Skip to main content

Allen is a racist and a  liar.

Once upon a time 13 years ago, there was a controversy about U.S. Sen. George Allen, then a candidate for governor, and his private Confederate flag--the one he displayed in his home in Earlysville.

When the story broke, Allen said it was part of a flag collection, giving people the possible impression that some sort of United Nations of flags adorned the Allen household, one of them the Stars and Bars.

That impression, accepted by the media covering the flag flap, apparently is untrue. Spin control from 13 years ago may have reached its half-life and deteriorated somewhat.

Today, two former officials who visited Allen's log cabin home at different times recall only up to two flags on display there, a Confederate flag and, on an opposite wall, an American flag.

And he thinks people who practice good bicycle safey are "sissies".

On Nov. 4 of last year, Grant recalls, Allen displayed another telltale sign of his personality as the GOP senator was joking around in front of a Republican crowd that was rallying in Albemarle for the party's statewide ticket and local candidates.

"During his remarks, Allen spotted me in the crowd and mentioned me as his former Earlysville neighbor," Grant recalled. "Then he made a public wisecrack about me with what he called, and I quote here, my `sissy helmet.'

"I was in the crowd in my tan suit holding my bicycle helmet, since I had biked to the rally from where I parked my car over near the Four Seasons neighborhood," Grant said.
"For the record, George Allen may consider wearing bicycle helmets as being sissy, but I don't. Being safe is not being a sissy," he said.

"Is it possible there is a trend here?" Grant asked, noting Allen's 1994 comment about knocking political opponents' " `soft teeth down their whiney throats,' reverence for Confederate flag decor, `sissy helmet' statements, and offensive cultural assumptions -- a la `macaca' -- about non-white U.S. citizens of other than his political persuasion."

Is it possible there's a trend? Talk about a textbook definition of "rhetorical question". This guy thinks he's running for president?

Guys, remember that we can all help get rid of these creeps like Burns and Allen.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:00 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  just like bush (12+ / 0-)

    He's got an inferiority complex, so he feels the need to dominate other by calling them sissies or macaca. Hope he can find a job in January.

  •  HELLOOOOO....Sixth Pickup!! N/T (8+ / 0-)

    "It. Is. About. Winning."

    by Steve Singiser on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:50:31 PM PDT

  •  Jeebus... (13+ / 0-)

    ...I'm opposed to every law on the books requiring bike and motorcycle helmets, and even so, calling someone who wears one a sissy is below an seventh-grader.

    Keep the playground shit with the kids who still get recess, y'know?

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:51:04 PM PDT

    •  As far as I'm concerned (7+ / 0-)

      Allen can go riding his motocycle with no helmet all he wants... the more often the better.

    •  Unrelated but curious... are you opposed to (0+ / 0-)

      seatbelt laws?

      I'm just curious. Personally, I think a State can pass those laws if they can get them approved, though I would personally hate to have to wear a cycling helmet, even though I prolly should.

      ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

      by Tirge Caps on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:03:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes I am... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BennyAbelard, greeseyparrot, imorroy

        ...very opposed, in fact.  The state has no business protecting you from yourself, and it is a ridiculous waste of resources, not to mention a Fourth Amendment violation, to have traffic stops to check seat belts (which I personally have been stopped at four times, and I haven't had a driver's liscence for three years).

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:06:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and what about... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bloomer 101, VA2CA

          ...child seat laws?

          Does the state have business protecting children from their parent's self?

          •  That's thorny... (0+ / 0-)

            ...the state does have the perogative to protect children from their parents negligence and/or intentional harm.  That being said, this particular case, I feel it is an unenforcible law.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:14:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  someone had an argument for seatbelt/helmet laws. (0+ / 0-)

              ...and argued it as the state having an over-riding financial interest in having people wear helmets/seatbelts because the kind of injuries that result from motorcycle/automobile crashes (head injury mostly) if not outright killing you would cause you to require extensive and extremely expensive medical care essentially for the rest of your life.  And that often those costs are incurred either on the state or on healtcare providers (because what insurance company's going to touch that?)

              I don't know how accurate that claim is but that was an explaination from the pro-seatbelt/helmet laws side explaining what business the state has in the issue.  They argued it as a public health issue (from a cost perspective), kind of like vaccinations.

              •  That is actually the line of argument used in (0+ / 0-)

                several states and as someone who personally knows at least three people who have died in motorcycle accidents I actually believe that a helmet law is not a bad thing.

                Obviously it's a question of personal liberties, but the if the state can legitimately keep smoke out of bars then I think motocycle helmets are a minor nusance.

                I know even more people who have died in car accidents, so is the "liberty" of not wearing a seatbelt really worth a human life?

                Usually I consider myself a member of the "Pro-Death" Party: pro-choice, pro-death-penalty, but I do think we should do what we can to protect and promote the well being of all our citizens between birth and the great white light.

              •  They always do.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

       is always a public health issue.  Which is how we end up at prohibition and refusing to teach kids about condoms because telling them anything but "don't have sex" runs a risk that they'll have unsafe sex, or become godless or something.  And sooner or later they'll have detectors to check if you even have drugs in your bloodstream and laws against juviniles having sex, and some abominable program to try and enforce that.  It's the public's health, after all.  We can't afford all these underage parents having babies and needing the public's care, and people who aren't doing illegal drugs have nothing to fear from the scanner checks, just like if you're wearing your seat belt, you have nothing to fear from random car stops.

                And while we're at it, why bother having elections?  A panel of experts can determine what is best for the greatest number of American people, better than our uninformed electorate who are just watching three hours of coverage on what the JonBenet Ramsey killer ate on the airplane on the fucking news channel anyways.  And really, we could solve the obesity epidemic if we told everyone what they had to eat, and how much, and what time to eat.  I mean, hell, a scientist just suggested that the obesity "epidemic" is now a bigger world problem than starvation.  We best get the government on that.

                I'm obviously being facetious, right?  I mean, it isn't like we're banning Sudafed and pulling people over to make sure their seat belt is buckled and they aren't talking on their cell phones and talking about banning smoking in your own home if there are children present and monitoring the phone calls and library records of everyone and banning foie gras and talking about banning freaking transfats.  We're a free fucking country, right?

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 09:12:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Free country (0+ / 0-)

                  "We're a free fucking country, right?"

                  Yes. Free to elect representatives who enact laws that pass constitutionality tests that protect us from other people's reckless behavior, both physical and financial.

