquote is: 
“While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Satorum Administration. I will ban all pornography. Especially gay pornography. Gay pornography is the reason people choose the gay lifestyle or what I call the deathstyle. If we got rid of that, homosexuality would be gone within a matter of months. This is one of only a few things I see eye to eye on with the Taliban.”
The top result is from that trusty advertiser of insurance products, snopes. “The quote cited in the Example block at the head of this page about “banning all pornography — specially gay pornography” is not something that was actually stated by Rick Santorum; it’s a spoof combining elements from the candidate’s above-cited statement on pornography and his previously expressed views on homosexuality. This item originated as a graphic image posted on Facebook to the Presidential Quotes section of Americans for a More American America, a political satire site.”
With the exception of the attached gif, the rest of the first page results were boring. Glenn Beck was listed, but PG cannot find any Santorum. It might blend in.
Howard Zinn
Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present, spent an hour talking on Booknotes. This is a C-SPAN show, with author interviews. The show aired March 12, 2000. Later that night was a show about the 2000 election, featuring Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. The role Mr. Nader would play in the November election was unimaginable in March.
The first serious job Mr. Zinn had was World War II. He served in the Air Force. Towards the end of the war, “we bombed a little French town on the Atlantic coast called Royon… `We’re not going to use regular demolition bombs. We have something new. We w–you’re going–instead of dropping our usual 12 500-pound demolition bombs, you’re going to drop 30 100-pound canisters of jel—jellied gasoline.’ It was napalm–the first use of napalm in the European theater.”
Later, Mr. Zinn thought about it all. “And it didn’t s–the–the thing is you’d bomb from 30,000 feet. You don’t see what’s happening down there. You don’t see people suffering. You don’t see people burning. You don’t see limbs falling. You–you just see little flashes in the–in the d–in the dark, you know. And—and you go back, and you’re debriefed and you don’t think about it. And it’s horrifying.
Later–only later did I begin to think about it, and I was horrified by what I had done, and I’m still horrified by what I did. But I think that had an effect on my thinking about war, because here I was in the best of wars. And I believed it was the best of wars because I volunteered for it. A war against fascism? I mean, how could you find a more bestial enemy? And yet it’s a–it complicated the war for me. It complicated the morality of the war, and it made me begin to think that war itself is evil. Even when it starts with good cause, even when the enemy is horrible, that there’s something about war, especially in our time when war inevitably involves indiscriminate killing … war simply cannot be accepted morally as a solution for whatever problems are in the world.
Whatever tyranny, whatever borders are crossed, whatever problems there are, somehow human ingenuity has to find a way to deal with that without the indiscriminate killing that war involves.”
Brian Lamb is the host of Booknotes. He speaks non theatrically, often with questions that are very different from the narrative presented by the author. After this talk about war, the question was “LAMB: What would you have done had you been president and those bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor? Mr. ZINN: That’s the toughest question I’ve ever faced. I … And–and I confess, I–I–I haven’t worked out an alternative scenario.
PHOTUS is known for taking a non-heroic view of our history. Regarding the US Constitution, “When they set up the new government, when they set up the new Constitution, I mean, they set up a strong, central government which will be able to legislate on behalf of bondholders and slaveholders and manufacturers and Western land speculators.”
Mr. Zinn does not discuss The War Between The States on this show. (PG has not read PHOTUS, and does not know how WBTS is treated.) This was a case where the central government was favoring the industrial interests, at the expense of the agricultural interests. How much of that conflict was economic, with abolition serving as a moral fig leaf?
After the war, Mr. Zinn went back to school. A job appeared at Spelman College, and he worked there seven years. After that, he taught at Boston University for 24 years. His next door neighbor was five year old Matt Damon, who later read the audiobook version of PHOTUS.
There is one more bit of amusement from the transcript. Mr. ZINN:`For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in American high school history books but not its record in world affairs. It had opposed the Haitian revolution for independence from France at the start of the 19th century. It had instituted a war with Mexico and taken half the country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and rights of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an open-door policy in China as a means of assuring the United States would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations to assert Western supremacy in China and kept them from–kept them for over 30 years.’ LAMB: There’s a lot more in here about Colombia and Haiti and Nicaragua. Is this country at–this sounds like I’m–I’m arguing here, but has this country done anything right?
This is a repost. Pictures today are from The Library of Congress
The Death Of Jimi Hendrix
The current episode of WTF podcast features Marshall Crenshaw, a Jimi Hendrix fan. He discusses reports that Mr. Hendrix was murdered by Michael Jeffrey, his manager. This is a repost.
“The rock legend Jimi Hendrix was murdered by his manager, who stood to collect millions of dollars on the star’s life insurance policy, a former roadie has claimed in a new book. James “Tappy” Wright says that Hendrix’s manager, Michael Jeffrey, drunkenly confessed to killing him by stuffing pills into his mouth and washing them down with several bottles of red wine because he feared Hendrix intended to dump him for a new manager, according to a report in the Mail on Sunday. In his book, Rock Roadie, Mr Wright says Jeffrey told him in 1971 that Hendrix had been “worth more to him dead than alive” as he had taken out a life insurance policy on the musician worth $2m (about £1.2m at the time), with himself as the beneficiary. Two years later, Jeffrey was killed in a plane crash.
These rumors have been around for years. Whenever someone famous dies under mysterious circumstances, people wonder why. If you google the phrase “was Jimi Hendrix…” the suggested searches are left handed, a hippie, black, and murdered.
