Patterico's Pontifications

7/15/2014

Outhouses: Public Enemy #1

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:13 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Untitled-1

In light of the U.S. Department of Justice sending a representative from its Community Relations Service team (which deals with racial discrimination disputes) to Nebraska because of one man’s protest float, Charles Cooke reminds us in an outstanding commentary of what we’re up against in this topsy-turvy world where any spoken criticism of this president must be racially motivated, and subsequently any efforts to protest the outcomes of his politics in an historical fashion, clearly must be racist, too.

Here’s the background of the Nebraska kerfuffle:

The Odd Fellows organized the parade. One of the floats included a zombie-like mannequin standing near an outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library.”

The float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the mannequin depicted himself, not President Barack Obama. He said he is upset with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department.

“Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” said Betty C. Andrews, the president of NAACP branches in Iowa and Nebraska.

Further, the The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”

And here is a portion of Cooke’s critical look at it:

In a typically risible statement, Nebraska’s state Democratic party described the incident as one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.” That this is almost certainly true demonstrates just how much progress the United States has made in the last 50 years — and, in consequence, how extraordinarily difficult the professionally aggrieved are finding it to fill their quotas. If a fairly standard old saw is among the worst things to have happened to the Cornhusker State in recent memory, the country is in rather good shape, n’est-ce pas?

Exactly what it was about the float that rendered it “racist” was, of course, never explained. Instead, the assertion was merely thrown into the ether, ready to be accepted uncritically by the legions of righteously indignant keyboard warriors that lurk around social media as piranhas around a fresh carcass. But, for future reference at least, it would be nice to have the details of the offense unpacked. Are outhouses racist now? Are zombies? Or was it perhaps the overalls in which the zombie was dressed? Moreover, if any of these are now redolent of something sinister, at what point was this association held to be operative? A popular cartoon from 2006 depicted a latrine standing in the middle of the desert, on its outer wall the words “Bush Presidential Library.” Was this “racist,” or is this one of those timeless truths that were only discovered in 2009?

It is always tempting to believe one’s own time to be particularly interesting or fractious, but there is little in politics that is genuinely new. Sharp and violent denunciations of the executive branch have been a feature of American life since the republic’s first days. Before the Revolution, the colonists routinely hanged likenesses of unpopular royal representatives, including King George III; Andrew Oliver, the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps; and the loyalist Supreme Court justice, Thomas Hutchinson. Afterward, having dispensed with the old guard, Americans took to lambasting the new, among them George Washington, who had effected the king’s defeat; Thomas Jefferson, who had authored the charter of separation; and James Madison, who had drafted the lion’s share of the new Constitution. Chief Justice John Jay’s 1795 treaty with the British was so wildly unpopular among the Jeffersonians that Jay reported being able to travel from Boston to Philadelphia by the light of his burning effigies. Later, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was subjected to the treatment. In one form or another, most presidents have been.

The modern era has served as no exception to the rule. During his two terms, George W. Bush was the object of considerable opprobrium, his likeness being frequently hanged, knived in the forehead, and even assassinated on prime-time television. At the height of the Left’s umbrage, progressive heroes Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield went so far as to take a twelve-foot effigy of Bush on a national tour, setting fire to it at each stop to the audience’s hearty cheers. Ben and Jerry make ice cream, not apple pie. But their barnstorming road trip could not have been more American. There are few things more indicative of human liberty than the ability to castigate power with impunity — up to and including the moment of offense. “To learn who rules over you,” Voltaire suggested, “simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Is Barack Obama to be a ruler?

As a reminder: George W. Bush.

And, an even more important reminder:
Untitled-1

–Dana

Update: After the parade, the man behind the outhouse, veteran H. Dale Remmich spoke with Nebraska news channel KTIV about the float:

“It’s me. I’ve got on my bibs. Yes, I’ve got my walker. I’m turning green and some say I look like a zombie. But I am not a hate-monger and I’m not a racist.

Remmich said he did not mean any disrespect for the presidency. He also said one of the reasons that contributed to the making of the float is the ongoing issues of the Veteran’s Affairs administration.

Remmich said, “I have three very close friends that are under VA care, or lack there of it, right now.”

Remmich said the second reason he constructed the float was because he was disappointed with the government’s handling of the Bergdahl scandal.

Remmich said, “I tried to use political satire as best I could, but to be honest with you it’s mostly political disgust, simply no more or no less.”

And, without knowing precisely what Remmich was protesting and without taking the time to find out, one resident jumped to judgement, seemingly based on others’ reactions:

[G]lory Kathurima, an immigrant from Kenya, who lives in Norfolk, says she was deeply offended.