                  Sure, I'd like to run red lights (not really, just being illustrative). But I don't because I'm a responsible citizen. I don't want to be hit by a self-obsessed wacko, so I vote to put restrictions on my behavior to protect myself from those wackos. As a result, I am "forced," to use your (libertarian collective) favorite antisocial expression, to stop at red lights. Not wearing a seltbelt puts others at risk because of vehicle control issues, and burdens them with addition insurance and healthcare costs. Not being a self-centered asshole, I gladly obey and endorse both red light and seatbelt laws.

                  Of course, you are not "forced" to wear a seatbelt or stop at red lights because "the government" does not "force" you to drive. You have the freedom to walk instead. Likewise, you are not "forced" to pay taxes because "the government" does not "force" you to earn income, plus we have the freedom to emigrate to countries where you pay no US taxes. I think many libs would be happier in third-world countries. I have one friend who did just that - to Costa Rica. Of course, when it rains, he can't drive into town for food for several days, because with low taxes comes low infrastructure and other services.

                  But there are those who simply can't function in a society and can't cooperate. Like thieves, they see no problem in costing others their rights to live and prosper, as long as they are not inconvenienced. They think reckles behavior is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone, whereas rational people understand that reckless behavior leads to accidents, regardless of the original intent of the perp. Or "Duh," as I like to say.

                  Example: I once argued this case with a nutcase libertarian. "So it's OK for your kid to play with matches all he wants as long as he doesn't burn the house down and kill us all, because you already have a rule against that?" All I got was a pout that screamed "I got nuthin'."

                  This is too easy.

                  "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!

                  by armadillo on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 01:51:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Foreign taxes (0+ / 0-)
                    we have the freedom to emigrate to countries where you pay no US taxes.

                    Note that the United States is one of very few nations that requires citizens residing abroad to pay full US taxes on all income, even if none if it has any US nexus.

                    Even citizens who leave the country and renounce citizenship can be required to pay US taxes for ten or more years.  I don't feel much sympathy for such quitters but that just seems wrong.

                    3.39/-3.27 * Save the Moderates

                    by ChetEdModerate on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 05:44:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I look at it as if the burden of injuries (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          decreases the State's ability to function, or in this case, if it adversely effects health care by overloading the system, then some safety regulations can be imposed if passed.  But I do agree with your fundamental disagreement, even though it isn't enough for me in the case of seat belts. I am wary of government intrusion and think this one gets very close, but in the end is beneficial more than not.

          ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

          by Tirge Caps on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:14:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Make you a deal (6+ / 0-)

          I will join in your opposition to seat belt and helmet laws IF
          as part of it, people injured or killed in traffic accidents not wearing them collect no insurance, irrespective of whose fault it is, for their medical bills.

          This is the problem of libertarianism - it refuses to recognize that we are part of a society, where individual actions affect others' lives.

          And I'll throw in another problem - even if an accident were totally not my fault, if I were involved in one with a driver/rider who otherwise would have lived if following safety rules but died, it would haunt me the rest of my life.

          Sorry, but you need to learn to respect others and not value your own selfish preferences above what is good for society as a whole.

          •  Ugh (0+ / 0-)

            As regards that last sentence, this is what bugs me the most about anti-libertarian folks.  What the hell makes you think that I don't respect others above what is good for society as a whole?  Why does everyone think that just because I don't think the government ought to pass and attempt to enforce a whole bunch of laws, that I don't think that people ought to do the right thing, or that I don't personally?

            This sort of crap is based on the premise that, given the opportunity, everyone will behave as badly as they possibly can.  I don't believe that, and the evidence doesn't bear it out either.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:20:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Respecting others (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              loudGizmo, armadillo, VA2CA

              means not to put the cult of self-centeredness above doing things that make little difference to you but a huge potential difference to others.

              I stand by my sentiment.

              And you did not respond about the no-insurance tradeoff, which in a rough justice sort of way would be the appropriate legal remedy.

              •  I did reply in a ps... (0+ / 0-)


                Again, I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about has anything to do with libertarianism as a political philosophy.  It isn't about self-centeredness - it is about freedom from the power of the state.  Doing the things is great, and I support the hell out of doing them.  I have no respect for forcing people to do them.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:31:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  In light of this comment... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I will join in your opposition to seat belt and helmet laws IF, as part of it, people injured or killed in traffic accidents not wearing them collect no insurance, irrespective of whose fault it is, for their medical bills.

                ...I wouldn't wax self-righteous about the "cult of self-centeredness", hon.  Since the whole point of insurance of all sorts is to spread risk it is, frankly, not your frickin' business what the risks are and from whom.  You sound like a tax hater who doesn't want "his money" to go to undeserving welfare queens.  Who's being self-centered with such talk?

                (until I can think of something better)

                by Ernest Tomlinson on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:40:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  If insurance companies have to pay for the accidents of people who fail to obey safety laws, then that increases everyone's insurance costs.  And when it's money coming out of my pocket for someone else's refusal to obey a law, then it most definitely is my business.

                •  Sorta trollish (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I don't want to pay for the health care costs of those who were injured and could have avoided injury through wearing seat belts. I'm not asking them to buy a volvo that has a multi-thousand premium because it is safe, I'm asking them to use the free safety devices that are already in their cars, for their sake and mine. Your insurance argument strikes me as a bit simplistic, the fact that people take risks because they are insured is called moral hazard and destroys insurance.

                  Also, it is philosophically a bit difficult to attack someone who is making an anti-libertarian argument as a "tax-hater".

                  "Quidquid dicendum est, libere dicam." -Cicero

                  by BennyAbelard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:32:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  If people want to engage in risky (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  behaviors like smoking or biking without a helmet or driving without a seatbelt that is their right - just don't expect the rest of us to subsidize their risky behavior with higher insurance premiums and higher taxes.

                  (-2.75,-4.77) America let Bush play with its Army and he broke it.

                  by Sam I Am on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:35:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ohh, now I don't buy that (0+ / 0-)

                  I wouldn't wax self-righteous about the "cult of self-centeredness", hon.  Since the whole point of insurance of all sorts is to spread risk it is, frankly, not your frickin' business what the risks are and from whom.

                  Right.  So, then, you would assert that I should be paying the same for life insurance as someone who hang-glides?  Should I pay as much for auto insurance as someone who has had six accidents?  Should I, more to the point, have to pay for an increase in the cost of life insurance because someone else shoots himself in the head so that his wife and kids can have a couple of million dollars?

