http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060406-1442-mckinney-scuffle.html

U.S. House Representative Cynthia McKinney had a well-publicized scuffle with Capitol security this week. She was entering an official building. Allowed. She bypassed metal detectors. Allowed. She did not identify herself to the security officer on duty when he asked. Not allowed. When the officer touched her, she allegedly struck him. OOPS! Really not allowed!

Cynthia McKinney is one of my favorite reps in the whole U.S. House, but she needs to take an extra strength chill pill. She has a chip on shoulder against cops (So do I).  However, the circumstances did not warrant her actions. Even if the worse case scenario is true, and the cop DID recognize her, but decided he'd hassle her because he doesn't like black people, it is her obligation as an elected representative to remain calm and professional. She needed to identify herself and if the cop gave her any more grief, she needed to walk away. Chances are the security officer just didn't recognize McKinney and if she showed him identification there would have been no problem. If she wore her ID pin, she would probably have avoided the altercation altogether.
OK, again, suppose this guy is a racist pig. If she remained civil and made no aggressive overtures, she could have registered a complaint against the cop if she could demonstrate he denied her access based on her skin color.
As in 99.9% of cases involving a dispute with law enforcement, you make it all ten times worse if you take a swing at the cops.

I am leaning toward YES, but I will hold off on voting. What do you think?

BTW, reactionary radio host Neil Boortz showed his true colors when he declared, "It looked like a transvestite welfare whore was trying to sneak into the building!," and "She looked like a ghetto slut!" Grrrrr.....those uppity ******!
Sorry Neil, you just revealed yourself to be the racist pig you are, and no, claiming you aren't because you dig Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas cannot bail you out!  I only heard these remarks because Randi Rhodes played them over and over again on Air America. Thanks, Neil, but next time, don't help!
;D

The cop probably should have reconized her but still, it's never ever a good idea to hit a cop. Especially for a Congresswoman.

She is a disgrace.

She is a disgrace.

Oh, come on, she just needs to take a chill pill, like I said. The disgrace is the way the Republicans are using the McKinney incident to distract attention from the criminals in the FOGOP...and the way certain white supremicist pundits--such as Neil Boortz and Howie Carr--used the McKinney incident as an excuse to vent their own race hatred.

Oh, come on, she just needs to take a chill pill, like I said. The disgrace is the way the Republicans are using the McKinney incident to distract attention from the criminals in the FOGOP...and the way certain white supremicist pundits--such as Neil Boortz and Howie Carr--used the McKinney incident as an excuse to vent their own race hatred.


exactly!!!

What she's done pales in comparison.

she was one of the very few people calling for an investigation of 911 in the early days after it happened and everyone else was just going rah rah, shut up and kill the bastards. hats off to her for that, it took incredible guts.

anyway, that's i think what her trouble is -- too much conviction and too much willingness to fight for what she believes in. sometimes it makes you do stupid things but at the same time, on the whole i respect her. by the same token, i don't think she'd be much fun to sit down and have a drink with, she's so strident!

she was one of the very few people calling for an investigation of 911 in the early days after it happened and everyone else was just going rah rah, shut up and kill the bastards. hats off to her for that, it took incredible guts.



That I agree with.  She was on Real Time with Bill Maher last night and she was asked about whether or not she caught a lot of hell for voting against the resolution to start the war in Iraq.

another thing is, okay, technically she's probably guilty of assault, but why do i have the funny feeling she probably didn't actually hurt the burly capitol cop all that much? i mean let's get real.

e. I'm not sure why you hate McKinney, probably because she is an outspoken liberal. I'll bet there is a contempt for her skin color lurking in your subconscious, but you would never admit it to yourself, let alone to me, so I wouldn't expect you to.



She just seems looney to me, from what I've seen of her on TV.  I only vote in presidential elections, so I have no clue what she stands for or what she doesn't stand for, so I can't dislike her based on politics. 

As for your last comment, there isn't a racist cell in my body and I say that with utmost honesty and candor.  For you to think otherwise is disgusting and offensive.

