Frederick Douglass

[PNym]

Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

- Frederick Douglass

[UNAS]

Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

- Frederick Douglass

You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.

By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud)  . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.

[PNym]

You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.

I have been in situations where either my "betters" or "tormentors" spent significant time imposing their ideas upon my particular circumstances. I can empathize with with what Douglass is saying, but I think the two of us disagree not on the likely emotional state of Douglass when he said this statement, but on the substantiative content of the statement itself.

According to the literal text of this statement, Douglass is asking for the chance for blacks to prove their worth, RATHER THAN asking for help.

If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.

Douglas explicitly advocates against "tying or fastening them on the tree in any way," a statement from which I assume he advocates against the ministrations of well-meaning people towards the black population of his time. It is because of the history of this particular era that I think this advocation against assistance is so compelling.

By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud)  . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.

Well, I'm not sure what any of the things you mention have to do with what Frederick Douglass said.

FWIW, in inflation-adjusted dollars, more money has been poured into New Orleans than was poured into all of Europe via the Marshall plan.

[UNAS]

You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.

I have been in situations where either my "betters" or "tormentors" spent significant time imposing their ideas upon my particular circumstances. I can empathize with with what Douglass is saying, but I think the two of us disagree not on the likely emotional state of Douglass when he said this statement, but on the substantiative content of the statement itself.

According to the literal text of this statement, Douglass is asking for the chance for blacks to prove their worth, RATHER THAN asking for help.

If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.

Douglas explicitly advocates against "tying or fastening them on the tree in any way," a statement from which I assume he advocates against the ministrations of well-meaning people towards the black population of his time. It is because of the history of this particular era that I think this advocation against assistance is so compelling.

By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud)  . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.

Well, I'm not sure what any of the things you mention have to do with what Frederick Douglass said.

FWIW, in inflation-adjusted dollars, more money has been poured into New Orleans than was poured into all of Europe via the Marshall plan.

I will only respond to the katrina comment. You are absolutely positively correct. We have spent a total of 127 billion dollars on katrina which is about 40 billion more than we spent on the marshall plan. the gross gdp of new orleans is only 141 billion. It seems only about 25 billion or so went to sources for which we can modestly account (army core engineers, housing relief) the rest went to subsidiaries of haliburton and other large firms which by the way have a "labor" work force made up entirely of illegals. I don't know how far you lean to the right, but you and i know there has been a gross mismanagement of katrina relief. Whatsmore, is it has been done under neocon leadership.

[PNym]

You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.

I have been in situations where either my "betters" or "tormentors" spent significant time imposing their ideas upon my particular circumstances. I can empathize with with what Douglass is saying, but I think the two of us disagree not on the likely emotional state of Douglass when he said this statement, but on the substantiative content of the statement itself.

According to the literal text of this statement, Douglass is asking for the chance for blacks to prove their worth, RATHER THAN asking for help.

If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.

Douglas explicitly advocates against "tying or fastening them on the tree in any way," a statement from which I assume he advocates against the ministrations of well-meaning people towards the black population of his time. It is because of the history of this particular era that I think this advocation against assistance is so compelling.

By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud)  . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.

Well, I'm not sure what any of the things you mention have to do with what Frederick Douglass said.

FWIW, in inflation-adjusted dollars, more money has been poured into New Orleans than was poured into all of Europe via the Marshall plan.

I will only respond to the katrina comment. You are absolutely positively correct. We have spent a total of 127 billion dollars on katrina which is about 40 billion more than we spent on the marshall plan. the gross gdp of new orleans is only 141 billion. It seems only about 25 billion or so went to sources for which we can modestly account (army core engineers, housing relief) the rest went to subsidiaries of haliburton and other large firms which by the way have a "labor" work force made up entirely of illegals. I don't know how far you lean to the right, but you and i know there has been a gross mismanagement of katrina relief. Whatsmore, is it has been done under neocon leadership.

I agree with you that the lack of competitive bidding for government contracts, as promoted by  this administration, is disturbing and fiscally irresponsible.

