George HW Bush passes away
just posted this on another thread — the “why” we should mourn the death of civility.
mtierney said:
just posted this on another thread — the “why” we should mourn the death of civility.
https://politi.co/2rrABDL
Scolding about "civility" is really about shutting up pesky liberals:
When is civility a duty and when is it a trap?
In a paper titled “Democratic Civility and the Dangers of Niceness,” the political scientist Ian Ward contends that “an ethic of generalized niceness” can actually be, in many circumstances, “a means by which citizens conform to the requirements of unjust social arrangements” — we’ve been suckered, yet “niceness” forbids us to do anything about it.
mtierney said:
just posted this on another thread — the “why” we should mourn the death of civility.
https://politi.co/2rrABDL
A trump supporter claiming to care about civility. Proof that conservatives are perfectly capable of satire, this poster's claim that "satire is fake news by cognizant liberals" notwithstanding.
ml1 said:
mtierney said:Scolding about "civility" is really about shutting up pesky liberals:
just posted this on another thread — the “why” we should mourn the death of civility.
https://politi.co/2rrABDL
So true.
I haven't seen tierney post on the incivility of our president. Same about Christie when be bullied school teachers and others in his town halls.
We have McConnell refusing to bring up President Obama's pick for the SC. A president we elected for a term of four years with the leader of the senate ensuring Obama's fourth year was irrelevant. An insult to the electorate who elected him for a four year term, not three years.
Or McConnell saying "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Not lets work together to make our country better. But lets impede and things up so Obama's tenure will be one term.
So very civil, then. And she's now crying over the lack of civility? Please !!!
Republicans are pigs.
Listen to the Bagman podcast, which is incredible anyway, for a peak into some stuff we didn't know about H.W. Still, there are many examples of the kindnesses he showed to people of all walks of life, and he was generally likable, personality-wise, and that goes a long way I guess.
boomie said:
Listen to the Bagman podcast, which is incredible anyway, for a peak into some stuff we didn't know about H.W. Still, there are many examples of the kindnesses he showed to people of all walks of life, and he was generally likable, personality-wise, and that goes a long way I guess.
An example:
He was casually dressed, as if about to play golf, and surrounded by a sizeable entourage – some muscled security heavies, some suited confederates, perhaps a secretary or two, all of them quietly obsequious, all of them situated at a prudent distance, respectful of an invisible protective boundary that isolated the politician who had once been the most powerful person on Earth. Closest to Bush, half a step behind him, was a bulky, crew-cut military man, with so many medals on his uniform that it was a miracle he wasn’t sagging from the burden. A general, at least, I thought.
Suddenly, the former president lifted his right arm into the air, his fingers extended backward, snapping them without, however, deigning to look at the man behind him. The officer reacted with celerity, producing, seemingly out of nowhere, a tube that he deposited in his master’s hand. It turned out to be a sun tan lotion, as George Senior, without losing his stride and definitely without thanking the aide, began to lavishly apply it to his exposed forearms and neck.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/george-hw-bush-family
ml1 said:When is civility a duty and when is it a trap?
Scolding about "civility" is really about shutting up pesky liberals:
In a paper titled “Democratic Civility and the Dangers of Niceness,” the political scientist Ian Ward contends that “an ethic of generalized niceness” can actually be, in many circumstances, “a means by which citizens conform to the requirements of unjust social arrangements” — we’ve been suckered, yet “niceness” forbids us to do anything about it.
Interesting read. But, please allow me to pose a question...albeit one that may be rhetorical. From my reading, the article takes the position that it is one's right and duty to speak out against those whom that person believes are espousing a position/policy that is socially unjust. In fact, not to do so is a tacit endorsement or tolerance of that position. That is reminiscent of John Locke. To me, the "rubs" are the inherent subjectivity of the matter and the assumption that two wrongs somehow translate to a right.
Trump seems to believe that certain people have positions that endanger the well-being of the nation....as he sees it. And, can there be any question that his reactions are unmitigated by any concern for civility as he lashes out at those persons? I find Trump's behavior reprehensible but, in a narrow sense, isn't he an adherent to Ian Ward's point of view since he objects to the positions of those whom he attacks? Who gets to say which social values and actions are the "correct" ones? Just replying that it's "obvious" is hardly a strong intellectual position. Do we rely on our religions to tell us what is "right"? Is there some collective moral sense that is the standard? Is it what our respective cultures set forth?
