Ellington

A recent Jackson Police Department internal investigation is a prime example of the wild world of free speech in the Internet era. On March 10, the department released a statement acknowledging the investigation of an employee for "conduct unbecoming of an officer," during first lady Michelle Obama's March 3 visit to Jackson.

JPD command staff has not confirmed details of the investigation, citing department policy, which mandates confidentiality on personnel matters. TV station WLBT has reported that the officer under investigation is Chris Barnhart, however, and that Barnhart made derogatory comments about Obama in text messages while part of the first lady's security detail.

A JPD officer confirmed to the Jackson Free Press Thursday that Barnhart is under investigation for the remarks and that he made them via his personal cell phone on the social networking site Facebook. The officer requested anonymity because department policy prohibits commenting on internal investigations.

Barnhart's alleged actions could have violated two different JPD policies. The first policy governs department employees' use of cell phones. JPD policy prohibits the use of personal cell phones while on duty.

"Employees shall not engage in conversations on their personal cell phone while assisting in any city business or direct contact situation with the public," the policy reads.

Barnhart's actions also could have violated a separate policy on proper conduct and behavior.

"Officers whether on duty or off duty shall follow the ordinary and reasonable rules of good conduct and behavior and shall not commit any acts in any official or private capacity tending to bring reproach, discredit or embarrassment to their profession or the Jackson Police Department."

While Facebook communication may be widely perceived as private or protected free speech, it can bear consequences. Barnhart's alleged comments touch on a rapidly evolving area of free-speech law.

"This is a very hot-button issue," Mississippi College law professor Matt Steffey said. "The government, as an employer, has substantial authority to limit the conduct of employees on the job. If there was a rule that said 'No Facebooking on the job,' then I think he would have a difficult time making the free-speech claim that—despite the fact that he's employed and has job duties—he should be free to Facebook as he wishes. It becomes a conduct question, not a speech question."

Barnhart would have a more legitimate free-speech claim if it was the derogatory nature of his comments that landed him in trouble, Steffey added: "If, for example, the JPD would be fine with him Facebooking kind things about a political figure—or a particular political perspective—but not unkind things, then you get into dangerous territory."

Like all employers, government agencies have the authority to restrict the online speech of their employees during work hours. Private companies generally have greater leeway in these restrictions, and stories of employees fired for blogging or social networking—about their jobs or not—have become common cautionary tales.

Speech by public employees generally receives slightly more protection: A 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case, Pickering v. Board of Education, established that a public employee's comments qualified as protected free speech if they addressed a topic of public concern and outweighed the employer's interests. The Supreme Court revised that ruling in 2006 with another case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that public employees could be fired for speech made in their official capacity.

The JPD investigation of Barnhart is not an unusual response. In January 2009, officials in Paramus, N.J., suspended a city employee without pay for making derogatory remarks, including a racial slur, about Martin Luther King Jr. and President Barack Obama on his Facebook page. The employee was reinstated roughly three weeks later after an investigation. Last month, a Colleton County, Calif., firefighter was fired for an animated video he posted on Facebook. The firefighter's supervisors alleged that the video mocked physicians at a local hospital and, thus, tarnished the fire department's public image.

Previous Comments

ID

156906

Comment

First let me say, I don't like the Obamas simply because I don't agree with their politics. Do not read anything into that statement. I am white but first and foremost I am an American. This situation is simply. The Officers should have been doing his job and not fooling around with a cell phone. He had a responsibility. As much as I dislike this women she is still our first lady for the next four years and it would have looked really bad for something to happen to her on our watch. Think about it. We are after all Mississippi and well you know how the rest of the world sees us. He was if I might add pretty stupid as most of these transmissions can be tracked. So if he was playing on face book when something happened can you imagne the fallout. We would be reeling from this for the next 50 years. I think the women should stay at home and take care of her kids. My opinion. Which for now I still have at least that freedom. However, she is high profile and a guest in our state.

Author

charliegal

Date

2010-03-24T06:39:37-06:00

ID

156924

Comment

I am white but first and foremost I am an American. ... I think the women should stay at home and take care of her kids. Now there's a couple of enlightened, 21st century statements. With all due respect, charliegal, this is 2010, not 1910. I'm confounded enough by why you felt you needed to say you were white, but American, as if that excuses anything. It also blows my mind that anyone in this day and age would hold such an archaic opinion of any woman of any race, much less a woman as highly educated and professionally qualified as Michelle Obama. Do I really have to tell you that women have always worked and spoken their minds? That the U.S. workforce has as many women in it as men? And that first ladies have long taken public roles in furtherance of issues? Really? You're right to say that the officer in question was wrong, but then to say that he shouldn't have done it to spare Mississippi's reputation is just ludicrous. How about dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, etc. If he was on duty his personal bigotries have no place in the matter. Period. And if he's as bigoted as he sounds, he has no place on any police force.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-03-25T19:31:25-06:00

ID

156927

Comment

I am looking at this from someone who has been a member of the work force. I was there when women started burning their bras and declaring that they could do any job a man can do. I still think that I can do any job better that a man given any set of circumstance. This is where we differ. I raised two boys. I worked anywhere from 8 to 12 hour days as a nurse. I often slept when they were in school and was at work when they got home. Their father often did the job of both mother and father when he to was working. Often when I got home I had laundry and other things that I could not do before I went to work. I am now 54 years of age. The children have grown up. I no longer work because my body simply gave out. My point is that when we are young we think that we have a lifetime. The truth is that we can't have a do over and a child needs one parent at home. Not bits and pieces of a parent. With our freedom we made our society a two income society where its often not possible for either parent to be there when the children get home. Children are our future. It should not be left up to the government to raise our kids. Its our responsibility. I have seen the decline of the family now for the last 20 years. We have a whole generation of children that spend every free moment hooked to a computer or a video game. I see groups of young men walking up and the down the street during school hours. Where are the parents. They are either absent or working. This is unacceptable and women everywhere have done themselves and their children a grave disservice. I know all about the feminist movement and I was the first one in line. You my dear have been sold a bill of goods.

