Columbus Day Celebration? Think Again...

"Gold is most excellent; gold constitutes treasure; and he who has it does all he wants in the world, and can even lift souls up to Paradise." -- Christopher Columbus, 1503 letter to the king and queen of Spain.
"Christopher Columbus not only opened the door to a New World, but also set an example for us all by showing what monumental feats can be accomplished through perseverance and faith." --George H.W. Bush, 1989 speech
If you fly over the country of Haiti on the island of Hispaniola, the island on which Columbus landed, it looks like somebody took a blowtorch and burned away anything green. Even the ocean around the port capital of Port au Prince is choked for miles with the brown of human sewage and eroded topsoil. From the air, it looks like a lava flow spilling out into the sea.
The history of this small island is, in many ways, a microcosm for what's happening in the whole world.
When Columbus first landed on Hispaniola in 1492, virtually the entire island was covered by lush forest. The Taino "Indians" who loved there had an apparently idyllic life prior to Columbus, from the reports left to us by literate members of Columbus's crew such as Miguel Cuneo.
When Columbus and his crew arrived on their second visit to Hispaniola, however, they took captive about two thousand local villagers who had come out to greet them. Cuneo wrote: "When our caravels… where to leave for Spain, we gathered…one thousand six hundred male and female persons of those Indians, and these we embarked in our caravels on February 17, 1495…For those who remained, we let it be known (to the Spaniards who manned the island's fort) in the vicinity that anyone who wanted to take some of them could do so, to the amount desired, which was done."
Cuneo further notes that he himself took a beautiful teenage Carib girl as his personal slave, a gift from Columbus himself, but that when he attempted to have sex with her, she "resisted with all her strength." So, in his own words, he "thrashed her mercilessly and raped her."
While Columbus once referred to the Taino Indians as cannibals, a story made up by Columbus - which is to this day still taught in some US schools - to help justify his slaughter and enslavement of these people. He wrote to the Spanish monarchs in 1493: "It is possible, with the name of the Holy Trinity, to sell all the slaves which it is possible to sell…Here there are so many of these slaves, and also brazilwood, that although they are living things they are as good as gold…"
Columbus and his men also used the Taino as sex slaves: it was a common reward for Columbus' men for him to present them with local women to rape. As he began exporting Taino as slaves to other parts of the world, the sex-slave trade became an important part of the business, as Columbus wrote to a friend in 1500: "A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand."
However, the Taino turned out not to be particularly good workers in the plantations that the Spaniards and later the French established on Hispaniola: they resented their lands and children being taken, and attempted to fight back against the invaders. Since the Taino where obviously standing in the way of Spain's progress, Columbus sought to impose discipline on them. For even a minor offense, an Indian's nose or ear was cut off, se he could go back to his village to impress the people with the brutality the Spanish were capable of. Columbus attacked them with dogs, skewered them with pikes, and shot them.
Eventually, life for the Taino became so unbearable that, as Pedro de Cordoba wrote to King Ferdinand in a 1517 letter, "As a result of the sufferings and hard labor they endured, the Indians choose and have chosen suicide. Occasionally a hundred have committed mass suicide. The women, exhausted by labor, have shunned conception and childbirth… Many, when pregnant, have taken something to abort and have aborted. Others after delivery have killed their children with their own hands, so as not to leave them in such oppressive slavery."
Eventually, Columbus and later his brother Bartholomew Columbus who he left in charge of the island, simply resorted to wiping out the Taino altogether. Prior to Columbus' arrival, some scholars place the population of Haiti/Hispaniola (now at 16 million) at around 1.5 to 3 million people. By 1496, it was down to 1.1 million, according to a census done by Bartholomew Columbus. By 1516, the indigenous population was 12,000, and according to Las Casas (who were there) by 1542 fewer than 200 natives were alive. By 1555, every single one was dead.
This wasn't just the story of Hispaniola; the same has been done to indigenous peoples worldwide. Slavery, apartheid, and the entire concept of conservative Darwinian Economics, have been used to justify continued suffering by masses of human beings.
Dr. Jack Forbes, Professor of Native American Studies at the University of California at Davis and author of the brilliant book "Columbus and Other Cannibals," uses the Native American word wétiko (pronounced WET-ee-ko) to describe the collection of beliefs that would produce behavior like that of Columbus. Wétiko literally means "cannibal," and Forbes uses it quite intentionally to describe these standards of culture: we "eat" (consume) other humans by destroying them, destroying their lands, taking their natural resources, and consuming their life-force by enslaving them either physically or economically. The story of Columbus and the Taino is just one example.
We live in a culture that includes the principle that if somebody else has something we need, and they won't give it to us, and we have the means to kill them to get it, it's not unreasonable to go get it, using whatever force we need to.
