We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Watching Face the Nation now, and they are discussing the Don Sterling racism situation. Which is good, after all, the media has covered Bundy's obtuse behavior, trying to make his racism more important than his legitimate claims of government overreach. Several clips of people, including Obama, speaking out against Sterling's statements, were shown. Some called for the NBA to "do something" to Sterling.
However, the show spent all of maybe 20 seconds discussing Sterling with Dem. Senator Clarie McCaskill before she shifted the discussion to a bill she is working on. I wonder why?
My first reaction to this was that it is an odd attitude for the owner of an NBA team to have.
My second thought was wondering if he would be required by the NBA (under pressure from the perpetually outraged) to sell his team? So far I have not read any indication of that. Were he a heavy GOP donor I imagine he would be under intense pressure to sell.
First: they jumped on the Bundy story without filling in the details-the man owed many years of grazing fees, the BLM had started bullying tactics many years ago, etc.
Second: when it looked like they Fox/Hannity would look bad because of Bundy's reference to the African/American situation they did what the libs do all the time--they jumped the gun and started yelling racist--so they could be the first to make the claim. Today Mr. Kurtz and others explained that it was because they could not let the conservative movement be made to look bad and they knew that once those remarks were made the dems would use them against FOX. Soooo. . .with weak spines they became the same as the enemy-corruptible.
I believe the issue with Bundy is a question of rhetorical use of the language. I may not have heard all of the details, so please excuse me if I am missing some information.
Here is what I believe the man was trying to say and you tell me if it was racist and what makes it a racist comment?
Speaking from a life and personal tradition of ranching/farming his frame of reference as to what constitutes the ideal situation is ranching/farming. I believe he (Bundy) was referring to a pretty nice picture--daddy working the farm (in this case cotton crop) stay at home mom at home raising children (very popular with today's conservatives), little backyard garden (very popular with today's liberal youth). Then what I heard was him ask was a political question: "weren't they better off that way than they are under today's president?" That wasn't to my mind a racist question--there are a hell of a lot of people out here in the US asking the same question--weren't we better off under ???? From his personal experience, I believe Bundy was referring to life in a rural agrarian economy. Did he say it well? No--did FOX news interview him without first attacking the man--not that I have seen. I believe two wrongs never make a right and this time Fox got it wrong twice!! The conservatives and the Republicans have a lot-- A LOT-- of work to do before they win another election. That work has got to be a systemic review of their whole platform!
It gets confusing out here in the rural/agrarian community!
The land that is managed by the BLM is done with the intention of preserving the land as is and generating income for both the rancher and the government. That is the agreement between the government and the citizens of the US. When your local BLM agent oversteps the parameters of fair play that is an issue for the courts and the press.
What is so confusing is that the liberals want to preserve as much open space and food growing land as possible--they are right to do this given that the population has exploded the way it has. At the same time some among the liberal camp want wind farms for the son, and some among the conservative camp want less land under government control. Geez d'ya think some kind of agreement can be worked out here--better grazing practices on the part of the rancher, and increased fees from the rancher. More support for the long term stability of their contract with the government--more respect from the local government reps in their daily working together to maintain soils, and the terms of the contract would be a big improvement. Do the dems use local government employees to harass local people of course they do--they do it in the cities as well as out here. It's just that out here the land and it's use is fundamental to who we are as a nation, and oh so so desirable! It's time for the politicos of both sides to curb their personal envy and start behaving with good intensions to preserve what we have--a constitution and a healthy range land. Now that can't be too hard can it ?
I was listening to this story on the NBC Nightly News. At the end of the story they issued a disclaimer: "NBC has not authenticated this audio."
In other words, NBC has not determined that an audio clip provided by a concubine who is being sued by her patron's wife is actually the voice of her patron. But they're going to base a continuing news story on it.
Has ANYONE proven that this is this guy's voice yet? Or is advancing the narrative more important than actual facts?