Author

charliegal

Date

2010-03-26T09:19:41-06:00

ID

156944

Comment

Charliegal, With all due respect for your personal experience, to say that the decline of the American family rests squarely—and only—on the fact of women working is vastly over-simplified. Like most things in life, it's a much more complex issue. (We're about the same age, btw, and I've been working since I was 15.) I've met really rotten kids raised by stay-at-home moms and really great ones raised by single mothers who didn't have a choice about working or not working. Both of my parents worked. They also instilled in me and my sisters a work ethic, a personal ethic, love of learning and much more. Having working parents works just fine for lots of kids—and for lots of women and families. Having a working mother may be a negative factor for some kids and families, but it's surely not the only reason that families are dysfunctional and some kids turn out bad.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-03-28T18:10:16-06:00

ID

156945

Comment

I had a hard-working single mother and I turned into a hard working woman. I am now a hard-working mother of a 9-month-old with a father just as involved in child care as I am. I believe if you really wish to blame the decline of the "American Family" you should start with BOTH PARENTS and not choose one that our patriarchial society has sold you a "bill of goods" as being solely responsible for child care. (and if you really want to talk about the "decline of the american family" please define that for me as I see it more the dynamic change of the definition of an "American Family". This isn't always a two parent household of opposite sexes) We didn't make this society a two income society with "our freedom". I don't understand that. Please explain to me how we made our society a two income society? Because I was under the impression that had a lot to do with economic forces beyond our control. My family is unable to function on one income. It just isn't going to happen. If I stayed home with my child, I couldn't afford to feed her. Last time I checked, FEEDING was just as important as a lot of other things. We, as women, have GOT to stop assuming that the responsibility of raising children falls on our shoulders. It doesn't. That way of thinking is as outdated as doctor's telling mother's of autistic children it was because they "didn't love them enough". It's paternalistic shame forced upon us that has been passed from generation to generation. We have essentially EXCUSED men from the responsibility of being father's for years now. The child care in my home is 50/50. In fact, its probably 60/40 with my husband taking up the bulk. I'm the main breadwinner in the family and we have non-traditional roles. My husband is also "Mr. Mom" and makes up for all the "nuturing" genes I didn't seem to get. I got the "organizational" genes that make sure she gets her breakfast, dinner, and doctor's appointments. My husband couldn't remember that stuff for the life of him. I take offense that you blame women working for a society ill that has so many contributing factors that attempting to water it down to one single variable is just irresponsible. I saw a strong single mother growing up who never missed my school events, always took wonderful care of me, and with the help and support of family made sure I was always loved, supervised, and made it to school. And, well, I turned out alright. I pay taxes. I have a graduate degree. I have a wonderful, WONDERFUL relationship with my mother. Beyond that, anytime I see the phrase "I don't like the Obamas simply because I don't agree with their 'politics'". I automatically replace the word "politics" with "skin color". Because, well, let's stop fooling ourselves here.

Author

Lori G

Date

2010-03-29T09:48:08-06:00

ID

156953

Comment

Does anyone know what the officer supposedly said or tweeted or facebooked? I still haven't been able to find out. Not that it matters so much as it is conduct unbecoming an officer. I'm just curious. Interesting discussion however. I have a couple of opinions on some of the points you all brought up. One, It's my opinion that it should be the parent's "right to choose" whether one or the other stays home to raise children or whether they work. I am of the firm belief that not all people are the same, have the same desires or find the same things rewarding. So it should be up to the particular family to choose for themselves what is right for them and both sides should stop judging the other from the wrong headed thinking that they know what's best for everyone else. You. Don't. Although, you probably won't find a lot of people on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time at work. Oh, it would also be a good idea to actually discuss it and come up with a plan before having kids, but you know that's not always gonna happen. Two, for LoriG. Believe it or not some people actually do disagree with the President's politics regardless of his skin color. It's not like if Obama was another color there would suddenly be no division between Repubs and Dems. However, I kinda think I know what you are talking about when people it phrase it like you said. That it's the old "I'm not racist some of my best friends are black" disclaimer before they start spewing bigoted venom. Yes, there are certainly racist Republicans and there are communist Democrats and Conspiracy Kook libertarians and all combinations of those in all large groups but I like to hope that they are the fringe wingnuts.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-29T13:53:31-06:00

ID

156954

Comment

According to another local blog, It has come to light that this Officer was involved in the Karen Irby case (He is the incompetent accident investigator that almost sunk the case for the D.A. and why they had to drop the Depraved Heart Murder charges) and has filed a grievance about being assigned to the dog house. Sounds like the J.P.D. finally found something he can handle.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-29T14:13:46-06:00