Kathurima said, “[Some people were] laughing, some people were pointing, some people were clapping, and that’s when I really became scared. I was thinking ‘What are you guys laughing at? What’s remotely funny about this?’ I don’t see any sort of policy being argued. I don’t see any sort of stance being taken.”

As an aside, to those who were offended by the float, or thought it was mean-spirited or rude, does this expanded explanation change your mind or cause you to be more understanding of his expression, no matter how clumsily executed?

104 Responses to “Outhouses: Public Enemy #1”

  1. We should all put up Obama outhouses. Millions of them.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  2. The irreplaceable Iowahawk weighs in:

    https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/489084676347527169

    A real racist parade was the Nazis marching in Skokie. And that was protected speech too.

    Steve57 (e3957b)

  3. Good this will help remind people what racist scum tea bagger republicans are.

    vota (c8d2c6)

  4. Just like you posting here reminds people what vile, vulgar and stupid democrats are.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  5. Let’s also not forget the Sarah Palin lynching effigy:

    http://heroesforhillary.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/view-panel-agree-palin-noose-an-outrage/

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  6. rocket surgeons they are;

    http://minx.cc:1080/?post=350495

    narciso (24b824)

  7. So, a bear shits in the woods, and we watched from space. Maybe save that for later, in that situation where votes are cast.

    Politics is like watching constipation and blackmail fight over the head and the gut.
    Got kids to feed.

    neal (1d4f08)

  8. DemocRATs don’t want the word association – Obama presidency and excrement – to gain traction. It’s understandable and it’s quite amusing.

    Colonel Haiku (0ccd7a)

  9. Oh, vota, you really have to try harder!

    Dana (4dbf62)

  10. isn’t it weird that the fascist Justice Department flunky doesn’t have a name in any of these stories?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  11. Remember the Chik-fil-A/gay marriage controversy? Although Chik-fil-A won that particular battle, I am convinced that the Intolerant Left succeeded in sending a message: if you dare to express an opinion that we have not authorized, there will be consequences. Consequently, I am convinced that many business owners, from mom-and-pop shops all the way to Fortune 500 companies, have decided to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of being hounded by the Intolerant Left.

    The same principle, later applied to the rodeo clown in Missouri, is now being applied to the Nebraska outhouse. The Regime is sending a message: criticize The One and we WILL find you … even if we have to venture into the wilds of Middle America to do it. The result is that more and more people will decide that, for one reason or another, they cannot afford to express their First Amendment rights.

    Whitey Nisson (253e9e)

  12. Reading vota
    internal hemorrhoids

    mg (31009b)

  13. And that’s precisely what leftists desire, Whitey Nisson, the complete shutdown of any opposing views. You can see how they operate on this very blog. They can’t win with reason and logic so they need to shut up all opposition. And the first word out of their mouths is “racist”. They’ve used it so much nobody even listens any more. Which I guess is good.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  14. (a) this is clearly legal.

    (b) but it’s also clearly rude and obnoxious and not *criticism* – it’s just a mean-spirited attack.

    It’s an *obnoxious and mean* form of speech that should embarass the speaker.

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  15. I’ve updated the post with an explanation from the creator of the float.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  16. heh sin verguenza
    hijo de la Chingada
    es chingadera

    Colonel Haiku (5eaa1e)

  17. the tepid mean-spiritedness of this parade float isn’t even remotely commensurate with the damage our food stamp whore president has done

    so many families are hurting cause of how he’s viciously raped the economy

    so many lives will never achieve the potential the would’ve had

    Barack Obama is a tragedy and a humiliation for America.

    The message of this float is too mild

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. the potential *they* would’ve had i mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  19. See addition to the update.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  20. How many “tea bags” have soaked in la boca de vota? He’s like Madge in that old Palmolive TV commercial… “You’re soaking in it!”

    Hah.

    Colonel Haiku (207b84)

  21. Kathurima said, “[Some people were] laughing, some people were pointing, some people were clapping, and that’s when I really became scared. I was thinking ‘What are you guys laughing at? What’s remotely funny about this?’ I don’t see any sort of policy being argued. I don’t see any sort of stance being taken.”

    My stance would be a squat, signifying how Obama is taking it all into the toilet and down with him.

    Colonel Haiku (2c2cec)

  22. this is what fascism looks like

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  23. the irony of a racist POS like “vota” calling others “racist” is so great as to have, once again, caused my irony meter to explode.

    unlike Barry the Dimwitted’s multiple “Recovery Summers”… the latest edition of which is tanking like all the others.

    really, dumb5hit, can’t you come up with a new trick? this one is older than the “Obama the Lightw*rker” BS that not even the left tries to push anymore.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  24. (b) but it’s also clearly rude and obnoxious and not *criticism* – it’s just a mean-spirited attack.