My extended family is quite racially, ethnically and internationally diverse. Within that mix are two brothers-in-law who are from nations upon which the United States has tried to impose it's values through economic/industrial imperialism, covert military activities, and providing aid to corrupt leaders. They always pose the question of "what gives the US the right to lecture others on how on they should live, what their values should be, how they treat their own citizens, and who their allies should be?" I think those are fair questions. We may value certain things we believe to be essential human rights and see the conflicting practices of other nations as "wrong" but how is it that the US has the right to impose what we value upon other nations? Okay, I get that argument that we need to speak up against the nazis, but isn't that an extreme?
So too, as individuals, we may have socio-political values that we feel are "righteous" and view different/opposing positions as wrong. To us, the correctness of our positions seem obvious. But, to borrow my family members' questions, what entitles us to lecture or chide others for holding values that are different? Who gave us that right? And, when we do so, what makes us any different than Trump? Simply re-stating our positions as though doing so imparts implicit justification is intellectually vapid. And, that goes for the left, right, or center.
I've gotta go with Michelle Obama's take on this.
NormanBates: do the diverse relatives you referenced live in the United States?
mtierney said:
NormanBates: do the diverse relatives you referenced live in the United States?
Yes. South Jersey, Pennsylvania and upstate New York.
The funeral service was magnificent. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I didn't vote for George H W Bush but compared to what we have now he seems pretty good. The eulogies were interesting and sometimes funny. Seeing the interaction between past presidents,etc. was interesting to watch. The music was amazing and I admire Ronan Tynan's great voice. The Cathedral looked beautiful and the participants including the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church did a wonderful job.
i wouldn’t have voted for him and I hated many of the things he did as a Republican President but it was a gorgeous, moving, wonderful service. And by all accounts, he was a brave, honorable, smart man that served his country with dignity, represented the US with grace and passion and devoted himself to a family he loved. A life well lived.
Norman_Bates said:
mtierney said:Yes. South Jersey, Pennsylvania and upstate New York.
NormanBates: do the diverse relatives you referenced live in the United States?
Norman Bates: “My extended family is quite racially, ethnically and internationally diverse. Within that mix are two brothers-in-law who are from nations upon which the United States has tried to impose it's values through economic/industrial imperialism, covert military activities, and providing aid to corrupt leaders.
“ They always pose the question of "what gives the US the right to lecture others on how on they should live, what their values should be, how they treat their own citizens, and who their allies should be?"
“I think those are fair questions. We may value certain things we believe to be essential human rights and see the conflicting practices of other nations as "wrong" but how is it that the US has the right to impose what we value upon other nations? Okay, I get that argument that we need to speak up against the nazis, but isn't that an extreme?“
I am gobsmacked over your relatives decisions to leave their native countries, journey to the United States to live. Why did they come?
I come to bury Caesar not to praise him. And yet the genuine out cry of grief from so many good and noble people compels us to ask why?
We are not always the most intelligent of folk. This is the human condition. Some can easily be fulled by the politician/trickster. We are about to enter a show down with one soon.
You may disagree with the actions of the late President............but minus the slogans and "you can fool the people some of the time" philosophy was the heart of a man who was dedicated to family and country. A mixed legacy perhaps but memorable one.
I thought it was a moving ceremony, but I also found myself thinking a lot about fate. If we didn't have an antiquated electoral system, Gore and Hillary would be sitting there as current and former presidents, and "43" would be sitting with his brother as another former governor. Trump wouldn't have been there at all. If Ford had accepted Reagan's offer to be VP in 1980, Bush instead would have had a nice but far smaller ceremony in Houston. And if 41 had been killed in the war (I also think he had a serious illness as a young man), it wouldn't have happened at all.
mtierney said:
I am gobsmacked over your relatives decisions to leave their native countries, journey to the United States to live. Why did they come?
Some are here intentionally and others more by chance. One came here for college and remained on a work visa...eventually marrying and deciding to stay. I don't believe he ever intended to return to his home nation because of the limited opportunities. He recently retired after a long career as an engineer working for a defense industry contractor. Another was traveling and working here temporarily, met and married my sister-in-law, and they went to live in his home nation. However, she eventually became homesick and he reluctantly returned with her to the US. A third member (a niece's husband) was legally brought here as a child by his parents. He has only a tenuous connection to his parent's home country.