ID

156959

Comment

WMartin, I understand that you believe parents should have the right to choose what works for them, but the reality is that if you're a single parent, you generally don't have that luxury. in November 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau reported approximately 13.7 million single parents in the U.S., raising 21.8 million children, or roughly 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today. Women make up 84% of custodial parents, and 80% of them are employed. The point that Lori made so well is that families come in all shapes and sizes. If you believe that families only come with a heterosexual man/woman pair and 2.5 children, it might look like families are "in decline." Break out of that mindset, and you see that families include all kinds of people. It doesn't take the traditional patriarchal model to raise good kids. As to the second point, anyone who says "I am white but first and foremost I am an American," in the context of speaking about an African American leader is putting race at issue. Why even bring it up otherwise? Seems to me you don't have to scratch very deep to turn up racism in many Americans. They're the ones spitting at members of the U.S. Congress.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-03-29T16:14:43-06:00

ID

156961

Comment

Ronni, I think we are in agreement on the first point. Single parents obviously don't have that luxury, so I didn't even bring it up. I was only speaking to those that do and to Charliegal's point that there is only one right and good way to raise kids. Which I don't believe exists. If there is only one right and good way it's with lots of love. And it's sad that the statistics are the way they are regarding single parents but it's not women's fault. I would think men were more to blame for shirking their responsibility to their children but there are a lot of factors that play into that and your post was pretty good at pointing out that it's a complex problem. I was also careful to not use gender terms in describing a family, see above. I personally have no problem with same sex families as long as they look out for their kids and give 'em lots of love. I also have no problem with one parent staying home if they are able and that is how they choose to raise their kids. People are different and there is no one right way. As to the second point there. I kinda thought that was what she was getting at and you are right that the people calling the lawmakers racial names are certainly racists. But there was not a plurality of people hurling spit in there. There were a few people and they grabbed the headlines. But that doesn't mean that anyone opposed to the health care reform law (it's not a bill anymore is it? :P) is racist. Or even more broadly that anyone who may not like President Obama's policies. To use your words, that; while politically expedient, is far too binary and simplistic to paint more than 50% of the American people with that broad brush. Personally, I think it's a bad law that isn't sustainable economically. I voted for the guy and am some kinda disappointed.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-29T17:16:40-06:00

ID

156962

Comment

Big time hate is going around and breaking many hearts. I guess many whites still need time to reconcile blacks breaking from the cotton and corn fields and sitting in high positions. I could understand this if the Emancipation Proclamtion occured in 1863 and the most effective and enforceable Civil Rights bills occurred in the 1960s, but they didn't. Personally, I try to be nice and speak to everyone no matter our racial, political, social or other differences. I try to be friendly with the tea party people and other Obama haters. In fact every now and again, I see people riding around with signs that say Obama - One Bad Ass Mistake America. Some Blacks just ignore them, but I always speak to my brothers abd sisters displaying the signs. I drive as near to them as I can and raise my free arm about mid-level to the window then raise my middle finger and ask, "how you during" (Tyler Perry style). To my great shock in return I see people trying to say all kinds of mean things to me. I turn up the radio to keep from hearing them though. They probably want to tell me how much they like me.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-03-29T17:23:34-06:00

ID

156966

Comment

WMartin, you're right about the second part: Not everyone opposed to the health-care reform bill is a racist, and I don't mean to imply that. I was referencing (and reacting to) Charliegal's initial post. As to its being sustainable economically, I guess we'll see. It's a similar argument to that brought up by opponents to medicare/medicaid, and a whole host of other bills that benefit the poor more than those at the other end of the economic spectrum. And, in case you missed it, many of the basic concepts in the bill were once Republican ideas. While the bill isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, we simply cannot afford to ignore health care any longer.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-03-29T20:22:46-06:00

ID

156971

Comment

Ronni, No I didn't miss it and I think it's kinda funny that it's being used by the Dems as a way to say that the Repubs are just opposed because it's the Dems passing it. Which is probably true by the way. Although, the Repubs for all their bluster about fiscal responsibility are not the ones to point to for the shining example. Where are the statesmen who will put country above short term political gain? It's not that I am opposed to HCR as a matter of policy. I think we need a whole host of reforms, not just in the way Health Care Insurance is handled but in the financial arena as well. Where is the Obama administration on that? I think that if there is any one reason that he was elected it is that one. He has failed to deliver so far and I believe his administration will ultimately be judged on that. I just think that policies that put us on a track to failure are bad ones. Crazy me, right? Medicare/ Medicaid are almost insolvent. Social Security is now calling in the phony IOU's from the treasury which doesn't have the money to pay them. So yea, I'll agree that the argument against entitlements is that they are usually unsustainable economically because they usually are. Look at the companies like Caterpillar, A.T.& T. and John Deere who are saying what the new legislation is going to cost them. Massive new costs to industries that are directly proportional to labor is not going to promote new hiring. So at a time of high unemployment some might say it's a bad idea to provide more dis-incentives for hiring new people. Those people might have a political reason for saying it but that doesn't make it any less true.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-30T11:11:15-06:00

