Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Col. Quisp wrote:barracuda wrote:Mo, I voted McKinney, myself. I was agreeing with you.
Oh! I thought you were making fun of me, I couldn't figure out what you meant...I was going to vote for her also but for her being anti-Jewish, from what I've read.
chiggerbit wrote:So there you go. But I certainly won't trouble this thread with any more serious truths now that I know they're inappropriate, and I'm sorry not to have realized sooner that they were.
Your find was the result of excellent detective work, c2w. But to go all caps when you threw your pearls before swine in the pigpen and the pearls got lost in the mud? Hmmmfff. It's a matter of common sense, not appropriateness.
OP ED wrote:This is the part where Pan ignores you and goes off to argue with HMWs in another thread about Hollywood.
I don't think of my posts as pearls. Nor do I think of the board members as swine. Or the board as a pigpen
The Guantanamo virus is spreading. Its agent is Appendix M of the Army Field Manual. It will be very difficult to eradicate. It will require the effort of every person who believes in human rights and is opposed to torture to spread the word. A few crucial human rights and legal organizations have already spoken out against Appendix M, but we have yet to hear from groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights First or the Center for the Victims of Torture. Congressmembers must be called. Letters to the editor must be written. Bloggers must give their unique independent commentary.
The AFM as constituted must not be made the "one national standard" until the virus is eradicated. Appendix M must be rescinded in its totality, and portions of the document, such as the section on Fear Up, rewritten. Otherwise, Bush's and Rumsfeld's attempt to sneak coercive methods of interrogation into the main document of human intelligence gathering used by the military will succeed.
This effort must be combined, as well, with efforts to strip the CIA of its use of "enhanced interrogation methods," which amount to barbaric torture. An independent commission must be established to investigate and publicize the long history of the use of torture and abusive interrogation research and practice by the United States, to ensure that this kind of crime is firmly eradicated and will not happen again. An independent prosecutor should be given full authority to pursue appropriate investigation and indictments.
The time that approaches is one of great opportunity and great danger. Hopefully, U.S. society will rise to the challenges that face it.
professorpan wrote:c2w, re: the Army Field Manual
Thanks to your information and question, I went digging. And I fully agree with this:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/h ... es/?page=4The Guantanamo virus is spreading. Its agent is Appendix M of the Army Field Manual. It will be very difficult to eradicate. It will require the effort of every person who believes in human rights and is opposed to torture to spread the word. A few crucial human rights and legal organizations have already spoken out against Appendix M, but we have yet to hear from groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights First or the Center for the Victims of Torture. Congressmembers must be called. Letters to the editor must be written. Bloggers must give their unique independent commentary.
The AFM as constituted must not be made the "one national standard" until the virus is eradicated. Appendix M must be rescinded in its totality, and portions of the document, such as the section on Fear Up, rewritten. Otherwise, Bush's and Rumsfeld's attempt to sneak coercive methods of interrogation into the main document of human intelligence gathering used by the military will succeed.
This effort must be combined, as well, with efforts to strip the CIA of its use of "enhanced interrogation methods," which amount to barbaric torture. An independent commission must be established to investigate and publicize the long history of the use of torture and abusive interrogation research and practice by the United States, to ensure that this kind of crime is firmly eradicated and will not happen again. An independent prosecutor should be given full authority to pursue appropriate investigation and indictments.
The time that approaches is one of great opportunity and great danger. Hopefully, U.S. society will rise to the challenges that face it.
I would bet that Appendix M will become more widely discussed and debated, with calls for the Obama administration to drop it. I hope that happens.
Sorry I missed your question the first time around.
chiggerbit wrote:I don't think of my posts as pearls. Nor do I think of the board members as swine. Or the board as a pigpen
Entirely my description, and did not mean to imply that that's how you thought of it.
chiggerbit wrote:Your find was the result of excellent detective work, c2w. But to go all caps when you threw your pearls before swine in the pigpen and the pearls got lost in the mud? Hmmmfff. It's a matter of common sense, not appropriateness.
MacCruiskeen wrote:Col. Quisp wrote:barracuda wrote:Mo, I voted McKinney, myself. I was agreeing with you.
Oh! I thought you were making fun of me, I couldn't figure out what you meant...I was going to vote for her also but for her being anti-Jewish, from what I've read.
Col. Quisp, do you have any concrete evidence to back that up? I ask because McKinney, along with Kucinich, is one of the few US politicians I can admire pretty wholeheartedly, and I don't admire anti-Semites.
Googling "Cynthia McKinney" and "anti-Jewish", all I could really come up with was this typically tendentious stuff from the ADL, busily conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and blaming her for something allegedly said by one of her bodyguards after he was struck on the head by a TV camera while she was being mobbed by reporters.
