Interesting post--but, as you say, given the high level of politicking here, let's wait 'til more facts are in to pass final judgement--some of us may--uhh--know her or something.
;-)

Can anyone else come up with a possible non-controversial sentence that Paulose might have uttered using those four words?

damn! this is one "fat" memo, girlfriend. you are "in the black" with me. why don't you get your ass to cabo for a nice long lazy paid vaction.

It is clear from your work that you are sympathetic to the party that signified by the common ass, that panders to the black community as well as the lazy unionists and fat unkept artsy types, thus your application to work in my office is denied.

"This week, in "voluntary" bible study, we will explore one of the more fascinating contradictions regarding Palm Sunday, specifically the question of whether Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem via a black colt or an ass, by reinterpreting Matthew's referencing of Zechariah. We were lazy last week, so this week, look forward to two fat hours of salvation!"

no. having sex with a fat ass intern does not make one the "first black president." such thinking is intellectually lazy.

She's a direct result of the far-right's long term plan to religionize the Federal Government.

These comments are witty, & I can't say I don't appreciate them--but, just to emphasize, as Abhi was careful to point out--these are just allegations at this point--could well be true, but could well be a political attack....

She sounds like a biatch but fat black lazy ass or lazy black fat ass is racism?

It's bitchy/mean but that just sounds like a descriptive string of bitch out terms. For example Bush is a monkey faced white moron and michael moore is a bloviating white fat ass. [deleted by admin]
/macaca ftw

A black belt in karate, she could kick Bruce Lee's fat ass on her lazy day.

she is desi, people. she was just saying that amitabh bachchan acted like an ass, rani mukherji was fat, and sanjay leela bhansali's direction was lazy in black.

55Friday -- special Tuesday edition.

41 · Proud Indian American on May 16, 2007 11:51 PM · Direct link Actually, being a high achieving Desi I'm hardly surprised that she chose the right-wing of politics as her fastest route to success. It's a strategy that's worked well for other Desi suck-ups

Yeah, 'cuz we desi "suck-ups" are intellectually incapable of understanding Adam Smith, Hayek, or nozick.
WTF....

as Abhi was careful to point out--these are just allegations at this point--could well be true, but could well be a political attack....

That apart, nobody should underestimate how impossibly difficult it can be to be brown, in your early 30s, thought of by The Man as a hotshot whiz, and manage a group of older more mature, "more experienced", foot-dragging backstabbers who think they're too good to be reporting to you.... been there myself, and it's no picnic.

On topic: Anna and Sakshi covered both the wisecrack angles I was going for - Sunday School plus Kickboxing :)

Politics as usual. But we should all remember, AG Gonzales was a political appointee, they serve at the pleasure of the president. We all studied government, if this is a checks and balances violation, then the government will take care of itself. *snark*

That apart, nobody should underestimate how impossibly difficult it can be to be brown, in your early 30s, thought of by The Man as a hotshot whiz, and manage a group of older more mature, "more experienced", foot-dragging backstabbers who think they're too good to be reporting to you.... been there myself, and it's no picnic.

chachaji, I agree, this perspective on the story hasn't received a lot of attention. I am sure some people would have a problem, consciously or subconsciously, reporting to a young brown woman.

What Is It? (a version of What Am I?)

It's black for browns. Thin or fat, you cannot see your own. It's a lazy portmanteau. It ain't your balls, it ain't your ass.

I'm really getting tired of all these Desi NeoCons. Can we ship them all somewhere??

I'm really getting tired of all these Desi NeoCons. Can we ship them all somewhere??

Uncalled for. Would you be happy if someone said

I'm really getting tired of all these Desi liberals. Can we ship them all somewhere??

or

I'm really getting tired of all these Desis. Can we ship them all somewhere??

We'd be outraged. Let's not be hypocrites. There are better ways to state your displeasure. Believe it or not, this blog is for everyone, even NeoCons, ex-cons, neo-soul fans.

