I/d bet he wished he "only" belonged to Sons of Confederate Veterans

Übergeek 바둑이: I wonder what the senate pro tempore had to say about all of that? Sen Robert Byrd from W Virginia

Artful Dodger:

>  Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst and how one senator called the remark racist

This is a tricky one.  Barack Obama (through the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs) said that he did not believe that Wilson's comment was the result of racism.  Wilson later apologized rather informally to the president.  Democrats wanted him to apologize in the open floor of the House, but Wilson and the Republican caucus refused.  Since Wilson refused to apologize formally in the House of Representatives, he angered many Democrats and that is where the accusation of racism comes from.

Is Addison Graves Wilson Sr. (aka Joe Wilson) a racist?  In his case we are talking about guilt by association.  Wilson is associated with people who have been accused or were well known for being racist.  Joe Wilson worked as an aide to Senator Strom Thurmond.

Sen. Thurmond was one of the strongest supporters of seggregation and in 1957 he led the biggest fillibuster in US History.  He successfully blocked passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  For most of his life Thurmond defended his seggregationist views although later in life he moderated his views on race and even hired an African American aide.  He also fathered an illegitimate son with his African American maid.  It seems that Thurmond started as a hardened seggregationisn in South Carolina, but moderated his position later on.

Joe Wilson is also a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).  This is an organization of male descendants of soldiers or sailors who served the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.  The SCV's mission is "preserving the history and legacy of Confederate heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause."  Although the SCV has openly opposed the KKK, accusations against its members have surfaced over the years.  Those accusations include racism, revival of seggregation, and white supremacism.

A good question is whether Wilson can be accused of being a racist for having worked for a seggregationist and his being a member of the SCV.  The evidence is circumstantial at best.  Guilt by association is not proof, but it does make people think.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Cosby have called Wilson a racist, while Donna Edwards, an African American congresswoman, disagree.

What worries me about Joe Wilson is his campaign funding.  According to OpenSecrets.org, over his career he has received $251,196 from health professionals, $89,650 from pharmaceutical companies and $68,250 from hospitals and nursing homes.  The Health sector has been his biggest contributor over the years.  There is also a further $117,533 from lobbyist, and who knows who they work for.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00024809&type=I

His track record is not different from other politicians who are influenced by other sectors of the economy.  However, it could explain some of the motivation behind his outburst during Obama's speech.

Artful Dodger:   Where have you seen "real" racism & in what context?

Good to know that I'm not alone in my concern on the overuse of the term racism. It gets too much play today. Some think that the debate is over once you charge someone with being a racist. It's not so. Calling a duck a pig doesn't make it a pig. A duck is a duck. Racism is racism.

Misuse of the terms dishonors real victims of racism. Some have claimed that disagreeing with Obama is racism. The claim is that people who disagree with Obama's policies do so not because of legitimate disagreement, but because they don't want to see a black man succeed. How stupid.

As one blogger put it: "But today, the term racism has been misused and abused to the point where there is a real risk of a complete devaluing of the term. This would be a huge disservice to those who have or are experiencing the impact of true racism."

The blogger referenced Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst and how one senator called the remark racist. One can disagree with a person of color without being a racist. And calling Obama a liar is not racist. This is particularly true because in this instance, Obama was lying. A white lie but a lie all the same. BTW, Maureen Dowd, a NY Times columnist posted an opinion piece that came right out and said that Joe Wilson's comment was all about racism. She needs to read her history book and discover all the things that have been said about past presidents. Wilson's comment was tame next to some others. Even that baffoon Jimmy Carter is throwing out the racism charge. Was there ever a more inept President than Carter? Good thing he's white so I can say he's a buffoon. If he were black, I'd be labeled a racist.

A philosophy professor wrote a book on this very subject: I'm Not a Racist, But...: The Moral Quandary of Race (Paperback)
~ Lawrence Blum

Here's an excerpt from a review.

"From Booklist
The term racism has been so overused that it is in danger of losing its moral significance, according to philosophy professor Blum, who argues for clearer, more precise use of the word and related terminology. Blum examines related concepts and terms --institutional racism, personal racism, racist, racist beliefs--and their interplay as he explores the moral implications of racism on a multiplicity of levels."

