48 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-17-17

  1. Last night Donna posted this link…..


    “Silicon Valley significantly escalated its war on white supremacy this week, choking off the ability of hate groups to raise money online, removing them from Internet search engines, and preventing some sites from registering at all.

    The new moves go beyond censoring individual stories or posts. Tech companies such as Google, GoDaddy and PayPal are now reversing their hands-off approach about content supported by their services and making it much more difficult for “alt-right” organizations to reach mass audiences.

    But the actions are also heightening concerns over how tech companies are becoming the arbiters of free speech in America. And in response, right-wing technologists are building parallel digital services that cater to their own movement. …”

    This link goes nicely with the above.


    “Major corporations are increasingly expected to play a societal role beyond just providing goods or services: more and more often, they’re expected to weigh in on issues of public morality.”

    “Companies who take an insufficient moral stance on public issues — as determined by left-wing activists — can oftentimes find themselves targeted by those activists.

    Left-wing activists have continued to target Chick-Fil-A — not because they have any issues with the company’s policies or standards of service, but because they disagree with statements the company CEO made about gay marriage in 2012, citing his Christian faith.

    Video of protesters in New York on Monday showed them targeting Chick-Fil-A at an event ostensibly meant to protest the president. “Hey hey! Ho ho! Chick-Fil-A has got to go!” they shouted at the fast food restaurant.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. :With Texas, it’s love at first sight”

    Not so, Ricky. When I moved from Columbia to Fort Worth, I hated it.l I hated the hot weather and the absence of trees. And it was too busy.
    Somebody said, “If you stay here five years, you’ll never leave.”
    I stayed exactly 4.5 years and hated to leave.
    It grows on you.

    Did I tell you that Southwestern Seminary discovered oil/gas on the spot where I parked my house trailer out there?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. AJ, regarding the link you referred to, I agree there’s all kinds of hypocrisy in how selective companies and left-wing activists are in who they want to silence and why, but would you agree there isn’t really a “free speech” issue in any of that, as government isn’t doing the censoring?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m glad to see people and media become concern over corporate power. A concern expressed by the left for quite some time. Its a bit unnerving that it took a threat to white supremacist speech to alert others to corporate power. But glad to see the concern expressed. Now lets limit corporate power. I suggest personhood and sole responsibility to shareholders are two concepts that need to end now

    It is however a bit disconcerting that so soon after the death of one person and the injury of more than 20, the main concern of many is to not limit free speech. Its even more disconcerting that legislators are willing to limit protest rights of the antifa and BLM simply because their tactics slow down traffic. Apparently yelling racist slogans minutes someone is killed is not incitement to violence and should be protected but don’t slow down traffic. In 6 Republican states, legislation is still being discussed on reducing liabilty to drivers hitting protestors.

    The left pays attention to the discrepancy on how right wing protests are treated and protected and how leftist protests are treated.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. People can be concerned about free speech while simultaneously lamenting/mourning/decrying the death of someone at a protest. They can also do both of those things AND–get this–advocate for certain laws and get their kids ready for school and have lunch at Arby’s and incorporate all kinds of things into their lives.

    And 70% of political violence isn’t committed by people on “the right.” Actually, trying to parse that out–such as by including the Colorado Springs clinic shooter in that number–is a fool’s errand.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Solarpancake – As I have written to a friend of mine, there is the constitutional right of Freedom of Speech, & then there is the general American value of freedom of speech. It may not be against the law for a company to abridge their employees’ or customer’s freedom of speech, but it goes against a value we have typically held dear as Americans (although often hypocritically). The law may not come after them, but the publicity can do them harm.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I saw some reference last night (I was watching “all-trump-all-the-time” CNN for the most part, followed by Colbert’s all-trump-all-the-time monologue, so I can’t remember where exactly I saw it) that the white supremest movement in the US is “growing.” I’m just wondering if that’s really the case — and how one would measure that in any kind of accurate way — or if it’s based more on anecdotal events we’re seeing in the news now. ?


  8. Agreed, Kizzie, but that is part and parcel OF free speech. In the name of free speech, a company can and should have the right to abridge it or not in any area where it has rightful control. Same principle should apply to cake bakers and wedding photographers, but due to the confusion of “the left,” it doesn’t.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. I don’t have any numbers, dj, and I never know what’s media hysteria and what’s real, but I suspect the movement is growing. It would be a shame if the supposed anti-Nazi approach of Antifa and its ilk became the preferred method of fighting it.


