Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:10 AM
Fri Dec 18
46 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/12/09
They just can't handle that reality.
08/12/09
August 2009. A resident of a small town in New Hampshire shows up at an Obama townhall meeting armed, standing on church grounds (with the churches permission), with a placard openly stating his antipathy for the president.
Trifecta!
08/11/09
American history tends to get progressively more liberal. Race rights, suffrage, civil rights and then even marriage rights. We are expanding, government is widening but so are our ways of operating outside of the governmental scope (uncontrolled mediums of speech, like net and cell phones, more travel, more commerce, etc. etc.).
Basically, we as a country have a HISTORICAL tendency to liberalize.
So would it be possible that, because of our country's tendency to, aside from several hiccups like the Bush administration, head towards the left fiscally and socially, one of the reasons that these nutjobs are SO nutty is because they, intrinsically know they are on the losing side?
I mean, in thirty years, what will this conversation look like? How will the Howard Zinns of the world phrase this little moment in our country's timeline?
08/11/09
08/12/09
But unfortunately there's this canyon between what history thinks of us and the here-and-now. I'm not worried about the historical interpretation. Grand scheme? We're totally liberalizing.
But the here-and-now... Oh man are there always hiccups. Hiccups, like presidents being assassinated in 1963 mere years before blacks became real Americans. There's blood on the record when it comes to the lurching toward inevitable progress. And it's scary to think about that right now.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/11/09
I've enjoyed the privilege of free basic services health care since I was born, and cannot fathom having to pay to see a doctor or visit a hospital. Why would people not want this? To be treated based on the severity of your case, rather than how much cash you have in your bank account.
08/11/09
This is non-negotiable for me. My brothers both own shotguns and some day I'd like to join them shooting skeet or hunting. But guns carried by private citizens in a public place that I know about mean only that I have to leave that place.
So basically I think this guy is just a bully, exercising his second amendment right over the rights of his fellow citizens to feel safe and secure in public...you know, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness bit.
A week after what happened in Pennsylvania, this guy should have been taken downtown to enjoy the hospitality of the city. And I sure hope that police chief doesn't find himself explaining why they let him go to subsequently shoot up a McDonald's.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
In all seriousness, I think this points to an essential dishonesty and deliberate ignorance that's part and parcel of American politics. What Jefferson was doing was acting in the interests of himself and others of his class and nationality. I'm thrilled he did, trust me, because it becomes part of the evolution that leads to people like me getting to vote. But we need to get clear in this country that Liberty has never been a simple proposition, that there will always be competing interests and competing liberties to be reconciled, and that what worshiping Unity and Liberty uncritically has generally meant is simply that the interests of the more powerful are represented as being what's best for everyone, and the interests of the least powerful people get silenced.
We may be created equal, but some are definitely more equal than others here, by virtue of any number of factors. The liberty of white male landowners is not the only liberty we should care about in looking at our history, just as the liberty of people with the means to procure private health care is not the only liberty we should care about today.
08/11/09
Well, my point is that it is NOW. But it wasn't always. That liberty was built in steps, and to look back on the doings of great men and say "oh they weren't great by TODAY'S standards" is to exploit your privilege for the purpose of feeling good about yourself, and for feeling self-righteous.
Debate isn't about being right, and feeling good, but about improving yourself through trying to be as accurate, and as understanding as possible.
08/11/09
To hold a human being up as "great" while ignoring his faults is inaccurate. Jefferson was a great writer, but he was not a great man.
08/11/09
At any rate, your point about changing standards isn't really well taken. Jefferson's best friend was John Adams, who never owned a slave and declined on principle to do so. It's not as if the immorality of slavery were a recent scientific discovery of which it was impossible for him to be aware. In fact, he was quite aware of it, and it wracked his conscience. But finally, he preferred to keep Monticello and own slaves. It's really that simple. Freeing his slaves would have involved financial ruin for him, and he didn't want to do it.
I'm not saying this makes him a wholly horrible, evil man, or that it's impossible to respect his other achievements because of his failure in this respect, but it does make him a hypocrite. Blinding ourselves to this in an excess of zeal to maintain a spotless image of him as a prophet of Liberty means numbing ourselves to the enormity of the crime that was committed against millions of people, and pretending that this was some equivocal matter about which reasonable people could differ. It wasn't. It was always wrong, and lots of people knew it, and said so, plainly, all along. Unfortunately, lots of other people chose to ignore that, because they enjoyed being rich, and wouldn't have been able to be so otherwise. People like Jefferson.
08/11/09
08/11/09
that quote is a good 200+ years old, different time and yes, two separate issues.
if missnorman's argument were legitimate, one could argue the entire constitution and declaration of independence are both null and void (to put it lightly) because of extremely unfortunate social norms 200+ years ago.
@MissNormaDesmond: of course it's fundamentally hypocritical.
an educated troll is still a troll.
if you did a bit more homework, you'd come to learn that the founding fathers would have NEVER gotten the constitution signed by everyone if we magically traveled back in time and tried to get OUR modern social insight included then...they KNEW times would change and there is an AWFUL lot of language in those documents with room for that change....the changes that led to the end of slavery, social reforms, etc.
you arguing this point here makes you no better than the sign-toting dummies just trying to cause trouble instead of actually providing relevant feedback
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
I agree with her that TJ was a hypocrite, and he had every inclination that slave ownership was inhumane. But who in the hell can prove it? Also, given the social context, it was as acceptable then as dumping sewage into rivers is now. Governments allow it, but we all know it's wrong.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
The hearting is mutual. I actually also heart Peeps, I just disagree with him about this and other things. I will not hazard a guess as to his feelings about me.
