User loginNavigationLive Discussions
Most popular threads
For entertainment onlyBlog linksA Skeptical Blog NathanNewman.org Tech Notes |
Google searchTip jarDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Link CollectionsNews sourcesOn CultureReality checksThe Public LibraryWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 229 guests online.
Online users:
...Syndicate |
Who's side are you on?Iby Prometheus 6
July 20, 2003 - 12:49am. on Old Site Archive Who's side are you on? I can see RSS feeds are going to be interesting. First, a bit of prologue. A while back I posted a bit about the DNC explaining their decision to lay off a bunch of folks, all of whom just happened to be Black. The article I quoted wasfrom a site I'd never been to before, NewMax…and I can see you all smirking, so just shut up. In the post I noted the language they chose and asked, "This is a right wing site, right?" A number of people gently informed me how great a understatement that was. Since then I've been a bit more careful about posting stuff from unfamiliar "news" sites. Okay. After installing Feedreader I subscribed to Moreover's Black Interest News (of course). Last update I got this real interesting headline: In make-up speech recommends NAACP boss with no law degree. Curious as to what it's about, I read the article, which says: A few days after being declared "persona non grata" by the NAACP, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman suggested in a speech to the group that its leader, Kweisi Mfume, would make a good Supreme Court justice, the New Republic reported.
Mfume, however, has never been to law school. Something strikes me wrong about this. The site is one I'd never read before…WorldNetDaily, and I can see you all smirking so just shut up. I look around a bit before I decide to post this thing. I see an interview with the Coulter thing. Okay, but the NY Times had an article about it and I still post their stuff, so this isn't fatal. Then I see a column by one Kyle Williams, a potato faced, home-programmed 14 year old rhetoric spout saying nonsense like: You do not have a right to education.
You do not have a right to good food, though welfare is attempting to take care of that. In the midst of problems in the economy, we hear from politicians who speak of a "right" to employment. There is no right to a good job. What is the common problem with all of these so-called "rights"? Each one requires that the government facilitate and provide for these "rights" – something that is not the government's role. The issue is not that providing food, health care, employment and education is a problem, except for it being unconstitutional. The issue is that if a government were to provide these social services, it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator in quality. Just look at health care in Britain and Canada – it's a wreck. Looking at the quality of the rest of our government, I somehow don't see how food and government-funded nutrition would be any better. Additionally, it's insane to say that we all have a right to employment unless you want to open up the possibility that everyone work for federal and state governments. FDR took a stab at it, but our government was never intended to create and retain programs that employ millions. Lastly, America is already an example of what happens when we look at education as a human right – our government educational system is in shambles. This is fatal. But did Lieberman really say this? I'm kind of amazed. They're attributing the report to The New Republic, and we're not in the habit of setting ourselves up are we? So I turn to "Google News: The Blogger's Friend" and search on "lieberman naacp supreme court." 182 hits, and the first four, in order are from NewsMax, ChronWatch (whoever they are), WorldNetDaily and TNR. And when I got to TNR, I get this: 07.17.03
LIEBERMAN GOES TOO FAR Candidate: Joe Lieberman Joe Lieberman obviously made a mistake when he skipped the July 13 candidate forum the NAACP held at its annual convention--a move that prompted NAACP president Kweisi Mfume to declare him (along with fellow no-shows Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich) "persona non grata" in the black community. It therefore made sense for Lieberman to try to make amends by calling Mfume the next day to apologize and then, two days after that, to travel to Miami to give a make-up speech to the convention. But Lieberman's actual speech took things way too far. After offering the NAACP another apology for skipping the candidates' forum and then ticking off his own civil rights credentials, Lieberman praised the NAACP for its work during the Florida recount. That's when things became absurd. "We didn't realize at the time, Al Gore and I, that we not only needed Kweisi Mfume fighting for justice here in Florida counting votes," Lieberman said, "we need him on the Supreme Court where the votes really counted. Maybe that'll happen some day." So Lieberman--a man who once questioned affirmative action--is now saying that he'll put Kweisi Mfume--a man who, according to his biography on the NAACP website, has not even attended law school--on the Supreme Court? Nothing like compounding an initial mistake. posted 2:33 p.m. and in response, this: 07.18.03
LIEBERMAN'S CAMPAIGN RESPONDS The Lieberman Campaign appreciates Jason Zengerle's appreciation of Joe Lieberman's public acknowledgment he made a mistake in not attending the NAACP conference. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, Joe Lieberman has no problem accepting responsibility for his actions. We did not appreciate, however, Zengerle's lack of appreciation of the joke Lieberman told about having Kweisi Mfume on the Supreme Court. It's a shame Zengerle was not in the room--he would have clearly seen that this was no effort of overcompensation, but a nod to the unfairness of the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 that was delivered in jest and received as such. In fact, if Zengerle had bothered to check, he would have found that this is a joke that Lieberman has frequently used in the past--most recently at the Human Rights Campaign forum on Tuesday, with Elizabeth Birch as the mock justice. In light of this, we humbly suggest that TNR put out an APB for its funny bone. posted 11:39 a.m. Let's let pass the fact that Mr. Lieberman's joke isn't funny; this isn't some sort of heated reference to indicate I'm insulted or anything, I'm saying if this is the best he has he needs a new joke writer. My question is, what the hell is TNR thinking? You have to realize when a news organ that purports to be pro-Democratic feeds sites like NewsMax and WorldNetDaily something is decidedly wrong with their spin. It's like they want to chase Mr. Lieberman away from any leftward trajectory at all. Given that their "Primary" page has links to the candidates' campaign sites except for Mosely-Braun's, Sharpton's and Kucinich's, this is a strong possibility. It is also a stupidity. Lieberman is as far left as he's ever going to be. I'm shutting down Feedreader for the night. It just shipped me another bunch of interesting headlines and if I even glance at them I'll be up all night. [Listening to: The first flight (HOUSEMUSIQUE - Deep Underground House Grooves from NETMUSIQUE) - Physics]
|