                  Another idea of insurance, and specifically of variable rates, is to reward the kind of behavior the insurer wants to encourage.  Since the insurer can't verify that the driver is wearing his seat belt until after he's thrown from the car headfirst into a tree, it seems to me that insurance that gave you a lower rate based on whether you tick the box saying 'I will always wear my seatbelt' and don't get any money if you are caught not wearing it is...

                  ...a horrendously bad idea, but only because I think that everyone in the world should have free health care, regardless of their lifestyle.  However, indulging in risky and stupid behavior (e.g. unprotected sex with strangers) just because you know that society will be there to clean up your messes (e.g. provide you free AIDS drugs for the rest of your life) is the epitome of selfishness.

                  I would say that it is indeed our responsibility as a society to provide health care to all our citizens.  But, if that is so, is it not the responsibility of each individual citizen to minimize the burden he or she places on the rest of society, to the greatest extent they can without being unduly burdened themselves?  (Of course, in a free society the only measure of 'undue burden' is the individual's sense of responsibility.)  If that is true, then all of a sudden it seems to me that legislating seat belts (seat belts, for god's sake) is no worse than, say, legislating child support.  Except, of course, that there is no one for whom fastening their seat belt is an 'undue burden'.

                  If you want the state to take care of you, then there are some rules that you have to follow.  It's called the social compact, and if it includes fastening your seat belt, well, it's hard for me to imagine anything more innocuous that can prevent so many people from becoming a burden to society.


          •  I agree with you Sean (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JaciCee, armadillo

            My dad was a cop and saw tons of people killed or maimed for life because they wouldn't put on a seatbelt.  My daughter was riding in a car that was hit from behind by a guy who wsn't wearing a seatbelt.  Every rib in his chest was broken, and his nose was sheared off.  Don't give my kids nightmares for the rest of their lives because you don't want to protect yourself.


            by VA2CA on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:23:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  PS (0+ / 0-)

            Since I think the government ought not be involved with insurance, I think if insurers want to refuse to cover drivers who do not wear their seat belts, more power to them.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:28:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Government should not be involved in insurance? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              What planet do you live on?

              The government includes courts of course, but if you are talking about the regulations, you are talking about a formula that a consumer nightmare with the most vulnerable people made totally uninsurable.

              •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                ...I do think courts are the proper remedy for a lot of these over-legislated issues.  But this isn't a conversation that is going many places, and since I'm not here to pitch libertarianism, I'm not sure what exactly we're going on about.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:34:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If the courts are involved (0+ / 0-)

                  that means the government is involved. If they are acting in a vacuum without the guidance of executive and/or legislative action directly tied in to people's votes.

                  In other words, your solution means that an all--powerful government that is less responsive to people.

                  Thus it is with libertarianism - a nice idea until you recognize the consequences.

            •  The government is us (0+ / 0-)

              In this country, government = US. Just substitute "we" for "government" above and maybe it will be clear. Sounds like what you want is anarchy. There's an anarchist wing of the libertatian party, right?

              If "we" (the government) want to pass laws that hold others accountable for irresponsible behavior that impacts others (see my other message for a few examples), then we not only can, we should, or we would be irresponsible too. The only alternative to that freedom is a dictatorship. Is that what you want, with your guy in charge, of course?

              What about red light laws? Against those, too? I knew a libertarian who was against speeding laws since there were already laws against murder. Sheesh.

              But it's pointless to argue with authoritarians.

              "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!

              by armadillo on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:13:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not only would that death haunt you, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            so would the estate of the deceased.  It's not worth the risk. Seatbelts are simple ways to save lives.

            Not the church. Not the state. Women will decide their fate.

            by JaciCee on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:51:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Jeeez. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I investigated auto accidents for years. I saw many gruesome deaths that could have been prevented had the vehicle occupants been wearing their seatbelts.  I guess if adults want to be irresponsible about their own safety that is one thing but to put a kid at risk is beyond reproach.

          Not the church. Not the state. Women will decide their fate.

          by JaciCee on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:47:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think it means what you think it means... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but to put a kid at risk is beyond reproach.

            'Beneath contempt', possibly.  'Beyond the pale.'  'Beyond stupid' is a goodie, though not really much of a cliche.

            But putting a kid at risk is pretty much the opposite of 'beyond reproach', given that it means (according to my dictionary):

            such that no criticism can be made; perfect


        •  What about others on the road? (0+ / 0-)

          Let's say you have no seatbelt on and get nerfed hard enough to lose your grip on the wheel, perhaps sliding right too far to reach the brake as well. Your now-unguided car crosses the median into my lane. Please state the law that allows your irresponsibility to kill me.

          Or is it "all about me me me?" Are you a libertarian, BTW? At least a republican, I'd say. They can't stand personal responsibility.

          OK, more points. When you die or get injured, all the cost of your tax-supported education and OJT goes with you. Your former employer must hire a replacement, which might be expensive, plus he has the cost of restoring your OJT. He has to pass these costs to me, the consumer, or go broke. Why should we responsible consumers have to pay for your lack of responsibility? And what about hospital capacity? Hospitals have to have enough beds to handle the average load. Every little bit adds up. This increases my health and insurance costs, as does the extra costs of more severe injuries you may sustain, should you survive. Everybody pays, even if you have insurance, as insurance companies must raise rates to cover your and other non-seatbelt-wearers' extra average costs. We are subsidizing your irresponsibility, you are using other people's money to act foolishly.

          There are many other indirect costs. Your family may have to take time off from work to tend to you. Stress may lower their productivity, too. That raises the price of goods and services. And on and on it goes... We can't afford people like you.

          The rest of us do have business protecting ourselves and our pocketbooks from people who can't seem to function in a society for the mutual benefit of all. If you lived on a desert island, I'd say fine, knock yourself out. But for now, please realize what you do affects others, at least financially.

          "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!

          by armadillo on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:51:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Haha (0+ / 0-)

            I basically wrote a post that copies yours before I read yours. The only thing I would note is that seatbeltless drivers actually get in less acidents than those with seatbelts. This was found when people used to have the ability to buy a car without seatbelts so it might not hold up anymore, but I haven't seen newer data.

            "Quidquid dicendum est, libere dicam." -Cicero

            by BennyAbelard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:27:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Doesn't sound right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              especially people who don't wear seatbelts are by definition less responsible, and also aggressive (just look at how they argue about it) and bigger risk takers, from everything I've read.