[quote author=

Sorry, Bud, I think I crossed the line there.

IMO, McKinney has the guts to stand up against the rich white Christian status quo and risk her position fighting for what she believes is right.  ::)


So the black Christian status quo is better?

So the black Christian status quo is better?
what the heck is the "black christian status quo"? i never heard of that.

what the heck is the "black christian status quo"? i never heard of that.


much like the "white Christian status quo"

much like the "white Christian status quo"
well, i think there's a bit of a meaning slide with "christian" -- "fundamentalist" seems like it might be a better word -- but otherwise i'm pretty clear that "white christian status quo" basically refers to the religious wing of the republican party and the established dominant power structure in this country. i'm at a bit of a loss what "black christian status quo" could possibly refer to, though. given that blacks are a minority traditionally not particularly empowered in america what could "status quo" in the context of african americans possibly mean?

So the black Christian status quo is better?


I was not referring to the Christian status quo that is actually Christian. The White Christian status quo to which I was referring uses Christianity as its state language. Remember the way Nazi Germany used to talk about restoring the Teutonic supremecy of the German people?  Or how about the way Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge used to talk about returning to the glorious agrarian Khmer culture of yore? In the end it turned out to be a bunch of BS rhetoric proferred to the people by the psychopathic and murderous regime in charge. 
When George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, or even a twerp such as Sean Hannity pounds the podium about our "Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers," and "We are a nation founded on Biblical principles," they are engaging in the same garbage-talk as Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot. Christian fundamentalism ceased to be Christian when it was hijacked for political gain. The Christian Right since Reagan was elected* has not been a religious movement at all, it has and continues to be a political power grab cloaked in religious rhetoric.
I don't know if guys like DeLay, Santorum, and Bush are delusional enough to believe their brutal power politics have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, or if they are just supremely cynical. I think it is both, as was the case with the spiritual tenets of Nazism or the communist rhetoric of the Khmer regime.

Hey, Mafia hitmen murder their rivals whilst wearing crosses and rosaries. Would Holy Mary Mother of God approve?
:o ::)

*via the treasonous act of cutting a deal with Iran so Iran would not release the hostages until Election Day.

I was not referring to the Christian status quo that is actually Christian. The White Christian status quo to which I was referring uses Christianity as its state language. Remember the way Nazi Germany used to talk about restoring the Teutonic supremecy of the German people?  Or how about the way Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge used to talk about returning to the glorious agrarian Khmer culture of yore? In the end it turned out to be a bunch of BS rhetoric proferred to the people by the psychopathic and murderous regime in charge. 
When George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, or even a twerp such as Sean Hannity pounds the podium about our "Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers," and "We are a nation founded on Biblical principles," they are engaging in the same garbage-talk as Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot. Christian fundamentalism ceased to be Christian when it was hijacked for political gain. The Christian Right since Reagan was elected* has not been a religious movement at all, it has and continues to be a political power grab cloaked in religious rhetoric.
I don't know if guys like DeLay, Santorum, and Bush are delusional enough to believe their brutal power politics have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, or if they are just supremely cynical. I think it is both, as was the case with the spiritual tenets of Nazism or the communist rhetoric of the Khmer regime.

Hey, Mafia hitmen murder their rivals whilst wearing crosses and rosaries. Would Holy Mary Mother of God approve?
:o ::)

*via the treasonous act of cutting a deal with Iran so Iran would not release the hostages until Election Day.
interesting! i think that's true in a lot of cases but i also think a lot of these characters actually DO believe. they're the ones who really, really scare me. because it's pretty obvious that encoded into fundamentalist christianity is the perpetual belief that we're on the verge of the end times.

makes me nervous.

the interesting thing about hitler, and i'm not sure how instructive bringing him up in the context of contemporary republicanism is, is how obsessive hitler was. he was an obsessed utopian and he was obsessed that if he could just strain out the bad seeds in society he could create a perfect world. it wasn't a religious obsession but it approximated one.