It's exactly what I am saying, and I am right. The term racism is so overused that when some hear it (like me) they just shake their head and say, "Here we go again."

Maybe Griffin is a legitimate racist. But just because some pinhead carelessly throws that label at him doesn't make it so. No matter how much any of you protest to the contrary. Maybe what you think is racism is really your own ignorance at play. At least that's how I read it when people are so irresponsible with such a lethal charge. Perhaps those that carelessly level the charge are a bit bigoted themselves. Either that or intellectual cripples.

Übergeek 바둑이: So many people throw out the "racism" charge for so many non-racist things, when I hear someone throw out that charge I don't take them seriously. Racism is a particular thing. If true racism encompasses all the things that some have imagined, we are all racists. No one is exempt. And the leaders of the pack may just be the Black leaders, according to the definition they use.

I know racism is real and exists today. But not everything can be labeled racism. It's done too easily these days and frankly those that so easily throw out that charge perpetuate the difficulties between the races. Some people want racism to exist so that they have a cause to fight against.

Artful Dodger:

>  What's tossed about these days as racism doesn't even come close.

In our modern era we have watered racism down so much that it doesn't even exist any more.  From now on all human beings are equal and everyone has the same rights and priviledges.  We should throw a big party in the streets and celebrate the end of human inequality!     

Artful Dodger: You've seen 'real' racism. So have many others and do so today. Just because it ain't burning crosses and segregation don't mean it ain't 'real'. We've witnessed racism here, religionism.. we lived through via the IRA v Loyalists.

Cheap use of 'real' is a politician trick. It's old... and doesn't hack it.

(V): Racist is a cheap term these days. I've seen real racism. What's tossed about these days as racism doesn't even come close. It's just a convenient way of minimizing the opposition. Little more than a cheap shot.

Snoopy: I'm not twisting, I'm just exercising a bit of PERSPECTIVE. An opinion based on the wages some earn. Bankers getting big money bonuses, the energy companies making record profits, etc.

(V): whatever you say must be right
you twist things round to suit yourself has per normal

all im saying is in 2017 if the BBC has to show adverts to survive i be the happiest person in the UK
but you want to bring everything else into the conversation and twist it to make you look good
well i dont have time to argue with you so Good Night

Snoopy: Because they are overpaid athletes. duh!!

One was recently asking for over £140K a WEEK.

Also.. if you don't want your money going to those who live a life of luxury.. Better find some remote island and not consume anything that you don't make. It's part of life every time you shop. Or do you think the Boots bosses earn peanuts??

(V): Right.. so while footballers are ripping off people and clubs thanks to 'Sky sports', Murdoch wants to charge for access to Murdoch group websites.. like news.

i couldnt care less what footballers get paid
why bring that up
what has it got to do with over paid actors such has Ross

and i OBJECT to my hard earned money going towards giving him a life of luxury

Artful Dodger: Griffin is a racist, hardly a stand up guy.. and quite frankly as some linked to the BNP have committed bombing on civilians or conspiracy to bomb. Well as I said... not all terrorists are Muslim.

Snoopy: Right.. so while footballers are ripping off people and clubs thanks to 'Sky sports', Murdoch wants to charge for access to Murdoch group websites.. like news.

Please. Jonathan Ross's wages are small compared to some celeb's. And quite frankly with his pulling power why not pay him a big wage. And while others are creaming the UK public... Did you hear about the Halifax via watchdog and their new fee scheme, which in cases can equal to a 100,000+% interest rate per year.

Do you think the ITV big stars just get paid peanuts?

All I'm saying is Griffin was a stand up guy for agreeing to take the heat in an environment that clearly was him against the rest. He didn't hide under his desk like some do.

Too bad he had to complain about the "fairness" of the forum. Politicians need to learn to take their lumps and not whine about it.