ID

156972

Comment

WMartin, I think we've gone around on this score once before, but it's irresponsible to baldly assert that "entitlements are unsustainable economically." This country has had Social Security for about 80 years, which is a pretty good track record. Only relatively small adjustments are needed to make Social Security entirely sustainable, on the order of the changes Reagan made to the program in the 1980s. As for Medicare and Medicaid, the reason why those programs are unsustainable is because health care spending in general is unsustainable. Increases in their spending actually lag behind private spending. When conservatives such as Paul Ryan of Wisconsin claim that the entitlements programs face a $47 trillion shortfall, he is assuming that medical spending will continue to grow at its current rate for the next couple of decades. If that were to happen, our entire economy would collapse whether or not we had entitlements. It's a nonsense number meant to scare people. We will either control health care inflation or we will not. Based on the experience of other countries, one of the most effective ways we could achieve that aim is by expanding Medicare to cover all Americans. By expanding that entitlement program, we could enormously reduce costs. I know that conservatives consider it axiomatically impossible for a government program to be more efficient than private quasi-monopolies like the health insurance companies, but these are also the geniuses who wanted to privatize social security. People like Ryan still do. There is no sound reason to think that entitlements are unsustainable. That's political ideology, not empirical fact.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-30T14:20:09-06:00

ID

156976

Comment

Amen, Brian. You sho nuff "is" smart. Did y'all hear about the republicans spending nearly $2,000.00 at a bondage club to be tired up, whipped and ain't no telling what else they got. Republicans are sick and can't get well. I wanna thank Obama for being the impetus to prove it. However, I do undertand why the ladies of the house tired them up and whipped them. Everytime I see a republicans I say to myself he or she should be tired up and whipped for how they have screwed America. I'm so glad Obama finally realized the devil can't be reconciled or negotiated with. All the devil understands is force and a constant foot to the rear. We hired Obama to wear his feet out on them. And Vice-President Joe Biden said f______ a.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-03-30T16:39:21-06:00

ID

156979

Comment

Brian, You are right man. I suppose if we can continue to print and borrow money and run budget deficits in the thousands of billions of dollars then it's entirely sustainable. That is the way that economic stability is created, through credit and making money out of thin air. I had forgotten that we can just buy anything we want and put off having to actually pay for it. That is the American way after all. What was I thinking? I'm sure those smart fellers in Washington will get around to getting their financial house in order. They do keep promising to, but it keeps getting worse for some reason.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-30T17:06:36-06:00

ID

156980

Comment

Walt, you talk about spending a couple of grand in a bondage club like it's a bad thing. ??

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-30T17:07:26-06:00

ID

156982

Comment

WMartin, are you British, speaking of thousands of billions? I've never understood that verbal tick. But most Brits would not present your false choice between skyrocketing debt and gutting entitlements. One almost suspects that it was all a plan hatched in the fetid brain of Ronald Reagan. First, cut taxes in half for the wealthy while promising to cut government spending. Don't bother with the latter, because that would carry political costs. Glory in the speculative bubble your tax cuts and "deregulation" create, claiming you've grown the economy when all you've really done is shift wealth from the middle class to the affluent. Years down the road, throw up your hands and declare that there is simply no way to pay for entitlements. You've just killed the New Deal! We're back to the glory days of Hoover at long last. Under the two quintessentially conservative presidents--Reagan and Bush II--we had bubble economies and banking scandals. The debt skyrocketed more than it ever has under any Democratic president. Entitlements aren't the problem. Tax cuts for the wealthy are the problem.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-30T18:32:48-06:00

ID

156983

Comment

Consider for example, these IRS figures on income during the Bush years. The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million. Consider that the combined wealth of those Americans is more than $1.3 trillion. If we had progressive taxes that reduced their wealth to a trifling $100 million each, we'd have enough money to set up a trust fund whose interest could provide tuition-free higher education for students at every public college and university in perpetuity.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-30T21:16:27-06:00

ID

156984

Comment

I am not claiming that we can solve all of our problems by seizing the wealth of the 400 wealthiest Americans, though I do think it would be a lot of fun. Rather, it epitomizes a culture where wealthy individuals and corporations have become parasites on the public good. Republicans moan and groan about the United States have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but they don't discuss the fact that due to accounting trickery, many corporations pay little or no taxes at all. A study from the GAO found: ... 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. ... During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion. It is this looting of the republic that is unsustainable. Providing health care to the citizens of the wealthiest country on the planet is, by contrast, quite affordable.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-30T21:21:54-06:00

ID

156985

Comment

I went back and read my initial post. It amazes me just how well people read and comprehend. Frankly after so much vilification you had me second guessing myself. I said and I repeat. I don't like Obama's politics. I don't. Has nothing to do with race as so many like to read into when you disagree with him. This is after all new and we are still trying to feel our way. I no longer will apologize for disagreeing with someone of another color as I have often done in the past. I didn't want to be seen as a racist. Frankly its starting to leave a bitter taste in my mouth. The point I was making when I said I was white is this, that is just the color of my skin but I am first and foremost an American and we need to all start using that definition. We have become a nation of African American, Native American, European American and the list repeats itself to the point of stupid babble. I really can't say where my people are from. They have been here since the revolution. When does it stop and we are no longer a nation divided. For the record just who stays home and raises the kids. Somebody needs to. Do you think they will raise themselves. Both my parents worked. I didn't grow up half bad but I also had grandparents within yelling distance as did my kids. Children will not raise themselves and its not up to the daycare nor the school system to raise them. For the young women with the 9 month all, just who has your children when you are not there. A grandparent or day care? Who cares for them when they are sick. Daycare? Daddy? Grandma? How well does you employer support you when you have to be out with your child. One only has to look at the crime rate and the rate of teen pregnancies and S.T.D's to see that somebody needs to be there when the kids get out of school. The mother has been the one on record to do this. However, if its the dad then great. Our children need their parents. Each of you has the right to raise your children the way you see fit. You have the right to have children. You even have the right to not carry that baby that you might be pregnant with. Its your decision. However, when and if you do have that child then its your reponsibiltiy to make sure that it has everything it needs to grow up safe and happy. As parents our rights end where the care and feeding of the child that we bring into this world begins.