Which really isn't much to base such serious allegations on.
A father who risked the scorn of his own community to back a Jewish
candidate for mayor. A most-trusted adviser who is a Jew. These are hardly
the credentials that would suggest McKinney has a troubled relationship
with many Atlanta Jews. And yet even those closest to her admit that she
does.
"I will acknowledge that there is tension between Cynthia and some members
of the Jewish community," says Stine candidly. And her father recognizes
the rift, too: "I would certainly like Cynthia to get past this friction,"
he told me.
Yet Billy McKinney bears a large share of responsibility for the rift. Just
ask Cookie Shapiro. Shapiro got to know Cynthia McKinney during the fall of
1996, when she was engaged in a fierce re-election battle against
Republican challenger John Mitnick. They were working together, planning a
campaign fund-raiser for McKinney that Shapiro had agreed to host in her
Buckhead home. Tipper Gore was set to fly in as the star attraction, and
dozens of invitations had been mailed to prominent and well-heeled Atlanta
Jews.
In the midst of this flurry of activity, Billy McKinney, who was serving as
his daughter's campaign manager, was accused of taking an anti-Semitic
swipe at Mitnick in a community forum at Ebenezer Baptist Church. He called
Mitnick "a racist Jew," a remark he recently said he made out of
frustration because Mitnick was trying to tie his daughter to notorious
anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. But McKinney was
slow to apologize, and his daughter was equally slow to take action to
reprimand him. (She eventually fired him from the campaign.) The incident
sent shock waves through the Jewish community and cast Shapiro's
fund-raiser in a new, controversial light.
"When all this started coming out she seemed to call me more often,"
Shapiro said. "I think she was trying to keep me from canceling. She kept
saying her father didn't speak for her." As for Shapiro, "I was determined
to go forward because I wanted to give her a chance to speak for herself."
The fund-raiser was a success, and McKinney went on to win a convincing
victory over Mitnick. Shapiro was pleased. "When she won, I was genuinely
thrilled for her." In high spirits, she called McKinney to congratulate her
on her victory, and left a message with the campaign office. There was no
response.
"I must have called her a dozen times and she wouldn't talk to me," Shapiro
said. "Not one phone call; and to this day she hasn't called me one time."
Shapiro now believes McKinney was exploiting her: "Coming to me and using
my platform was strictly political. She wanted to make an inroad into the
Jewish community."
Not responsive
Shapiro isn't alone. A number of Atlanta Jews who spoke for this article
said they've had no contact with McKinney since the election of 1996.
Sherry Frank, regional director of the American Jewish Committee, offered
her explanation. "I've been a supporter of hers endlessly because I think
she's so smart; but she doesn't have contacts in the Jewish community; she
doesn't have a sixth sense about it. I'm sure she isn't asked to speak as
often to Jewish groups as John [Lewis, the 4th District congressman who is
revered among Atlanta Jews] because she hasn't been accessible."
Weeks after her victory over Mitnick, McKinney did accept an invitation to
appear at a meeting of the Men's Club of Congregation Beth Jacob. Program
Director Chana Shapiro was there and said that was the last time the
congregation heard from McKinney. "We don't feel like she's been there for
us.... She gave us the sense of being attentive and listening, but she's
never given us the sense of caring, and that's a whole different thing."
For his part, Rabbi Stanley Davids tried for two years to get McKinney to
speak at Temple Emanu-El, his Dunwoody congregation. His invitations, sent
to members of McKinney's staff, went unanswered. "When I finally talked to
McKinney herself, she promised me I would be contacted by a staff member
who would set up a meeting. It never happened. It was a dead end. About a
year ago I gave up in frustration."
Davids, who lives in the 4th District, remains bitter about his lack of
rapport with McKinney: "I think I and the community in which I live, mainly
the Jewish community, are being ignored. I have never before lived in a
situation in which I was cut off politically from those who represent me in
government."
professorpan wrote:From today's Progress Report:
LABOR -- OBAMA TO REVERSE ANTI-UNION BUSH ORDERS: Today, President Obama will host labor leaders at the White House, where he is expected to undo four anti-union Bush-era directives. The orders that Obama will reverse include one that "allowed unionized companies to post signs informing workers that they are allowed to decertify their union." Another Obama order will prohibit federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses "intended to influence workers' decisions to form unions or engage in collective bargaining." Labor leaders were also on hand yesterday when Obama signed his first major piece of legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which bolsters workers' ability to bring pay discrimination lawsuits. In an interview with CNBC yesterday, Vice President Biden vowed to help labor get "a fair share of the pie." Obama's orders will come at the end of a week that has seen another massive wave of job losses.
I got that it was entirely your description. But it was entirely your description of my behavior, explicitly. Implying or not implying didn't enter into it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 172 guests