i think in the current case, these iraq war guys, the neocons, a lot of them are religious, others are obsessed with the free market, others are wrapped up in a kind of manifest destiny myth -- it's a coalition of different right-wing ideologies, the big commonality between them being a predilection for war and a dismissive attitude toward social infrastructure. but they arrive at those conclusions from a variety of starting points -- religious, political, and economic.

interesting! i think that's true in a lot of cases but i also think a lot of these characters actually DO believe. they're the ones who really, really scare me. because it's pretty obvious that encoded into fundamentalist christianity is the perpetual belief that we're on the verge of the end times.

makes me nervous.

the interesting thing about hitler, and i'm not sure how instructive bringing him up in the context of contemporary republicanism is, is how obsessive hitler was. he was an obsessed utopian and he was obsessed that if he could just strain out the bad seeds in society he could create a perfect world. it wasn't a religious obsession but it approximated one.

i think in the current case, these iraq war guys, the neocons, a lot of them are religious, others are obsessed with the free market, others are wrapped up in a kind of manifest destiny myth -- it's a coalition of different right-wing ideologies, the big commonality between them being a predilection for war and a dismissive attitude toward social infrastructure. but they arrive at those conclusions from a variety of starting points -- religious, political, and economic.

I was just bringing up Hitler and Pol Pot as two glaring examples of absolutist rhetoric both boiling down to nothing but mechanisms of social control and justifications of atrocious policies. You bring up an interesting point of the Republican part being pluralistic.  You've had three camps in the GOP since the 1970s: the corporatist, the social rightwingers, and the libertarians. Each one made a universal claim: I don't want the government telling me what to do. With the exception of the true libertarians (as opposed to corporate executives who smoke pot and cheat on their spouses), each camp started out saying they wanted the government off their backs, and immediately went about putting government on everybody else's backs. That shows up in things like moralist antipornography crusades and the shifting of the tax burden from the rich to the poor. The religious right wanted government to dictate the culture. The business right wanted government to reward greed and punish poverty.
It seems the true libertarians have had just about enough of the Republicans. I say any "libertarian" should have departed from the GOP as soon as the party nominated Reagan. I mean, what are they blind?
It takes a lot more for business interests to depart fromm the GOP. They've all been sold on supply side economics, and fear of the Dems being the vile party of high taxes. However, when business people (especially those who are not big players in the military-petroleum complex) see GOP policies fail them time and again, they'll start to abandon the party.
No spiritually sound individual would want anything to do with the GOP. The moralists and the fundamentalists have drunk so much GOP Kool-Aid, they'll be loyal even after they get sent to Halliburton's prison camps.
I found it amusing to watch Tucker "the f**ker" Carlson act surprised that Mitt Romney's "you must buy health insurance" mandate smacked of authoritarianism. I hope people as dopy as Tucker will finally realize the GOP was, is, and will always be an authoritarian party, in spite of all the "freedom and liberty" horsesh!t.

well, i think there's a bit of a meaning slide with "christian" -- "fundamentalist" seems like it might be a better word -- but otherwise i'm pretty clear that "white christian status quo" basically refers to the religious wing of the republican party and the established dominant power structure in this country. i'm at a bit of a loss what "black christian status quo" could possibly refer to, though. given that blacks are a minority traditionally not particularly empowered in america what could "status quo" in the context of african americans possibly mean?


Status quo roughly means "that which is".

Taken in the context of "black Christian status quo" I imagine it would include Rev. Jesse "hymietown" Jackson and Rev. Al "Tawana Brawley" Jackson, as well as more tolerant local ministers who do not belong to the Church of Intolerance and Self Promotion.

Much like the "white Christian status quo" includes people like Rev. Jerry "you deserved 9/11" Falwell, David "Weinie Roast" Koresh, as well as thousands of sincere ministers, priests, and so on who serve their flocks instead of themselves.

Other posts in this thread...

It is interesting that no matter what party is ELECTED to power in the USA, the other party launches claims of totalitarianism and bears the mantle of democracy.  However it seems to me that he who wants to run the country without the collective support of the electorate (ie he who wants to ignore that the government was ELECTED) is the real totalitarian.