  10. I really don’t believe that “white supremacy” is growing. I live in the DEEP South. If anyone you know was going to be prejudiced, chances are it would be me. I’m not.
    I am heartbroken over what is going on in our country and cannot express myself to most because it turns into and attack on me personally and I become a racist in their minds, and too stupid to understand what is really going on in the world. I treat everyone equally and if I don’t tell me. (Or it’s because I have decided you are a jack*** and refuse to deal with you anymore)

    Liked by 4 people

  11. I agree solar — people can do things simultaneously. However, the left is used to hearing, “Now is the not the time to….” but there are many other things worth discussing. Police incompetence, downgrading of legal liability proposed Republicans for running over protestors, role and origins of confederate statutes etc. I’m struck by how quickly the US went from experiencing a terrorist act to its main concern being the free speech of the terrorist group in question. Is there any other terrorist group they would be so quick to protect?


  12. White supremacists numbers are probably stable but their activity ebbs and flows according to the political and context. They come out of the woodwork when they feel self. The 50s anti-communist hysteria, the Reagan era, and now.


  13. hwesseli, everybody on every side says, Now is not the time to…. We’re discussing all sorts of things. Your ‘take’ on things reduces issues to the point where there’s no way to engage. What do you mean “the US” (like, ALL of us down here?) went from a terror attack one day, to “its main concern” (measured how?) being something else? That’s beyond simplistic.


  14. HRW,

    ” Its even more disconcerting that legislators are willing to limit protest rights of the antifa and BLM simply because their tactics slow down traffic.”

    So Ferguson, with all the burning, destruction, looting, and rioting was all just a traffic issue? Same goes for Berkeley? You do realize a lot of the rioting there took place on campus and not on the streets? What about, Baltimore? A traffic issue? They were limited due to their illegal behavior.

    “The left pays attention to the discrepancy on how right wing protests are treated and protected and how leftist protests are treated.”

    Protected? I saw a group, with a permit, attacked by a group without one, while the police stood by. One group followed the law, the other side unlawfully assembled. They failed to protect either side, due to orders from civilian politicians like the mayor and gov. I mean really, why call up the Guard if you aren’t gonna use them in the middle from the get go and to stop the violence from both sides?

    In Ferguson and Baltimore I watched BLM and Antifa tear a city apart while the police stood by, again on orders from politicians. In Baltimore they were told to allow protesters “space to destroy”. It must suck to be a cop who has to stand there and watch your city burn while politicians prevent you from upholding the law and keeping the public safe. Leftist protesters have been coddled for the last 8 years, and that’s because of the politicians in charge. The only thing on the right even close to these in magnitude was the Bundy standoff. Which by the way, ended with dead militia protesters at the hands of govt. agents, and jail sentences. I’d hardly call that being “protected” by authorities. Someone’s been protected, but it’s been Antifa and BLM.

    Not to mention the protection afforded Antifa and BLM by a compliant press. The alt-right receives no such protections from the press. A neutral press would condemn all 3, yet that’s not been the case.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. True. My perception is anecdotal but when my newsfeed, the NYT, RCP, etc have almost all switched to discussing free speech over the other issues I raised, one is left to wonder. Why are people so concerned with the free speech rights of a terrorist group so quickly after its member commits an act of terror? Or is it only right wing terrorist groups?

    Fergusson occurred prior to the formation of BLM. In the case of Baltimore, those are standard police tactics — you back up and regroup while the rioters waste their energy. BLM wasnt rioting and nor have they ever called for riots.

    To categorize a group who opposes racism and demonstrates against race based violence as similar to a group who advocates race based violence is an strange form of logic and analogy but have no basis in reality.

    In Oregon armed right wing militias occupied govt land and were coddled. In North Dakota, peaceful unarmed leftist occupied govt land and were maced, pepper sprayed, had water and sound cannons aimed at them and were shot at by rubber bullet bullets.

    And now in Charlottesville a terrorist killed a woman and injuried others. Other members of these right wing terrorists groups beat up countrprotesters and bystanders. Other than the charge of 2nd degree murder, no other actions have been undertaken by the police despite video evidence and witness statements. Only the antifa has identified culprits and shamed them. Meanwhile the concern of the Republicab partu and the media is free speech and making sure an equilivancy is reported.