That apart, nobody should underestimate how impossibly difficult it can be to be brown, in your early 30s, thought of by The Man as a hotshot whiz, and manage a group of older more mature, "more experienced", foot-dragging backstabbers who think they're too good to be reporting to you.... been there myself, and it's no picnic

Well i'm guessing you're being self-referential and I'll also assume that you came up in at least a somewhat merit-based system where quantitative analysis proved you to be the best candidate. Paulose is indeed a very smart, well educated and, for her age, accomplished person--one of many in the country. She did not, however, come to the Minn AG post by a merit-based selection process--she was picked from a pool of strongly ideological candidates by the white house. If she had gotten a degree from a less prestigious institution she might have been put in the humble post of officially selecting all political appointees (other than the US attys) but unofficially drawing up a hit list of US attorneys to be removed.

how many of the new appointees were atheistic, libertarian or democrat-registered? Surely there are just as many equally qualified candidates fitting those demographics--Paulose was chosen because had the right background, gave the correct answers and seemed to be someone who would enforce the Bush-prioritized list of crimes to prosecute.

I see nothing of your scenario in her situation. Those directly below here were right to fear change as it would be coming from someone who had prosecuted, up to that point, no cases of note.

so many typos today. i need coffee.

I'm really getting tired of all these Desi NeoCons. Can we ship them all somewhere??

I don't think this is uncalled for, it's hyperbole, however, it contains with it an underlying truth. it seems like the ultimate parastic relationship. Indian Neo-cons get promoted to high gov positions, a corrupt and pandering gov gets minority window dressing to "show" they're not racist.

I'm really getting tired of all these Desis. Can we ship them all somewhere??

Not a parallel, this is a statement on essence of being, not behavior. If the Neo-cons don't want to be castigated for their behavior, rather, a choice in behavior, so they're free to stop being neo-cons.

whatever you say, the bush regime does have a penchant for selecting and promoting extremely reactionary minorities (per capita the administration probably contains one of the largest proportions of reactionary african americans, asian americans, latinos, and indian-americans of any administration in history).

HMF, if you want a partisan blog, go to Kos. This is a blog about the diaspora, not one party/ideology.

Believe it or not, there are people who read SM, who aren't progressive! They deserve the same respect we show everyone else. Now get back on topic, please.

My comment is a bit OT and more relevant for a journalism blog, but I'd like to point out that Eric Black is a former Star Tribune reporter. Black was one of the fine journalists that took the company buy-out after the Star Tribune was sold to an investment group that decided it needed to save money by cutting the news force. Many of these journalists took amazing institutional knowledge like contacts and sources and history with them--and went on to form their own ventures.

I think it has got to be a bit embarassing for the Star Tribune to print an AP story that sources a former reporter's BLOG as their source. (this morning, actually, they have another investigative reporter writing the story, still sourcing Black.)

I just thought this was of note, if nothing else then to prove the validity of the blog, which surely holds the same journalism ethics Black would've had had he been reporting this for the Strib. Changing face of not only the blogosphere, but journalism as well...indeed.

"When you sit in that black chair eating non-fat yogurt when you should be working as hard as a four-legged ass it makes me think you are a bit lazy."

Scene in Blackadder II:

Melchett: What say you, Blackadder, I sing a song to keep our spirits up? Edmund: That all depends on whether you want the slop-bucket over your head or not. Melchett: Well, perhaps some pleasant word game. Edmund: Yes, alright. Make a sentence out of the following words: face, sodding, your, shut.

If the only criterion is that the sentence should not be racist, I submit this:

"Get your fat, lazy ass out of that black chair and do some work!"

Unless someone accuses me of racism towards the chair. ("Why was it necessary to mention the chair's color? What are you implying here?").

In that case I submit this:

"Get your fat, lazy ass out of that chair and do some work or else I will beat you up black and blue!"

Considering the indian community seems to have much less than 6 Degrees of Separation, do any of the readers here have any insight into this lady?

Note: Please don't feed the trolls. Requests for celebrities' contact info or homework assistance; racist, abusive, illiterate, content-free or commercial comments; personal, non-issue-focused flames; intolerant or anti-secular comments; and long, obscure rants may be deleted. Unless they’re funny. It’s all good then.

Anyone else want to speculate about Paulose's sexuality and how she may have used it? I'll ban and delete you, too.

May I remind you that Rachel Paulose's friends and family might read this? That some of you may be her friends or family and rude comments affect more than this distant object of your hate? You don't have to admire her, emulate her or praise her, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to abuse her.

My comment was part hyperbole, but also true. Why is it that some of the worst republicans and neocons are desi (Dinesh, Ramesh, Bobby, Rachel...?)

