You hadn't heard about the controversy over the DOJ's decision to dismiss a voter intimidation claim against the New Black Panther Party?  I guess that wasn't newsworthy for the Huffington Post.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/6/civil-rights-panel-faults-justice-on-panthers/

With respect to #2 in your list, I suspect the basis for that claim is that it now appears that the shooter's issues with Giffords goes back about 3 years.  Well before the map in question ever came into existence.  But that's just my guess.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman_11

Last edited by forsberg_us (1/09/2011 11:00 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

You hadn't heard about the controversy over the DOJ's decision to dismiss a voter intimidation claim against the New Black Panther Party?  I guess that wasn't newsworthy for the Huffington Post.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/6/civil-rights-panel-faults-justice-on-panthers/

With respect to #2 in your list, I suspect the basis for that claim is that it now appears that the shooter's issues with Giffords goes back about 3 years.  Well before the map in question ever came into existence.  But that's just my guess.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman_11

So, you've got two black guys intimidating voters and justice is dropping the ball.  It ain't right, not two ways about it.  But maybe one difference between you and I is that I would feel like a hypocrite is I honored the constitution and all it stands for, and complained about this without complaining much louder and longer about the much greater voter intimidation that has been conducted against blacks for 145 years.  If I wanted the moral authority to publicly condemn justice for not going after those two guys, I would feel the imperative to make sure that I had spoken against the voter intimidation that whites have used against blacks.  Maybe you do that in your life off of this board, and just play Devil's advocate here.  But I haven't seen much indication of outrage at the intimidation of blacks.

Well your point might make sense to me if you can explain how the double standard you allege in politics impinges upon the rights as an American based upon their political allegiance.

I guess I can see your point a bit, but the disconnect is not as large to me as it seems to be to you.

The original discussion, as I interpreted it, was about using images of violence in politics by mainstream politicians.  She was getting away with it until it backfired on her.  The Black Caucus is also a mainstream political group.  They haven't been using images of violence, but realistically, if they did, I think there would be a huge uproar about it.  Why does Sarah Palin get away with it?  That's the double standard that I see.

Your comparison of two guys intimidating people sounds like thuggery, and I don't see any connection to mainstream politics in this country.   The proper analysis for double-standard, IMO, would be if two Aryan Nation-types intimidated voters, and Justice sat on its hands.  To our nation's great credit, when thuggery is committed by the self-described majority against the minority, the Federal justice system rarely stands still when it has a chance (although local justice systems are notorious for not doing so . . . another related and excellent subject for discussion as we talk about voter intimidation).  So you could make a case of double standard going the other way, on this much smaller scale. 

I don't condone either, but to actively condemn the stuff going on by minority groups, I feel the imperative to actively condemn the stuff going on by those groups that repress the less powerful in the name of the more powerful.  Otherwise, I would feel like a hypocrite, or that I selectively valued only those parts of the Constitution that I agreed with.

Well, you get to the heart of it in your first paragraph, I think, which is that cynical politicians are willing to capitalize on anything to advance their agenda.  When they capitalize upon fears of an already repressed minority, I find that despicable.  It happens in Indonesia, of course, that a broken a failed state turns to "Islam" as a means to generate support for a regime that cannot fulfill the aspirations of the people.  And if that means violence against break-away Islamic sects, and sometimes Christians and Hindus, well, fuck it, life's not fair.  That's what I see in America when conservatives use race-baiting.  Just exactly that.

On the other hand, if the conservative movement had some eloquent visionaries among them, they might respond to the good sheriff by asking why southern Arizona has become the Mecca of extremism, and if it mightn't be related to the Federal governments failure to defend our southern border against illegal immigration, and indeed, even impede the ability of local governments to do so, leading to the bulk of the problem being dumped on border regions?  That's a conservative rebuttal that I could get on board with.  It makes sense, from a human standpoint, and its good for the country.

I saw that put into biblical terms for the first time in a debate between Newt and a Dem who'd had his district re-ditricted (about 1994-ish?), and was going to lose owing to the new demographics.  Newt's closing argument was something along the lines of "I see two futures for America, one of light and prosperity, and one of darkness and despair.  Vote for democrats and you'll get the latter."  What a disingenuous ass!

Last edited by Max (1/12/2011 12:47 am)

forsberg_us wrote:

Would that include blaming the shooting on Arizona's immigration law?

"It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game.  Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol.  In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

"It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Â Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

"Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

Anti-Defamation League

Read more responses:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110112/pl_yblog_theticket/jewish-groups-respond-to-palins-use-of-blood-libel;_ylt=AsnVrBSMvKINJclZ.9SZX4Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNzaGViaTU3BGFzc2V0A3libG9nX3RoZXRpY2tldC8yMDExMDExMi9qZXdpc2gtZ3JvdXBzLXJlc3BvbmQtdG8tcGFsaW5zLXVzZS1vZi1ibG9vZC1saWJlbARwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNsawNqZXdpc2hncm91cHM-