« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Following the Rules
I came across a picture today at a blog few of you would like. Rosa Parks, not following the rules. Being disobedient. I was going to chuckle and keep going - too partisan. But then the metaphor and irony stuck with me a bit more, expanded in my head.
There's Butch Cassidy saying, "First thing's, we gotta discuss the rules." "But Butch, there's never been no rules before!" Kick. Scream. Drop. "Right. There are no rules". This is classic America. We may have rules, but our history is based on bending rules, getting the most out of them you might say. "Think Different". I've worked around the world under a lot of rules. And the Americans were out front in being willing to break the rules to get things done - written rules or informed rules in our heads. And also out in front in helping complete strangers.
Some of us know about the horrors of World War I, where bright generals sent wave after wave of tender soldiers across the lines to be cut up like so much dog meat. Following the accepted rules of warfare, not questioning authority or the new conditions in the field. Americans invented modern warfare in the Civil War, and with our quick response in the field, our tying in new management techniques in with improved logistics, we're easily the best in the world. If people play be the rules. But if the rules are pushed a bit, homemade bombs in the road, suicide bombers, war carried out through public opinion and the media, hijacked planes flown into buildings, we quickly come to the limit of rules, replaced by the marketplace of ideas.
How much of the malfeasance of the last 8 years was abetted by people following the rules, while the other guys weren't? Take it back farther - the entire history of Whitewater, Florida 2000 and in California putting Schwarzenegger in office was formed around taking the rules and pushing them until they sagged. Obama got into office the first time by challenging the signatures of his 3 opponents - he ended up running unopposed. Just following the rules.
This is the way America works. Read "Blood Meridian" to get a more accurate feel of the Mexican Wars. Read a high school text to have it smoothed over for general consumption.
I saw an interesting analysis of America's passive-aggressive nature as viewed through Tom and Jerry - the image of being ultimately restrained until finally provoked into using overwhelming force. Only the framework draws the opponent in, is set up in advance to give us the moral excuse - "we were just defending ourselves". Nowhere is that self-serving dishonest narrative more obvious than in our history in Latin America. But I digress.
America breaks the world's rules. While the rest of the world seeks job security, we go for job churn. We're more successful so we take less vacation. Other countries try to grow jobs - we send them elsewhere and then make more. We take predictions of food shortages and shatter them (here's an article from 1914 shattering similar food myths to those we contend with today). We take management principles and turn them on their head. We have people's revolution enshrined as one of the founding principles of the country. And of course in terms of politics, rights, changes to the law, the to-and-fro between people power and corporations, much of it lies in changing and breaking the rules, not just blindly following them. If someone's going to represent America, he/she has to understand the many sides - the fairness, the pushiness, the self-excusing, the openness, the fighting, the clever, the entitled, the myth building.
Gandhi won by appealing to the Raj and the army in the field, but with the wives in their sewing circles back in London. He refused to fight while fighting. He broke all the rules.
Rosa Parks got on that bus knowing she would be arrested. She was chosen because she had a clean impeccable background - keep the message simple and uncluttered. She and the NAACP could have waited and fought to change the bus laws in the legislature instead. But sometimes justice delayed is justice denied. Sometimes following the rules is futile. They took the direct route. They followed what is right and let the rules catch up to them. That took cleverness and courage.



Comments (206)
Then why are so many of them in jail?
June 4, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, dude - so many of *who*?
June 4, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friend--not ours. You deal with him.
June 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto is just here to be a contrarian, as this post clearly shows.
But Desidero, I think that in no case of, shall I say, benign rule breaking, that you brought up, was there at first an agreement by the rule breaker to follow the rules. Hillary, like it or not, is breaking her own commitments. That is very different from the Rosa Parks and Gandhi imagery that you are invoking. Those people stood up for their commitments in the face of opposition, rather than change their commitments to create opposition.
June 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero doesn't seem to get the difference between breaking rules for a good cause and cheating for personal advantage.
June 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it Rosa Parks who said: The only thing I was tired of was giving in?