How any desi can be a republican is beyond me. Look at all the damage caused by this administration over the past 7 years: an illegal invasion resulting in almost 1 million deaths, near-collapse of the economy, the destruction of an American city, the stripping away of our civil liberties and Constitution and so on....These policies affect all of us, desi/non-desi, neocon, liberal etc...

"clarence Thomas is not a 'fat, lazy, black man controlled by scalia.' Racism is not tolerated by this administration. Get your ass outa here."

Statement (A)

For example, I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize a subordinate like this:

Statement (B)

Can anyone else come up with a possible non-controversial sentence that Paulose might have uttered using those four words?

I'm a bit mystified by the purpose of this post, Abhi. Is (A) meant to suggest that you're privy to the transcript of the OSC interviews, and that the interviewee accusing Paulose is overreacting to a mild rebuke that just happened to contain the words "black", "fat", "ass" and "lazy" ? Or do you just want us to sit back, play a parlour game (Statement (B)) and enjoy ourselves ?

Since your post isn't filed under humour -- and the issue is a serious one -- I'm frankly mystified (and this isn't a snark). Am I missing something ?

Why is it that some of the worst republicans and neocons are desi (Dinesh, Ramesh, Bobby, Rachel...?)

I dislike most of those people especially Dinesh. But I don't think Ramesh and Bobby are among the worst. Ramesh Ponnuru came up with a hideous title for his book, but he has definitely had moments of reasonableness on National Review compared to white right wingers. Bobby Jindal - while his personality rubs me the wrong way , seems like he is one of the better Republicans in Louisiana. Dinesh - well, OK You got me with that one.
Rachel - I do not know enough about her to comment, though I have my own assumptions which are not very complimentary of her.

Why is it that some of the worst republicans and neocons are desi

we are over-achievers

Putting a 33 year old in charge of any U.S. Attny's office was a terrible idea. It didn't matter how smart she was or from what political party she came. The problem was that she had less than 10 years of experience as a lawyer, and being a U.S. Attny - even in the District of Minn. - requires a great deal more experience (both legal and in life generally) than 10 years. This reminds me of the 24 year old that was sent to open the Iraqi stock market. That went well.

I agree. The Bushies have hired a lot of unqualified people based on ideology. When I say unqualified, I do not mean dumb. They sent a lot of unqualified people to Iraq in areas where they had no experience in, but they met the ideology test. Same with Michael Brown. The blonde lady who worked with Gonzales(Forget her name) and who had to testify on the US Attorney firings was not the most qualified either. And on Maher's show, he cited some stats regarding the number of people hired by the government from Pat Robertson's law university which is definitely not among the top half of law universities.

Rachel probably has the academic qualifications- which is a step above many other Bush era appointees. But does she have the experience and mentality for that position? That's the question. I do not have the answer. Keep in mind that despite the CEO of Pepsi being an Indian lady, I have seen a lack of respect for Indian women in the workplace when it comes to being led by them. But that is based on anecdotes I am familiar with - not some hard study.

I'm really getting tired of all these Desi NeoCons

You know, that term gets thrown around a lot -- I'm not sure most of the throwers know what it means. Whataver I've read about Paulose makes it sound like she's extremely partisan, and descriptions of her management style seem in keeping with other Republican political appointees I'm aware of, but I've never heard anything that suggests she's a "neocon."

filmnyc@28
In the beginning, the war had plenty of cheerleaders on all sides. Let’s never forget that.

Thank you, DTK and Shodansan.

In the beginning, the war had plenty of cheerleaders on all sides. Let’s never forget that.

Very true. Except, of course, Obama!

i wish i had the moral clarity of all those to whom it seems perfectly obvious that the best of all possible worlds was to sit back while the tyrant saddam was in power. i am far-left/liberal (i hate the term progressive, for the condescension implies about people who are not in that camp). it seems to me that there was a good reason for the war (even if it wasn't the reason the administration went to war) and that can be separated from the actual way the war was conducted (which was obviously incompetent and callous). this opinion does not have anything to do with what i think of specific candidates who voted for the war (most, if not all, of them probably did it because they were afraid to do otherwise),

and now! all those people who are so easily able to say that the best thing for the us is to walk away, where the only calculus seems to be american lives/american taxpayer money (it seems illogical to me that tough love = americans leave the broken iraqis to fend for themselves is the best possible solution). the whole thing boggles my mind.