If the US Electorate wants a change in the govenrment they will do so in the next House, Senate, and Presidential elections.  The House of Representatives has been in GOP hands since, I think, 1996.  This means that the public had 5 or 6 opportunities to express their displeasure.  They did not.

I found it amusing to watch Tucker "the f**ker" Carlson act surprised that Mitt Romney's "you must buy health insurance" mandate smacked of authoritarianism.


How long before that is declared unconstitutional?  Probably when the first person who has the money but doesn't feel he/she needs health insurance for whatever reason and is fined or punished sues.

How long before that is declared unconstitutional?  Probably when the first person who has the money but doesn't feel he/she needs health insurance for whatever reason and is fined or punished sues.


I am not sure on what grounds it could be considered unconstitutional, could likely be viewed as an indirect tax.  I think it would survive a constitutionality challenge.

What is interesting is that manu of us already know that the cost of health care in Massachusetts is going to take off like a rocket now.  It takes neither an MIT(liberal) nor Univeridty of Chicago(conservative) economist to figure that out.

If the US Electorate wants a change in the govenrment they will do so in the next House, Senate, and Presidential elections.
long as they can subvert or otherwise overcome all the profligate gerrymandering. it occurs to me the LAST thing the republicans want is democracy; they get power and use that power to seize more power whether they can get it through the popular vote or not.

that's the problem. democracy seems to be long gone in this country; it's all about who can get the biggest campaign contributions and pounce on their moment in power to arrange the boundaries of the voting districts in their favor. you can call that democracy if you want but to me it's a system on its way to either imploding or morphing into dictatorship.

long as they can subvert or otherwise overcome all the profligate gerrymandering. it occurs to me the LAST thing the republicans want is democracy; they get power and use that power to seize more power whether they can get it through the popular vote or not.

that's the problem. democracy seems to be long gone in this country; it's all about who can get the biggest campaign contributions and pounce on their moment in power to arrange the boundaries of the voting districts in their favor. you can call that democracy if you want but to me it's a system on its way to either imploding or morphing into dictatorship.


Gerrymandering is hardly the domain of the Republicans.  Democrats have a long staid history of this as well.  No matter which party gets a significant majority this is one of the games played.

For example many cities have established "at large" councilman positions to favor one race (or other ethnic constituency) over others.  Since I am from Pennsylvania that means mainly Democrats since the registration of Dems here in Western PA is something like twice that of Repubs.

See the attached link on gerrymandering, whose namesake interstingly belonged to the "Deomocratic-Republican" party way back in the early 1800's.

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

As for fundraising and what-not, do some research and you will find that the wealthiest US Senators are Democrats.  In 2003 CNN Did  study showing that there were 40 millionaires in the US Senate, 21 of them were Democrats.  fFurthermore, 8 of the 10 wealthiest Senators were Democrats.

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


I agree, but wikipedia is a gossip column.  I take them, personally, with a grain of salt.

I am not sure on what grounds it could be considered unconstitutional, could likely be viewed as an indirect tax.  I think it would survive a constitutionality challenge.

Neither do I.  But I just have a hard time feeling the government has a right to force somebody who doesn't want to have health insurance to have health insurance.  It seems to different than requiring full auto insurance, instead of just liability.

But the Massachusetts state constitution is really long, I mean it's been around for hundreds of years and it wasn't until 2003 they found a part in it that made gay marriage mandatory and even gave the judicial branch the right to tell the legislature they must pass a law allowing it despite the seperation of powers and the fact the judicial branch is only suppose to act on laws already passed and not demand ones be written.

Gerrymandering is hardly the domain of the Republicans.  Democrats have a long staid history of this as well.  No matter which party gets a significant majority this is one of the games played.

well, sure, both parties do it, but the republicans have been so shameless at it that they're now at the point where they STILL will probably keep control of both houses of congress in 2006, even when they're pretty much as popular as root canals these days. that's what i mean about the gerrymandering reaching a point where the popular vote is basically irrelevant. the incumbancy rate in this country is something like it was in the former soviet union.