Author

charliegal

Date

2010-03-31T07:38:18-06:00

ID

156986

Comment

Look at the companies like Caterpillar, A.T.& T. and John Deere who are saying what the new legislation is going to cost them. Massive new costs to industries that are directly proportional to labor is not going to promote new hiring. I was kind of busy yesterday getting the paper to press so couldn't comment on this statement by WMartin. I naturally get suspicious when multi-billion dollar multi-nationals start moaning about spending money. AT&T, for example, pulls down around $30 billion in revenue per quarter, and posted earnings of nearly $3.1 billion in the last quarter of 2009. The company paid its CEO $20.3 million in 2009, up 35 percent from the previous year. Now, before you go off telling me that companies have a right to make that kind of profit and the right to pay their CEOs that kind of money, here's the real kicker: The "money" the companies are moaning about amount to no more than an accounting entry. In other words, it has nothing to do with actual cash, according to CFO Magazine. "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act strips companies of a 28% tax deduction related to retiree drug benefits. The deduction is actually the tax-free treatment of a government subsidy that companies receive for providing retiree drug benefits equivalent to Medicare Part D, says tax expert Robert Willens, who heads a consultancy in New York. Since the deduction can't be claimed until the benefits are paid out, companies make the adjustment by writing down the deferred tax asset balances related to the subsidy, notes Willens." In other words, these companies are complaining about doing their books differently, not about actually spending money. Hard to sympathize with that.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-03-31T10:37:23-06:00

ID

156988

Comment

Be careful Brian C. "If we had progressive taxes that reduced their wealth to a trifling $100 million each, we'd have enough money to set up a trust fund whose interest could provide tuition-free higher education for students at every public college and university in perpetuity" To suggest that opulence, greed and excess are harmful to the community is to sound communist, regardless if it's actually true. The issue I have is that the government protects and enriches the uber rich, yet this is supposed to be a democracy. The same people who would benefit from progressive taxation and the just distribution of wealth will be the ones who will wail against it at TEA party rallies and such. How do we develop more ciritical thnking in more Americans that can challenge these policies and institutions on the basis of their exploitive and ultimatley socially destructive practices and policies?

Author

Renaldo Bryant

Date

2010-03-31T11:39:14-06:00

ID

156991

Comment

I don't like Obama's politics. I don't. Has nothing to do with race as so many like to read into when you disagree with him Then leave off the racial aspect and just state which policies you don't like and why you don't like them. You are going to be vilified for having an opposing view point anyway but at least you aren't making it any easier for them. They may be rabid left wingers but they will engage you with specifics which is nice compared to a lot of other sites. :P Oh, and I should say that none of that applies to Walt. He is from a different planet or something. His comments are for comic relief only.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-31T13:33:35-06:00

ID

156992

Comment

Blackwatch, you've hit on just the dilemma Thomas Frank grapples with in "What's the matter with Kansas?" I highly recommend it. As for socialism and communism, anyone to the left of Newt Gingrich gets smeared with those labels these days. I am no more communist than Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower. The former had a top tax rate of 70 percent. The latter had a top tax rate of 90 percent!

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-31T13:36:34-06:00

ID

157005

Comment

When people make statements like this, revealing an underlying suspicion of racism simply because of disagreement.... [quote]Beyond that, anytime I see the phrase "I don't like the Obamas simply because I don't agree with their 'politics'". I automatically replace the word "politics" with "skin color". Because, well, let's stop fooling ourselves here. [/quote] ...it's not surprising that other people feel the need to qualify their statements of disagreement with a denial of racism like this... [quote]First let me say, I don't like the Obamas simply because I don't agree with their politics. Do not read anything into that statement. I am white but first and foremost I am an American. [/quote]

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-04-01T11:21:54-06:00

ID

157008

Comment

It's kind of a chicken/egg argument, Mark: unprovable either way.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-04-01T13:57:30-06:00

ID

157012

Comment

Feel free to insert any word you choose. It won't change the fact that I think Obama is the worst president I have ever seen. I don't like his politics and if you think that racist then go ahead think what you wish. Its funny how people such as yourself only wishes to consider part of a statement but refuses to read the rest. I personally don't want to live in a socialist nation. If you think for one minute that's not happening then by all means drink your kool aide and live in your happy happy joy joy world. I will continue to voice my opinion until the day they put the lid over my face. Time will tell the truth.