              To sum up, a secondary reason for seatbelts is to help you keep control of your vehicle so you don't endanger others. Libertarians and conservatives don't care about others, so this makes no sense to them. Why they don't want the other guy to keep control of his vehicle so they don't get hit is beyond me - just another predictable inconsistency. <sigh>

              "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!

              by armadillo on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:40:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                there are studies that show this. Steven Landsberg talked about it in the mass market book The Armchair Economist. Granted Landsberg is crazy even for an economist, but the numbers are there.

                The theory basically goes like this: a seatbelt's main function is to reduce injury when an accident occurs. By doing this it decreases the cost of accidents. Since accidents no longer cost as much, people take fewer precautions to prevent them and therefore get into more accidents.

                The net result seen in studies was that, with seatbelts, a lower percentage of accidents resulted in fatalities. At the same time the number of accidents increased to a degree such that the total number of fatalities stayed the same.

                That being said, I don't know whether anyone has examined the case of seatbelts allowing you to maintain control over your vehicle in the case of an accident. Would be interesting to see.

                Also, the studies I am aware of were done before the universal inclusion of seatbelts in cars. So I tend to think that you are right to suggest that today, when the cost of using a seatbelt is only 5 seconds when you enter the car, only the inherently reckless will not use seatbelts. That could cause the earlier positive correlation between accidents and seatbelts to dissapear.

                "Quidquid dicendum est, libere dicam." -Cicero

                by BennyAbelard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 09:09:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Losing control of vehicle (0+ / 0-)

                  That being said, I don't know whether anyone has examined the case of seatbelts allowing you to maintain control over your vehicle in the case of an accident. Would be interesting to see.

                  Kind of self-evident, no? Si?

                  The most recent example I saw was a news story on employers placing cameras in company vehicles to prove or disprove carelessness. In one, a guy hits something or gets hit. He goes from the driver's seat to the back glass and back to the front. My guess he couldn't control the vehicle while in the back seat, but that's just me. Once things settled down, I doubt he'd be healthy enough to get control again.

                  I got T-boned once and while I had a bad bruise on my left arm, I never let go of the wheel. I saw it coming and hit the brakes. My foot stayed on the brake through the whole thing - I was stopped before I even got all the way through the intersection. Had I not been belted, no way I could have kept control. Moral: There is no argument against firsthand experience. :)

                  Likewise, I T-boned a Chevette that ran a stop sign in a 1972 T-bird, not an even match. The occupants bounced around the car like pingpong balls.

                  Surely you've seen those insurance industry crash test films, too. Pretty obvious. Let's hope the conservatives and liberatians feel some personal responsibility for the safety of others, if not themselves, and buckle up. Not likely with authoritarians, though.

                  I'll take my chances with the self-evident.

                  Sorry for contributing to the hijacking of this diary.

                  "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!

                  by armadillo on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 01:07:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  In general (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          as someone who thinks like an economist I agree about protecting people from themselves. People can weigh the costs and benefits themselves. However, there is a tricky point with seat belts in that people may not know the trade off they are making. Certainly the reaction to Nader's Unsafe At Any Speed indicates that most people at the time didn't really know about the safety of their cars. Times may have changed, but I wouldn't want to stake myself to either side very strongly.
          There is also an externality issue. My auto insurance and health insurance premiums are almost certainly higher than they need to be because the historical data on my demographic (18-25 males) includes quite a few non-seatbelt wearing morons.
          As far as the 4th amendment thing, I think states get around with some sort of implied consent principle. When you get a driver's license you agree to all sorts of things in exchange for the right to drive. You are forced to take a field sobriety test, or cede your licence, and you probably also agree to have you seatbelt status inspected. Basically, the state is giving you a priviledge in exchange for you following their rules, which might not otherwise be totally legal. Same way your employer can drug test you, even though the government cannot stop you on the sidewalk and drug test or sobriety test you. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how this applies to someone like you who doesn't have a licence, but I bet it does.

          "Quidquid dicendum est, libere dicam." -Cicero

          by BennyAbelard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:25:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          States should also pass a law saying that if you're injured in an accident because you weren't wearing a legally mandated seatbelt or bike helmet, then your insurance company and all levels of gov't are not liable to pay for your medical care.

          If you want to live outside the system, then you should be willing to take full responsibility for your actions and shun society's safety net.

    •  Always wear a helmet. Always. Always. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Seriously. Anyone who is or knows an ER doc. will tell you riding a bike without a helmet is a risk you don't want to take. Ever.

    •  Helmets (0+ / 0-)
      Those who are opposed to helmet laws on the basis of personal responsibility should be the top advocates of the choice to use helmets.  Allen is the most despicable overlap of evil <strike> on this issue</strike>.

      Note, by the way, that bicycle helmet laws actually cause more injuries and deaths by crashes than otherwise.

      The same is not true for motorcycle helmets, seat belts, or motorcar helmets.

      3.39/-3.27 * Save the Moderates

      by ChetEdModerate on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 06:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  maybe he's trying to get liberals to (0+ / 0-)

    go without protection and make the gene pool run red. you do fun shit when you're desperate, eh?

  •  But he told me he wasn't racist (15+ / 0-)

    I'll have the audio up tomorrow morning at CallingAllWingnuts.

  •  might a well rename them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PatsBard, Easterling

    the "over-compensation for <ahem> short comings" party.

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:52:05 PM PDT

  •  George and Gracie? (4+ / 0-)

    That's just not right.

    "Ain't but two sides to this world. Them that work and them that don't. You work, they don't. That's all you got to know about the enemy."

    by motherlowman on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:53:59 PM PDT

  •  jeez (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saucy monkey, VA2CA

    Every day Allen sounds more and more like all the big bullies that nobody liked in elementary school.

    How did this guy ever get elected to the United States Senate in the first place?

  •  Sissy Helmets? Buy that man a Hayabusa. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ky DEM

    So he doesn't like helmets.

    If everyone here on the board chipped in $5 we could buy Allen a 1300 cc croch rocket (like a Hayabusa), a map of the "Dragon" at Deal's Gap North Carolina, and NO HELMET.

    Problem solved.

  •  Hey, I Bet He Swaggers (0+ / 0-)

    too, like W. He seems to represent everything the Republican Party stands for... that ought to be enough to end his career.

    Republicans- Proudly Destroying the Middle Class of the United States

    by Ky DEM on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:55:40 PM PDT

  •  Say GOOD NIGHT Gracie (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ken Camp, Elwood Dowd, ActivistGuy

    "Goodnight Gracie!"

    - "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - British economist Lord Keynes (1883-1946)

    by Czarvoter on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:56:09 PM PDT

  •  Umm, Felix..... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I know Thomas Jefferson's teachings.  And you are no Jeffersonian.

    by VA2CA on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:57:00 PM PDT

  •  Peel away the skin and there's nothing but rot (0+ / 0-)


    Vile human beings.

    "Mr. President, Stay the Course is a not a strategy, it's a slogan..." Nancy Pelosi - David Letterman 8/23/06

    by PatsBard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:58:17 PM PDT

  •  As a gay guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    my automatic instinct with a conservative who displays exagerated masculinity is always "repressed homosexuality," a little engine that I think fires at least a discernable portion of the bizarre right wing agenda.  Grappling with the truth about oneself, no matter what is may be, is always the healthiest option.  Whatever Allen is repressing, his attitude ain't healthy.

    •  Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In 1996, three scientists from the University of Georgia -- Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright Jr., Ph.D., and Bethany Lohr -- published a study called "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.

      The researchers measured tumescence or enlargement of the male member when the subject viewed 3 types of erotica: straight, gay, and lesbian.

      the homophobic men were more than twice as likely to be aroused as the nonhomophobic men -- 54 to 24 percent. Only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no arousal while watching the homosexual videos.

      And to top it off, homophobic men showed less of a positive response to lesbian porn that straight men.

      It's those things that make you go hmmmm...

    •  But But (0+ / 0-)

      He played football. Nothing is more true to red-blooded American ideals. And certainly no activity is less homoerotic than football!

      snark, if you needed to know.

      "Quidquid dicendum est, libere dicam." -Cicero

      by BennyAbelard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds to me like (0+ / 0-)

    we want Allen to run for prez.

    I Am The King Of The Eleven Comment Diary and the Duke of C&Jless TU status.

    by CalbraithRodgers on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:00:12 PM PDT

    •  No (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Mikesco

      Just because I think that everyone will be smart enough not to vote for the idiot, we have enough evidence, both in the United States and the rest of the world, that vile, despicable candidates do get elected. I want the second best candidate to be tolerable, because I cannot rely on the rest of the voters to recognize how evil he is.

      {I realize you may have been joking, but I'm from Wisconsin, we have something to remember}

      Democrats: Giving you a government that works.

      by freelunch on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:06:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting point (0+ / 0-)

      I honestly don't know where I stand on this.

      A turd like Allen would be easy to beat in the general, but he wouldn't push the Dem candidate and certainly wouldn't create a meaningful debate about public policy and the proper role of government, which I think the US desperately needs at this point.

  •  Sounds like Allen and the country would have .,, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    been better off if his parents had made him wear one of those "sissy" helmets before they repeatedly dropped him on his head.

    "Gentlemen, Chicolini may sound like an idiot and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you, he really is an idiot ." Rufus T Firefly

    by irate on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:00:58 PM PDT

  •  and the noose in his office... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Gorette

    was just part of his rope collection.

  •  Let me make a wild guess (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let me make a really wild guess here.   George Allen did not go to Vietnam.   He is yet another of those Chickenhawks.  

    Am I right?

    •  Is this a rhetorical question? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noweasels, methodishca

      As if the George Allens of the world EVER go do the fighting themselves, as opposed to getting poor people and "macacas" - as they call them - to do it for them.

      •  As opposed to Jim Webb (0+ / 0-)

        who graduated from the United States Naval Academy, served in Vietnam with gallantry and real heroism, and was awarded the Navy Cross, the highest honor the US Navy bestows.

        1-20-09 the darkness ends "Where cruelty exists, law does not." ~ Alberto Mora

        by noweasels on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:14:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Try to swiftboat this, Felix (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, davechen, jmaps, armadillo

          Jim Webb's Navy Cross citation:

          WEBB, JAMES H., JR.
          First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps
          Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein.) FMF
          Date of Action: July 10, 1969
          The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel. Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.
          Authority: Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals

          1-20-09 the darkness ends "Where cruelty exists, law does not." ~ Alberto Mora

          by noweasels on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:19:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yeah but don't you forget... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland, noweasels

          a Democrat war hero still doesn't hold a shred of the patriotism of a warmongering, draft-avoiding Republican!

        •  IT is the second highest award given by the Navy. (0+ / 0-)

          The highest award is the Medal of Honor.  There is indeed a Navy version of this award, but it is regarded as the same medal in stature for all services.

            I think what you meant is that the Navy Cross is the highest award that is a strictly Navy (and Marine corps) medal.  It is second only to the M.of H. for the Navy/Marines.

           The Navay cross is not often given out. It is a big deal.

  •  Helmet-head (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JaciCee, jmaps

    Amazing.  When I was 7 years old, I was one of the first children in the neighborhood to wear a helmet while riding my bike.  My parents made me.  I was teased mercilessly as "helmet head."  

    Allen has always struck me as a pompous ass who never got beyond being a schoolyard bully.  That an adult man would make these comments only reinforces that impression.

    Amazing how those playground power structures get reproduced in the political world.  With stupid jocks like Cheney, Bush, and Allen leading the asshole party.

  •  Methinks Felix tries too hard... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Wasn't this guy born in California?  I'm pretty sure he also attended high school in California, there's no possible way for a "Palos Verdes High School" to exist in Virginia.  Then what's up with this trying too hard to be a Southerner?

  •  ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmaps, armadillo

    Guys, remember that we can all help get rid of these creeps like Burns and Allen.

    Goodnight, Gracie.

    The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelly

    by justme on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:07:42 PM PDT

  •  Two flags equals a collection? (4+ / 0-)

    By that definition, I have a "collection" of cars.  Imagine that.

  •  Ah George Allen... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noweasels, Gorette

    ...the man who could never be president.

  •  You know... (0+ / 0-)

    Today, two former officials who visited Allen's log cabin home at different times recall only up to two flags on display there, a Confederate flag and, on an opposite wall, an American flag.

    He does have a collection
    A collection of two.


  •  America! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Help us in Virginia!  Help those of us who live in a state that produced Washington and Jefferson and Madison send phony cowboy carpetbagger George Felix Allen, Jr. packing and elect the great patriot Jim Webb to the Senate!!

    1-20-09 the darkness ends "Where cruelty exists, law does not." ~ Alberto Mora

    by noweasels on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:13:28 PM PDT

  •  Lesbians (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There was a sad article a few months back in either the NY Times or Wash Post Sunday magazine about two lesbians who had been together for over 20 years and lived in Virginia. Sadly, they were leaving their lives behind and moving to Maryland because VA had become just too hostile to them. They were part of the PTA, volunteered in the community, baked cookies for the Fire Dept's bake sale, yet they were all but forced to move.

    I guess this is the Virginia George Allen dreams about.

    •  Wow.I'm surprised they made it in VA for so long. (0+ / 0-)

      All I know is that if anyone was gay in my school (in Richmond), they knew to keep it to themselves. I was shocked to meet people who were openly out when I went up north; that would have been unthinkable in Richmond (again, at least in my school...).

  •  Allen (0+ / 0-)

    is a bully and a bigot, and anyone who decides to stand up to him will see the gutless coward that he and those like him are, chickenhawks all. I realize Allen doesn't respect the safety helmet crowd but what would you expect from a knucklehead like the small Senator from Virginia.

  •  Allen's war on bicycle helmets (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Recall that ex-Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) had an accident a year or two ago, and a helmet helped prevent further injury. Warner even used his accident to promote bicycle safety. I wonder if he's got anything to say about this latest Allen story?

    Oh, and is Allen calling Bush a sissy?
    Free Image Hosting at

    Visit my blog Penndit. Media, politics, campaigns, and political communications.

    by Newsie8200 on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:20:27 PM PDT

    •  My best friend died because he had no helmet (0+ / 0-)

      ...slowly, of a pinpoint hemmorage that caused the brightest person I ever knew, and a first-rate philosopher, to lose his capacity for language before he died.

      My (ex)wife (whom I still like, btw) was saved from brain injury or death in a high-speed bike-on-bike wreck (that split her helmet like a cantaloupe but saved her head).

      A good friend was hit while not wearing a helmet, and suffered a hairline skull fracture that deprived him of smell and taste for 3 weeks.

      A fellow scientist, just last week, was struck by a car while riding his bike, and left for dead on the pavement.  He doesn't remember the impact at all, and in fact couldn't remember even that his wife was expecting their first baby.  His bike has a wheel bent at 90 degrees and a broken frame...but he'll live to see his child because his helmet, split in half, took the blow his skull would have suffered.

      So fuck Allen.  Fuck that mealy-mouthed sack of shit to hell.  I wish I had language vile enough to describe that racist, smug, mealy-mouthed clot of filth.

  •  George Allen: Son of the Confederacy (0+ / 0-)

    From Wikipedia:  George Felix Allen born March 8, 1952, in Whittier, California.

  •  What kind of law did he practice? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BennyAbelard, Ahianne, DianeNYS

    In my cursory search, I haven't found any biographies for Allen that say he was a prosecutor. Most Republicans who run for office can't wait to blurt out that they were prosecutors, if they have that on their record.

    But my question is, what other kind of lawyer needs to have a "tough on crime" stance?

    That's the excuse he gives for the noose.

    So why did he have to show anyone he was "tough on crime" if he wasn't a prosecutor?

  •  I can see Allen as President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American middle class."

    -H.L. Mencken

    He'll be the same jovial, backslapping,loud mouth kind of jackass like Bush and Reagan who won't ask the American people to make sacrifices or think too much. The media will applaud his "man of the masses" and "sunny" style and hand America to him.

  •  I drove all over rural Virginia today (5+ / 0-)

    I spent all day driving around Virginia.
    from Arlington to Skyline Drive and the Shenadoah valley

    I saw plenty of Bush/Cheney bumperstickers.

    I saw a few Webb bumperstickers - and one BIG Webb sign in someone's yard

    ...but I didn't see ANY Allen bumperstickers -- or Allen sign of any kind

    I hope that's an omen

  •  Couldn't help this association (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    we can all help get rid of these creeps like Burns and Allen

    "Say good night, Gracie."
    "Good night, Gracie."

  •  George Allen's sister wrote a book (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    methodishca, Lilly

    and mentioned some of the things he did to her. He is a bully.

    link to a description of book

    •  I can't help but wonder... (0+ / 0-)

      if he attended the same hish school I did...What a complete asshole. If people like that can gain public office...I don't even know...I just hope he loses and ideally leaves the country (not to wish him on anyone else).

  •  To clarify (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When the story broke, Allen said it was part of a flag collection, giving people the possible impression that some sort of United Nations of flags adorned the Allen household, one of them the Stars and Bars.

    This is the Stars and Bars:

    And this is the Confederate battle flag:

    Non mi placent, O Pincerna. Virent Ova! Viret Perna!

    by quaoar on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:57:19 PM PDT

  •  It's a real shame (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that so much of the electorate seems to like a swaggering, arrogant jerk. I really think that our national pathology is that we are in love with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, or at least their screen personas.

    Seriously, Clinton gets hammered for telling someone that he "feels their pain". It's artificial and condescending, because however could a real american man actually empathize with someone. Now give us a quasi-draft dodging jackass in a flightsuit, that's a man who we can get behind.

    "Quidquid dicendum est, libere dicam." -Cicero

    by BennyAbelard on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:07:17 PM PDT

  •  Burns & Allen? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mtn mama

    Kos said:

    Guys, remember that we can all help get rid of these creeps like Burns and Allen.

    I'm only in my 30's but I very much prefer the old Burns & Allen (George & Gracie).

  •  Allen: Bush without the nuance. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Friendly Invite for Allen's Campaign Manager (0+ / 0-)

    Bring Felix into the White Mountains of New Hampshire and have Felix Allen ride with any of the many groups that ride in the woods, and on the roads...

    His lungs will hang like nooses from his sorry, racist larynx, proof positive, even when humbled, he is a fraction of the man, that is the legend formulated in his own mind...

    ...we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings- John F. Kennedy

    by RF on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:39:23 PM PDT

  •  I used to think he was a dope (0+ / 0-)

    But now I'm thinking, what an appalling person all around. If he had been born into another family, he'd probably be one of those habitual criminal-loser types constantly getting jailed for various assault and disorderly-conduct charges.
    What a complete boor! I don't see how the Republicans can stand him. He makes -- and I hesitate to say this -- GWB look almost gracious.

  •  Has John Warner endorsed Allen? (0+ / 0-)

    I know he opposed Oliver North when he ran for Senate a few years ago.

    John Warner is a statesman, not a crazy asshole like Allen. I bet Warner is secretly rooting for Webb. They have much in common, including their service as Secretaries of the Navy.