    Throw in copies of the Constitution being used as Obama’s toilet paper and it would suddenly be criticism. Maybe not original, but criticism just the same.

    JVW (feb406)

  25. We know the ‘zombie’ was a racial depiction of President Present because the overalls had impeccable creases – or something.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  26. Need to find a “Meter-maid Harley” so I can construct what would have been a “Humphrey-mobile” but will now be known as an “Obama-scooter“.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  27. 26- That is just phuquing wrong.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  28. 26-Edo118, Do you know if that is vota?

    mg (31009b)

  29. #26, Yet other infractions (D’Souza) merit the full majesty of the Law.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  30. I think the DOJ is confusing the Birch John Society with the John Birch Society.

    Peter B (b74e27)

  31. But I am not a hate-monger and I’m not a racist.

    People like him should note that just about all those using the words “racist” and “bigot” would be strangely quiet about the exact same entry in that parade or, worse of all, would be gunning for the return of Jim Crow laws if the guy in the White House were a dyed-in-the-wool black conservative.

    BTW, the Jim Crow laws introduced during the 1920s were initiated by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a self-described progressive or liberal. A president who was into concepts like today’s United Nations (ie, Wilson created a forerunner to that with his sappy-do-gooder League of Nations).

    Mark (6c28fd)

  32. Jim Crow laws were “introduced” in 1876; Plessy v. Ferguson was in 1896, moron.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of being hounded by the Intolerant Left.

    What’s interesting and sickeningly ironic is that many of those same liberals, here and in Europe, have created a strange framework of political correctness around Islamo-fascism, best illustrated by the Islamic woman, known for publicly denouncing the reactionary nature of Islam, who was invited to speak at Brandeis University before campus leftists pressured the administration to dis-invite her.

    There’s a saying that liberalism is a mental illness, which becomes more and more apparent as each day goes by.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  34. Jim Crow laws were “introduced” in 1876; Plessy v. Ferguson was in 1896, moron.

    And introduced nationwide, per below, er, moron.

    .nationalreview.com, April 2013: One hundred years ago today, Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to the North. He had been inaugurated on March 4, 1913. At a cabinet meeting on April 11, his postmaster general, Albert S. Burleson, suggested that the new administration segregate the railway mail service; and treasury secretary William G. McAdoo, who would soon become Wilson’s son-in-law, chimed in to signal his support. Wilson followed their lead. He had made a bid for the African-American vote in 1912, and he had attracted the support of figures such as W. E. B. Du Bois, but, as he put it at the meeting, he had made “no promises in particular to Negroes, except to do them justice.” Burleson’s proposal he welcomed, but he wanted “the matter adjusted in a way to make the least friction.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  35. Why didn’t you say that the first time, mushbrain, instead of “the Jim Crow laws introduced during the 1920s were initiated by Democrat Woodrow Wilson”? (And ignoring the fact that Wilson was not President after January 20, 1920.) Because you wouldn’t have a point for the irrelevant factoid that popped up in your head?

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Ya know, nk, I’ve never actually found “moron” to be helpful in any discussion.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  37. that would not be the first time Dubois, would ‘choose poorly’ he would later be nonplussed by Hitler and Mussolini, as well as his Stalinist fixation,

    narciso (24b824)

  38. I dunno, Kevin, it sure helped me feel better to vent after having to step over so many of his turdlets on so many threads.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. And to be absolutely correct, the “Jim Crow” laws had their origins in the Black Codes, which the defeated Confederacy attempted to institute in 1865 and 1866, and which the 14th Amendment was intended to address. The end of Reconstruction in 1877 and US v Cruikshank (1876) which gutted the federal civil rights laws, were indeed the impetus to Jim Crow, which began immediately after Cruikshank.

    Wilson’s contribution was to resegregate the federal workforce, undoing the last vestiges of the Republican’s efforts at desegregation.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  40. I’ve never actually found “moron” to be helpful in any discussion

    nk has a low-grade infection of cheap compassion for compassion’s sake (also known as liberal-itis), so symptoms can sometimes manifest in various ways.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  41. > Wilson was not President after January 20, 1920

    Technically false for two reasons:

    (a) the term of the president elected in 1916 began in the spring of 1917 and ended in the spring of 1921;

    (b) the constitutional amendment changing the date of inauguration from March 4 to January 20 did not go into effect until 1933.

    Woodrow Wilson was president from March 4, 1913 through March 4, 1921. (Albeit he was largely nonfunctional after October 2, 1919).