08/12/09
And as for self-improvement... well, I question everything I say, and everything I do. All the time. I run it through my internal censor. It says "am I being stupid? Am I being overly critical? What am I saying? Can this be wrong? How would I make this wrong? Am I just saying these things out of vanity? What would somebody else say about this?".
This is how I got out of the third-year college criticism bind, where all Marxists see only Marxist problems in literature, and all Feminists see gender-based issues. And everyone is so keened-up on their own ability to decipher the world that they get tunnel vision. It's also how you gain the ability to understand other points of view, to separate philosophical principles from your OWN principles.
And whether he was a great man or not... well, he WAS a great writer and that makes a lot of difference. He inspired men and through his efforts found himself in a pivotal place in the history of Western Democracy. He certainly wasn't morally perfect, but moral perfection is unattainable. If that's the measure of greatness, then there are NO great men.
08/12/09
I'd be willing to guess that the single-minded monomaniacal pursuit of a particular goal is a necessary insanity that drives "great" and "genius" people. That makes them awful in a lot of other respects, or areas of life.
08/12/09
"You" being the gun-toting dude, I hasten to add, not you, Peeps.
08/12/09
you're a troll because you made an obviously inflammatory statement for no reason other than to cause trouble.
an argument you haven't made? but you did, you absoloutely did.
you don't think they KNEW they were hypocrites when they wrote that language and at the same time kept the status quo?
wake up.
we're talking about an audacious, brazen idiot openly suggesting the president should be killed while toting a gun on church property...which the church allowed. i'm not disuputting gun freedoms, states rights, or private property laws, but THAT is scary.
stay on topic and quit being such a victim in your rhetoric. jeez.
afterabe "Jefferson was flawed...I guess it's easy to look back at one of the country's "founding fathers" and strip away his contribution to your freedom to express your disdain for him by reducing him to a "great writer.""
do you have ANY idea how many countries and millions of people have fashioned their democratic constitutions after our own? how many south american and african countries? i bet those people who are free now couldn't care less that 300 years ago, in a COMPLETELY different social era, the guys that wrote this yeah, held slaves too.
i guess i have to say it again- when the constitution was written, there was NO chance of freeing the slaves at that point.
it's sad but true. but the writers paved the way for it to happen. we all have plenty NOW to be dissatisfied and upset about, why are you getting all bothered over a 300 year old contradiction?
when the italians first came to america, they were treated just as bad. same for the irish and chinese back then, same for many latinos and middle eastern people today.
jackson was a hypocrite. please, go disclose these new findings to the historians.
08/12/09
08/12/09
(OOPS THERE WE GO. FAIL.)
We may be created equal, but some are blahblahblahblahblah."
go back, go waaaaay back and read up a bit. about the guy? with the gun? at a church? waiting for our president? yeah, that's what we were talking about. liberties inside our country.
quote, pope- "Are you aware that those are two separate issues? Liberty of a country and universal human rights?"
DINGDINGDING!
08/12/09
"Jackson had two adopted sons...Lyncoya, a Creek Indian orphan adopted by Jackson after the Creek War."
oh yes, he adopts a native american boy but is automatically a terrible, awful hypocrite because holding slaves was unfortunately the legal social norm back then and OH MY he had slaves.
are there any documents you can find stating HOW jackson treated his slaves? never said the guy was perfect, but jesus, let it go.
and once again, ALL OF THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.
GOD you suck.
08/13/09
I mean, if you want to keep having an apoplectic fit in print, that's your privilege, but you're starting to look kind of insane.
08/11/09
Sorry to spoil the sobfest.
08/11/09
I miss commenter executions.
08/11/09
jeez, it doesn't take much to be considered articulate on fox, huh? o_0
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/11/09
Christ, by the way, who died for your sins.
Sins like endangering people by allowing a man armed with an extremely dangerous weapon on your church lawn.
To complete the effect, instead of shouting "You work for us!" as Obama passes, just go ahead and turn back to face the church steeple and yell "Crucify him!"
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
And for the record, as much as I like Obama, I think he's backpedaling too much on his goals in the name of pragmatism. I'm afraid the health care reform we're going to get is going to be so watered down as to be worthless. too bad.
08/11/09
08/11/09
Democrats and Republicans, what a joke. At least the Democrats have the decency to let you know up-front they're going to fuck you.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
The man with the pistol is a citizen of the United States and has every right to be armed on private property. Indeed, it is the duty of President Obama and his government officials to protect and defend that right.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
And don't tell me that wasn't a threat.
08/11/09
Meh.
08/11/09
Swifter commented on All About the New Gawker Commenting Features
"Hate this, but I had already decided to abandon Gawker anyway, do this is just the icing on the cake."
[gawker.com] 3:30 PM on Sep 22, 2008
----
You have a problem with reality, eh?
08/11/09
Until I see/hear a more responsible message and/or denunciation from the GOP and their FOX news(?) media masters, I feel no shame in saying that they are no better than fascist, fear mongering Nazi pigs! I mean really, while everyone's busy making a cartoon out of Hitler's era...the facts remain; in the last century when have we seen such evidence of a western political party's use of profoundly social/personal demonizations of persons or groups as their only platform! As far as I know that's not what Conservatism means and I wish more Conservatives would speak up!
08/11/09
I can say for a fact, if the anti-war rallies and protesters were carrying unconcealed weapons close to Bush a few a years ago, Fox News and all the other gun lovers within the comments wouldnt have been so gung ho. There is NO REASON to bring a handgun to a protest. NONE. Unless you plan on using it. I do not understand the threat these white men have since they have been ruling the fucking country for years. We aren't going to take away your guns, and we want to make sure you live healthier lives so we can GIVE YOU healthcare and you still hate us. I will never get it.
08/11/09
08/11/09