I interviewed Tom Clark for a series on school desegration and he revealed this about Brown v Board of Education. The Court was looking for a school desegregation case to strike down separate but equal, but they felt they couldn't move until they could deliver a unanimous decision. As soon as all of the justices were on board, they grabbed Brown from a lower court and delivered and overturned Plessy. How's that for an activist court?
June 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama could work that into a speech. Like, if that court had followed the rules in 1954, who knows where I would be today?
June 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think his speech writers know about it, let alone care about it.
June 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put this note up on another thread. McCain rules may not work out the way Obama expects.
You know, Des, I watched McCain and Obama last night. McCain looks so old. I remember when George HW Bush endorsed him, these two old men, tottering across the tarmac in Houston together.
I think the question is whether or not America will see McCain as a caretaker for one term who will get us out of Iraq successfully, continue to project US power in the ME, while keeping the US on the Reagan conservative course. The electorate may decide to give the old patriot his shot at running this country for four years. His VP choice will be critical.
June 4, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
whether or not America will see McCain as a caretaker for one term who will get us out of Iraq successfully,
America is going to see John "100 years would be fine with me" McCain as the one who will get us out of Iraq? McCain, who seems intent on starting a war with Iran ASAP, a war that would give him even more reasons to keep our forces in Iraq? You've got to be joking.
June 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look now, tin man, but your candidate just flipped on Kyle-Lieberman big time in front of AIPAC. Now that he has the nomination, Obama can do the right thing. He's not going to be sucking up to the fruit cakes in the echo chamber in the general election.
June 4, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To everyone's surprise, you didn't actually address the question of why you think America will embrace John "100 years, 1000 years, I don't really care" McCain as the one to get us out of Iraq.
June 4, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say what I thought. I said what might happen. Are you unaware of the fact that national polls say people want out of Iraq and trust McCain more than Obama to handle the problem?
June 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
At what point did he agree with labeling the Iranian military unit a terrorist organization. Did he say that today. If not then are you unawre that preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons has always beenpart of public spiel.
Obama has always been hawkish on Iran, but not in the conventional brain-dead neocon way that Lieberman/McCain describes it. Attacking Iraq was both a huge impetus to Iran to threaten to develop nukes and has made them a much bigger threat in the region.
June 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
At what point did he agree with labeling the Iranian military unit a terrorist organization. Did he say that today.
From text of Obama's speech to AIPAC, June 4:
Time's The Page:
The Campaign Spot, National Revue Online:
BARACK OBAMA, JOHN MCCAIN
RNC, Lieberman, Cantor React to Obama's Pledge on Iran
Expect the big story coming out of AIPAC to be Obama's declaration that he thinks the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ought to be designated a a terrorist organization... and how this balances with his vote against that exact designation less than a year ago....
June 4, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Color me not surprised.
June 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. The tin man guy should have dressed as the scarecrow. He actually commented without reading what Obama said. So many people here do that now. It has become almost impossible to keep track of the instances of contradictions and sloppy thinking around here.
June 4, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. I did read it, not that reading it was necessary to see that you were attempting to change the subject.
You expressed concern (concerns, concerns, so many concerns) that Americans would perceive McCain as the candidate who would get us out of Iraq. McCain, the one who is just fine with us being there a hundred years or a thousand.
June 4, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more time, scarecrow disguised as a tin man. McCain has told America he will bring the troops home victorious by the end of his term. My thought is they might believe him. Polls show they trust him more on Iraq than they trust Obama. But maybe they don't know Obama yet. Once he spends that money on ads, maybe they'll change their minds. Why so threatened by a possibility?
June 4, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why so threatened by a possibility?
When you come up with a plausible "concern" (and you have so many "concerns" it's bound to happen eventually that you stumble onto a plausible one, so please do keep trying them out), then I'll consider the possibility of feeling threatened by a possibility.
June 4, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Want to show me the word or sentence that expresses "concern?" I'm not concerned about the outcome of the election. Are you?