However, I'm not sure all the blame goes towards the Bush Administration. New Orleans's political culture has always been notoriously corrupt, and the high pre-Katrina crime rates open up the possibility that some of the funding has been diverted by criminal enterprises. Moreover, it doesn't make much sense for the federal government to administer disaster aid relief, since the local government is supposed to have a better idea how to apply the aid monies, as they have a greater stake in local recovery than politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.

Personally, I don't think it's a very good idea to rebuild New Orleans where it previously stood. Having tax money subsidize the reconstruction and insurance coverage of a city that lies below sea level on a coastal plane frequently ravaged by hurricanes amounts to setting up a deathtrap for its residents, not to mention not the wisest way to spend money.

[UNAS]

You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.

I have been in situations where either my "betters" or "tormentors" spent significant time imposing their ideas upon my particular circumstances. I can empathize with with what Douglass is saying, but I think the two of us disagree not on the likely emotional state of Douglass when he said this statement, but on the substantiative content of the statement itself.

According to the literal text of this statement, Douglass is asking for the chance for blacks to prove their worth, RATHER THAN asking for help.

If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.

Douglas explicitly advocates against "tying or fastening them on the tree in any way," a statement from which I assume he advocates against the ministrations of well-meaning people towards the black population of his time. It is because of the history of this particular era that I think this advocation against assistance is so compelling.

By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud)  . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.

Well, I'm not sure what any of the things you mention have to do with what Frederick Douglass said.

FWIW, in inflation-adjusted dollars, more money has been poured into New Orleans than was poured into all of Europe via the Marshall plan.

I will only respond to the katrina comment. You are absolutely positively correct. We have spent a total of 127 billion dollars on katrina which is about 40 billion more than we spent on the marshall plan. the gross gdp of new orleans is only 141 billion. It seems only about 25 billion or so went to sources for which we can modestly account (army core engineers, housing relief) the rest went to subsidiaries of haliburton and other large firms which by the way have a "labor" work force made up entirely of illegals.

In other words, the money went to the only companies that could efficiently do the work, with no actual connections to the administration, and they did so on an efficient basis.  (The idea their work force, labor or otherwise, is make up entirely of illegals is patently false.)

I don't know how far you lean to the right, but you and i know there has been a gross mismanagement of katrina relief. Whatsmore, is it has been done under neocon leadership.

Well, let's be grateful it was done under neocon leadership -- there obviously would have been far more waste and mismanagement under "liberal" leadership, which is generally more concerned with spreading wealth around to political supporters than actually accomplishing anything.

All government action is inefficient and wasteful -- liberal action is simply exponentially worse, because they don't even try to be efficient, and have no idea how to actually accomplish anything at all in the real world.

dear brother lindberg you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. as someone who has worked for both bechtel, halliburton, and centex as a project engineer I can assure you that the labor force is indeed prodiminantly illegal. i will gladly say that the project management is made up almost entirely of university educated americans, but the those individuals doing survey work, nailing the two by fours and all other rudimentary engineering tasks are almost entirely illegal. Let me be fair. Hell, the entire general contacting, construction project management and civil engineering industry uses illegals as the majority labor force. This should be nothing new to you.

And halliburton is not the only contractor that can do the work, certainly you don't believe that. There is nothing particularly unique about the environment (such would be the case with  california, iraq..israel...nevada) that would require halliburton's specialties. I can throw you a bone with Iraq, but as someone who has worked for them and received a formal education in construction management i think your comments are a little short sighted.

everyone knows cheney still has ties with halliburton don't be naive

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

additionally, new orleans has been traditionally democratic but at the state level louisiana was, is and always will be a red state. you and i both know that.

[PNym]

You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.

I have been in situations where either my "betters" or "tormentors" spent significant time imposing their ideas upon my particular circumstances. I can empathize with with what Douglass is saying, but I think the two of us disagree not on the likely emotional state of Douglass when he said this statement, but on the substantiative content of the statement itself.

According to the literal text of this statement, Douglass is asking for the chance for blacks to prove their worth, RATHER THAN asking for help.

If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.

Douglas explicitly advocates against "tying or fastening them on the tree in any way," a statement from which I assume he advocates against the ministrations of well-meaning people towards the black population of his time. It is because of the history of this particular era that I think this advocation against assistance is so compelling.