  16. #Black Lives Matter was organized in 2012 following the Treyvon Martin shooting. They were fully involved in the 2014 “Ferguson unrest” which was violent and destructive.

    From what I have read about the trouble in Ferguson, there was justification for protests—though not for the riots. Reportedly, the police department was using the community as a revenue generator by oppressive fines and ticketing. The death of Michael Brown may or may not have been part of that. But the issue is bigger than Ferguson. As long as the US maintains unjust laws like civil forfeiture and a slew of others that basically allow police departments to be come entrepreneurial, I believe we will continue to have problems. All the more so if these laws are used to target minority communities.

    None of this justifies anyone’s violence in Charlottesville.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. HRW,

    “Why are people so concerned with the free speech rights of a terrorist group so quickly after its member commits an act of terror? Or is it only right wing terrorist groups?”

    That’s a simple one. Because if you limit their free speech, you also limit everyone else’s as well. We’re aren’t seeking to protect their vile speech rights, but we realize any limits on speech affect everyone. Once one groups speech is limited, others will be as well.


    And Ferguson was the coming out party for BLM.

    First, The Root, a media org that I’d note speaks of BLM in glowing terms.


    “It’s been two years since the killing of an 18-year-old unarmed African-American teen named Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., who was Gunned down by a white police officer named Darren Wilson. The killing sparked two weeks of protest from unarmed Black Lives Matter demonstrators carrying signs proclaiming, “I am Mike Brown” and “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

    They faced off against a militarized force of Ferguson police using armored vehicles and rooftop snipers. It was a visual demonstration—as clear as when Birmingham, Ala., Police Chief Bull Connor turned German shepherds and water hoses on African-American schoolchildren in 1963—of how far a white supremacist police structure would be willing to protect a social hierarchy that made black bodies expendable, their deaths explainable and the protests of the black community discountable.

    But Ferguson was also a pivot point for Black Lives Matter, a movement that started as a hashtag, created three years prior by three black women, two of whom are queer: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Opal Tometi. Ferguson would prove to be the catalyst for Black Lives Matter moving from being a #hashtag movement to a tangible one in the streets of America. And as it has matured, the potential for it to become the most powerful mass movement for racial justice in the 21st century is real.”

    Next, The Guardian, again spoken of as if they were some noble endeavor.


    “What happened in Ferguson would give birth to a movement and set the nation on course for an ongoing public hearing on race that stretched far past the killing of unarmed residents – from daily policing to Confederate imagery to respectability politics to cultural appropriation. The social justice movement spawned from Mike Brown’s blood would force city after city to grapple with its own fraught histories of race and policing. As protests propelled by tweets and hashtags spread under the banner of Black Lives Matter and with mobile phone and body camera video shining new light on the way police interact with minority communities, America was forced to consider that not everyone marching in the streets could be wrong. Even if you believe Mike Brown’s own questionable choices sealed his fate, did Eric Garner, John Crawford, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, and Sandra Bland all deserve to die?”

    Liked by 1 person

  18. “To categorize a group who opposes racism and demonstrates against race based violence as similar to a group who advocates race based violence is an strange form of logic and analogy but have no basis in reality.”

    That’s too much of a mischaracterization and oversimplification it’s just not worth responding to other than to say you’ve got to try harder.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Mischaracterizations seem to be a popular thing with the left.


    “Has the media ever so deliberately and consistently misinterpreted what a president said?

    It certainly seems as if the media finally found its proof that President Trump is a racist. ABC News’ coverage was all too typical:

    Trump quickly blamed both sides for the conflict, adding that there were “very fine people” among both the protesters — which included white supremacists and white nationalists — and the counterprotesters.

    “I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said today. “You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he added.”

    “With wall-to-wall news coverage repeating this misreading of Trump’s statement, it’s not too surprising that politicians from both parties quickly condemned the “very fine people” comment. NBC’s headline read: “Democratic, Republican Lawmakers Decry Trump’s Latest Charlottesville Remarks.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich attacked Trump: “This is terrible. The President of the United States needs to condemn these kinds of hate groups. The president has to totally condemn this.”

    Does anyone even listen to comments anymore before commenting on them?

    When it comes to the president, do politicians just take reporters at their word?