In the United States, the first "Indian war" in New England was the "Pequot War of 1636," in which colonists surrounded the largest of the Pequot villages, set it afire as the sun began to rise, and then performed their duty: they shot everybody-men, women, children, and the elderly-who tried to escape. As Puritan colonist William Bradford described the scene: "It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they [the colonists] gave praise therof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully..."
The Narragansetts, up to that point "friends" of the colonists, were so shocked by this example of European-style warfare that they refused further alliances with the whites. Captain John Underhill ridiculed the Narragansetts for their unwillingness to engage in genocide, saying Narragansett wars with other tribes were "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies."
In that, Underhill was correct: the Narragansett form of war, like that of most indigenous Older Culture peoples, and almost all Native American tribes, does not have extermination of the opponent as a goal. After all, neighbors are necessary to trade with, to maintain a strong gene pool through intermarriage, and to insure cultural diversity. Most tribes wouldn't even want the lands of others, because they would have concerns about violating or entering the sacred or spirit-filled areas of the other tribes. Even the killing of "enemies" is not most often the goal of tribal "wars": It's most often to fight to some pre-determined measure of "victory" such as seizing a staff, crossing a particular line, or the first wounding or surrender of the opponent.
This wétiko type of theft and warfare is practiced daily by farmers and ranchers worldwide against wolves, coyotes, insects, animals and trees of the rainforest; and against indigenous tribes living in the jungles and rainforests. It is our way of life. It comes out of our foundational cultural notions. So it should not surprise us that with the doubling of the world's population over the past 37 years has come an explosion of violence and brutality, and as the United States runs low on oil, we are now fighting wars in oil-rich parts of the world.
That is, after all, our history, which we celebrate on Columbus Day. It need not be our future.
- FILED UNDER: Host Posts, George W. Bush
- October 13, 2008








The new world
If it weren't for conservatives holding us back century after century, we would be so much further ahead today in terms of scientific achievement and quality of life for all. Seriously, the computers of today would have existed 100's of years ago but the conservatives burned the libraries.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 11:22amabsolutely
their feudal economics limits advancements. they are specifically opposed to social advancement. their doctrine states that social advancements would hinder the death rate among the poor. no shit, that's capitalism.
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 13, 2008 - 2:25pmCOLUMBUS a brutal land grabbing murderer,TERRORIST
I know that most every native american from the Lakota,Blackfeet,Cree, Wampanoag,etc.,, also would agree with the above 100%.
I personally know a lot of the members of these great people.
Thanks to COLUMBUS, a wonderful nation of people were hunted down by Custer and prior to that under the guise of
the Jefferson Peace medal, yes Jefferson, were unceremoniously conned into land grabs and if Jefferson,Custer, Columbus did today what they all are guilty of COLUMBUS,JEFFERSON,CUSTER would in the minds of most Americans be considered TERRORISTS.
- Email this page
By normaetregulaeOctober 13, 2008 - 11:30amI think it's going way too far to paint the native Americans as
peaceful, enlightened savages as the 18th century European philosophers used to. They fought each other, often brutally. How about the Aztecs and Mayans, who practiced human sacrifice and held slaves? Too many people have spent their time watching "Dances With Wolves". The Europeans like Columbus were no different than the native Americans except for one thing: superior technology. That technology allowed them to be more successful at prosecuting war than the native Americans had been up until that time. Add to that the introduction of virulent diseases like smallpox into a population that had never been exposed before, and the end result was a foregone conclusion.
The native Americans were no better or worse than the Europeans....they just were destroyed by a group of people that had superior technology and the desire to use it.
Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers
- Email this page
By UffdaguyOctober 13, 2008 - 12:41pmUh, huh...
The entire western world was a fine pristine place where all tribes lived with one another in total peace, there was no war among the tribes, no slavery in the Inca and Mayan Empires (note "empire"), no hunger, ever, etc., and then the Europeans showed up.
Lessee...Haiti has been a Commie country for how long. If it's the way to go (and with all the billions we send to them each year) shouldn't it be a beautiful, pristine country again? After all, isn't Communism the way to go to achieve happiness?
Hmmmmmmm...
- Email this page
By Old_Farmer_McLeftyOctober 13, 2008 - 11:39amBy Old_Farmer_McLeftyOctober 13, 2008 - 12:39pm
How much damage has US interference done? hhmmmmmmmm...
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 11:41amHaiti is not communist
you stupid, uneducated, neocon fool. It is a capitalist democracy. Right wing moron.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 11:42amWhat a silly argument you
What a silly argument you make. Of course it was not a pristine world back then. There was war, violence and the lot. But you didn't see genocides until westerners arrived on the scene.