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  42. Wilson’s contribution was to resegregate the federal workforce,

    I wonder if only a bigot would consider that an irrelevant “factoid” or want to argue about exactly when that occurred?

    Mark (6c28fd)

  43. Mark, at 43: while I don’t consider it an “irrelevant ‘factoid’” that Wilson was responsible for resegregating the federal workforce, I *do* want to argue about dates, because I think precision with respect to historical dates matters sometimes, and I think this is an occasion in which it does. I do not consider myself a bigot. Your mileage may vary.

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  44. Dana, since I take your aside as being a question in part to me:

    > As an aside, to those who were offended by the float, or thought it was mean-spirited or rude, does this expanded explanation change your mind or cause you to be more understanding of his expression, no matter how clumsily executed?

    My sense of the expanded explanation is that it hinges on this sentence:

    > “I tried to use political satire as best I could, but to be honest with you it’s mostly political disgust, simply no more or no less.”

    Which is to say, the author of the float *himself* describes it as being an expression of disgust. Not to express a political disagreement, or a policy disagreement – not to say the President is wrong and here’s why, but to express *disgust*.

    This may be my bias for preferring particular conversational and communication styles, but I don’t like it. It strikes me as being a *personal attack* rather than a *political disagreement*, put forward without any attempt whatsoever at “disagreeing without being disagreeable”. This style of discourse offends me on a deep level whether the target is a Democrat or a Republican.

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  45. aphrael, I’m sure you know my flippancy wasn’t directed in matters particular to you or to a discussion of Woodrow Wilson’s astonishing racism or bigotry in general.

    Incidentally, move the timeline forward by several decades and there is the matter of Bill Clinton (America’s “first black president”) being known for using in private the “n” word in a truly crude, vindictive way, or, in the case of his political maneuvering with Ted Kennedy, telling Kennedy that Obama in the past would have been someone deserving of no better than to serve coffee to people like him and Kennedy.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  46. I stand corrected on the dates, aphrael.

    nk (dbc370)

  47. Mark: true, I *do* know that. And yet the words could be taken that way … which is one of the reasons I prefer a more moderate discourse. :)

    > in the case of his political maneuvering with Ted Kennedy, telling Kennedy that Obama in the past would have been someone deserving of no better than to serve coffee to people like him and Kennedy.

    That’s an interesting thing, because I can read that two ways – one as a slur against Obama implying that things were right in the past and are wrong now, and one as a *celebration* of how much better the world is today than it was in the past of which Clinton spoke.

    For me, though, my experience is that the kind of overt racism you’re describing here is to some degree a generational thing. Johnson was more overtly racist than Clinton, and Clinton is more overtly racist than (say) Gavin Newsom … because they are all products of their times. My preference is to celebrate those who are better than their times, and castigate those who are worse than their times – but I take the perspective that it’s pointless to condemn those who are as their times made them and who are neither better than the mainstream nor worse than it.

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  48. It strikes me as being a *personal attack* rather than a *political disagreement*.

    I guess it therefore would be better if people like him be more specific, more candid in terms of ideology and say, quite simply, that Obama’s leftism is disgusting.

    BTW, when liberals excoriated George W Bush several years ago, they too could have dropped any two-faced pretense they otherwise had by proclaiming, quite plainly, that to them Bush’s rightism was disgusting.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  49. one as a slur against Obama implying that things were right in the past and are wrong now, and one as a *celebration* of how much better the world is today than it was in the past of which Clinton spoke.

    Yes, and I’m sure that Bill Clinton’s notorious responses to various women behind closed doors is not an example of his lack of decency towards women but, in actuality, a sign of his great respect for female equality.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  50. Soldiers die on hospital gurney, after giving their full measure from Normandy to Fallujah, and a deserter is welcomed with open arms,

    narciso (24b824)

  51. Mission accomplished:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/brics-announce-100-billion-reserve-bypass-fed-developed-world-central-banks

    Where’s our plastic turkey? At the 19th hole doubtless.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  52. Thanks for your response, aphrael. Interestingly, as I, too, dislike such displays of protest from either side of the aisle and find them unhelpful and in cases, destructive to the intent, his fuller explanation softened my reaction to him. It gave me a fuller picture of Remmich, the frustrated and yes, disgusted man. He wasn’t strident, nor straining at the bit to push his point across, but just appeared to be a normal guy who awkwardly tried to express his frustration. No raging political animal, nor one who seems too experienced at protesting, but rather more of a grass roots sort.

    Further, when he states, “I tried to use political satire as best I could, but to be honest with you it’s mostly political disgust, simply no more or no less.”, and in light of him being a veteran and reactive to the VA scandal (and his friends’ struggle with it), as well as his frustration with Bergdahl, it lent a clearer picture of where he was coming from. He is indeed disgusted by the outcomes of both issues and has a vested interest in them. I get that.