    But Trump never said that the white supremacists and neo-Nazis were “very fine people.” He said that there two different types of people protesting the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue – the racists (“some very bad people in that group”), and people who thought that for the sake of history it was important not to take down the statue.”

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Exactly.


    “I think I am opposed to removing Confederate monuments. I have no firm conviction the matter. What appears to be festering wounds to a few amounts to participation trophies dedicated to a losing cause. And while I have no strong conviction either way, I have a very strong conviction that the move to purge the monuments is not really about the monuments and that once these monuments are gone the very same people will turn to founding fathers and others before turning on people. We are more or less going through an American cultural revolution by increasingly violent marxists and opportunistic politicians.

    Most people I know do not care much about the monuments.
    They are a part of history and a reminder of a history that still scars the land. They are landing pads for pigeon poop in most cases. But I am finding that as the left gins up more and more animosity towards the monuments a lot of other people are suddenly finding themselves caring about the monuments. It has all the makings of a negotiation with terrorists for many. Either tear down the statues or be shamed, boycotted, or ruined. That pisses off a lot of people who might not otherwise care, but who may have a mild familial attachment to their heritage.

    Unfortunately, the political left will not allow anyone to have a familial attachment to that heritage. It is all hate all the time. We must ignore the actual history and the actual men and women involved in the conflict. We must reduce it to its simplest forms and everyone is expected to take the same side or be labeled a bigot or worse. Simply not caring is less and less an option. But that breeds a special resentment by those who do not want to care and resent being made to care.”

    “What is also predictable is that it will not be enough. There will be something else to give in to. There will be some later cause and conviction that must be championed. Take down one statue and find it is only penance for a day. In the absence of God both sides fight over who gets to be the “Grand Sez Who”. Both sides’ mobs are out for that title and the mob is the only group that can claim the title in the absence of God. Along the way, the mob demands we give it moral status. The mob on the left has the media willing to treat it heroically — comparing a group of anarchists and molotov cocktail throwing terrorists to World War II heroes.”

    Liked by 1 person

  21. When your group of far-left protesters loses Noam Chomsky do to the tactics I’ve mentioned, that’s saying something.


    “The Washington Examiner spoke with Noam Chomsky, the far left MIT professor, about the anarchist protest group Antifa. Chomsky’s view of the group was not what you would call a ringing endorsement:

    As for Antifa, it’s a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were,” Noam Chomsky told the Washington Examiner. “It’s a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant.”…

    Chomsky said, “what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive.”

    “When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it’s the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is,” said Chomsky, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism.”
    To his credit, Chomsky is against blocking other people’s speech. Apparently, that’s one reason he’s not too fond of the group.

    As for it being a minuscule fringe, that’s true but it’s also true of the Nazis and white nationalists Antifa is opposing. Last Saturday’s white nationalist/Nazi march in Charlottesville was the largest national gathering of its kind in decades. But the number of people involved was in the hundreds, maybe up to 1,000 or a little over. In a country of 300 million people, that’s not a very significant number. It’s a tiny fringe.

    As for the most brutal winning, I’m sure Chomsky means to say that the right will win because it is willing to be more violent. But that’s not always the case. When a few dozen members of a racist group announced a march in Sacramento last year, as many as 300 anti-fascists showed up. The result was a violent riot in which numerous people were stabbed and sent to the hospital. Most of the stabbers were never identified by police because they were wearing masks. Sometimes, the largest and most violent group turns out to be Antifa.”

    And to his credit, Jake Tapper isn’t a fan either. I post this mainly to point out Antifa’s pathetic justification for their violent ways.


    “Here’s a portion of Antifa’s excuse for their violence. I’m going to quote it at length because it is so pathetic that reading it will give you an idea of the idiocy we are dealing with here. This is the excuse of 6th grader caught red handed by the principal:

    This man ran at a crowd that was holding space for our murdered comrade with just his iPhone.

    Due to the intensity and context of this time people are very scared of white men running full speed at them with iPhones as this is the exact behavior of a white supremacist trying to out identity of people of color and anti fascists in order to invoke fear. Additionally, they also use press footage constantly to do this.

    When this man ran up he was told people did not want to be filmed. He proceeded to film anyways. He was then told AGAIN that he was not to film people’s faces. He proceeded anyways. He intentionally ignored the denial of consent, still without identifying himself (though we still wouldn’t care), which was a threat to safety and should be considered in a context of perpetuating rape culture. Denial of consent by the media is still a denial of consent and is disgusting and parasitic behavior.