As for fundraising and what-not, do some research and you will find that the wealthiest US Senators are Democrats.  In 2003 CNN Did  study showing that there were 40 millionaires in the US Senate, 21 of them were Democrats.  fFurthermore, 8 of the 10 wealthiest Senators were Democrats.
that may or may not be true. if you're using that argument to say that dems represent the wealthy and repubs represent the working stiff, well... i just don't think i need to respond to that. the record is crystal clear.

anyway, republicans routinely raise more campaign funds, regardless of who's got more personal wealth. they tend to have wealthier benefactors, CEOs and the like. and when the CEO gives, the rest of the executives feel pressure to give too.

GIVE HER "THE CHAIR!" ZA-A-A-A-A-A-P!!!

well, sure, both parties do it, but the republicans have been so shameless at it that they're now at the point where they STILL will probably keep control of both houses of congress in 2006....

Can you tell me how gerrymandering effects the U.S. senate?

Can you tell me how gerrymandering effects the U.S. senate?
oo! you got me on a minor cutsie technical point!

it's that whole "gotcha" thing. right's real big on it.

oo! you got me on a minor cutsie technical point!

it's that whole "gotcha" thing. right's real big on it.


It's the overall point.  Considering that the only seats in play that are in republican hands (senate-wise) are in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio and Missouri.  That's five seats, yet the democrats need a net pick-up of five to gain a de-facto but not majority changing tie with the republicans of 50-49-1 if Sanders should win in Vermont, and six to take the senate.  The numbers just aren't there for the democrats and gerrymanding has nothing to do with the republicans maintain control of the senate.  Maybe the media is just full of it?

The odds are long enough as it is not considering the republicans are ahead in the polls for an open democrat-held seat in Maryland and another seat in Minnesota that is democrat-held where the republican is dead even in the polls (Mark Kennedy, the republican in Minnesota, is extremely popular there.)

No one gives the democrats any real chance at taking the senate in 2006.  The best hope is for a net gain, that's it.

It's the overall point.  Considering that the only seats in play that are in republican hands (senate-wise) are in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio and Missouri.  That's five seats, yet the democrats need a net pick-up of five to gain a de-facto but not majority changing tie with the republicans of 50-49-1 if Sanders should win in Vermont, and six to take the senate.  The numbers just aren't there for the democrats and gerrymanding has nothing to do with the republicans maintain control of the senate.  Maybe the media is just full of it?

The odds are long enough as it is not considering the republicans are ahead in the polls for an open democrat-held seat in Maryland and another seat in Minnesota that is democrat-held where the republican is dead even in the polls (Mark Kennedy, the republican in Minnesota, is extremely popular there.)

No one gives the democrats any real chance at taking the senate in 2006.  The best hope is for a net gain, that's it.
oh yeah, the liberal media again. the polls show the republican approval rate at something like one third and the democratic approval rate at closer to 50 percent. so if the best the democrats can hope for is a 50-49 split that strikes me as highly odd. i'm reading disapproval rates for bush are outstripping approval rates even in traditionally hardcore republican states so you might be in for some nasty surprises but i suppose we'll see.

anyway, the republicans will probbaly hang onto the house because of all the hinky gerrymandering so at least there's that. too bad it looks like it might land delay in jail, but i guess he fell on his sword.

Status quo roughly means "that which is".

Taken in the context of "black Christian status quo" I imagine it would include Rev. Jesse "hymietown" Jackson and Rev. Al "Tawana Brawley" Jackson, as well as more tolerant local ministers who do not belong to the Church of Intolerance and Self Promotion.
Jackson meant it as a compliment. Sharpton made a mistake. He didn't know Brawley was a fraud. Then he had too much hubris to admit it he got suckered. Neither Sharpton nor Jackson is a saint, but neither minister has NEARLY as much wealth and power as the Christian Right has seized in the past thirty years. I had trouble with Jackson's and Sharpton's candidacies because I don't believe a religious minister should be in charge of the government. However, in spite of their iniquities, and to their credit, Jackson and Sharpton talked about REAL social and political issues effecting REAL people in REAL ways. They weren't bellowing all that inane invective about "end times," and "Revelation," and "Jesus is coming, and you sinners are all gonna get it!"