    I still believe it was a clumsy, poorly thought out display, and one would have to live under a rock to not know that it would be negatively received by the usual suspects, and result in an uproar. But DOJ sending a rep out? Ridiculous.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  53. I would add, I don’t even like it when commenters refer to each other as morons, let alone protest outhouses.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  54. Personally, I have an orgasm when I piss off drooling imbeciles. I don’t even respect sanctimony.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  55. That’s an interesting thing, because I can read that two ways – one as a slur against Obama implying that things were right in the past and are wrong now, and one as a *celebration* of how much better the world is today than it was in the past of which Clinton spoke.

    There is a third explanation which I am partial to: Bill Clinton was commenting upon Obama’s lack of experience and accomplishment in a lame attempt to promote his ersatz wife for the same office that Obama was seeking. He was telling Kennedy, hey, c’mon, this guy would barely be qualified to be a junior aide in your brother’s administration or in my own; yet now somehow he is supposedly a viable candidate here in 2008? It was an attempt to keep Teddy K in the Clinton camp, but like most of Bill’s efforts on behalf of other Democrats, it unsurprisingly failed.

    JVW (feb406)

  56. 56. Word.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  57. It strikes me as being a *personal attack* rather than a *political disagreement*.

    aphrael, isn’t it difficult to separate the two? The political disagreement (VA & Berghdahl) are both ultimately the responsibility of the president. So, yes, the president is being attacked for the political actions. Am I misreading this?

    Dana (4dbf62)

  58. Further, when he states, “I tried to use political satire as best I could, but to be honest with you it’s mostly political disgust, simply no more or no less.”, and in light of him being a veteran and reactive to the VA scandal (and his friends’ struggle with it), as well as his frustration with Bergdahl, it lent a clearer picture of where he was coming from. He is indeed disgusted by the outcomes of both issues and has a vested interest in them. I get that.

    I find it to be less offensive than telling a crowd of smug Euro weenies that you are ashamed that the President of the United States is from your home state, but hey, the Dixie Chicks became left-wing icons for that little act of petulance. Maybe Mr. Remmich will get to pose semi-nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly for his efforts, but I kind of doubt it.

    JVW (feb406)

  59. yes, it was too oblique a display, some clearer signifiers should have been used, like when someone is hung in effigy, as referenced earlier, or their church is set ablaze, and 5 1/2 years later, there have been no arrests,

    narciso (24b824)

  60. For those of you who are comfortable with rough men, ready to take matters into hand, here’s where to house hunt.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/07/20140715_Vets.jpg

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  61. It’s obviously racist because it hasn’t been white-washed.

    htom (412a17)

  62. As an aside, to those who were offended by the float, or thought it was mean-spirited or rude

    What they think or don’t think is something I can’t be too scornful of if they at least — at least — don’t fall for the notion that their liberalism imbues them with a special extra heap of compassion and generosity.

    Since human nature is fairly universal, and leftist traits in the US are not too different from leftist traits across the Atlantic, I wonder how many of the people described below, if they were transported to this side of the pond and placed in the middle of the particular modest controversy in the American Midwest from a few days ago, would have been in the forefront of resenting and repudiating the anti-Obama parade float?

    Keep in mind, by the way, that Obama (unlike Margaret Thatcher—87 years old upon her death) is still alive and still in office (ie, he is fair game, and appropriately so), and was not personally (if even as a corpse) at the parade in Nebraska, was not being publicly demonstrated against for something he had done decades in the past, was not tolerating that those demonstrating against him be accepted at face value (ie, instead of accusing them of “racism!” and getting DOJ flunkies to look into their MO).

    theguardian.com, April 2013: Hundreds of protesters turned their backs on Margaret Thatcher’s funeral procession as it passed through central London on Wednesday during a day of highly charged but peaceful demonstrations. In the former mining community of Goldthorpe in South Yorkshire, an effigy of Thatcher was put in a mock-up coffin and carried to wasteland where it was set alight to cheers and cries of: “Scab, scab, scab.”

    Celebrations were held in former mining areas in the north-east of England and in South Wales. In Liverpool, the radical bookshop News from Nowhere said party packs – containing black balloons and party poppers with the politician’s face on and bearing the legend: “Still hate Thatcher” – sold out in two days.

    In London, protest organisers had called for people to silently turn their back on Thatcher’s coffin. But as it came into view at 10.45am, there were shouts of “What a waste of money” and “Tory scum”. Similar shouts at other points on the route were drowned out by pro-Thatcher clapping.

