@legacy-fan said:

I disagree. Both can be fixed (at least helped/repaired tremendously) with one word: Accountability. But you could be right in that we wont ever be given that responsibility. Uncle Sam is turning/has turned into Father Sam.

Accountability seems to mean scapegoating these days.

For instance.

Romeo Crennell seems to be a decent man who did what he thought was best to make his team a success.

If he were to be terminated and his contract summarily discarded wouldn't you think it was unfair?

Is it different than the CEO?

In government it takes hunddreds of quite probably well meaning people to do anything.

On the other side are hundres of naysayers, just in case whatever happens doesn't work out perfectly.

WSS

mz. said:

Maybe. Perhaps our current economic hiccup (seizure?) is the type of wake-up call that will re-introduce personal accountability (maybe not total) into our conscious.

Awesome sig pic, btw. I am reminded of one of those obscene inspritational posters that has an equally large family and says, "It's a (insert common female reproductive organ), not a clown car."

@legacy-fan said:

I think accountability as a overarching notion in this country is as dead as Dillinger. People (society as a whole, not every single person as an individual, obviously) have been too comfortable for too damn long for total personal accountability to be anything but a thing of the past.

Sure.

But I consider myself a pretty decent guy and the latter two things bother me.

Those things should also bother anybody whose accomplisments might be tarnished because of them.

Yes but the rhetoric you would use to express your discontent is a world apart from what those groups with 3 alliterative initials would use.

But we can still argue about the other stuff.

The economy and healthcare as out of our hands as I see it.

WSS

I disagree. Both can be fixed (at least helped/repaired tremendously) with one word: Accountability. But you could be right in that we wont ever be given that responsibility. Uncle Sam is turning/has turned into Father Sam.

@legacy-fan said:

Sure.

But I consider myself a pretty decent guy and the latter two things bother me.

Those things should also bother anybody whose accomplisments might be tarnished because of them.

I mean I understand he was trying to have a little fun & get rhyme'y but, modernize it, Rev. "Yellow man"??? I don't even think my Granddad says that anymore. "Attack" the problems of today, not 40 years ago. Or better yet, rather than promoting division, understand the significance of the moment, of the achievement, and talk about the nation locking arms & shouting "Red rover, red rover send the economy over. Send Healthcare over, send Energy crisis over... Let's fix this crap."

Or something equally as corny.

I dont know.

But we can still argue about the other stuff.

The economy and healthcare as out of our hands as I see it.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

I think if a similar speech had been made by a white minister he would be called a "crazy hate machine."

C'mon Leg, praise a few racial groups includijng Whites and then suggest Blacks need to "get right?"

WSS

What I am concerned about isn't the instructions in his message, or whether he is praising specific groups while chastising others. I brought up Wallace before because it would be like hearing the "Segregation then, now, & always" speech again. Or praising Jim Crow laws. Those groups of people have moved on from that and are now "attacking" Affirmative Action, Welfare careers, etc.

I mean I understand he was trying to have a little fun & get rhyme'y but, modernize it, Rev. "Yellow man"??? I don't even think my Granddad says that anymore. "Attack" the problems of today, not 40 years ago. Or better yet, rather than promoting division, understand the significance of the moment, of the achievement, and talk about the nation locking arms & shouting "Red rover, red rover send the economy over. Send Healthcare over, send Energy crisis over... Let's fix this crap."

Or something equally as corny.

I dont know.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

That sounds about right. She probably said it to him when he taught you those things too!

@damajuki said:

[You being the straw man?

How could the "situation" POSSIBLY be "reversed"?

You mean if people with darker skin tones who hailed from Africa enslaved and murdered millions of people of lighter skin tone who hailed from Europe?

Because that would be the "situation reversed" and nothing else.

Sorry.

I never enslaved anyone. Never killed one for that matter.

But if you look at Black on White crime statistics over my lifetime you'd see Whites are on the bad end.

How about if someone insulted the Japanese? Germans?

You cool with that?

So what are you talking about exactly?

Oh, right. Nothing that anybody else is talking about. True to form.

Actually if you can or will read I had some examples.

Anyway, since Steve likes to pretend he knows how I'd react to things that couldn't possibly be true to begin with (like his ridiculous straw man, above), I feel the need to clarify how I ACTUALLY feel about this sort of thing for those who actually read (and care about) what I type.

Maybe I don't know.

But so far it seems I've guessed correctly eh?

Depending on party allegiance you defend one unsavory action over a similar one.

Then you bitch.

Lowery's line is fine by me coming from him because he's earned the right to chastise anyone he wants, whenever he wants.

So anyone who has experienced a problem with someone of any other race is cool to be racist?

That said, I think it was exceptionally poor timing for that sort of thing and it did take away from the moment for me.

In that sense, I agree with Leg's broader point about Lowery not respecting the time or place.

But was it enough for me to condemn the man or ruin the occasion? No, not even close.

And I'd say the same thing if the "situation" was "reversed", too.

We'll likely never know.

I don't guess the next White president will have race as the focus of his presidency.

WSS

@diehardbrownsfan said:

The original message means: "for shame" or "shame on you", by the way.

Just so no one thinks I was DieHard'ing ol' DieHard.

How could the "situation" POSSIBLY be "reversed"?

You mean if people with darker skin tones who hailed from Africa enslaved and murdered millions of people of lighter skin tone who hailed from Europe?

Because that would be the "situation reversed" and nothing else.

So what are you talking about exactly?