    •  Never mind, I found the answer. (0+ / 0-)

      "Besides McCain, Webb has at least one more fan among defense-minded Senate Republicans. Allen’s home-state GOP colleague, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and former Navy Secretary John Warner, tried to recruit Webb to run in a 1994 Virginia Senate primary against eventual Republican nominee Oliver North."

      "Warner, calling himself a great admirer of Webb’s military career, said he is loyal to Allen but will not disparage Webb during the campaign. Perhaps that is because Warner also feels some loyalty to Webb, who once served on Warner’s Navy secretary staff."


      •  Good points. (0+ / 0-)

        It should be noted that Webb refused in 1994.  Also, I seem to recall that Warner did "endorse" Allen a whiel back.  However, I expect that Allen will receive very little help (or none) from our senior and much respected senator

        ....I presume that, for junior senator, Warner actually wouldn't mind (and may secretly desire) having the man of itegrity, decency, and intellect that is James Webb.  Not George Allen.

  •  "Sissy helmet"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I prefer to call it a "stay alive" helmet.

  •  I beg to differ (0+ / 0-)

    Let him run in '08.  Look towards the big picture. This racist tripe will come back to haunt him more in the presidential race. George Felix Allen vs. ANY Democrat.  Allen will lose.  Run for President G.F.A!

  •  Mr Allen is a dick. (0+ / 0-)

    That about sums it up. Illinois is BLUE...let's keep it that way

    by lubarsh on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 08:00:21 PM PDT

  •  The Roanoke Times (0+ / 0-)

    had a good op-ed today on the Allen camp's bogus apology to Sidarth:

    Allen apologies given, and taken way
    The candidate wants to say he's sorry. The campaign manager wonders, 'For what?'

    Sen. George Allen called S.R. Sidarth Wednesday to apologize personally for offending him at a campaign stop in Southwest Virginia almost two weeks before. With this latest apology, the senator even tried to sound sincere.

    Yet, while Allen was on the phone and on the radio -- apologizing "from his heart" and pleading how "very, very sorry" he was -- his campaign manager was on the job sending a very, very different message.

    In a memo to Allen's Republican supporters, Dick Wadhams dismissed the whole brouhaha over Sidarth as the fault of the media, liberals and, of course, the senator's opponent in his re-election bid.

    So which is it? Allen the penitent or Allen the victim? He can't be both.

    He can play at both, though, in the cynical world of politics.

    With his heartfelt expressions of regret, Allen evidently is trying to put behind him his unfortunate "Macaca" reference to a young Virginian of Indian descent, and trying to put it out of the minds of offended voters.

    At the same time, though, he is calling by proxy for his GOP base to rally to him in the face of the ensuing outcry, which supposedly is all the fault of anyone but himself.

    Allen's offense was to single out Sidarth, a young campaign volunteer for Democrat Jim Webb, snickeringly call him "Macaca" before an almost all-white crowd of laughing supporters, and welcome him to his own country and state.

    Whether the senator did or did not intend "Macaca" as a racial slur -- which he fervently denies -- he acted like an arrogant, condescending bully, picking out the different-looking person from a crowd, setting him apart as one of "them" rather than "us," and holding him up to ridicule. The entire scene is an ugly one.

    Yet none of this would be bothering the public, campaign manager Wadhams maintains, if the usual suspects weren't making it such a big deal.

    Or, just maybe, it is a big deal because many voters didn't like what they saw.

    "What is the most important thing in life? People, people, people." -- Maori proverb

    by mkfox on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 08:01:10 PM PDT

  •  Another blame-the-victim, pseudo-apology (0+ / 0-)

    Allen says "someone was insulted."  This is the Republican way of denying responsibility.  Just like W never says , "I made a mistake."  The most he will ever say is, "Mistakes were made."  In Allen's case, he clearly thinks it is the other guys fault for "being insulted."  What a coward!

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 08:23:59 PM PDT

  •  Confederate Flag (0+ / 0-)

    Having a Confederate Flag doesn't make someone
    a racist. Abusing the flag towards racial ideaology
    does. Groups such as the Klan who have adopted
    this flag have tarnished its image.
    Lets consider for a moment that Emancipation
    did nothing for the blacks during the war
    and reconstruction only made things worse as Illinois
    and Indiana passed whipping post laws against the
    blacks, for those in the state longer than 10
    The Confederacy would have been in a better position
    for recognition by France and England over the
    Trent Affair had they abolished slavery instead
    of prohibition of the further importation of slaves
    into the Confederacy from New England. One cannot
    make a profit and then point the finger at the south.
    Both areas must share the guilt.
    General Grant kept his slaves saying 'good help is
    hard to get' while Stonewall Jackson let his go
    and built a church for the former slaves.
    Lincoln himself said 'let the south go? where shall
    we get our revenues?'
    I suggest those who want to know real
    Confederate history examine
    and have a look at today's 'Black Confederates.'

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There's one shining sentence in your post.

      Groups such as the Klan who have adopted
      this flag have tarnished its image.

      The Confederate flag is forever tarnished in the image of the Klan and Aryan movement among others. The flags symbol today is a racist message to anyone outside of the South. The Confederacy never abolished slavery and adopting a 'they did it too in the North' position doesn't lessen the crime. I hope no one would argue that racism wasn't a deep seated American tradition during reconstruction and beyond.
      Anecdotal evidence of a few historical figures doesn't excuse or lay a foundation for historical trends or excuse any behavior.

      Republicans are like SUV's, everyones trying to get rid of theirs in '06.

      by LeftRoaster on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 08:54:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Stars and Bars" a stealth symbol of bigotry. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It should be pointed out that many accounts claim that the flag in Allen's house was the "Stars and Bars," the official flag of state for the Confederacy.  This was not the "Battle Flag" (with the blue, star-filled cross on a red field) that was used by the military and has subsequently become known as the "confederate flag."  It is the Battle flag which has been maligned perhaps unjustly and unfairly.  The Battle flag was a symbol of the fighting men of the Confederacy, not the government, nor its laws.  Unfortunately it's resurrection in popularity by racist elements around the time of desegrigation has tarnished its meaning and image.

        On the other hand, the "Stars and Bars"  is a symbol of the ills of the confederate government and its laws (including legalized slavery).
      Yet, the Stars and Bars is not recognised by most people.  To most it appears benign when in truth it is a truer symbol of all that was wrong with the southern confederacy.  For that reason I find it more desturbing that the "Stars and Bars" was hung in Allen's house than if it were the "Battle Flag."