Much like the "white Christian status quo" includes people like Rev. Jerry "you deserved 9/11" Falwell, David "Weinie Roast" Koresh, as well as thousands of sincere ministers, priests, and so on who serve their flocks instead of themselves.
But Falwell and Robertson are courted incessantly by the corporate media and their hateful messages set the agenda for the rest of the Christian Right. Of course, when Bush was on about his "faith-based initiatives" (remember that?), he had plenty of African-American preachers coming forward to Tom it up!
Koresh doesn't belong in the same sentence with Falwell and Robertson, let alone Billy Graham and son. Koresh was just a failed rock musician with a Messianic complex (which describes half the male population of Austin) and was heading some p!ss-poor penny ante cult in the middle of the desert. I still say the blood of Koresh and his foolhardy followers is still on the hands of the U.S. government. It was the ATF's and the Justice Department's responsibility to understand they were dealing with an armageddonist fruitcake who would kill himself and his flock if he got into a stand off. Jim Jones and the People's Temple in Guyana was less than fifteen years in the rear view in 1993! If the government handled the situation competently, that conflageration would not have ignited, and those folks would be alive today!




It is interesting that no matter what party is ELECTED to power in the USA, the other party launches claims of totalitarianism and bears the mantle of democracy.  However it seems to me that he who wants to run the country without the collective support of the electorate (ie he who wants to ignore that the government was ELECTED) is the real totalitarian.

If the US Electorate wants a change in the govenrment they will do so in the next House, Senate, and Presidential elections.  The House of Representatives has been in GOP hands since, I think, 1996.  This means that the public had 5 or 6 opportunities to express their displeasure.  They did not.



Dubya was not ELECTED, he was SELECTED. Sorry to have to mention that again.

Anyway, we're way off-topic!

Dubya was not ELECTED, he was SELECTED. Sorry to have to mention that again.

Anyway, we're way off-topic!


Your conspiracy theory extends to the 2004 election? ???

Your conspiracy theory extends to the 2004 election? ???
well, how many corporate mergers of media conglomerates with weapons manufacturers does there have to be before this "liberal media" conspiracy theory lets up?

oh, never mind. i can't argue politics with this ridiculous avatar going. as you were.

Your conspiracy theory extends to the 2004 election? ???

'Taint my conspiracy theory, 'tis proven conspiracy fact, less'n your the typo fella who inserts his index fingers in his ears and yells "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO GREG!"* whenever he starts a' hearin'  what he don't wanna hear!

*Palast, that is.

As for the twenny-ought-four 'lections, there was more GOP skulduggery in Ohio alone to kill an ox at a hundred paces!

Suppose Bush DID win the 2004 presidential election fair and square (he didn't, he won it crooked and funny-shaped)...you've heard money laundering, right? OK, I'm a cocaine dealer, but I gotta be able to explain my income to the gummint. So I start a pizza joint, "Louie's Just Pizza and More," and then say to the G-men who come nosing around that I bought my purple Ferrari by selling pizza pies and calzones in Dayton. My accountant, Lester P. Cookabook made it look all legit on paper, so the gummint couldn't touch me. Howevahhhh...my purchasing a purple Ferrari for 100K cash was still made possible by selling the Incan booger sugar, and not meatball subs at Louie's, even though, ever cent of that 100K passed through Louie's.  Same principle applies with Bush winning the 2004 election...he's still benefiting from the 2000 election he and his pals stole from the d!ckless pigeon, Al Gore....only my convoluted analogy is moot because the Bushie's defrauded the 2004 election too.  You know, John Gotti had to go to jail, but Bush won't. It's good to be the king!
:D :D :D