Author

charliegal

Date

2010-04-01T14:59:02-06:00

ID

157019

Comment

Charliegal, To be clear, the policies of Pres. Obama are no more socialist than other policies already in place in America, such as Medicare, Medicade, NAFTA, Farm Subsidies, and Corporate Tax Breaks, HUD tax breaks, the Marriage Tax Credits, etc. These things are in place because of valuable lessons that points in history has taught us (like The Great Depression and the Progressive Era). Any society with an economy based on a strict free market would soon implode on itself, without regulation. The market needs regulation and the masses need protection from the monetary cycles created when the capitalist class acts to hoard more wealth for themselves. Make no mistake, the government regulates markets because it has to in order to maintain a stable society, and manage the class divides that are a necessary part of any market based economy. So, the policies Pres. Obama are enacting are out of necessity in order to maintain some sort of social cohesion. Is the spending painful? Yes. Does the debt look ominous, of course it does. But keep in mind that without the deficit spending, how much worse would things like unemployment rates and credit freezes look? These things have occured because market economies out of their nature (mostly the greed of the capitalist class) create false values in investment "tools" (i.e. mortgage backed securities) and creates "credit" based on them. At the risk of sounding Marxist, Marx had this right, it is called the myth of Surplus Value, and capitalist economies are built on it. Periodically, people wise up and the bubble bursts on these fake "investments" and the bottom falls out of the value of a variety of investments. With the help of government spending and time, the market "recovers" and the process starts all over again. To help mitigate against this, John Keynes advocated that the Government spend through these burst periods in order to maintain some semblance of purchasing goods and services, which helps to maintain values of products. This doesn't end nor prevent these "bursts", but it helps to soften their impacts. So, for the repubs and conservatives to blame the deficit on Pres. Obama's "socialist" policies is ill informed. Government regulation is the best weapon we have to mitigate against a vicious financial cycle that will cripple societies if left unchecked. But trust, these tactics make the U.S. economy no more "socialist" than it has ever been, nor is this country going to become "socialist", as long as there is private ownership of capital, rest assured that there will be class divides, and the mad dash for independent wealth.

Author

Renaldo Bryant

Date

2010-04-01T16:15:39-06:00

ID

157021

Comment

Its funny how people such as yourself only wishes to consider part of a statement but refuses to read the rest. I personally don't want to live in a socialist nation. Charliegal, do not attempt to tell me what I have read and considered and what I haven't. You. Do. Not. Know. I've pulled out some of your statements and remarked on them. Period. As to your "socialist" statement, it's just too absurd to let pass. It's conservative party line, pure and simple. Policy that benefits society as a whole is not Socialism. America has numerous "social" policies and agencies supported through our tax dollars, including public schools; federal, state and local police forces and fire fighters; federal and state tax collection agencies; federally supported medical research institutions; a federal bank, military forces, agencies to ensure safe working conditions, clean air and water, serving our veterans; etc., etc., etc. Socialism is government or worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, which has never been advocated by the Obama administration regardless of Republican and tea party rhetoric. And before you go off about the auto industry and Wall Street bailouts, remember that both of those were passed by former administration of Republican George W. Bush (that great advocate of small government) who managed to increase the federal spending faster than the six previous presidents before him, by a whopping 104 percent. I am not picking on Bush simply because he's a Republican, btw. I would pick on anyone with a similar, stellar body of achievements. Capitalism is alive and well in America. And frankly, if I have a choice between "happy, happy, joy, joy" and thoughtless cynicism and fear-based reactionism, I'll take the former, thanks.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-04-01T17:08:10-06:00

ID

157033

Comment

Of all the tiresome phrases babbled by apoplectic conservatives, "drink the Kool-Aid" has to be the most overused, if not the most overheated. In case you've forgotten, the saying derives from the Jonestown massacre, where a cult leader got his followers to commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. The comparison suggests that anyone who supports progressive policies is a mindless cult member. The accusation would be offensive if it wasn't so stupid and cliched.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-04-02T13:28:08-06:00

ID

157034

Comment

Right, because only conservatives ever use the phrase with respect to their political opponents. Liberals discuss whether they should "drink the koolaid" like conservatives.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-04-02T13:33:45-06:00

ID

157045

Comment

You are a sly devil, Mr. Geoffriau.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-04-02T21:08:15-06:00

ID

157046

Comment

Just goes to show that neither side can claim the other holds a monopoly on political hyperbole. I was thinking the same thing but didn't have time to find a link to support it. Figures the DU would be a handy source.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2010-04-02T21:27:19-06:00

ID

157073

Comment

Just to be clear, I took Mark's response as a joke. It's a forum post with only 18 people voting. The fact that you can scour the blogs for an example of an avowed liberal using the term does not address the fact that it is used overwhelmingly by conservatives, especially since the election of Obama. It epitomizes the fevered, binary rhetoric coming out of the right. But whether it is used by the right or the left, it is a stupid cliche.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-04-05T13:07:09-06:00

ID

157074

Comment

Meh. If you really want to do the research to demonstrate that conservatives use the phrase "overwhelmingly" more than liberals do, be my guest. I'm not sure what it would prove exactly. You do get extra JFP/Ladd points for using the term "binary" with respect to right-wing thinking, however, so there's that.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-04-05T13:14:54-06:00

ID

157076

Comment

It sounds like you just equated "rhetoric" with "right-wing thinking," Mark. You should read closer in order to grok what others are saying before firing back so you make sense. To be honest, I'm barely following all this and, thus, am assigning no one points this week. I'm too busy reporting and starting a quarterly magazine to respond to your red-baiting. Seen and heard it all before. You do seem awfully earnest, though. So I'll give you half a point for that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-04-05T13:23:48-06:00

ID

157077

Comment

I'm not sure if you just scored a point on me or not. I just tend to assume that the left already equates all right-wing thinking with empty rhetoric anyway.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-04-05T13:28:36-06:00

ID

157092

Comment

Mark, there is a real point in this you're ignoring, which is that "drink the Kool-Aid" has been all over the right-wing blogosphere. This is hardly a mortal sin, but your quibbling over it is tiresome. If your point is that liberals also use partisan language, you may proceed to pummel your straw man. But you are an octopus squirting ink into the water, and it's over such a trivial point. There is a real difference between the political rhetoric of the left and right now. By binary thinking, I mean a certain absolutist bent in conservative thinking, by which all progressives are "collectivists." You argue your points with sincerity and skill, and I admire your technique. But there is a point of real substance here you should address, which is that the right has embraced absolutist rhetoric. You are a conservative, whatever that means these days, or you have "drunk the Kool-Aid."