Bwild:
Made in the USA:  Nova, Nature, Front Line, Independend Lens, Austin City Limits, This Old House, New Yankee Workshop, and many others.
Made in the UK:  Mysteries (Sherlock Holmes, Morse, Inspector Lewis, Midsommer Murders, etc, etc.  Lots of them), commedy (Are You Being Served?, Keeping Up Appearances, The Last of the Summer Wine, Red Dwarf, Monty Python, Jeeves and Wooster, etc, etc.  Lots of them too), theatre (Shakespeare's plays, period pieces from Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, the Bronte Sisters, etc, etc.)
Made in Canada:  The Red Green Show
There is also children's programming, educational programming, art, music, dance, etc.  PBS is 24 hours of the highest quality television you can see anywhere, and not a single ad to be seen.  Without a question PBS is the best anywhere.

Something that makes me curious is how commercial programming runs without ads.  Commercial programming can be good too.  I saw Rome and 24 on DVD.  Rome was great.  It flows perfectly without ads.  24 was so so.  It had this clock coming in to telegraph the ad breaks.  I have never seen CSI without ads.  I imagine that it must flow better without ads.

pbs has some great programs......nova,austin city limits, and red green

Snoopy:

>  its outdated in this day and age the BBC should do what the other stations do and allow
>  adverts to make there money

It sounds to me like the BBC operates out of public money and for that reason it is free of commercial advertising.  Canada and the US see a lot of BBC programs through both local stations as well as BBC international broadcasts such as the BBC World Service.  Here in Canada we get some of the best BBC programming and those Canadians who watch BBC shows have a very high opinion of them.  The BBC has a reputation for quality, artistry and entertainment.

In Canada we have the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) which initally was modelled after the BBC.  The CBC allows commercial advertising and viewership has reduced over the years as more and more advertising intruded into the programming.  I think the CBC does not have the capital to compete with private broadcasters, so it relies in a mix of government funding and advertising revenue.  In terms of programming quality the CBC suffers from not enough funding for production.  Low funding means lower prodcution values and for that reason it is difficult for them to attract more viewers.

In the United States there is the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).  It broadcasts very high quality television without commercial advertising.  They operate with a mixture of government funding, donations from private foundations and donations from viewers.  While they struggle to maintain the capital needed to operate, they broadcast television programs produced in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and other countries around the world.  Of the different public systems, I will say that the American PBS is the best although now Canada has a similar channel called the Knowledge Network, which offers similar programming under a similar model.

All I will say is that if BBC programming came full of adverts, then people would probably lose interest soon.  BBC shows are produced and meant to be seen without adverts.  It is different from commercial broadcasters who write scripts in 7-8 minute segments with 2-4 minutes of adverts in between.  If the BBC were to commercialize itself, then its shows would change to a model similar to that of commercial television.  I think the high quality of programming that the BBC is reputed for would go down the drain.

(V): i think you find your just one of a few these days

the sooner the BBC and the government realise that ppl will not be ripped off any more the better

i could only ever agree to a tv licence in any shape or form when they stop paying the outragous wages to these wanabe stars ie: Johnathon Ross and all the soap stars

cant wait for 2017 to come and have them kick it into touch once and for all

Snoopy: Yes... people can watch TV using TV cards and the likes of BBC iplayer. And I'd rather have the BBC advert free. I hated it when ITV were showing F1 and every 10 minutes or so there were adverts.

The BBC does raise money through sales of it's programs and of merchandise (eg Dr who stuff) and produces programs that media guru's complain that we do not have enough of.

Also the BBC produces things like the World Service, something people around the world have relied on for info for many years. And as such.. the BBC was quite a significant part in the liberation of Europe from the Nazi's via coded messages.

It may not be perfect, but it is a British institution free of the likes of Murdoch and other manipulators of the media and the need to make programs just to raise the price of adverts.