Well i'm guessing you're being self-referential and I'll also assume that you came up in at least a somewhat merit-based system where quantitative analysis proved you to be the best candidate.

Not a 'quantitative analysis', but sure, some 'objective' measure. But all these things are more gut level, so don't kid yourself, and indeed, putting someone in charge of other people should never be solely a 'merit' decision.

"I think you're the right person for this and will support you no matter what (up to a point)" from your boss (and theirs) is necessary for you to be effective. You don't get into positions where others report to you unless this is true anyway, and nobody should accept such a job unless they themselves see that it is there. So just on appearances, this is something that can be seen as 'political'. And there will always be someone, even more when you're brown, or different in some way (and single!) - whether they report to you or not, who will scrutinize everything you do, and everything you say, and how you say it, and even what you don't say. They'll read your simple request e.g. "Give me your best estimate of how long you think this will take to get done?" as "this person is a slave driver!" etc. Most of this is par for the course, and your boss will understand, of course, up to a point. That's what being a boss sometimes means, unfortunately. All these things get magnified if by any chance you get nominated as the 'change agent' and are expected to 'do some housecleaning'. :) :(

This is not a direct reference to the Rachel Paulose case, which has many more explicitly political angles. Just saying, based on my own experience...

filmnyc

How any desi can be a republican is beyond me. Look at all the damage caused by this administration over the past 7 years: an illegal invasion resulting in almost 1 million deaths, near-collapse of the economy, the destruction of an American city, the stripping away of our civil liberties and Constitution and so on....These policies affect all of us, desi/non-desi, neocon, liberal etc...

whoa! i am not umreeki, but that's pretty wild-ass. here's a speech to ponder, from 09-2002.

since y'all are so busy - let me just pull out the juicy bits.

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

i wish i had the moral clarity of all those to whom it seems perfectly obvious that the best of all possible worlds was to sit back while the tyrant saddam was in power. i am far-left/liberal (i hate the term progressive, for the condescension implies about people who are not in that camp). it seems to me that there was a good reason for the war (even if it wasn't the reason the administration went to war) and that can be separated from the actual way the war was conducted (which was obviously incompetent and callous). this opinion does not have anything to do with what i think of specific candidates who voted for the war (most, if not all, of them probably did it because they were afraid to do otherwise),

and now! all those people who are so easily able to say that the best thing for the us is to walk away, where the only calculus seems to be american lives/american taxpayer money (it seems illogical to me that tough love = americans leave the broken iraqis to fend for themselves is the best possible solution). the whole thing boggles my mind.

what the hell does that have to do with Rachel Paulose? Boggle your mind away on KOS!!!!

what the hell does that have to do with Rachel Paulose? Boggle your mind away on KOS!!!!

Do I need to expand on what "the Kos comment" meant?

It meant, this is not a partisan blog. Nothing more.

it has nothing to do with paulose. i was responding directly to comment number 38.

paulose seems to be a case of a super-religious partisan being appointed to a post, analogous to goodling. at least, that's the prior bias i have based on what i have heard. she's certainly not a neocon.

dravidian lurker, you were not out of order or THAT off topic.

I know I'm not the only one that reads this blog & knows Rachel...

We aren't particularly close, but I've known their family for many years. I'm not familiar with how she is in the work setting, but I do know, personally, they are a wonderful family. Say what you will about her political or religious beliefs, but they were there for me family at a trying time in our life and I will be forever grateful to them.

From what I've observed of her, she's very self aware. I don't think she would make a mis-step as to make racist comments about a co-worker or subordinate. That's all I will say.

"Do you think that wearing black makes me look less fat?I have been lazy and fear it shows in an increase in the size of my ass"

Note: I don't know about Rachel but I say the above to my husband very often :-)

To me, while this highlights an issue with the current government's poor ability to appoint qualifed personnel, it's a larger issue of poltical cronyism in general and is not segregated to the Republican party either. Both political parties have their 'club'. This is what happens when one party (either Democrat or Republican) controls the legislative and executive branches. It has happened to the Democratic party as well as Republican party (national, state, and city governments). Atleast when competing parties are in Congress and the Presidency, they act as filters to the more extreme cases.