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-04-05T22:00:21-06:00

ID

157093

Comment

Yikes...so much angst about the term "collectivist" in two different discussions now. I've asked for a different, more acceptable term to be supplied (and so far, gotten only "pragmatist" out of Todd). You see, while you may fear the Communist-hunters of McCarthy, I have no intention of using a term like "collectivist" or "central planner" as a catch-all for anyone who doesn't agree with me. It's simply a descriptive term -- people may be more or less collectivist, or believe more or less in the efficiency/fairness of central planning, but my point is simply to address, with one term, those who would support a major shift toward collectivism or central planning in American society. These people may not align themselves together or agree on even a majority of other political or societal issues, but with regard to this one principle of individual economic freedom, they lean a similar way. That's my point -- not that there's some secret "Collectivist Party" out there, just that the term "collectivist" or "central-planning" accurately describes the kinds of policies I am arguing against. Believing in a public option for healthcare or a "progressive" income tax rate doesn't make you a communist, whole-cloth, but it certainly does indicate a desire to trade some degree of individual liberty to gain some benefit to society as a whole. For a strong free-market supporter like myself, the issue isn't simply the trade-off between individual liberty and societal benefit; it's that governmental friction that wastes money, time, and work in the trade. If government actually did things as efficiently as the free market, then there would be all kinds of menial industries that I'd happily turn over to the control of public servants. But, if anything, I'd argue that history demonstrates that government (even when attempting to provide a service at no profit) fails to match the private sector in choice, quality, and price (when the full cost is considered, not just the final transaction price). So what's important to remember is that when I use a term like "collectivist" or "central-planner", it's not an epithet for some Commie pinko boogeymen. It's an actual descriptive term; I'm referring to those in our society that reject the evidence that the free market generally distributes resources more efficiently, and believe wholeheartedly that government officials have the knowledge, foresight, and wisdom to make economic decisions on behalf of millions of people. The politicians (and political commentators) that supported price controls and rationing on gasoline in the 1970's weren't necessarily personally Communist or socialist (and I'd guess that most of them weren't). But they were certainly believers in the power of the government to control economic transactions regardless of underlying market realities. They were surprised by the gas shortages and the gas station lines that went on for miles, but it shouldn't have been surprising when the policy itself was compared to other attempts at economic central-planning in history. I've seen some use the term "communitarian" instead, but I suspect that may well be just as unacceptable given the phonetic and etymological relation to "Communist".

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-04-06T08:11:12-06:00

ID

157095

Comment

Mark: Help me out here -- I've decided to label you. Please choose one for the following. You may call yourself an Anarchist, Corporatist, Teabagger or Regressive. Those are your choices. Which among them do you prefer? Now, I know you probably won't appreciate my point, but I hope other readers will. My point is simply this: Every time you attempt to label your "opponents" you're doing the debate itself a disservice. Why not work from the assumption that everyone has a point of view and then actually discuss the elements of the debate? You're spending so much time labeling things that you're not responding to any of the points that anyone makes in these exercises you're calling "debates." A debate is not simply the re-assertion of labels and fundamental beliefs over and over again. Sometimes you need to offer sources, proofs, and evidence for the things you're saying. You're spending all your time on framing, picking nits and ending your posts with little jabs. The debate I got into (to my peril) was about the minimum wage. Ronni challenged you to source your assertion that minimum wage laws were causal for unemployment in countries with strict laws; you demurred. You instead asked why we wouldn't set minimum wage at $100k; when Ronni responded, you publicly decided not to pursue the discussion, but then continued the discussion by offering a parting shot. You ask for examples of economists who don't believe in a simple supply-and-demand theory as regards the minimum wage. I respond with examples, and you ignore them, moving on. No further discussion from you regarding supply-and-demand... your response instead is to argue that your focus on labels is not ad hominem. You ask repeatedly for another term to label vast swaths of individuals -- I suggest "pragmatist" and you don't respond to it (or any of the points made). Instead, you twist my flippant mention of Mao out of context. So, in answer to your question on the other thread... YES, it is the very definition of the ad hominen logical fallacy when you seek to label your opponents instead of speaking to the points they raise. That it not debate, it is demagogy. The politicians (and political commentators) that supported price controls and rationing on gasoline in the 1970's weren't necessarily personally Communist or socialist (and I'd guess that most of them weren't). That was Nixon, BTW. Let's assume he wasn't a Communist, but he was certainly a control freak.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-04-06T08:44:01-06:00