Go ahead, defend Colombus. While you're at it, defend American slavery, Jim Crow laws, 'Separate but Equal', and for that matter, all racism in America.
Your dry cleaner called, your hooded sheets are ready...
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75October 13, 2008 - 12:06pmBy Old_Farmer_McLeftyOctober 13, 2008 - 12:39pm
the europeans murdered millions, enslaved millions - nothing incan or mayan can compare. it was very pristine compared to the genocide europeans brought.
haiti communist?
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 13, 2008 - 2:46pmLet's be fair here. The only reason the Europeans killed more
than the Aztecs or Mayans was that there were MORE people to kill, and, being Europeans, they had spent a great deal of time and effort in coming up with methods to kill large numbers of people rather efficiently. If you want to look at sheer bloodthirstiness, the Aztecs could give any European nation a real run for its money.
Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers
- Email this page
By UffdaguyOctober 13, 2008 - 3:05pmthat's fair
the inca, maya and aztec were brutal. we're not comparing apples and oranges, we're comparing men. all men regardless of race are capable of brutality, i will not idealize any race of man. i will not idealize columbus or those who followed him.
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 13, 2008 - 3:41pmI'm certainly not idealizing Columbus, especially because he
was far from being the first European to visit North America. He, (or his supporters) seem to have been pretty adept at PR, though.
One of the funniest things I ever saw about Columbus was from Mark Twain. In one of his books, (I can't recall which at the moment), a couple of Americans visit the Christopher Columbus Museum in Italy. The Italian tour guide is proudly pontificating on the accomplishments of Columbus. The Americans decide to have some fun with him. When he says that Columbus discovered America, they just give him a dumbfounded look. "Really? Never heard of him". This sends the Italian guide into total disbelief. The whole scene is absolutely hilarious.
Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers
- Email this page
By UffdaguyOctober 13, 2008 - 3:49pmObama Takes Double-Digit
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 11:46amWatching CNN a couple of days ago, Ed Rollins has thrown in
the towel on this election, although I'm not sure how sincere he is about it. He now says it will be an Obama landslide, and he says his repub friends in congress tell him they expect to lose as many as 10 seats in the Senate, and perhaps 30 in the House. That's enough to have a filibuster-proof majority, and kick old Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. It'll give him some valuable experience of how to get kicked to the curb, as it will happen in 2012 when he is voted out for good. I swear, I've never seen someone so politically ignorant as that man. When dems take control of congress, he sets himself up as a repub in all but name. Then he becomes the lapdog for the most unpopular president in history, and speaks at the repub convention for the weakest, most unloved repub presidential candidate in recent memory. When McCain goes down in flames (something he has plenty of experience in doing), Lieberman will be as reviled in the repub party as he is in the dem party.
One worrying comment I saw was from David Gergen, who seems to be very concerned with possible violence against Obama should he be elected, and from the comments I have seen at McCain-Palin rallies in the last couple of weeks, I have to say I share that concern. The nuts they have at those rallies, and the way they whip them up, is something we haven't seen in US politics since the days of the Civil War. Maybe Randi Rhodes is right, and we really are a banana republic with nukes.
Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers
- Email this page
By UffdaguyOctober 13, 2008 - 12:34pmHaiti
How many death squads trained on US soil have operated in that nation?
The School of Americas - a travesty in US history.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 11:49amNo Republican presidential ticket
since 1928 has been elected without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 12:43pmBy hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 1:43pm
This from the staunchest supporter of the Clinton dynasty.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 13, 2008 - 12:57pmNo, this from a true, staunch,
lifelong Democrat.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 1:03pmMcCain said his next strategy
will be to win over the gook vote.
He's insane I tell you. Insane.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 12:51pmExceptionalism
Great post, Thom.
Fast forward to Alaska, Iraq, Palestine, and Neocon triumphalism ad nauseam. If we just taught history, we could make rational policy in all areas.
Thanks. The predicament of hypercomplicated (as opposed to organically complex) technological civilization (as opposed to culture connected to nature) coming unraveled on the anniversary of globalised trade beginning is highly appropriate. I just wish I could believe that Harvard (Obama, Paulson) was the answer, instead of the problem (the DNA of the Mather's writ large?)
Jack
Santa Barbara
- Email this page
By The5thWOctober 13, 2008 - 12:52pmCounterpoint
I would like to ask to examine one thing that seems to be a glaring example of omission with an intent to mislead. That would be the fact that there are actually two nations on that island. The other is the Dominican Republic. And while the side of the island occupied by Haiti is indeed a barren wasteland, the Dominican Republic side is gorgeous. While Haiti has virtually depleted all resources, the Dominican Republic has done reasonably well, despite a government that has been questionable at times in the past.