June 4, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah dickweed, that's why I *asked* the question of whether he said that. I hadn't heard it before. I guess I assumed that was part of his objection, but having read his response it seems it was not.
Who cares. Like I said, I have always interpreted Obama as a hawk on Iran, and I could care less who is or isn't not labeled a terrorist (although some people on the left take that as a talisman of something evil). Our problem in dealing with Iran, as I understand it, and as I interpret Obama, is not that we have the wrong objective, but that we have been incredibly stupid and counterproductive getting there.
June 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has become almost impossible to keep track of the instances of contradictions and sloppy thinking around here.
Actually, this can be handled very simply with a minor technical trick. Simply use Ctrl-F (or it's Mac equivalent) and search for "Posted by Billy Glad."
June 4, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I think you can just post the link next time.
June 4, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it's much more humiliating to scroll down page after page. People do enjoy gloating, don't you think?
June 4, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when you get to rub a lofty Greek nose in the doo doo. You ever notice the more shallow the ideas the more pretentious the nickname?
June 4, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it's much more humiliating to scroll down page after page.
You have much too low a threshold of humiliation if just having to hit the space bar a few times could possibly ever under any circumstances imaginable make you feel humiliated.
June 4, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that this fact check doesn't include the part of his speech today where Obama said he would do anything within his power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I guess it's not a dumb war if Obama starts it.
June 4, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another high five.
June 4, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's not a dumb war if Obama starts it.
Consty, you disappoint me. He's not talking about starting a war. Keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon at this point can be accomplished by doing nothing. They don't have a credible program to build a nuke at the moment.
So I think the better snark would be to say that Obama is trying to appease the warmongers by taking advantage of the gullibility of those who like neo-connish hawkery. He has no intention of starting a war, but the neo-connish hawks think Iran is close to getting nukes (because Bush/Cheney/Condi/McCain/etc. all talk as if they are), so they assume he's saying that he is ready to start a war over it. And anyone who is actually paying attention understands that he's really saying just the opposite.
It's not a dumb war if you don't start it.
June 4, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting and thoughtful. So you don't feel "at war" with Iran? To follow that point a little. Were we "at war" with Russia when we were furnishing arms and training to the Afghan resistance so they could shoot down Russian helicopters? Was Israel "at war" with Iraq and Syria when Israel attacked those countries' nuclear facilities? Were we at war with Iraq when we bombed them to force the inspectors back in. With Somalia when we bombed them? Libya when we bombed them. Panama. Grenada.
June 4, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I think the better snark would be to say that Obama is trying to appease the warmongers by taking advantage of the gullibility of those who like neo-connish hawkery. He has no intention of starting a war, but the neo-connish hawks think Iran is close to getting nukes (because Bush/Cheney/Condi/McCain/etc. all talk as if they are), so they assume he's saying that he is ready to start a war over it. And anyone who is actually paying attention understands that he's really saying just the opposite.
This is what KILLS me about Obama supporters. You have NO IDEA what Obama thinks about Iran getting nuclear weapons or what his actions would be to prevent it. All we have to judge him on are his words, and he just said that he will do "everything in his power" to prevent it.
I really hope that Obama is everything that you guys think he is. I voted for Hillary but was never thrilled about her, but for various reasons thought she was better than Obama and Edwards.
But I do think it is funny how many Obama supporters (and I don't mean to include you, b/c I have no idea what you think or have said), do everything they can to contort every statement of Hillary's to show that she doesn't say what she means, but bend over backwards to tell me what Obama really doesn't really mean what he says.
June 5, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response on the other was that a VP who Republicans could live with could also give the Republicans the White House for 12 years - a more dangerous situation than people think.
June 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Desidero. That's exactly why the Republicans put McCain forward as their candidate: He's old and feeble, he's likable enough, and most important, he's malleable.
Cheney set the precedent for ruling from the passenger seat. So the Republicans will pick a VP who will run the show for 12 years.
Now all they have to do is win. They're very good at that.
June 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping for Condi Rice, just to make things really interesting.