ID

157099

Comment

Todd, that's exactly why I wrote this sentence: [quote]These people may not align themselves together or agree on even a majority of other political or societal issues, but with regard to this one principle of individual economic freedom, they lean a similar way.[/quote] The terms I choose to use are not in reference to existing political organizations or politico-philosophical platforms. Saying that someone is collectivist with regard to healthcare or in favor of central-planning for insurance reform isn't an insult or an attempt to tie some historical atrocities to those positions. They are descriptions of the actual views. I'd rightly object if you called me an anarchist or a Teabagger. I can easily demonstrate in what areas and for what reasons I see the value of both local, state, and federal government, thus rejecting the charge of anarchism, and I can offer my personal testimony that I've never attended a Tea Party, supported the Tea Party movement in time, money, or labor, or in any way chosen to publicly align myself with the Tea Party movement. I'd be willing to discuss the terms Corporatist and Regressive, and could offer how closely I sympathize with those positions based on the definitions set. But in each case, I'm willing to discuss the given definition of the term, and evaluate how closely it describes my personal position, rather than trying to fill it with emotional weight and reacting to it as some kind of full worldview-encompassing label. Clearly you have some emotional triggers with the terms "collectivist" and "central-planning" that fall outside the actual words themselves. I didn't respond to "pragmatist" mostly because it doesn't provide any particularly useful description of the position -- only true anarchists and totalitarian statists would fall outside your given definition of "pragmatist". It lacks any descriptive power. It's a fine name for a political movement or party (just like "conservative" or "liberal" and other generally bland and often inaccurate terms), but it doesn't actually describe the position as it differs from other political positions. Good line about Nixon. It's funny to me when those on the left play the "gotcha" game with Bush's bailouts or Nixon's price controls or other Republican failures as if I'm some how beholden to defend those things. I vote Republican because it's one of two options presented to me, and the GOP offers an ever so slightly more limited view of government and support of the free market. But the decision to vote Republican over Democrat doesn't make me blind to the fact that both parties are, in practice, consistently expanding the size, scope, and power of the federal government.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-04-06T09:39:00-06:00

ID

157103

Comment

Since y'all are discussing free speech, bad behavior and all these lofty concepts that don't mean a hill of beans to most of us, I'm wondering if y'all can also tell me what possessed Michael Steele and misled him, a black man, into thinking he could lead the RNC, GOP, Tea party, Conservatives, the Klan, the Para-military organizations of the world, Sly as a Fox News, Beck, Limpbaugh, Coulter and nem. I could have told the clueless boy that even if he were the Man of Steal he would still be inadequate to lead those organizations or persons. He doesn't have the complexion for the protection, connection or resurrection of those groups or persons. Oh well, at least the above entities can use their quotas of the N-word without going outside their big tent these days. Shoot, I forgot, there is no qoutas. Poor Steele is now drawing on the race card. What's next the hit record, "Nobody Knows the Troubles I've Seen." Come on back home, Michael, we miss you. We got some greens, ribs and potato salad waiting on you. Unfortunately, we don't have any bondage any more. You gotta stay with the RNC for that.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-04-06T17:08:46-06:00

ID

157107

Comment

Mark: We may be reaching an interesting synthesis here. The reason people react to your labels is because you're labeling people "collectivists," etc. -- and people (particularly Americans?) get antsy about being labeled. (Note all the caveats you have for why you couldn't accept the labels I offered above.) What might be able to survive is the labeling of ideas, which can be occasionally (and unevenly) useful. But when you label *people* then you're going to get some blowback -- what you describe, perhaps derisively, as "angst". These people may not align themselves together or agree on even a majority of other political or societal issues, but with regard to this one principle of individual economic freedom, they lean a similar way. Which is exactly why it's unfair to blanket them, as people, which such descriptors. Here you're actually arguing that it's unfair it is to label the *people* in contrast to a specific *idea* those people might hold. I didn't respond to "pragmatist" mostly because it doesn't provide any particularly useful description of the position -- only true anarchists and totalitarian statists would fall outside your given definition of "pragmatist". Actually, I think pragmatist (or other broad strokes like conservative, progressive, moderate, contrarian, ideologue) are probably the *only* sorts labels that might actually fit for thoughtful people in a free society -- most of us have some flexibility on an idea-by-idea basis unless we're not thinking that critically about the issues. That's why I self-identify most closely with "Progressive" (which means something fairly specific to me in the context of the Political Compass but forth by Paul Ray -- http://www.culturalcreatives.org/Library/docs/NewPoliticalCompassV73.pdf), and wouldn't take offense at the label, but find your labels (wrenched from the headlines of Cato Institute blog entries) as less than interesting or enlightening, as they are, in my opinion, intended to limit, not inform. For example, the idea that we might have progressive taxation in this country in order to fulfill the Constitutional goal of promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense might, arguable, be a "communitarian" idea, but it doesn't make me (nor does it make any of the architects of the Constitution) a "communitarian." I'd call myself liberal on social issues, conservative on privacy & some fiscal issues, populist on some monetary issues, progressive (as in anti-corporatist) on issues involving monopolistic behavior, lobbying law, privacy and some tort issues, progressive (as in pro-progress) on smart growth, urban revitalization, government investment in sci-tech and sustainable energy, a libertarian as regards the bulk of the Bill of Rights -- particularly speech, assembly, religion and anti-Prohibition -- libertarian-but-contrarian on the second amendment, and a proponent of free enterprise locally and fair trade globally over "free" markets universally. So, now which box do I fit? Communitarian? Central planner? Hardly. Not unless you're trying to dismiss me with an ad hominem argument. Similarly, the fact that you, Mark, often stake out positions that are echoed by the rhetoric the Tea Party movement doesn't mean you appreciate or approve of the label "teabagger" or "tea party member" for your person. To some limited extent, labeling ideas might be handy, at least as shortcuts in discussion. But labeling people they way you do is why you're getting the reaction that you are.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-04-06T21:53:21-06:00