From Wikipedia, in regards to Haitian ruler "Papa Doc" Duvalier:
Papa Doc often rebuked the United States for its friendly relations with the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo while leaving the "poor negro Republic out in the cold." Duvalier's repression often provoked an unfavorable response from the Kennedy administration. The United States attempted to seek a moderate alternative in hopes of preventing another Cuban-style revolution. U.S. pressure and sanctions against Haiti eased in 1962, as the administration grudgingly accepted Duvalier as a bulwark against communism in the Caribbean.
So, with this info, I think we can agree that US relations has been much more supportive of the Dominican Republic government than that of Haiti. So, please explain FU how the death squads of Duvalier had anything to do with the US government.
As the island was divided into two nations that are very different, I think we can also safely say that Columbus is not the root cause of all modern ills on the island of Hispaniola.
This article is another prime example of the liberal tendency to define hindsight as a lack of vision on the part of a people at any given point in history. Environmentalists fought any construction work on the New Orleans levies to improve them. Does this make them progress impeding, evil conservatives and oppressors that are responsible for death and destruction? Or were they simply working for something they believed to be right and important that turned out to be a bad choice in hindsight? Shall we now villify all environmentalists and write articles declaring them greedy murderers? Or would it be better to accept that humans are not always right in their beliefs and attitudes and try to do the best we as humans can in the future?
Columbus' "discovery" of the "new world" changed the face of the globe (literally and figuratively, it was that big). And whether it was good or bad for any given group of people is total speculation as there is NO WAY to ever know what the outcome would have been otherwise. But here's what we do now. We are at point A and we as individuals/groups/nations/one world want to get to point B. What is the best way to try and go about that?
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 13, 2008 - 12:55pmI liked your post KW.
Mostly correct. Haiti was occupied a number of times by the United States in the 20th century, though I don't recall any specific COIN training for Haitian military personell. I think that Haiti has until quite recently looked to France for economic and and cultural ties rather than to the U.S.A. Recent actions by the Bush administration have destabilized Haiti, however.
Is the environmental devestation caused by overpopulation or poor environmental policy?
I think it is understandable to heap scorn on Christopher Columbus, especially if you are a Native American. The guy was a greedy speculator and when he didn't find enough gold he turned to the slave trade.
But if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else and most likely someone in the employ of Spain or Protugal. Europeans weren't exactly treating each other with love and respect at that time, you know. This was a time in European history when trial by ordeal was the standard method of legal procedure and capital punishment was seen as the cure for any infraction of the law. The standard fate of POWs was enslavement, that of rebels, a nasty death. Killing was done with an axe, pike, or a sword. Compared with our time, people all over the world lived short lives and cruel ones as well.
I'm not defending what Columbus did, just pointing out that somebody would have found the Americas and things probably wouldn't have turned out much different.
BTW, America was named after Vespucci Amerigo, another slave trader. Maybe we can change our nation's name to the United States of Awesome...
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 13, 2008 - 2:32pmVinlandia
Leif Erickson already named it "Vinlandia".
- Email this page
By aaazzz111October 13, 2008 - 2:58pmBy thaelmann37October 13, 2008 - 3:32pm
I'm willing to understand why Native Americans would dislike Columbus and find a holiday celebrating his "discovery" offensive. But the guy did change the course of history. And I agree, life was short and cruel by modern standards. And at that time in history even relatively "enlightened" people didn't see much of what Columbus did as wrong. I think one needs to judge historical figures by the attitudes and beliefs at the time, not because I want to say those standards are ok, but because they were ok under contemporary beliefs. Someday I would prefer someone to judge me based on what I know now, not what they know then.
One other bit to discuss is heritage. Why can't we celebrate the positive aspects of our European heritage? Why shouldn't we celebrate the adventurous and curious spirit of people like Columbus? Why can't we separate the positive achievements from the negative? Why is it acceptable to celebrate heritage for minorities, but offensive if people of european ancestry engage in the same type of thing?
Now this gets to be a touchy subject, and I certainly don't mean that we ought to have KKK day or anything like that. But why has it become the turf of the backwood hick to celebrate Columbus day? Hell, call it melting pot day if you want and talk about diversity, but why is it not ok to celebrate the european contribution to this nation?
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 13, 2008 - 3:08pmAlmost everything we celebrate is European, you idiot!
White people are decended from Europe. Quit acting like white people are downtrodden. Whites are the majority and have most of the power.
Christ, you are a master at subtle racism.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 3:35pmBy hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 4:35pm
You must be talking about Thanksgiving. Wait, no, almost every culture has a fall harvest festival. So we must be talking about Christmas. Damn, that's right. A winter solstice thing, again apparent in many cultures and religious traditions. 4th of July? Nope. Labor Day? Nope. Must be memorial day. Again, nope.