None of them suffer the illusion that their home nation is perfect and they've made the US their home by choice....they like and respect the US. But, they also retain a respect for the culture of their home countries and don't feel the need to declare one or the other nation as "the best". They can appreciate what each has to offer as well as to be critical of circumstances in both countries with which they disagree. Life, people, and nations rarely are a dichotomous "right or wrong" or "best or worst". We are all combinations of qualities that are admirable and others that are not. But then, what is "admirable"?
mtierney said:I am gobsmacked over your relatives decisions to leave their native countries, journey to the United States to live. Why did they come?
Why did your relatives (forefathers) decide to come to the united states? You daughter-of-immigrants you!
People and the media whitewash Bush because Anerican Exceptulisim is the unofficial national religion. This podcast offers an alterative, truthful eulogy for Bush. It covers his family and career in detail and lays bare the blood-drenched war criminal monster he really was. Strongly makes the case that Trump could not be as bad as Bush if he tried because he does not have the time. Bush had power for decades and abused it, starting with lessons he learned from his Nazi abetting father, who desecrated Geronimo's grave. Both Bush presidents lied us inti wars and made the world a much less safer place.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/05/george-h-w-bush-1924-2018-american-war-criminal/
dave said:
I'm gobsmacked by mtierney's use of the word gobsmacked.
I'm pretty sure no one really smacked her in the gob.
nan said:
People and the media whitewash Bush because Anerican Exceptulisim is the unofficial national religion. This podcast offers an alterative, truthful eulogy for Bush. It covers his family and career in detail and lays bare the blood-drenched war criminal monster he really was. Strongly makes the case that Trump could not be as bad as Bush if he tried because he does not have the time. Bush had power for decades and abused it, starting with lessons he learned from his Nazi abetting father, who desecrated Geronimo's grave. Both Bush presidents lied us inti wars and made the world a much less safer place.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/05/george-h-w-bush-1924-2018-american-war-criminal/
You actually made me google "Anerican Exceptulisim" in case it was one of those weird alt-left dog whistles.
nan said:
Bush had power for decades and abused it, starting with lessons he learned from his Nazi abetting father, who desecrated Geronimo's grave.
We all like how rumor and innuendo are presented as fact.
Dead he is. Yet, his legacy lives on. Clarence Thomas offers his thanks.
And Trump's legacy will also live on.
Okokokok said:
tjohn said:https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20geronimo.html
nan said:We all like how rumor and innuendo are presented as fact.
Bush had power for decades and abused it, starting with lessons he learned from his Nazi abetting father, who desecrated Geronimo's grave.
Yes, a good article on the rumor. Of course, many Native American graves have been violated, but that doesn't make the rumor any more true.
Okokokok said:
tjohn said:https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20geronimo.html
nan said:We all like how rumor and innuendo are presented as fact.
Bush had power for decades and abused it, starting with lessons he learned from his Nazi abetting father, who desecrated Geronimo's grave.
So I checked the link and then I Googled Prescott Bush.
Maybe it was Geronimo and maybe it wasn't.
Maybe Prescott Bush was there or maybe he was in France.
The link:
HOUSTON — The descendants of Geronimo have sued Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale University with ties to the Bush family, charging that its members robbed his grave in 1918 and have kept his skull in a glass case ever since.
Wikipedia.
According to Skull and Bones lore, Prescott Bush was among a group of Bonesmen who dug up and removed the skull of Geronimo from his grave at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918. According to historian David L. Miller, the Bonesmen probably dug up somebody at Fort Sill, but not Geronimo.
Bush served as a field artillery captain with the American Expeditionary Forces (1917–1919) during World War I. He received intelligence training at Verdun, France, and was briefly assigned to a staff of French officers. Alternating between intelligence and artillery, he came under fire in the Meuse-Argonne offensive.
As to Senator Bush and the Nazis:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
And at the same time George Herbert Walker Bush volunteered at age 17 or 18 to fight the Nazis and their allies. Go figure.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
-
'Beethoven's Wrong Note: A Steampunk Opera'
May 12, 2024 at 2:00pm
Advertisement
Bush helped lay the groundwork for Trump's rise.