By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud)  . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.

Well, I'm not sure what any of the things you mention have to do with what Frederick Douglass said.

FWIW, in inflation-adjusted dollars, more money has been poured into New Orleans than was poured into all of Europe via the Marshall plan.

I will only respond to the katrina comment. You are absolutely positively correct. We have spent a total of 127 billion dollars on katrina which is about 40 billion more than we spent on the marshall plan. the gross gdp of new orleans is only 141 billion. It seems only about 25 billion or so went to sources for which we can modestly account (army core engineers, housing relief) the rest went to subsidiaries of haliburton and other large firms which by the way have a "labor" work force made up entirely of illegals.

In other words, the money went to the only companies that could efficiently do the work, with no actual connections to the administration, and they did so on an efficient basis.  (The idea their work force, labor or otherwise, is make up entirely of illegals is patently false.)

I don't know how far you lean to the right, but you and i know there has been a gross mismanagement of katrina relief. Whatsmore, is it has been done under neocon leadership.

Well, let's be grateful it was done under neocon leadership -- there obviously would have been far more waste and mismanagement under "liberal" leadership, which is generally more concerned with spreading wealth around to political supporters than actually accomplishing anything.

All government action is inefficient and wasteful -- liberal action is simply exponentially worse, because they don't even try to be efficient, and have no idea how to actually accomplish anything at all in the real world.

dear brother lindberg you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. as someone who has worked for both bechtel, halliburton, and centex as a project engineer I can assure you that the labor force is indeed prodiminantly illegal. i will gladly say that the project management is made up almost entirely of university educated americans, but the those individuals doing survey work, nailing the two by fours and all other rudimentary engineering tasks are almost entirely illegal. Let me be fair. Hell, the entire general contacting, construction project management and civil engineering industry uses illegals as the majority labor force. This should be nothing new to you.

And halliburton is not the only contractor that can do the work, certainly you don't believe that. There is nothing particularly unique about the environment (such would be the case with  california, iraq..israel...nevada) that would require halliburton's specialties. I can throw you a bone with Iraq, but as someone who has worked for them and received a formal education in construction management i think your comments are a little short sighted.

everyone knows cheney still has ties with halliburton don't be naive

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

additionally, new orleans has been traditionally democratic but at the state level louisiana was, is and always will be a red state. you and i both know that.

To tell you the truth, I haven't investigated Halliburton's ties to the New Orleans reconstruction project. Because I believe that fiscal discipline is an important value for elected officials to hold, lest, as de Tocqueville put it, the government begins to "bribe the public with the public's money," I don't like the idea of Halliburton obtaining no bid contracts for New Orleans. Where matters of national security or immediacy of response are not a factor, a bidding process for government contracts obviously drives down the cost of the winning bid.

The Cheney article does bring up the stock options as a potential source of a conflict of interest. I'd keep tabs on his pledge to donate his stock option proceeds to charity. Assuming that Cheney still holds the stock options cited in the article (which was written in 2003), with shares currently trading at $35, 1.3 million shares times that yields a pre-tax take of ~$45 mil. That's a lot of money to donate to charity.

The deferred compensation doesn't really qualify as a conflict of interest, as the only conflict of interest that could arise from that would be if Halliburton went out of business, and so could not pay the compensation. Since Cheney took an insurance policy to control for that possibility, that tie does not constitute a strong conflict of interest.

BTW, Louisiana's strongly Democratic, not Republican. See:
http://www.answers.com/louisiana%20governor
http://www.answers.com/topic/louisiana-house-of-representatives
http://www.answers.com/topic/louisiana-senate

[UNAS]

Southern Democrats= typically equal Republicans

I least they did once upon a time. Some of them might not have gotten the memo they were suppose to switch

[PNym]

Southern Democrats= typically equal Republicans

I least they did once upon a time. Some of them might not have gotten the memo they were suppose to switch

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are southern Democrats. I'm pretty sure they aren't Republicans.

[UNAS]

Southern Democrats= typically equal Republicans

I least they did once upon a time. Some of them might not have gotten the memo they were suppose to switch

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are southern Democrats. I'm pretty sure they aren't Republicans.