June 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can agree with you on that one. By picking Condi, McCain establishes himself even more clearly as "Bush III" and at the same time manages to largely nullify any advantage from racist voters and at the same time divides his wingnut support along yet another axis. We can only hope he's that stupid.
June 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me something, my friend. How does a woman get a super tanker named after her?
June 4, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me something, my friend. How does a woman get a super tanker named after her?
Hmm, let's see. Wikipedia says that Chevron named the supertanker after her "in honor of her work" representing Chevron in Kazakhstan.
Like that has anything to do with how she'd do as McCain's running mate. She's got the oil executive demographic locked up solid!
June 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that how you get a super tanker named after you? You are so wet.
June 4, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so cute when you make up shit and hope nobody calls you on it.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21192
Bumiller notes that in the spring of 2001 the company "quietly renamed the tanker" the Altair Voyager "in the face of criticism" of Bush family ties to the oil industry and charges against Chevron of human rights abuses in Nigeria. Rice resigned from the board six days before becoming national security adviser.
Heh. So she got a supertanker named after her because of her close ties to the president of Chevron and work she did for Chevron in Kazakhstan. And it was un-named later when it got to be just a bit too embarrassing a symbol of Bush's ties to the oil industry and associated human rights violations. And in Billy's world this is all somehow supposed to indicate how Rice wouldn't be a completely stupid choice of running mate for McCain.
Too funny.
June 5, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still miss the point, bucket head. Try it this way. How do you get on the board of an international corp like Chevron? (So they quietly renamed the super tanker to protect her reputation. How do you get the protection of Chevron?) Do you really know who this woman is? How did she get to be Provost at Stanford? How did she get on all those boards?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
And that's just the public version.
My guess is you didn't notice her during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Let me explain something to you about those "racist" voters you think are rejecting Obama because he's a black man. It's not about skin, it's about culture. It's the Obama culture they're rejecting. They're not going to have a problem with someone like Rice, any more than they would have a problem with someone like Powell.
June 5, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they're going to pick Condi. Yes, she's one of their only rock stars, but she's no Cheney.
June 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The big problem is she's a lesbian. Actually, she has a ton of baggage. The big problem for Republicans is that Lindsay Graham is gay. Otherwise that ticket would kick our ass.
June 4, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine the first black lesbian Republican Vice President? Hahaha! That just tickles my funny bone.
I tend to forget about how many closeted gay Republicans there are in high places. Mitch McConnell too.
June 4, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otherness is such a pervasive concept in American culture.
June 5, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a chance. McCain's big problem is with the conservative side of his party. There is no way he is going to pick a woman or a person of color. He'll pick an uptight white guy like Mitt Romney.
June 5, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
June 5, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, dude - so many of *who*?
Otto never replies as far as I can remember (perhaps he just does drive-by postings and never looks back to see the responses) but as bad as that sounded he might have only meant "why are so many [rule breakers] in jail". Giving him the benefit of the doubt here, he might just be saying that rule-breaking sometimes works, and sometimes backfires. Maybe.
Interesting post, Des.
June 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton apparently broke the rules with her non-concession speech. Her speech left the talking heads speechless for about 3 whole minutes. Of course they then spent the next 3 hours discussing it.
June 4, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES! readytoblowagasket, did someone make note of time discussing her instead of Obama on one of the most wonderful, exciting times in the history of this country, & indeed the world? An awful lot of people would like to know.
June 4, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't believe that the entire CNN staff of overpaid magpies chattered endlessly about Hillary, effectively burying Barack's victory in shit. For example, in a fit of deranged narcissism, Jeffrey Toobin called Hillary a "deranged narcissist." If you want to pay tribute to a momentous historic event in American politics, that's not the way to do it. I'd turned to CNN because the MSNBC boys were having orgasms over Brian Williams's monotonous description of the Gallatin Speedway! What the fuck is wrong with these people?