I don't think white people are downtrodden. And I didn't say anything about power. I said that if I want to celebrate the successes of a white man (Columbus, or for that matter even the heritage of that white man) that I am labeled a hick (or master of subtle racism if you prefer). And you immediately labeled me a racist (exemplifying my point).
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 13, 2008 - 4:26pmYou label yourself a racist
when you declare that you are a "conservative" Republican. There are many immoral and anti american reasons to be a Republican, but 2 things ALL Republicans have in common are FEAR and RACISM.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 4:37pmBy hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 5:37pm
I label myself a conservative. And I label myself a Republican. I do not, however, label myself a conservative Republican. I suspect that among the party faithful I am a little to the left.
I can't counter anything that says all Republicans are racist, because there is no truth there. Not one bit of fact. I'll make you a deal Huff. You show me one scrap of evidence, one study (from what would amount to an even relatively reputable source) that shows that more than 50% of Republicans are racist (or at least harbor some racist attitudes) and I'll scrap my party card and immediately join the Democratic party. I'll vote right down the line for Democrats in November.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 13, 2008 - 5:20pmHere is the proof
If these Republicans were not frightened racists, they would be Democrats. The only reason to be a Republican is if you are extremely wealthy. They offer nothing else to 90% of Americans. However, they do fool people like you into thinking you will become as rich as them. As I said before, there are many other evil, immoral, anti american reasons to be a Republican, but 2 things ALL Republicans have in common is being frightened of everything and being a racist.
You are a racist too. You dont think you are because it is normal behavior for you and has been that way in your family for generations. All your friends and neighbors are racists too. It is quite noticable to us normal Americans. You are a product of where you were born and raised. Environment effects attitude.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 5:55pmBy hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 6:55pm
"If these Republicans were not frightened racists, they would be Democrats."
Ahh, yes. How could I have been so blind? (Note the sarcasm).
Seriously Huff. I watched that Michael Moore movie too. You know, the one with the cartoon white settlers that are scared of the indians and then scared of the slaves and then scared of the freed slaves and so on. And somehow that develops into the modern suburb and the Republican party. And I gotta say that's crap. If that were the case wouldn't supposedly unfrightened non-racist Democrats avoid the suburbs like the plague? But I still see Obama and Franken yard signs in the suburbs.
Some of us just aren't that big on the idea of wealth redistribution Huff. I pay a decent amount of taxes. Now I have a brother in law that gets every nickel of taxes he pays back, plus some extra every year. He and his family also get cheap housing, free food, discounted school lunches and some spending money each month. He works full time, but not at a good job. He just went and bought a brand new snowmobile. It's parked next to his four wheeler that's a couple years old. Now I ask you Huff, are you ok with your tax dollars going to that cause?
Don't get me wrong. We've gone too far right at this point in time. When the taxes on the rich are low to the point that they are making Reagan look like a hardcore tax nut, that's bad. But c'mon, let's be reasonable here. I'm fine with taxes helping pay for daycare so someone can work. I'm fine with some unemployment benefits and retraining to help someone find a job, but I'm not fine with supporting a leisurely lifestyle.
Call me racist, call me scared, and to you I say, whatever, your opinion is obviously so bizarrely out of touch with reality that it's not worth getting too keyed up over.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 14, 2008 - 8:35amBy Kill-WhiteyOctober 14, 2008 - 9:35am
I thought it was dead on. Conservatives hate change. They didn't want to abandon slavery. And all along the way from slavery to today conservatives have resisted change that gave equal rights. I chalk it up to fear. But it could be partly greed. I believe conservatives like profiting off of labor of others. They loved having slaves. Now without slaves they promote capitalism that uses illegal labor in this country or cheap slave labor abroad. The hypocrisy comes in when the conservative politicians bitch and moan about illegal labor here but pal around with employers of illegal labor. It's how things are in border states.
So chalk it up to fear and greed.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 14, 2008 - 8:51amConservatives Hate Change???
Well, maybe that's where they are today, but in past history Conservatives were often Progressives - case in point trust-busting monopoly bashing Teddy Roosevelt, as well as Abe Lincoln. I don't know exactly when or where today's conservatives lost their way and became slaves to big business - you're probably right about the greed thing.
The main point I share with those clowns is on the question of values - we are losing them. You cannot run a successful anything unless people have a stake in it - and with some 30% of taxpayers not only paying no taxes but getting refunds, this is the political equivalent of no-down payment mortgages. You cannot have an unelected and unchecked judiciary legislating away people's property rights via emminent domain and thei ability to regulate their own civil and legal codes. While a firm supporter of women's right to choose, I think Roe V Wade was a travesty of the Supremes inventing rights in the Constitution that are just not there. For example, how can you support this and then turn around and argue against a "right to wiretap" if the Court so chooses?
We have lost our way from a founding philosophy of personal responsibility to a system where people have "rights" to not be offended by speech (get thee behind me free speech), killing babies 5 minutes from birth, owning a house (can't pay? no problem - Fannie is here), unregulated business practices, and on and on.
My faith is in Obama, but those a-holes in Congress will probably not support a truly progressive agenda. McCane is fast turning into a bad joke - we really don't have much in the way of alternatives.
- Email this page
By houndogOctober 14, 2008 - 9:50amBy houndogOctober 14, 2008 - 10:50am
By definition conservatives hate change.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 14, 2008 - 10:05amThat's one opinion
My own favored view is "allegiance to first principles".
Conservatives hate "change" where it conflicts with 1st principles of Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Judeo/Christian philosophy and legal code.
Where they depart from Progressives, IMHO, is where they carve out exceptions for tycoons and powerbrokers (be they politicians, bureaucrats, or CEO's) using the Constitution for cover - thus the efforts by Teddy Roosevelt to bring the bastards to heel.
I don't think that 60,000 pages in the IRS tax code are there for your or my benefit.
- Email this page
By houndogOctober 14, 2008 - 10:35amBy houndogOctober 14, 2008 - 11:35am
Definitions aren't opinions, poundpuppy.
Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesOctober 14, 2008 - 11:53pmI have never seen a Michael Moore movie
If you are against wealth redistribution, you would not be a Republican. Right wing policies have concentrated the wealth among a few muti billionaires by using the tax code while the working man is making less and paying higher taxes. Why are Republicans for helping wealthy people get even more wealthy when they dont need it? This is an example of voting against your own best interests. Conservative economic policies over the past 30 years have failed miserably and led to the economic crisis. We must now resort to socialism to repair the damage.
I do not care if your brother has a few luxuries in his life. A person should be able to enjoy his life. I am sure he is not living like Bill Gates. Do you want a country full of miserable, angry, depressed people? If the wealthy would pay their fair share we would not be having all these problems. These wealthy people made their fortune in this great country and now they need to give something back and pay their fair share. They did not get wealthy all by themselves.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 14, 2008 - 9:32amWhat would it be that could attract
an average income American to be a Republican? Could it be the meltdown of the economy, the high gas prices, the loss of good jobs, falling wages, home foreclosures, the war based on lies, high deficits, the looting of the treasury, lack of affordable medical care? This leaves only social issues. Some people who call themselves Republicans would rather live in a box under the bridge rather than let the queers marry or let a black man become president. Notice how the only strong Republican states left are in the racist south and midwest.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 6:08pmWhere did you get the
Where did you get the information that Amerigo Vespucci (not Vespucci Amerigo, Amerigo was his first name) was a slave trader? I have never run into that information from a verifiable source.
- Email this page
By MichtouOctober 13, 2008 - 7:12pmSorry Mich, my Italian isn't that great.
I got the slave trade factoid from Michael Parenti's ( great groan from the right wing) book, " Against Empire". I will hunt down the primary sources if you like.
Vespucci is primarily remembered for trying to rip off Columbus' claim to " discovering" the " New World". He was part of the Italian merchant class, which at that time was busy importing slaves from the Ottoman Empire. Verification should be easy to find.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 14, 2008 - 1:11amI'm telling you right now
If the democrats had nominated anyone who had voted to give Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, this election would be over and McCain would be the winner.
I don't say that to start an Obama vs. Hillary thing. I'm talking general terms. Clinton, Kerry, any democrat who voted as McCain did would be losing now.
It's understandable to say after the fact you have changed your mind, or that you didn't have the facts. But a candidate that voted as McCain did on Iraq couldn't drive home the point on how wrong this war has been. And it is important to do so. Not just for the candidate but for the nation as a whole to understand how wrong this was. If we had another Kerry, the whole argument would shift from Iraq (right or wrong) to the candidate (for the war then against). The important debate on this issue wouldn't happen.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 12:56pmThe reason Obama is winning now
is because the economy tanked, nothing else. Hillary would have been far ahead the whole time. Few people are thinking about Iraq during the economic meltdown.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 1:02pmBy hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 2:02pm
The discussion on Iraq could not take place on the national level between the candidate if a democrat like Kerry or Clinton had been nominated. I made my point pretty clear. This goes beyond who is winning. It is about the debate on Iraq.
That issue would be a non-issue for such a candidate and if it came up in a debate the whole flip-flop thing would destroy the democratic nominee.
This is not an anti-Clinton statement. It is a fact. Nominating a dem that voted like Kerry or Clinton had would have been a disaster. Both for the candidate and the nation.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 1:10pmIt is not a fact.