As a good friend of mine once said, members of both party seem to forget about the nuts/bolts type stuff that they were elected for, which can be described in two words - good governance.

Edit to add:

Bureaucracies are also very underhanded in how they like to fight off political appointees if it changes the status quo. Obviously the Jury is still out on this case and we, here, at the end of the information loop have limited visibility. However, from experience in gubment employee world, I wouldn't underestimate subordinates either. Many agencies in government tend to be a dog eat dog world.

Can anyone else come up with a possible non-controversial sentence that Paulose might have uttered using those four words?

My lazy-ass black poodle is getting fat!

To me, while this highlights an issue with the current government's poor ability to appoint qualifed personnel, it's a larger issue of poltical cronyism in general and is not segregated to the Republican party either. Both political parties have their 'club'. This is what happens when one party (either Democrat or Republican) controls the legislative and executive branches. It has happened to the Democratic party as well as Republican party (national, state, and city governments). Atleast when competing parties are in Congress and the Presidency, they act as filters to the more extreme cases.

This was true about 20 years ago, it's not today. Recently there was an excerpt from John Dean's book, "Broken Government" in a Salon article which summed it up nicely.

"Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties; that is not longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."

My lazy-ass black poodle is getting fat!

that is excellent. its saying something that would be offensive, but a dog cant get offended, so its not offensive!

this reminds me of conan o'brians statement about how you can technically not say anything offensive, and still get your *ss k!cked. stand on a street corner in harlem and start chanting (in a mocking voice) "BLACKS AND JEWS! BLACKS AND JEWS!"

[redacted] as someone who runs his own group blog, I understand where SMIntern is coming from. All the Intern was trying to do was to get things back on track and keep things on topic. Moderating is a PITA and I do not think I have seen the Intern chime in on topics, ever.

Let us cut the intern a break [redacted]. Let's stop nit-picking on the metaphors and give credit to the intern for keeping things civil for everyone. Be it black or fat or an ass.

Do these BLACK pants make my FAT ASS look thinner? I'm too LAZY to go check the full-length mirror.

(Sentence one uttered by half the females in the U.S. at some point in their lives)

This was true about 20 years ago, it's not today. Recently there was an excerpt from John Dean's book, "Broken Government" in a Salon article which summed it up nicely.

I disagree. Republicans are the flavor of the month. The city of Chicago is well known for Democratic party cronyism, California has issues with similar problems, New England has had similar governance issues (Boston's Big dig) with the Democratic party involved, etc. I don't think either party really cares, if they did, governance would be better particularly with budgets/funding (pork). The democratic party isn't an innocent bystander.

To say it was TRUE 20 years go and now it is FALSE is not correct. We're taking shades of gray here. Plus, cronyism only gets highlighted when the crony drops the ball or ruffles feathers. If the status quo remains (which still may be shit), you're not called out.

Paulose allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass.”

It is possible that this was another version of the "niggardly dud-bomb"

Paulose allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass…”

what could be the reason for not divulging the actual sentance?

In the beginning, the war had plenty of cheerleaders on all sides. Let’s never forget that.

Back to Poulouse. I don't think any of us can just assume she is a neocon just because she may be a partisan Republican.

once again, let's try to bring it back to Rachel. Does anyone know of her background and character related to her job in more detail than what we saw here? Both parties are guilty of cronyism. But the Bushies have taken it to a new level. They are not content with mere Republican friends, but they need to meet ideological tests. Just look at Iraq. Goodling was part of that group. I do not know if Rachel is or not? Maybe she is just a partisan Republican who was in the right place and right time? My instinct is she could be one of those ideologues too, but i have no proof.

*Paulose committed large and small acts of retaliation against others in the office whom she accused of disloyalty to her. In one instance, after changing the job assignment of one employee, Paulose allegedly said that she would make the woman so miserable that she would want to quit. In some instances, Paulose allegedly ordered those in charge of performing job evaluations to downgrade the reviews of those she considered disloyal, or turned down requests that they be allowed to perform work outside the office.

Once upon a time, when I was but a lowly intern, I saw plenty of this shit. On both sides of the aisle. Republicans don't have a monopoly on pettiness and Bush didn't invent reward/retribution. Rove's purge itself was outrageous, but let's not pretend that a lot of what is quoted above is somehow new. What is new is the scale of it all, in my opinion. Can't say dubya didn't think big, when it came to perverting, abusing and destroying things.