June 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
be thankful they were shredding Hillary or they would have been shredding Obama. They make their living by posing a those who define what is and is not cool. Coolness is acquired in direct measure to the level of contempt in which they hold people in public service because they believe in service and the obsequies regard they hold for those in public service to rob the cookie jar. In other words, the more sincere and devoted to service you are, the more they will flay you with contempt and derision.
So, if they don't talk about Obama, he is well-served. They have nothing worthwhile to say about anyone or anything.
June 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, I agree with your assessments, Oregon Activist. However, my additional point is that in shredding Hillary they managed to crap on Barack. They didn't just diminish his accomplishment, they negated and soiled it.
If they had directly shredded Barack instead, they might have inadvertently unified the party.
June 4, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des,
Please forgive me for perhaps being a bit dense - I just need to clarify: Do you imply Senator Clinton should break the rules?
If so, I must strongly disagree with that viewpoint.
The examples you have provided (Ghandi, Parks, etc.) typically capture people or organizations breaking rules that were imposed upon them; conceptually quite different from those who have agreed to use or live by a given rule set.
Rule-breaking is, most definitely, a great American pastime, but quickly devolves into cheating when done after acceptance. It would jeopardize Senator Clinton's legacy to break the nomination's rules after having agreed to them at the outset.
June 4, 2008 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosa Parks agreed to get to the back of the bus before she got on it. It wasn't just a good idea - it was the law.
June 4, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
With regard to the case of Parks, it was specifically the rule of the law that she did not agree to, but rather had imposed upon her. Obviously, she took umbrage to that rule and challenged it by refusing to obey.
The vastly more important issue to consider in the here-and-now is Senator Clinton - are you suggesting she should consider breaking the rules after having agreed to them?
Once again, I personally think doing so could be a grave mistake on her part, and I would strongly advise her against it. Do you disagree, or do I simply misunderstand the implication of your blog?
Thanks for your insights!
June 4, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, by getting on that bus she agreed to the rules of the public transportation system, whether a copy was available on the bus or through the local office of the county transportation system (please provide stamped self-addressed envelope). Don't try to change the rules in mid-commute.
June 4, 2008 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must beg to differ with your stance on Parks' protest. Perhaps I'm missing something here?
It seems to me that Parks specifically did not agree with the rules at all. As you indicated, surely she MUST have known the rules ahead of time. But knowing and agreeing are conceptually quite different. She disagreed with the rules, and consciously challenged the law (to which she had never agreed) by sitting in the front. In what way could she have more provocatively done so without actually boarding the bus?
Again, though, please do clarify because I am afraid I may be misunderstanding what you wrote: Do you believe Senator Clinton should, at this point in the nomination, renege on the rules?
June 4, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if the bus company made her sign a form agreeing before she got on the bus, that would change everything?
June 4, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
... and she then proceeded to break the rules? Then, yes, that would change everything. She should never have signed the form. Does such a form with "Rosa Parks" affixed exist?
June 4, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only my hypothetical and your supposition exist. Hardly firm ground to build an edifice on, much less a moat.
June 4, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot, and this post and this discussion is a complete waste of time.
Comparing Hillary Clinton to Rosa Parks displays a complete ignorance of history, and is insulting to the civil rights ovement, and to opporessed people everywhere.
This is Hillary's entire argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvYICKJ3TI
June 4, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are confusing "obeyed the rules" and "agreed to" the rules.
Lacking a moral framework makes this discussion rather difficult. Ghandi/King/Parks were operating from a morality that unjust rules need not be obeyed, in fact must be resisted. She obeyed the rules until she resisted them.
You are also confusing in your initial post rules and norms. Americans break the law the make, they change the underpinnings of laws over time, they often operate successful in situation where there really are no laws, and we are a nation that at times reveres law and lets principle dominate practicality.
But then were are also great innovators, which is a way of breaking norms, and convention, but hardly amounts to cheating, or breaking the rules. Innovaztion, imagination, shifting the paradigm, whatever.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in your post. The question was asked repeatedly if you are suggesting Clinton break some rules that either she agreed to or that is just something that is expected of her.