It is your opinion. Most American citizens have flp-flopped on their opinion of the war in Iraq too when they found out the truth.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 1:23pmBy hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 2:23pm
We already saw what happened to Kerry.
I'm glad we chose a candidate that can debate this issue and stay on topic without going off into "flip-flop" spin.
Obama has gotten some really good debate points off this issue. McCain has nothing to come back with except to either cling to Bush doctrine or join Obama in criticizing the invasion.
Now McCain is trying to say again that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
The republicans would love another candidate like John Kerry on the democratic ticket. That is a fact.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 1:33pmThat is not a fact.
That is your opinion. The Republicans were very happy that Obama got the nomination because they had a decent chance to win before the economic meltdown. Now that is a fact.
McCain may still win. No one knows how racism or election fraud by Republicans will affect this.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 1:37pmI don't think so, huf
Hillary was in slow decline as a presidential hopeful, because her lack of vision on being able to see a problem with a U.S. economic system in need of billions in neglected repairwork (Clinton got the surplus together, but spending on infrastructure upgrades was put off since before Nixon---it was a dangerous call to put it off for another war, after Vietnam). Hillary and McCain knew this-- and went for the credit card---like the rest of nipple-fed congress--with the exception of Obama.
Obama would have still won this contest on that point alone.
- Email this page
By aaazzz111October 14, 2008 - 1:41pmThey might be thinking about
They might be thinking about the 10+ billion we spend on Iraq during the economic meltdown. Or the nearly trillion dollars we've spent on the war so far...
We've spent (or at least borrowed) on the Iraq war about the same amount as all these bailouts. I suspect the Iraq war as an economic issue is higher on the minds of people than you think.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75October 13, 2008 - 1:11pmI suspect that Republican economic policy in general
is on the minds of the voters. Republicans are in charge, so Dems win.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 1:13pmMcCain/Palin - making history
The first ticket for president in which both the nominee and the VP choice are guilty of ethics violations.
Way to go republicans. You know how to pick them.
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 1:36pmWhat - Have you forgotten
Nixon & Agnew?
- Email this page
By houndogOctober 13, 2008 - 2:41pmBy houndogOctober 13, 2008 - 3:41pm
Nixon and Agnew?
I didn't realize they were both guilty of ethics violations while running as candidates. Are you sure about that?
- Email this page
By f u bush2October 13, 2008 - 4:38pmTechnically...
They were guilty, they just hadn't been tried and convicted.
Details, details......
Some of my all time favorite presidential quotes:
"I am not a crook" - RMN
"I did not have sex with that woman" - WJC
"Mission accomplished" - GWB
Most unintentionally funny quote of the current campaign:
"I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree..." BHO
- Email this page
By houndogOctober 14, 2008 - 9:25amFrom tiny acorns...
...GIANT OAK TREES GROW...don't you know;)
- Email this page
By aaazzz111October 14, 2008 - 1:16pmA Bit of Historical Narrative
The Narragansetts were really not much in evidence in the Pequot War of 1636 - the main allies of the English settlers were the Mohegans under Uncas - the same as provided inspiration for Uncas "The Last of the Mohicans" in James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales. My ancestor was one of the founding fathers of the New Haven militia at the time and served with Uncas - without whose help the Pequots could not have been defeated (the Mohegans were actually a dissident group of Pequots whom Uncas organized into a separate tribe).
The Narragansetts were later brutalized and slaughtered during the King Philip Wars, but it is amusing and ironic that the present day descendants of the Mohegans and Pequots are getting rich selling overpriced firewater and trinkets to the whites settlers of the Connecticut River valley in their 2 hugely successful casinos. what goes around comes around I guess -
- Email this page
By houndogOctober 13, 2008 - 3:13pmCheney, Rummy, and Rove from olden days yonder...
Democrats use more fresh faces. The elders pass wisdom from a distance.
Old Republican monsters entrench themselves in key cabinet offices, and the old cancers spawn...
- Email this page
By aaazzz111October 13, 2008 - 3:14pmThe past parsed by here
It hurt a lot of people in many, many undocumented ways.
There was this brand new hospital. I missed being the first baby born in its maturnity room by one child...luck is not my middle name...
"Doctor, we still have carpenter dust on the floor over here", the evening nurse sounded nervous. "Hmm", the doctor almost sighed into the rotary phone (reveal my age?...never). "Okay nurse, thats unfortunate since, the mother is on her way there already, and is in labor". "Oh dear", the nurse replied, we'll send her off straight away to the (Old venerable hospital cross town), as soon as she arrives. A police escort...stat"..
"No time...." , the doctor mumbled, going over in his mind some late journal reading...it would help here...