    Police had told Blum the protest could go ahead and by 9.30am about 100 people had gathered at the normally busy junction in central London. As the first ceremonial military band went past just before 10am, there were boos and chants from protesters.

    Mark (6c28fd)

  63. BTW, the Jim Crow laws introduced during the 1920s were initiated by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a self-described progressive or liberal.

    Jim Crow laws were “introduced” in 1876; Plessy v. Ferguson was in 1896, moron.

    The laws Plessey upheld were state laws. I don’t think there ever were any federal Jim Crow laws, but Wilson introduced segregation to DC and the federal bureaucracy.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  64. This is what the reality of Hope & Change looks like. IDIOCRACY is here (2006) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ . And WE is livi’n it. GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (316cd5)

  65. The outhouse is an excellent visual expression of political disgust: Obama has turned the White House into a shit house. It’s become ground-zero for the tyrant’s nefarious plots to undermine the nation’s economy, violate the rights of American citizens, undermine the Constitution, and coddle enemy terrorists at home and arm them abroad. Bravo for Dale Remmich, his float speaks truth to power and power. Ridicule is Remmich’s weapon and he landed a direct hit.

    ropelight (86c6f6)

  66. Brawndo!!!

    Colonel Haiku (fdf771)

  67. Glad to have Q1 at -2.9% behind us?

    The economy is slowing down!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-16/industriual-production-drops-misses-most-january

    Seriously, I wonder what our Pollyannas are drinking. The engine has left the tracks.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  68. No, not economy fear… economy BRAVE!

    Colonel Haiku (0ccd7a)

  69. It’s an *obnoxious and mean* form of speech that should embarass the speaker

    It’s funny that neither a crucifix stuck in a bucket of urine nor a picture of Mary splotched with elephant dung were never supposed to embarrass their respective creators. In fact, those pieces were hailed by many on the left as art. By comparison, this parade float is pretty innocuous.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  70. And how about this Republican outhouse in Mississippi? http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/15/Boyle-McDaniel-Camp-Found-8300-Vote-Irregularities . Be sure to check out the reader comments, noting that FOX cable is CRICKETS………………… on this election fraud/theft. GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (316cd5)

  71. It is extraordinary that the DOJ is using their resources on this. On the upside, playing small ball like this keeps them from doing something potentially worse

    JD (bc0658)

  72. > It’s funny that neither a crucifix stuck in a bucket of urine nor a picture of Mary splotched with elephant dung were never supposed to embarrass their respective creators.

    Neither were directed at an identifiable living person, or at an identifiable recently dead person.

    That distinction really matters if what you’re uncomfortable with is the personal nature of the attack.

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  73. speaking of statements of protest, we learned yesterday of a statement of defiance what amounts to a stunning and delicious bitch-slap to the sitting governor of California

    Californians increased water consumption this year during the state’s severe drought, despite pleas from the governor to conserve, fallowed farm fields and reservoirs that are quickly draining, according to a report released Tue.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  74. “Neither were directed at an identifiable living person, or at an identifiable recently dead person.

    That distinction really matters if what you’re uncomfortable with is the personal nature of the attack.”

    aphrael – Personally, I’m not very comfortable with Harry Reid vilifying living private citizens on the floor of the Senate in frequently completely dishonest attacks merely for exercising their constitutional rights, secure in the knowledge that he is protected by the speech and debate clause. I think that is more disgusting that one individual having the DOJ sicced on him for a float in a parade especially given the power differential.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. ==“Neither were directed at an identifiable living person, or at an identifiable recently dead person.==

    aphrael, I am disappointed and somewhat surprised that while you responded to the cross in the urine bucket and elephant dung art, you did not address the Palin (VP candidate) effigy hanging from a tree, or the widely acclaimed (on the left) “alternate history Bush assassination movie” which was actually in theatres while he was occupying the White House. (If you did, either contemporaneously or now elsewhere on this thread and I missed it, I’m sorry.) I think that when and why the DOJ gets itself involved in political speech and expression is really the issue of import here–not whether the speech is tasteful or not.

    elissa (1d9a3d)

  76. happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/16/2014 @ 8:32 am

    Californians increased water consumption this year during the state’s severe drought, despite pleas from the governor to conserve, fallowed farm fields and reservoirs that are quickly draining, according to a report released Tue.

    They should have conserved waste all those other years.

    Now there was nothing left to conserve, and increaed demand because of the heat.

    Sammy Finkelman (c33275)

  77. and delicious bitch-slap to the sitting governor of California

    Only “delicious” if it’s placed against the backdrop of people like him proclaiming “give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and then joyfully flinging over the border.