(V): Some may not like the BBC and it's license fee, but it's a neutral company by it's charter. The fee pays for countless free local radio stations as well as TV without advertising. Nothing Murdoch owns can be said to be the same.

its outdated in this day and age
the BBC should do what the other stations do and allow adverts to make there money

its stupid even ppl who dont have a television installed but have a computer still have to pay it

i did read somewhere but cant find the link now that the government have to wait until 2017 until the BBC charter is up for renewal before they can make any changes

Artful Dodger: Then you'd need a near neutral show. According to you that is not possible in the USA. I see Fox news (and friends) complaining about Obama right now about freedom of speech, but where were their complaints when Bush was having protesters escorted to zones where the TV audience would not see them during him going 'walkabout' and trying to have many arrested on bogus charges.

Some may not like the BBC and it's license fee, but it's a neutral company by it's charter. The fee pays for countless free local radio stations as well as TV without advertising. Nothing Murdoch owns can be said to be the same.

As to Griffin.. the only point he had was that the immigration system as such is not doing it's job. Not enough money has been put into the system to deal with the problems that have arisen. I was dismayed that the Labour panellist tried to act all innocent on this. I'd rather have an honest politician say mistakes were made then one say all is fine.

And what problems in London are you talking about re the Islamic community.. My watch of the news has not been as great recently. But I've heard of no big riots.

Artful Dodger:   Perhaps Iran doesn't have an immigration problem because it has a brutality problem.

Snoopy: that is a lot of money....I can understand it as being unpopular. your BBC is equal to our ABC, but the Govt pays for that.

Bernice: we pay £142 50p a year for a tv licence which every household must have or get taken to court
this funds the BBC
its very unpopular these days cause simply its outdated

Snoopy: I just finished watching the whole thing. He's no idiot that's clear. Not many people could sit there for an hour and take fiery question after fiery question. He did make some points that even some in the audience recognized as legitimate (even if they disagreed with his remedy).

His appearance was necessary as the BNP has gained strength and it's time to put them in the public eye for scrutiny. Only face to face encounters such as Question Time could provide the kind of exposure and tough questioning that was witnessed on the program.

What caught me was the fact that Griffin was talking about some of the very same issues that we face here in the States. The UK had better deal effectively with it's immigration problems or soon enough it will get out of hand and become uncontrollable. Perhaps it's already too late for that. From some reports I've seen, London has some serious problems with some in the Islamic community. Such problems can't long be ignored.

I wonder if Iran has an immigration problem?

Snoopy: you say "pay a licence fee for" what is the licence for?

we have free to air TV of which there are about 10 channels and then there is paid TV which is about FROM $20 per month and owned by Murdoch I think??? and there are hundreds of channels, but licences I havent heard of.

I remember years and years ago in NZ people had to pay a licence for radio.

Artful Dodger: when it was first mentioned that he would appear i was gob smacked that a tv station
i have to pay a licence fee for was allowing him on

but after watching it and esp how the rest of the panel shot him down made him look small made my day

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/10/25/the-nasty-nick-show-why-we-needed-it-115875-21771418/

Griffin certainly has to been given some credit to face the fire. The entire audience and all on the panel were against him. I wish we could get some of Obama's people on a show like that and expose them for who they really are.

Bwild: PR companies. I hear one advert telling us Kellog invented Corn Flakes, when it was an accident!! Luckily he learned how to add vits otherwise the grits wouldn't be good for ya!!

Snoopy: That he kept changing his story when challenged by members on the audience... As one panel member said "stop with the 'bs'".

Mousetrap: He might get a few extra 'right fringe votes' but he ain't no John Hurt in "V for Vendetta" .

Just a silly remnant from when people blamed another race for not feeling ggod about themselves!!

Bwild:

Bwild:

Bwild: 
  For sure Hussein deserves the Nobel prize, maybe even the presidency.  Unfortunately all he got was a couple of blue ribbons.  Maybe they should have changed his name to something less scary to the voting public. 

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to
his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which
rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, Hussein, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed Hussein's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

To John's amazement, Hussein had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John was so proud of Hussein, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.


The result was the judges not only awarded Hussein the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well. Clearly Hussein was a politician in the making.

Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention

(V): Afterwards he complained that he had been treated unfairly saying much of the show had been a "beat up Nick Griffin programme instead of Question Time".

i must of been watching a different program then

(V): I think that is exactly what he wanted. Publicity.

Snoopy: Aye.. a total idiot, and shown so. The irony is now after being shown to be an idiot he's now practising "look at me" to cover his own lack of intelligence.

(V): the guy is a real joke
enough said

Last night Nick Griffin was on Question Time...

The BNP leader had an inquisition .

Jim Dandy:

Bwild:  And eating chips and twinkies too!

Czuch:

>  I dont mind it as a prescribed drug, I am sure it much safer than many other prescribed drugs,
>  and others that are legal too. but I dont want you and me growing it and selling legally to someone
>  with a prescription either.

I think this will always be a problem with recreational drugs.  Alcohol is available to anyone over 18 (or 21, depending on where you live).  The same is true with tobacco.

I think that people should get an alcohol consumer license.  If people drink responsibly, then they have earned the right to enjoy their alcohol.  If somebody is found driving or operating machinery under the influence of alcohol, or causing a domestic disturbance, or falling into addiction (alcoholism), then they should lose their alcohol license temporarily or permanently depending on the case.  We have this with driving licenses and drunk drivers lose their licenses, but not their ability to buy alcohol.  If a person has no alcohol license, then it would be illegal for them to purchase products containing alcohol.  A similar license then could be in place for other substances, like tobacco, marihuana, etc.  Of course there would be great opposition to this from breweries, distilleries, vineyard owners, etc.  Controlling the product they sell is not in their best interest.

Marihuana as a prescription drug would probably be like other prescription drugs that are abused for reasons other than the medically prescribed reason.  A good example is insulin.  If you are a diabetic your life depends on insulin injections and proper control of dosages and timing of the injections.  This is the medically correct way to use insulin.  If you are not diabetic, does it make sense to take insulin?  Of course not, because it is dangerous and it could potentially kill you.  However, there are people who abuse insulin.  Bodybuilders inject themselves with insulin in the hopes of forcing nutrients into their muscle cells so that their muscles can grow bigger.  It is a common practice in bodybuilding and some of the people who abuse insulin this way build big muscles at the expense of serious health problems later in life.  It is not illegal to possess insulin.  I never heard of anyone going to jail for having insulin vials in their possession.

Marihuana as a prescription drug would probably be the same.  People who need to take advantage of its analgesic and atininflammatory effects will use it for medically correct reasons.  Then there will be those who will abuse it as a recreational drug.  The government can try to control the supply of any drug, but when people are determined to use and abuse a drug there is nothing the government can do, whether that drug is legal or not. 

rod03801:

> as far as I know, there isn't a test to tell if you are CURRENTLY under the influence of marijuana

Recently here there were complaints from some members of the public because the police has developed a new form of breathlizer test.  In the previous testing procedure the police could check only for alcohol in the blood as measured when a person blew air from the lungs into the bre3athilizer machine.  The police couldnot test for other drugs because testing for them would require a urine sample and a suspect could refuse to provide a sample.  However, a new breathalizer machine allows for testing for other drugs such as marihuana and cocaine.  Initially privacy advocacy groups complained, but the vast majority of the public is in favour of the new testing system.  People driving under the influence of several drugs can now be charged.

Marihuana is a sedative and analgesic.  It will take away your pain, and it will also impair short term memory and concentration.  I think that if the police could test people involved in traffic accidents for marihuana use then we would find that it does play a role in many accidents out there.  As with all recreational drugs, there are side effects not only to those who directly use them, but also to those people around them.  If marihuana and hashish were to become legal, then I would expect the police to prosecute anyone driving or using machinery under its influence, just as we do with alcohol.

freedom of choice has long been an issue in the United States.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson traded pot growing secrets and strains.
Ben Franklin used cocaine regularly.

I believe pot should be legal....if you use it at home.
I believe alcohol should be illegal...unless used at home.

I never smoke pot while I'm working....spend way too much time looking for the wrench thats in my back pocket! lol

rod03801: I'm not sure, I've heard of at least 3 testing systems. Hair, urine and one other.. and there is probably more. By the sound of things, I think they can be more accurate then a week.