It is interesting that your discussion of innovation as being a great part of our nation's character is an apt description of what helped Obama succeed. He ran an innovative campaign. One could say he had both a much better understanding of the rules and how to use them to his advantage and a much less limited view of what the normal way of doing things is.
June 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand you're trying to make a point about the nature of rules and subjective morality and authority. Fine. But going from WWI to terrorism to Rosa Parks to Gandhi? A bit sophomoric, no?
June 4, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I leave something out?
June 4, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evolutionary psychology and beer nuts perhaps.
June 4, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! I'll be more careful next time.
June 4, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condescending blue-collar beer nuts, actually.
June 4, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not put blue and nuts in the same phrase, please!
June 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are times to break the rules and times to follow the rules.
Rose Parks lived under Jim Crow. She did not make the rules. She was systematically denied a voice in making the rules through voter suppression and intimidation. Segregation was a rule imposed by the state, a state which had the power to deny its citizens life and liberty. Given the realities of Jim Crow, there was no legislative path to changing these rules. In those circumstances, civil disobedience is not only a good idea, it's almost a moral imperative.
There are other rules we follow that come from our voluntary associations, like say, just hypothetically, a political party. Within all these organizations, there are some people more powerful than others, but everybody is there by choice. The most powerful people in these organization make the rules.
When these powerful people cough*HaroldIckes*cough make the rules and then argue to change them when they become personally inconvenient, well, that's just not in the same class as civil disobedience. That's in the class of self-serving manipulation.
Of course, no one would respect such a hypothetical organization if they allowed that to happen, so thank heavens we don't have that situation.
And of course, no one would respect any kind of equivalency between a crusader for civil rights and a self-serving politician, so thank heavens no one is trying to argue that.
June 4, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Rosa Parks permitted to vote for candidates for State Representative, State Senator or Governor, the people who wrote, or could have repealed, that law?
June 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and rule-breaking was a great idea when the U.S. decided to break the rules and attack Iraq.
June 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I've just seen the first example of self-obfuscation. You would benefit from proofreading, then making sure that each item in your rather voluminous posts actually supports your position, whatever that is.
June 4, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't know what it is, how can you say the items don't support it?
June 4, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem,
I typically find Desidero's writing to be quite compelling and good. Which is why I too am not sure I fully understand his/her blog in this case. Hopefully Des will explain?
Thanks!
June 4, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today I am a Zen Koan, a Rorschach Test, an exercise in self-study, a Moebius strip. Or else I forgot to include the conclusion paragraph. Never mind. I am invincible. Recommend and move on. I have spoken. Now where are my smokes?
June 4, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did choose to recommend, because I thought the post was interesting.
I suppose it is seeming like you want to deftly avoid answering my questions for some reason, so I will have to acquiesce, and take solace from knowing that somethings shall remain forever unknowable!
Thanks anyway, Des.
And yet again, for the record - I am thinking it might be politically dangerous and possibly a huge mistake for Senator Clinton to attempt to break the rules after having agreed to them. Over and out.
June 4, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Dylan said, "To live outside the law you must be honest".
June 4, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, thanks.
I take this to mean that you do recommend Senator Clinton should also break rules to which she had previously agreed.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Were she to do so now, she would be tantamount to nothing other than a cheater.
June 4, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. As is a consistent foolishness. Let us be magnanimous and look at this closer under a magnifying glass. And there the nit we pick becomes a mole. A few more degrees of freedom and we'll have a mountain yet. Whether it's rock hard or rock candy bears examining. How shall we test? I know, we'll shave a bit for later and hew the rest in two. That way our task lays bare in front of us with little left to do. And then when it is broke apart, I firmly make a pledge - that never will I leave as solved the bet I meant to hedge.
June 4, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be maddening in person - you are like the shuffled pages of Bartlett's Quotations.
June 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that bad, 26-card pickup, working with half a deck.
June 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi is the TPM Sphinx. Of course you find that maddening since you can't answer the riddle.
June 4, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply |