I voted for Nixon in 1972, my first election, so I want to remind people that LBJs failure were mixed with real and heroic achievements in Civil Rights. And Nixon's failures were also mixed with environmental policies and even affirmative action. Today we see something entirely different where one party is not completely divorced from honesty and honest policy.
Medicare. The Voting Rights Act. I marched in DC in the freezing cold chanting, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” with several thousand of my closest friends, but I always gave him props for those.
Bill, I’m an older Boomer like you. And no Administration until now, no President, no Congress has been so dismissive of the rule of law. And the Chief Justice appears to be a quivering coward. And the legacy media is failing us. And yet there’s a sturdy half the country who steadfastly refuse to bend the knee, as well as principled, eloquent leaders like Pritzker, Buttigieg, Raskin, and others standing strong. Is this half-and-half brew sustainable?
Probably not, given that the administration has de-fanged the DOJ, taken over the Supreme Court, is expanding ICE as a masked personal militia, and the Secretary of Defense is an abject, groveling toady. The half of the country that refuses to bend the knee is despised by the administration (scum! lunatics!) cannot sustain itself if the powers in charge decide to rule by force.
Chief Justice Roberts is worse than a quivering coward. He is an active, willing participant in dismantling our Constitutional rule of law. I’d go so far as to say he is a traitor, granting immunity to a president and making equivalence between money and speech.
I agree on Roberts but what do you say about Thomas? I think he is of our generation who benefited immensely from then middle and working class privileges we fought for but has rotted from the inside out as a result of his greed, hubris and lack of ideals. I was always dismayed at the obvious lack of character that got him so far in the establishment. Perhaps the very thing he hated, affirmative action is the only thing that put him in position to vent his bitterness now.
What you wrote is exactly what I would say about Thomas. Maybe he’s somewhat more wretched than Roberts as a human being because he knows what it’s like, first hand, to be denied human rights,and then he perpetrates that on others. My adult daughter and I constantly marvel how often the very worst humans rise to the top. Reverse Darwinism.
I’m unsure if Roberts is a supplicant, or a mastermind. I don’t know his past in detail, but I’ve read some disturbing clues that he’s not been a straight shooter when it comes to our democracy, for a long time.
One thing that amazes me, is Judge Luttig used to count Roberts as a friend. I’d like to learn more about that evolution.
You saw a quote of Kirk saying that the civil right act was a mistake, but his followers heard him say that following a long discussion of how black communities were objectively doing better economically, and black family structures were stronger, prior to its passing. Kirk “got away” with saying it because he was arguing that the civil rights act actually hurt black families and set their communities back economically. It wasn’t in the context of anything racist, even if you don’t agree with his point.
I think that people with more education, more interest in civil rights than Kirk could weigh in on whether Black Americans were harmed by passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
At a minimum Kirk made some very provocative statements.
Kirk believed that the black community was doing much better economically before forced integration. He also believed the black family structure was more intact before.
Funny that, one could say the Trump administration is starting a redo of segregation at the university level as we speak. I read today that something like $500 million of student aid earmarked for minorities is being canceled and diverted as grants to HBCU’s and Native American Tribal Schools. This means that if you are Black you can get more financial aid or better services at an HBCU than at a state university, and ditto is you’re Native American (stay on the reservation, it’s better there). Latino and Hispanic students are out of luck altogether.
This might just be me being cynical and suspicious, but when the government diverts financial aid for minorities to schools that are just for those same minorities, it’s an incentive for the targeted students to go to the school assigned to them, and not to go to a school where they will create a more diverse student population. A return to segregation?
He essentially claimed it led to our country being anti-White. He also claimed MLK was a bad guy. The irony appears to be both King & Kirk died for their beliefs.
His criticisms of King were of his personal failings. The context was King’s biographer claiming that King had witnessed and ignored the sexual assault of women.
He was clearly a White Supremacist and opposed to civil rights. So I suspect White Nationalist Replacement Theory means "Whites rule, all other colors are slaves unto Whites."
Awhile back, when I first became aware of Kevin Roberts (Federalist? Heritage?) I looked into his background. He has a PHD from U of T Austin. His dissertation was a compare and contrast of slavery as it was found in Louisiana, his home state, the rest of the US, and in Latin America, focusing on differences which he believed turned on different legal foundations and different religions--and pre-King Cotton vs post. It is very well done, and very interesting, but I came away with the suspicion that he thinks slavery can we done well.
I lived in Charleston SC for many years. The “native” rich, white descendants of the original white settlers who lived in the “below Broad” inherited wealth (at that time) area’s battle cry was “Please God, give us another 1862 and we promise not to mess it up this time”.
I’m guessing he’d have preferred to go back to the 3/5 rule, and would determine whether you belonged in that based on your skin color (there would be a chart, like a Home Depot paint sample card) and a literacy test as a back-up (sample question: How many bubbles in a bar of soap?). You know, like the good ol’ days.
That's a bit of a gap in his stated opinions. From what I can tell, he believed that the Civil Rights Act was DEI's nose under the tent. So he's anti DEI, and anti having the guvmint in your business.
For what it's worth, I'm anti DEi *because of* the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I voted for Nixon in 1972, my first election, so I want to remind people that LBJs failure were mixed with real and heroic achievements in Civil Rights. And Nixon's failures were also mixed with environmental policies and even affirmative action. Today we see something entirely different where one party is not completely divorced from honesty and honest policy.
I recently watched a documentary about LBJ on PBS. I agree with you. LBJ got some stuff done, including his war on poverty. Vietnam sunk his chances.
Medicare. The Voting Rights Act. I marched in DC in the freezing cold chanting, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” with several thousand of my closest friends, but I always gave him props for those.
Bill, I’m an older Boomer like you. And no Administration until now, no President, no Congress has been so dismissive of the rule of law. And the Chief Justice appears to be a quivering coward. And the legacy media is failing us. And yet there’s a sturdy half the country who steadfastly refuse to bend the knee, as well as principled, eloquent leaders like Pritzker, Buttigieg, Raskin, and others standing strong. Is this half-and-half brew sustainable?
Probably not, given that the administration has de-fanged the DOJ, taken over the Supreme Court, is expanding ICE as a masked personal militia, and the Secretary of Defense is an abject, groveling toady. The half of the country that refuses to bend the knee is despised by the administration (scum! lunatics!) cannot sustain itself if the powers in charge decide to rule by force.
I had hopes for Roberts when SCOTUS ruled that the ACA Universal Mandate was a tax, and therefore legal. I don't know what happened to him.
Chief Justice Roberts is worse than a quivering coward. He is an active, willing participant in dismantling our Constitutional rule of law. I’d go so far as to say he is a traitor, granting immunity to a president and making equivalence between money and speech.
I agree on Roberts but what do you say about Thomas? I think he is of our generation who benefited immensely from then middle and working class privileges we fought for but has rotted from the inside out as a result of his greed, hubris and lack of ideals. I was always dismayed at the obvious lack of character that got him so far in the establishment. Perhaps the very thing he hated, affirmative action is the only thing that put him in position to vent his bitterness now.
What you wrote is exactly what I would say about Thomas. Maybe he’s somewhat more wretched than Roberts as a human being because he knows what it’s like, first hand, to be denied human rights,and then he perpetrates that on others. My adult daughter and I constantly marvel how often the very worst humans rise to the top. Reverse Darwinism.
Freud called that 'Identifying with the aggressor', one particularly brilliant concept I think.
Thank you; that’s a new one for me. It sounds a bit like Stockholm syndrome.
Wonder if Trump “has something” on him?
He was, after all, schooled by Roy Cohn.
It just seems truly weird that Roberts has become a kind of supplicant.
I’m unsure if Roberts is a supplicant, or a mastermind. I don’t know his past in detail, but I’ve read some disturbing clues that he’s not been a straight shooter when it comes to our democracy, for a long time.
One thing that amazes me, is Judge Luttig used to count Roberts as a friend. I’d like to learn more about that evolution.
Thank you, Terry. I also thought that "failed" was an... let's say incomplete assessment of both presidencies.
Today, I read that one of Charlie Kirks's pet peeves was the Civil Rights Act of 1964"--"a big mistake."
How did Kirk get away with saying that?
Because his followers heard him say those things in context and not in soundbites.
Could you explain further?
You saw a quote of Kirk saying that the civil right act was a mistake, but his followers heard him say that following a long discussion of how black communities were objectively doing better economically, and black family structures were stronger, prior to its passing. Kirk “got away” with saying it because he was arguing that the civil rights act actually hurt black families and set their communities back economically. It wasn’t in the context of anything racist, even if you don’t agree with his point.
I think that people with more education, more interest in civil rights than Kirk could weigh in on whether Black Americans were harmed by passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
At a minimum Kirk made some very provocative statements.
Kirk got away with that because he was also saying much worse things. Like all of them: “Flood the zone with sh*t”.
Your link leads to email. Here’s the proper link (I started subscribing to him the other days).
https://glennkessler.substack.com/p/did-charlie-kirk-really-say-that
Yikes! For a second there I thought it was into my actual inbox...Thx.
Thanks for the link.
Yes. What alternative idea did he have? Permanent segregation?
Kirk believed that the black community was doing much better economically before forced integration. He also believed the black family structure was more intact before.
Funny that, one could say the Trump administration is starting a redo of segregation at the university level as we speak. I read today that something like $500 million of student aid earmarked for minorities is being canceled and diverted as grants to HBCU’s and Native American Tribal Schools. This means that if you are Black you can get more financial aid or better services at an HBCU than at a state university, and ditto is you’re Native American (stay on the reservation, it’s better there). Latino and Hispanic students are out of luck altogether.
This might just be me being cynical and suspicious, but when the government diverts financial aid for minorities to schools that are just for those same minorities, it’s an incentive for the targeted students to go to the school assigned to them, and not to go to a school where they will create a more diverse student population. A return to segregation?
He essentially claimed it led to our country being anti-White. He also claimed MLK was a bad guy. The irony appears to be both King & Kirk died for their beliefs.
His criticisms of King were of his personal failings. The context was King’s biographer claiming that King had witnessed and ignored the sexual assault of women.
I assumed it was his marital unfaithfulness. Thx.
He was clearly a White Supremacist and opposed to civil rights. So I suspect White Nationalist Replacement Theory means "Whites rule, all other colors are slaves unto Whites."
Awhile back, when I first became aware of Kevin Roberts (Federalist? Heritage?) I looked into his background. He has a PHD from U of T Austin. His dissertation was a compare and contrast of slavery as it was found in Louisiana, his home state, the rest of the US, and in Latin America, focusing on differences which he believed turned on different legal foundations and different religions--and pre-King Cotton vs post. It is very well done, and very interesting, but I came away with the suspicion that he thinks slavery can we done well.
How did we get to the point that what passes as conservative is racist stupid.
Newt Gingrich?
I lived in Charleston SC for many years. The “native” rich, white descendants of the original white settlers who lived in the “below Broad” inherited wealth (at that time) area’s battle cry was “Please God, give us another 1862 and we promise not to mess it up this time”.
I’m thinking kinda like that.
I’m guessing he’d have preferred to go back to the 3/5 rule, and would determine whether you belonged in that based on your skin color (there would be a chart, like a Home Depot paint sample card) and a literacy test as a back-up (sample question: How many bubbles in a bar of soap?). You know, like the good ol’ days.
That's a bit of a gap in his stated opinions. From what I can tell, he believed that the Civil Rights Act was DEI's nose under the tent. So he's anti DEI, and anti having the guvmint in your business.
For what it's worth, I'm anti DEi *because of* the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I'm pretty sure the avatar of free speech would have been fine with Segregation 2.0.