    BTW, were it not for a large influx of people from mainly south of the border over the past few decades, California’s population (or America’s largest state) not only wouldn’t have grown quite so much, it perhaps would have even dropped considerably. Los Angeles’ growth rate, as one example, probably would therefore have more in common with that of Cleveland’s or Kansas City’s.

    Go west, young man!, indeed.

    Mark (d0695a)

  78. 75 – Elissa, I’m quite sure aphrael was just as upset when “… progressive heroes Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield went so far as to take a twelve-foot effigy of Bush on a national tour, setting fire to it at each stop to the audience’s hearty cheers…” – just as much as he’s upset that this regime’s DOJ, IRS, ATF, etc. target a specific viewpoint of speech for governmental intimidation.

    Walter Cronanty (d16f1a)

  79. Hypocrisy lives in the hearts and minds of teh Left!

    Colonel Haiku (2c2cec)

  80. Free yer mind, aphrael, and yer ass will follow…

    Colonel Haiku (2c2cec)

  81. progressive heroes Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield went so far as to take a twelve-foot effigy of Bush on a national tour, setting fire to it at each stop to the audience’s hearty cheers…”

    I’ve never heard that story before, which I’m sure isn’t due in part to the great objectivity of the MSM. You made me so curious about the details that I looked them up and found this:

    usatoday.com, July 2004: Call it the burning Bush. The co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream is on the road, towing a 12-foot-tall effigy of President Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants.

    Ben Cohen says it’s an acceptable way to point out what he calls the president’s lies.

    “In a polite society, you don’t go up to a person and look at them in the face and say, ‘You’re a liar,’” Cohen said in a telephone interview before arriving in Spokane, the next stop on the Pants on Fire Tour.

    “We think it’s a lot more dignified and there’s a lot more decorum to say, ‘Excuse me sir, your pants are getting a little warm, don’t you think?’” Cohen said.

    White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said most people in America support Bush’s policies, and that the president supports free speech.

    “The president welcomes the fact that we live in a democracy and that people in this country are free to make their own opinions known,” Lisaius said.

    ^ The most laughable and contemptible aspect of people like Ben Cohen is they undoubtedly see themselves as being driven by emotions of generosity, compassion, humaneness and tolerance.

    Bush’s response to such “compassion” is why I miss having adults in the White House.

    Mark (d0695a)

  82. It seems to me that on any given weekend you are going to find a dozen parades with floats cleverly skewering our shitheel of a president.

    Why would Obama single out this one for the DOJ to suddenly spring into action?

    The float isn’t even distinctly critical of Obama.

    My guess is the obamaroids went looking for a “soft target”. They wanted to pick out someone who isn’t going to sue.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  83. That was the M.O. for the tax audits. They bypassed established well funded GOP organizations in favor of hammering small time grassroot startups. In effect taking out “soft targets”. The political equivalent of shooting up a school in a gun-free zone.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  84. So if the same float was used, but the Obama on the side was replaced with Clinton or Bush, would the float be racist?

    I remember several memes which portrayed Bush as a monkey. (Chimpy McBusHitler) Were those racist?

    Loren (1e34f2)

  85. i don’t understand what all the butthurt above is about.

    now everyone have some Val-U-Rite and a piece of this tasty hobo jerky, and lets all be friends.

    (except “vota” of course: he can sod off %-)

    redc1c4, moron in good standing (abd49e)

  86. i did my taxes a few years back, when i actually had some income, and the IRS adjusted them, which means they were reviewed, and sent me a refund.

    a couple of months later, i signed an on-line petition at the WH web page, using my military e-mail address. shortly after that, i got a letter from the IRS saying that they had re-reviewed my taxes, and that the refund i had received had been turned into a tax bill, to which they had already applied penalties and interest.

    of course it’s just a coincidence, right?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  87. Walter Cronanty – I’ve never before heard that story. I find that a bit less offensive, because it doesn’t involve *an outhouse*, but it’s still intentionally mean, cheap, and tawdry, and should not have been done.

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  88. …but it’s still intentionally mean, cheap, and tawdry, and should not have been done.

    really? i don’t remember any public outcry at the time, here or anywhere else.

    i guess some pigs ARE more equal than others.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  89. Elissa, at 75: my apologies. I had not noticed a question directed at me about either the Palin effigy or the alternate history Bush assassination movie. The urine-cruxifix and elephant-dung-Mary statement did, however, appear directed specifically at me. :)

    Now that you’ve directly brought these to my attention, though:

    (a) the Palin effigy hanging from a tree was rude, intentionally mean, and inappropriate. This was made *even worse* by the dynamics of the election and the fact that a hanging-from-the-tree effigy of Obama would have been clearly off limits in the minds of the people who hung the Palin effigy.