Mr. Wright’s story is denied by Bob Levine, the United States manager of Mr. Hendrix. He says Mr. Wright waited until 2009 to tell this tale, and he did it to increase book sales. Mr. Levine is legally blind after suffering a stroke. Bob Levine and Tappy Wright are not friends.
“The Orlando-based Wright says the ex-manager (Levine) “wanted me to baby-sit him” because Levine’s alienated his family and staff. “Levine used to say, ‘If you don’t come through, I’m going to slag your book,'” claims Wright, who adds that he has a “signed and notarized” statement from Levine saying that “it’s about time somebody wrote the truth about Jimi’s death. He also did a video interview.” Levine denies Wright’s claims. Levine says he is legally blind from his stroke but has “people taking care of me.” Levine adds that he didn’t discuss Hendrix’s death in the video and has no recollection of signing the notarized statement. Asked why he chose to speak out about the book now, Levine says: “Tappy dared me. He said, ‘There’s no one left to challenge me.'” Adds Wright, “I’m just correcting the story.”
There is a story from an physician who was at the hospital when Jimi Hendrix was brought in.
“John Bannister the on-call registrar at the now closed St Mary Abbots Hospital in Kensington, said in an interview that the patient seemed to have “drowned” in a large amount of red wine.” The last paragraph of the Telegraph story is an amusing post script. “Bannister now lives in Sydney and worked as a doctor until 1992 when he was deregistered for fraudulent conduct.”
Everyone in this story is either dead or sketchy. Michael Jeffrey seems to have been a nasty piece of work. He was a former intelligence agent for Britain’s MI6 agency. There are reports of stolen money, numbered bank accounts, and gangster business tactics. Reportedly, Mr. Hendrix was busy getting new management. The last paragraph of the blog critics story is perhaps the most intriguing.
“Michael Jeffery reportedly perished in a plane crash over France in 1973. But his remains were never found. Eric Burdon, Noel Redding, and others believe he may have checked luggage but slipped away during the boarding process. Jeffery was due in London court the very next day to defend himself in several huge lawsuits relating to his embezzlement, money laundering, and fraud.”
Thomas Jefferson Said What?
PG was wasting time with facebook when he saw a friend say “Damn I love this quote”. The passage being praised was “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Desmond Tutu. The rhetoric alert started to flash. These days, the wolf and the sheep buy their clothes at the same Walmart. To hear some oppressors talk, they are the ones under attack. It is tough to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Often you can make things worse by getting mixed up. Sometimes the best thing to do is mind your own business.
Ok, now that is out of the way. Some lines sound good, but don’t hold up to a bit of thinking. As for the veracity of the quote, Desmond Tutu may very well have said it. (or maybe one of his rivals said it, and Mr. Tutu copied it.) The quote has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke, Patrick Henry, and probably others. Almost no one has a source, for the quote, from the dead white guys.
A post called MISQUOTING THE FOUNDERS did not mince words. “The only problem with this scene that has been repeated many times across the country is that Thomas Jefferson never said that, never wrote that, and quite possibly never thought it. Our aspiring politician had fallen victim to the perils of popular misattribution. You could fill a book with misquotes and misattributed quotes we hear repeated regularly today. Right now if I Google “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent” the entire first page of results wrongly attribute it to Thomas Jefferson. The quote and its many variants have been attributed in the past to Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke, but no record exists of the quote in any of their writings or contemporary accounts.”
On November 13, 1787, Mr. Jefferson wrote a letter to William Smith. The letter is full of zesty quotes. “What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
A few lines above that, Mr. Jefferson said “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.” Twenty years after he wrote this, Mr. Jefferson was President. He probably did not want to deal with a revolution when he was President.
Getting back to the quote about tyranny, Martin Porter wrote an entertaining essay, A study of a Web quotation. He gives credit, or blame, to Edmund Burke. First, a list of different versions is presented. This is a clue that something is awry. The conclusion: “There is no original. The quote is bogus, and Burke never said it. It is a pseudo-quote, and corresponds to real quotes in the same way that urban legends about the ghost hitch-hiker vanishing in the back of the car and alligators in the sewers correspond to true news stories.”
Mr. Porter wrote a follow up essay, Four Principles of Quotation. These principles are: Principle 1 (for readers) Whenever you see a quotation given with an author but no source assume that it is probably bogus. Principle 2 (for readers) Whenever you see a quotation given with a full source assume that it is probably being misused, unless you find good evidence that the quoter has read it in the source. Principle 3 (for quoters) Whenever you make a quotation, give the exact source. Principle 4 (for quoters) Only quote from works that you have read.
If these principles were to be used, then there would be a lot less hotheaded talking on the intercom. Those who are trying to influence you to the justice of their cause will not want you to read this. Pictures for this feature are from The Library of Congress. These pictures are Union soldiers, from the War Between the States. When war is discussed, all inspiring quotes are in doubt.
This is a repost. It is written like James Joyce. In the past year, doing due diligence on alleged quotes has become a hobby. Many people don’t care who said it, if they agree with the thoughts expressed. The prevailing thought is that an idea becomes more true with a famous name at the end. If the famous person is deceased, and cannot defend his/her reputation, that is not a problem. People do not like being told that Santa Claus does not exist.
Chamblee54 
leave a comment