Oh, right. Nothing that anybody else is talking about. True to form.

Anyway, since Steve likes to pretend he knows how I'd react to things that couldn't possibly be true to begin with (like his ridiculous straw man, above), I feel the need to clarify how I ACTUALLY feel about this sort of thing for those who actually read (and care about) what I type.

Lowery's line is fine by me coming from him because he's earned the right to chastise anyone he wants, whenever he wants.

That said, I think it was exceptionally poor timing for that sort of thing and it did take away from the moment for me.

In that sense, I agree with Leg's broader point about Lowery not respecting the time or place.

But was it enough for me to condemn the man or ruin the occasion? No, not even close.

And I'd say the same thing if the "situation" was "reversed", too.

@legacy-fan said:

When has the situation been reversed where the instigator of said situation is not or was not immediately written off as a crazy machine a la David Duke?

Well I think you answered your own question Leg.

I think if a similar speech had been made by a white minister he would be called a "crazy hate machine."

C'mon Leg, praise a few racial groups includijng Whites and then suggest Blacks need to "get right?"

Do you think Howard Cosell is a crazy hate machine?

How about Jimmy the Greek who spoke of slave trade in the exact same way Ali, Foreman and Joe Frazier did?

Even when Cosby and Obama suggest that Black people quit blaming the White man they get attacked do they not?

When Bill Clinton pointed out that Jesse Jackson won a primary wasn't he blasted for it?

As for my own take it isn't a positive thing but I do understand that that division is profitable.

If you and Dama see it otherwise, that's life I guess.

WSS

I disagree.

When has the situation been reversed where the instigator of said situation is not or was not immediately written off as a crazy machine a la David Duke?

@diehardbrownsfan said:

True enough.

Then they get huffy when it's pointed out.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

I feel many of these guys on the left are as racist as anybody they love to accuse but we ought to leave that crap to XXXX the guy who started it.

That said there's not a doubt that old Dama would be bitching if the situation had been reversed.

WSS

Agreed. It's amazing the response my comment generated though. No one seems to care when the situation is reversed.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Hey DH, I think I'm to the right of some of these guys but the wigger shit is out of line.

I feel many of these guys on the left are as racist as anybody they love to accuse but we ought to leave that crap to XXXX the guy who started it.

That said there's not a doubt that old Dama would be bitching if the situation had been reversed.

WSS

Right back at you.

@damajuki said:

Anybody offended by that statement that was offended by Lowery's statement? Anyone?

DieHard: sram te bilo.

Zdravo Kako si?

@damajuki said:

Anybody offended by that statement that was offended by Lowery's statement? Anyone?

DieHard: sram te bilo.

Considering I pay as much attention to diehard as Shawn Kemp pays to his 11 or so children..

But to answer the question, everything he says usually offends me, and I've given up. However, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he wont be asked to speak at any inaugurations in the future.

I guess my reaction was a total day of/day after frustration thing. I know Lowery's not speaking for an entire race of people (or I dont know - that could be part of my frustration), but it almost felt like he was complaining. Almost. How do you not sit back & enjoy the moment? Have race relations been that bad in the last 40 years that he was/ is incapable of accepting a victory? I don't think so. While they were absolutely that bad in the 60's & before, you can't argue that huge improvements haven't been made since then. Is it a defense mechanism? Or will he (& others) never be happy with the situation no matter how positive it is?

And again, excuse my absolute terminology: the "winning, victory, etc." I don't know how else to describe it though.

p.s. And thanks a pantload, Al, for making me feel as insane as Olbermann.

@legacy-fan said:

I agree it was the wrong place and the wrong time, but for him it was the opposite it was the right place at the right time to say it.

He was center stage and had the audience of millions around the world, and with his remarks he stole the show. It was a sound bite to be remembered. (Selfish man)

@legacy-fan said:

My beef was & still is, that he is focusing on the past. You lived it, and fought it. Guess what, that "other guy" we were celebrating on Monday (remember him?) died for it.

Dr. King's struggles, your struggles, Rosa's struggles and - here's the important part - ya'll's victories are what paved the way for what occured on November 4th and Tuesday at noon. Dont take a shit on that achievement by "preaching" like you would have back then. Look at the accomplishment of the present, and look to the future.

It's the equivalent of having George Wallace speak at Bush 2's inauguration. It's just so dated and stale for me, is all. It's not playing the "race card" but it's the guy at the table who folds before the flop on every hand. Dude, just quit coming over and playing if you aren't going to play.

And juke - his text of the speech wasn't really the problem I had (as I knew he had used it before and am coming to understand he's used the ending quite often). It was the context. Wrong place, wrong time.

Thanks, Leg. Well put and I agree with your sentiment, just not the level of reaction to Lowery's comments. Though your reasonable and strong argument is both convincing and welcome in these parts.

@legacy-fan said:

My beef was & still is, that he is focusing on the past. You lived it, and fought it. Guess what, that "other guy" we were celebrating on Monday (remember him?) died for it.

You're welcome, and I get your point. To be honest, I thought it was a little inartful of him to include it in his speech (though I didn't think it was such a big deal).

On the other hand, John Roberts is a fraud and a hack. Harvard should strip him of both of his degrees from that august liberal fascist institution. His poor short-term memory almost sent our republic into a constitutional crisis!

The only honorable thing for him to do would be to resign.

Ben Affleck does a much better Olbermann than Olbermann.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

You are right, him living through lots of racism doesn't give him the right to say racist things. The US constitution does. I don't really see why people care so much about this.