"If your pharmacy supply is in order, there is a drug (Largactil?) which has been shown successful in suppressing contractions...give (certain dose). Her and the baby will be fine (yeah right)..."
Later that morning, I remember seeing mom asleep in the corner bed, father holding her hand. And the doctors eyes watching me in silent concern...
Out in the Pacific Northwest, Columbus Day means start of winter storms.
- Email this page
By aaazzz111October 13, 2008 - 8:38pmWay to alienate Catholics just before the election, Thom!
Gee, if only Columbus had stopped and thought, "I'd like to find a shorter route to India, but I just might run into a continent that was populated by a people that are about 5,500 years behind us in their technology. And since I just read Professor Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, & Steel", I know that it will very bad for them. Therefore, I should just stay home, and they will be isolated for ever."
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Columbus's voyage made possible a civilization that would advance to the point where we could look back after only 500 years and have such feelings of revulsion? It's not that Columbus was evil. We've advanced, that all.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that never in history was such a valuable possession (America) tossed away so thoughtlessly (by King George), but I would nominate the Democratic Party throwing away the Catholic vote every four years. You could meet us halfway on abortion. If abortion could be decided by the states, almost nothing material would change. You'd still be able to get abortions in NY and California, and not in Utah or Mississippi--just like now! But even though little would change, liberals just don't like the principle of it, so we Catholics have to vote Republican and hope we don't lose too many labor protections and so on as we get more and more strict constructionists on the court.
And then you have to heap these gratuitous insults to a Catholic hero. Why? Who are you trying to help? Are we supposed to invent a time machine or what? It just seems like America bashing to me.
I'm a proud Catholic and a Knight of Columbus. I'm trying really hard to vote Democratic and help Obama win Wisconsin because we need another FDR now, with the economy cratering. When I hear a rant like yours today, it really makes me wonder if I'm among friends.
What happened to the Roosevelt coalition? Think about what you said today. Don't complain if McCain wins after you worked so hard to drive us away.
- Email this page
By LongNeckGooseOctober 13, 2008 - 9:30pmWay to alienate Catholics just before the election, Thom!
Gee, if only Columbus had stopped and thought, "I'd like to find a shorter route to India, but I just might run into a continent that was populated by a people that are about 5,500 years behind us in their technology. And since I just read Professor Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, & Steel", I know that it will very bad for them. Therefore, I should just stay home, and they will be isolated for ever."
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Columbus's voyage made possible a civilization that would advance to the point where we could look back after only 500 years and have such feelings of revulsion? It's not that Columbus was evil. We've advanced, that all.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that never in history was such a valuable possession (America) tossed away so thoughtlessly (by King George), but I would nominate the Democratic Party throwing away the Catholic vote every four years. You could meet us halfway on abortion. If abortion could be decided by the states, almost nothing material would change. You'd still be able to get abortions in NY and California, and not in Utah or Mississippi--just like now! But even though little would change, liberals just don't like the principle of it, so we Catholics have to vote Republican and hope we don't lose too many labor protections and so on as we get more and more strict constructionists on the court.
And then you have to heap these gratuitous insults to a Catholic hero. Why? Who are you trying to help? Are we supposed to invent a time machine or what? It just seems like America bashing to me.
I'm a proud Catholic and a Knight of Columbus. I'm trying really hard to vote Democratic and help Obama win Wisconsin because we need another FDR now, with the economy cratering. When I hear a rant like yours today, it really makes me wonder if I'm among friends.
What happened to the Roosevelt coalition? Think about what you said today. Don't complain if McCain wins after you worked so hard to drive us away.
- Email this page
By LongNeckGooseOctober 13, 2008 - 9:32pmsex and religion
The weapons of choice of 9 out of 10 groupies.
- Email this page
By aaazzz111October 13, 2008 - 10:02pmYou arent a Democrat
and your evil, demonic, child molesting religion has no place in politics. Keep your silly superstitions to yourself. You never even considered voting for Obama, you religious whackjob.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 10:14pmThank you, once again, huff
Thank you, once again, huff larry, for proving that you are a Republican plant. You don't attack people like that and expect them to vote for your party.
Of course, you attack everyone here indiscriminately. And then you wonder why you aren't liked even though you claim to be a Democrat.
- Email this page
By MichtouOctober 13, 2008 - 10:34pmI dont want nut jobs like that
voting on my side and I dont want them in my country. He would never vote for Obama anyway. I dont care if people like me, I am not here to please anyone and I absolutely could not care less what you think.
People like him put their imaginary sky being ahead of a REAL country with REAL people that has REAL problems. They are frightened, selfish and mentally deranged. They have nothing in common with decent, moral Americans. I do not want those people polluting the Dem party. There arent that many of them and none would ever vote for a Dem anyway.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 10:58pm