    Once this man ignored people’s requests to please back off he tried to pull on a flag to expose someone’s face. This is extremely inappropriate and when the media thinks they have the right to expose people that do not want to be exposed they are perpetuating violence against marginalized or targeted communities.

    After he tried to remove someone’s flag he was pushed back several times. At this point he began to give a mourning crowd the finger with both hands. We can only assume that this was the behavior of someone intoxicated. This behavior was taunting and escalating.

    He STILL had not identified himself as press.

    He continued to make advances and continued to get corralled back towards the sidewalk away from us. He had not fallen. He had not been hit. Only pushed back to give space to a grieving and righteously angry crowd.

    He advanced still.

    At this point there were folks that felt they were in extreme danger as no one knew who this man was or what his intentions were. He was now considered combative, aggressive and advancing with violence.

    Then he got hit. Once. We aren’t sure with what or by who but he did and it was all due to his own ridiculous, likely drunk, behavior.

    This is what happens when you make people feel scared and purposefully incite anger.
    As Tapper noted above, the station says the explanation is full of lies. I believe that. Here’s the video of what happened (which I wrote about here). As you can see, the interaction appears to last about 12 seconds before someone hits the reporter. He was taken to the hospital and received 4 staples to close a cut in his scalp.”

    Liked by 2 people

  22. “We aren’t sure with what or by who but he did and it was all due to his own ridiculous, likely drunk, behavior.”

    So following hwesseli’s less-than-nuanced approach, this guy is the same kind of soldier who fought Nazis at Normandy.


  23. Maybe that’s why the reporting on this matter has been so horrible. Maybe all the reporters are drunk. 🙄


  24. Interesting blurb on BLM — I was under the impression it was formed because of Ferguson not Trayon Martin. Learned something new. However, BLM was formed to oppose racism and neo-Nazis were formed to propagate racism. It may be simplistic but its true — the two groups are completely opposite and cannot be held as analogous.

    Originally, I’m sure some of those who went to Charlottesville were there to preserve their southern heritage. However, once you see Nazi insignias, its time to turn around and go home and come back when the Nazis are gone. If you stay with the Nazis you are not “fine men” you are Nazi sympathizers.

    Interestingly this discussion and incident has seen AJ switch from his normal “Ricky you lost get over it” to an appreciation of southern history.

    Not surprise Chomsky is opposed to antifa — he’s a member of established left. There’s a disagreement on the left — should fascist be confronted or should the left protest away from the fascists and not give them publicity. The established left tends to favour the latter whereas the young and the anarchist tend to favour the former. In my view, history tells us to confront fascist wherever they are so I tend to be the oldest guy favouring the former solution.


  25. My personal favorite…….

    “He intentionally ignored the denial of consent, still without identifying himself (though we still wouldn’t care), which was a threat to safety and should be considered in a context of perpetuating rape culture. Denial of consent by the media is still a denial of consent and is disgusting and parasitic behavior.”

    Sure, because a reporter doing his job and taking video is just like raping someone. Why did I not see that before? I must have been blinded by my white privilege. 🙄

    I think if anyone was drunk here, it’s was the guy from Antifa when he wrote his response.


  26. Well, AJ I have to agree the reporting has been quite awful. A terrorist act has been committed and a terrorist group is openly operating with a complacent press and police force. In fact some people are attempting to mitigate theirs actions as protecting southern heritage. I doubt the police and press would be so fair minded with other groups, say for example Muslims.

    The media has been distracted by free speech concerns and the antifa. Anything to not discuss right wing domestic terrorism.

    The linked Slate article gives a favourable reaction to the antifa from members of the clergy who were present in Charlottesville. The clergy viewed the antifa as a protective force that the police were not.

    Despite my defence of the antifa, I’m not a big fan of groups who instigate violence but I do appreciate defensive strategies, their use of video to ensure there is a recording of the actual events as opposed to the police and media version, the identification and outing of Nazis, etc.


  27. Yes — the hyperbole was amusing and cliche filled nonsense…….but it is difficult to tell the who is who in the middle of a protest/riot. In the pre-tech world you can tell who was a legitimate by their equipment; now everyone with an iPhone claims they’re a journalist. Difficult to tell everyone apart. Not an excuse for a hit over the head but it does set the context. And people do like their personal space…….


