April 25, 2014

Technically, Al From was the head.

The first two full time employees of the DLC were From and Will Marshall, who went on to found the Progressive Policy Institute (aka, "the place for pragmatic liberals", LOL The website actually used to say that. I don't think it does anymore.).

From was supposedly the head. However, there was certainly always a group of Conservadems in Congress, though Hillary and Bill were obviously not then among them.

Whether From approached the founding members or they hired him, or it was more organic, we'll probably never know for certain. In any event, officially, it was supposedly From's brainchild and his baby.

Hillary was a founding member (only female, that I know of), along with Bill, Lieberman, Gore and some others); and she was the member who traveled with From to spread the DLC message to people like Blair.

These sources confirm my statements and, obviously, give more information. They are an interesting read, especially for Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

Of course, the DLC per se is all but gone, having donated its papers to Clinton's Presidential Library. But, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way and a bunch of other think tanks live on and proliferate like Hydra's heads. At this point, the DLC philosophy has more names than a check forger.

While some of them are described as liberal, we know the reality. Worst, IMO, is No Labels, which is the closest admission of a uniparty that I know of. It was supposedly the brainchild of a Bushite, but is full of "pragmatic" Dems, including many who were in the Clinton administration. Reminds me of Bubba hiring Morris to help set policy.

Hillary's ties with The Fellowship trouble me as well.


The pros are obvious. Very smart, very experienced, two for the price of one (allegedly), with Bill aso being one of the smartest people on the planet and experienced too, very loyal, first female President, something for which I think the nation is ready--and Democratic women are more than ready, so a real GOTV plus, etc.

Senator Warren also has pros and cons for me. Having it seen crushes on politicians and the deception that resuts, I find them very dangerous.

April 22, 2014

All I will say at this early date is, I want a real primary, damn it.

First, the Democrats come up with Super Delegates, so that if primary voters choose a liberal, the party PTB can overrule all of primary season. Now, they've come up with the self fulfilling "foregone conclusion" propaganda, unanimously touting Hillary as the winner, with the help of all the party pundits and strategists on TV and radio and the MSNBC anchors.

I began noticing this in the early fall of 2012. I even saw all those "Tell Hillary you want her to run" things online that far back. (LOL, as if anyone had to persuade her?)

When that kind of coordination exists more than four years before a Presidential election, the workings of the Democratic Party certainly don't seem to me to be as democratic as I expect them to be. IMO, single candidate primaries are almost as bad as single candidate elections.

Just one example. Recently, Chris Matthews was giving Christie another well-deserved bashing. However, Matthews referred to Christie as the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble. Not the only one who could have given the next Democratic Presidential nominee any trouble, but the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble.

Who the fuck are Matthews and the rest of the propaganda team to spend three or more years brainwashing everyone to believe that Hillary is the inevitable nominee? Why are they the "deciders" now? And do they think no one notices those tactics?

I thought an advantage of registering as a Democrat was the privilege of choosing a nominee from a real field of qualified people. Not gesture of a vote, but a vote that actually means something.

When the democratic is back in the Democratic Party process, I'll get excited. For now, I want the brainwashing attempts to stop and my party to start acting democratic.

February 7, 2014

No, but if there had been, I can't imagine that

there would have been this uproar, or that the story would not have noted it, in fairness to the school. And the school might have not apologized, or at least included a reference to the lesson in its apology. So I think it was a lot more likely than not that there was no instruction. In any event, IMO, if it were done sensitively, that's what I think would have made it okay.

Again, the school has apologized. If the school thought nothing were wrong, an apology would have been dishonest, IMO.

Given that, why does it seem so important to you that nothing was wrong with serving a stereotype associated with southern slaves and grinning very black boys eating watermelon as a way of commemorating Black History Month?

February 7, 2014

Actually, I don't have anything backwards.

I have a lot of cookbooks, including one that supposedly were the recipes of a slave and have watched a ton of food/cooking shows that included food history segments, including one by a knowledgeable African American woman whose name sadly is not coming to mind right now.

I know, for example, that rice became a Southern crop because of the slave trade and not because it originated in the Carolinas. I also know that Southern food is a hybrid and chitterlin's are eating "low on the hog" because that is what slaves were forced to do. On the other hand, their owners ate high on the hog. I have even served Hoppin' John on several New Year's Days.

I am not saying I know tons about it, but I get it enough not to be that confused.

But none of the above has a thing to do with this thread.

Fried chicken and corn bread were not foods or preparations brought over from Africa. And I would bet my last dollar, last cent, that watermelon was not served those kids because the school's cooks knew the plant originated in Africa.

The school apologized. Why do we have to keep defending it?

I just looked at your post again. To clarify, when I wrote that the meal was about Southerners, I meant ALL people of the South, all colors and origins. What did you mean?

February 7, 2014

What the hell do chitterlings and sorghum have to do with anyone but

Southerners? And exactly what is it that makes us associate Southern food with African Americans?

Any reason why African American history month means we have to feed kids in Northern California as though they are slaves?

Jaysus!


ETA: To answer your question: If the meal had been part of a lesson on slavery, that would have been different. Ditto if they were given only traditional African foods or foods that had originated in Africa. But they went to a stereotype based on slavery.

June 25, 2013

The story raises several issues.

One, the IRS was using improper criteria. It does not matter if it was using improper criteria for both the right and left. The criteria were improper.

Not for profit organization are allowed to educate the public about political issues.

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[38] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[39] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[40] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[41] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[42] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[43] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[32][44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization#501.28c.29.284.29

Two, Congress was lied to on more than one occasion when it tried to perform its oversight function.

Three, the WH gave the public the impression that the Acting Head of the IRS had been required to resign over this, when in fact, his so called resignation was to be effective on the date he was already set to retire.

Four, despite all the brouhaha, the IRS continued to use improper criteria until two weeks ago.

But, that all gets lost over whether the IRS treated the left as unlawfully as it treated the right.

Very discouraging.