    (b) I’m unfamiliar with the alternate history Bush assassination movie of which you speak, and so do not want to speak to it. I think it’s possible that an alternate history movie (or book) could be more than just a mean-spirited personal attack, depending on the contents of the script, etc – and I don’t know enough to speculate.

    I agree that the DOJ should not be involved in this. And yet it irks me when the people in question are being held up as paragons. :)

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  90. redc1c4 – i don’t understand what you’re trying to say. i’m hardly responsible for what the public chooses to outcry about. :) i’m just stating my opinion on the civility of the speech. :)

    aphrael (98d2d0)

  91. there was also a book by Nicholson Baker, which was a long rant against W, which culminated with ruminations on how to kill him,

    narciso (24b824)

  92. among other things, i was pointing out that i don’t remember you being offended by all the evil directed at Sarah or W… at least not here.

    as for the movie about him, it’s not hard to find

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  93. PS: not saying you weren’t offended, just that i don’t remember you saying anything about it.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  94. Neither were directed at an identifiable living person, or at an identifiable recently dead person.

    That distinction really matters if what you’re uncomfortable with is the personal nature of the attack.

    Nice mealy-mouth, aphrael; I really expected better of you. The “attack” in the parade wasn’t personal, it was political, directed at The President. Plenty of attacks were made at Bush, and I don’t remember you saying any one of them should have been ashamed.

    According to your logic, we should be free to ridicule someone who isn’t “recently dead” (whatever that means). So, a politician who’s been dead for 10 years is fair game? Just what is the appropriate mourning period?

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  95. Aphrael – No one is holding up Mr. Remmich as a “paragon.” Personally, I find his “outhouse” as Presidential Library much more tasteful than many of the things said about, and things done to effigies of, W.
    What outrages me, however, is the governmental targeting of speech based on its viewpoint. Such governmental intimidation from this Administration is antithetical to core First Amendment values. I knew before his election that Obama thought our Constitution was flawed. What I didn’t know was the typical leftist’s disdain for basic individual liberties as evidenced by their defense of this Administrations attacks on freedom of speech, religion and association.

    Walter Cronanty (d16f1a)

  96. Thanks for the link to the movie I referenced, Redc. aphreal is generally quite well read and up on political stuff including most partisan controversies, and I believe he tries to be fair and to judge situations carefully and evenly. I don’t fault the fact that he was unaware of it as much to him, as I do to the “professional media” and national networks who buried it. The lefty blogs loved that film. There was no message or redeeming social value to that movie while W was in the White House–none— but it was not hard to guess that its writers and producers hoped someone might get “an idea”. One can only imagine what hell would have broken loose if someone had tried out a similar “alternate history” assassination film during our current president Obama’s time in office.

    elissa (1d9a3d)

  97. A few years ago I was at a dollar store and they had a box of humorous metal signs about 8 inches by 10 – I’m sure you’ve seen these things at highway truck stops. Anyway, one was Bush’s head on a monkey’s body in the oval office and said something like ‘if a monkey can do it anybody can do it’. This is a mass produced sign………but the outhouse is DANGEROUS? Really, really? We can debate how thick a skin the President must have but are we really saying it’s okay that the President is a baby? Did he miss the ‘sticks and stones’ lessons from kindergarten?

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  98. I have a comment stuck in moderation. I’m guessing sh*theel was deemed too discriptive for use with the President.

    Could you unstick me please?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  99. 84. The butthurt is preposterous and disingenuous. Just making azzez out of the moderates, who can’t stomach being thought ill of by the worst scoundrel.

    All men are grass.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  100. I also seem to have a comment held in moderation. was it the Ch*mpy McBusH*tler?

    Loren (1e34f2)

  101. the widely acclaimed (on the left) “alternate history Bush assassination movie” which was actually in theatres while he was occupying the White House.

    I never understood why people were upset by that. The film wasn’t anti-Bush; on the contrary, it treated him as a martyr. Personally I’d have liked to see a film exploring a slightly different scenario, in which Bush was killed on 11-Sep-2001. Or one in which he was shot before his inauguration, by a black gunman who had been listening to the incendiary racial attacks that were coming in those weeks from Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and other prominent black Democrats. Both scenarios present fertile ground for speculation about what would have resulted.

    I also don’t recall it being widely acclaimed, on the left or anywhere else. Maybe I’ve just forgotten all this acclaim, or missed it. WP says it was mostly panned, and that its US run was only 14 days, at only 143 theaters.

    Milhouse (50cb78)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3025 secs.