  28. HRW,

    “Interestingly this discussion and incident has seen AJ switch from his normal “Ricky you lost get over it” to an appreciation of southern history.”

    You misinterpret, or mischaracterize my intent and reasoning on it. I still think the South needs to get over it, as do leftists. When I say that, I mean the animosity that sometimes still rises as a result of lingering anger over the matter. Hiding away statues and history doesn’t accomplish that, only a change in attitude and forgiveness on both sides will. While I may disagree with some of southerns’ choice for monuments, I completely understand their reasoning for doing so. From their standpoint these were great men, and I respect their right to acknowledge them. Same as I do for MLK, Kennedy, Columbus, Obama or any other historic statue. I may think differently, but I respect people in those communities right to chose theirs.

    Plus it is a part of this country’s history. One way to ensure it doesn’t happen again is to not forget it or pretend it didn’t happen. That’s why I love Williamsburg, VA. and Gettysburg, PA areas. The historic value alone, whether I disagree with the South on the matter or not, requires such artifacts be preserved and displayed as a reminder of our history, revisionists be darned.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Are you suggesting these statutes were enacted so it doesn’t happen again?? The Poles keep Aushwitz up so it never happens again. I don’t think thats why there are statutes of General Lee.

    My earlier CNN link quotes Lee as being against statutes as they would hinder the healing the nation needed after the civil war. Instead of preventing division, Lee correctly realized these statues would encourage and maintain division all in the name of heritage. Interestingly most of these statues were not enacted after the civil war but in the early 20th century when Jim Crow and voter suppression were being solidified in the south. These statues were about maintaining division, racial segregation and telling the south that although they had lost the war, their heritage remained. In that way, the South could lose but not have to get over it.


  30. HRW, I have heard the argument you made @ 7:46 raised often in the last few days.
    Here are some facts:

    1. Many of the Confederate monuments were raised on or about the 50th anniversary of The War.

    2. Many of the monuments were built at or about the time the last Confederate veterans died.

    3. Go to Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg or other battlefields. The Confederate monuments are relatively modest compared to the gaudy displays erected by the Yankees.

    4. Immediately after the war, Southern states and Southern communities lacked the funds to build large monuments.

    5. The Texas monuments at all the major battlefields were not raised until the 100th anniversary of The War. They were conspicuous by their modesty.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. The battlefield monuments are particularly important. We have Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga, Lookout Mtn. nearby, and the Chicamauga Battlefield just across the line in Georgia. We often walk there and see the monuments and the plaques that detail the military moves. They also tell where the regiments were from on both the Union and Confederate sides. And most sobering, they detail the death counts, the wounded and the missing on both sides. These are important and useful landmarks of our history.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. And there are substantial memorials across the river on the Northshore, also in Chattanooga, that give testimony to the Black Americans who camped there in segregated camps and fought with the Union for their freedom. Perhaps more memorials are needed, not fewer.


  33. You may want to protest the tearing down of the statutes but if Nazis join your protest you may want to go home and come back an other day when there are no Nazis to be associated with.

    Liked by 4 people

  34. HRW, The alliance is temporary. I have vowed not to make fun of Trump again until I turn 60 (six weeks from now). Who can imagine what will be going on then?

    Liked by 2 people

  35. My son sent me this and said it was evidence that Lee was right all along.


    Each state is allowed to place statues of its two greatest heroes in the US Capitol. For some states, the choice is fairly simple. For example, Texas is represented by Austin and Houston. Some states are represented by obscure people. For Virginia, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Patrick Henry did not make the cut. Virginia is represented by Washington and Lee.


  36. HRW, I am a Southern Baptist. Make it a Mexican Coke.

    Trump is making my job easy. Today he defended the Confederate statues again, and we know that when he gets on something he is probably going to stay on it for a while.


  37. Religious adherence I understand but abstaining from whiskey is too high of a price. Not to mention my Muslim friends and students who will never know the pleasure of bacon.

    Wrong border. It will have to be Canada Dry ginger ale not Mexican Coke.

    I just came across a picture of a civil war monument decorated with a huge participant ribbon. Perhaps there’s a compromise; don’t tear down statutes give them participation ribbons.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.