        Many confederacy fans argue that the "Battle Flag" is revered and celebrated as a symbol of the valor and sacrifice of the soldiers who fought and died for the south.  A fair arguement.  However, no amount of spin could convince me that the flag of the Cofederate government represents the same.  It was not the flag of the military.  No, it was the flag of the government.  A governement which fired that started a war against the United Sates of America to insure its states' righs to preserve involuntary servitude.

         (Before you jump on me about yankee this and that....let me just say that all of my ancestors who served in 1861-65 wore gray.  I am a Virginian, and since our arrival in the 1600's, my family has been southern.)

    •  Treason and slavery (0+ / 0-)

      are what the Confederate flag stands for. What were the Confederates fighting for? States rights? Yeah, states rights...the right to enslave an entire people.

      Also, what they did is the definition of treason. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc. took an oath to protect the United States of America. And then they did their best to destroy the United States. That makes them traitors. And anyone who displays that flag is a traitor and a racist in my opinion.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 09:47:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, that doesn't fly. (0+ / 0-)

      The states suceeded from the union in order to continue the institution of slavery.  Anyone that suggests that the CSA would have given up slavery to protect its independence has got cause and effect confused.

      Don't believe me.  Read the declarations of sucession duly enacted by state legislatures.

    •  Emancipation DID NOTHING? (0+ / 0-)

      Emancipation did not stop White people from being racists. It did not stop White people from treating Black people poorly or passing all sorts of unfair lawas against them.

      But African Americans were no longer property. They no longer had to work for someone they hated at the threat of the lash. They could move up North or out West if they desired, and millions did. Many joined the millitary, or started a farm, or for a short while, even became elected representatives. (Hayes was responsible for that sliding away)

  •  trends (0+ / 0-)

    IS THere a trend?  yes, the trend is letting these right wing DOUCHE BAGS off the hook.   i won't live in a world where up is down and i can do something about it.  what is the reason that blogs are the rage answer is that it is a place for people to say what they mean and that scares the clowns in the msm.  We all know what kind of president gwb is.  i mean, deep down, we know he sucks ass, but the depth is still an open water.  liebs is done, in my book. you are done. strip his ass of all his tenured shit.  f him.  he could give an f about the democratic party.  he is not welcome.  there is no reason to even think about being held hostage to his whims.  We KNOW where jl's heart lies. he loves hannity and is as neocon as they come.  seriously, if you consider Sean Hannity as a friend, you are a complete tool.   i couldn't fathom, two years ago, just how shitty gwb is.  i didn't think it could get any worse.  i urge everyone to vote in nov.  we can do it!  i mean, what else could we ask for.  seriously.  those clowns at cnn will no doubt be telling us we will die in a matter of minutes for the next 3 mths, but f them. even if your race is on lockdown, everyone needs to vote.  i have faith we will prevail.

  •  Good Old Gary Grant (0+ / 0-)

    The "Grant" quoted above isn't any old former neighbor of Allen's.

    He's a former elected official on the Albemarle County School Board and was a candidate ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in 2005. Albemarle County is seeing staggering growth, so fortunately he lost handily to Dem candidate David Slutzky, who is literally an expert when it comes to growth issues.

    It's a shame though, Gary Grant is a good guy, even if he can be a little volatile, and he's completely disappeared since his loss.  Maybe he's resurged as an unlikely opponent of Allen?

  •  How is Webb polling opposite Allen? (0+ / 0-)

    Are all these issues making a difference to the people of VA, or are they still supporting Allen?

    Hope is nature's veil for hiding truth's nakedness. -Alfred Nobel

    by AnneofGreatHope on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 09:56:41 PM PDT

  •  Liar, yes, Racist...maybe? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm always very hesitant to call anyone who has owned or enjoyed the design of a confederate flag an automatic racist, just as someone who appreciates the work of Robert Maplethorpe is not automatically perverted.

    I've written extensively on the subject before, but I'll just devote a moment to it here.

    Symbols, like art, are very subjective things. Your own thoughts and feelings often act as a prism through which the blots of red, white, and blue are viewed.

    The "Heritage Not Hate" crowd occupies a slippery slope, I'll grant you that. But if, in their hearts, they are truly appreciative of minorities today and truly disgusted by the criminal acts of the antebellum/war-torn South, then they probably aren't racists. Even if they view the Stars and Bars and feel proud.

    "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

    by Jonathan4Dean on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 08:20:24 AM PDT

  •  One thing that keeps popping up in my mind... (0+ / 0-)

    NO not that you sick minded...OK so it does come every now and then, but that isn't what I am posting about.

    Sen Allen and others like him who have a fondness for the colors of the former Southern Nation are also rabid Americans.

    Don't get me wrong, I believe in what this country could, should and I hope soon will be, but in my family the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason and yet the same people who have that flag in their homes, on a bumper sticker "it's heritage, not hate", etc. are the very same people who use the word liberal as a curse word and will tell you and me that we are Un-American, because we believe in what the constituion means and yet they hold onto a symbol of opression and treason.

    Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

    by p a roberson on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 12:11:16 PM PDT

  •  Sen Allen (0+ / 0-)

    Racist? least that is what this
    news article posted today would indicate:

    But as far as racism ie Confederacy and flag
    ie treason is concerned: Had we lost the Revolution,
    George Washington and his Generals etc would have
    become traitors and would have hanged.
    The South only followed what the framers of the
    Constitution allowed them to do.

    Now that we have an Insurrection act in place
    and Bush wants to take control of all 50 state
    National guards, this post 'Civil war' act gives
    him the right to do so if he deems fit.He is
    using scaremongering now to get people to vote
    for the GOP. Everyone knows he isn't elected by
    the people but elected by Deibold.
    As Robert E. Lee said:
    "The consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.  --General Robert E Lee"
    My point on racism is that are indeed a lot
    of black neo confederates out there who would
    I myself am not a person who labels liberals
    as wrong..I follow the libertarian party principles
    for the most part and Kinky Friedman for Gov
    of Texas is my man for Novemember.

  •  I would bet (0+ / 0-)

    That Sen Allen who makes racist remarks
    about Native Americans ie Indians, and has
    a Confederate flag, doesn't even know that
    Stan Waite was a Confederate General and a
    Cherokee Chief.
    I still have my stars and bars that says
    'Cherokee braves' flying high.
    He is a typical stereotyped southerner that
    I care not to associate with.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site