How any desi can be a republican is beyond me.

I have relatives who voted for Bush. Why? Because they're fu*kin' RICH man. They want tax cuts.

I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that brown + Republican makes no sense. It does. People are multi-faceted. Like Rachel Paulose.

Why? Because they're fu*kin' RICH man. They want tax cuts.

most very rich people i know are limosine liberal types. think "im rich enough not to give a $hit about taxes, and worry about social good and all that". i think a lot of bush's support came from poor people voting on "values".

I disagree. Republicans are the flavor of the month. The city of Chicago is well known for Democratic party cronyism, California has issues with similar problems, New England has had similar governance issues (Boston's Big dig) with the Democratic party involved, etc. I don't think either party really cares, if they did, governance would be better particularly with budgets/funding (pork). The democratic party isn't an innocent bystander.

To say it was TRUE 20 years go and now it is FALSE is not correct. We're taking shades of gray here. Plus, cronyism only gets highlighted when the crony drops the ball or ruffles feathers. If the status quo remains (which still may be shit), you're not called out.

Cronyism has and *is* practiced by both parties. What has occurred over the past 7 years is a quantum leap over that level or era of party favors.

This administration's real goal was privatizing the Federal Government for profit.

most very rich people i know are limosine liberal types. think "im rich enough not to give a $hit about taxes, and worry about social good and all that". i think a lot of bush's support came from poor people voting on "values".

these particular relatives live in Bush's home state and are, um... openly not that caring about the rest of society. I think it depends on geography and other factors too.

What is new is the scale of it all, in my opinion. Can't say dubya didn't think big, when it came to perverting, abusing and destroying things.

On a Federal level in recent times, you're probably right. IMHO, it has to do with how long he had a Republican Congress that toed his line. Dems lost their majority in Congress soon after Clinton took office. Bush walked into a very comfortable situation, while not being agressively challenged by his own party. Absolute power absolutely corrupts. Six years is a luxury many in power didn't have.

most very rich people i know are limosine liberal types.

and most very rich people i know are in the GOP. it takes all kinds. values voters, texans, cuban-americans, evangelicals, freaked-out soccer/security moms...there are even gay republicans.

and most very rich people i know are in the GOP. it takes all kinds. values voters, texans, cuban-americans, evangelicals, freaked-out soccer/security moms...there are even gay republicans.

yeah, both parties are wierd path dependant amalgamations of odd bedfellows.

i think i know what rachel said last summer. it was, "malcolm x wasn't chosen because he wasn't fat or lazy, you ass, it is because he didn't look black."

yeah, both parties are wierd path dependant amalgamations of odd bedfellows.

But I suppose that's inevitable if you only have two parties, right?

and most very rich people i know are in the GOP. it takes all kinds. values voters, texans, cuban-americans, evangelicals, freaked-out soccer/security moms

The GOP seems to have two camps: one being those who are in it for ideological reasons (security, America.. F*** yeah! type people) and those who are in it for tax bracket type reasons. If you're a rich motherf*cker, now's a good time to be in the GOP, because you get tax cuts up your ass.

How any desi can be a republican is beyond me

My mom voted for Bush (politics usually end up in heated debates between me and my mom). But surprisingly, she also appreciated the directness of Howard Dean who I supported in 2004. I think older people just vote for who they are comfortable with and seem more direct. Democrats need to learn to keep it simple. I like Ron Paul even if I do not agree with him on abortion. I feel bad when he tries to explain his points because the press does not have the patience to parse out what he really is trying to get at and we end up with Guiliani doing a gotcha on Paul.

I know a few good people who voted for Bush(and some of them were Indian). I would also not equate the Bushies and Cheneys with most republicans even if they have a very sizable following(especially Cheney). They just take partisanship and ideological exclusiveness to such a high level that even Reagan and Bush Sr would be uncomfortable with. I dont think people who now dont like Bush didn't expect that from self proclaimed moderate Bush in 2000. Hell, I used to think Cheney was a relatively mature guy in the early 90s.

I have a couple of very self centered lazy cousins who have worked in the DEmocratic party at a national level. One of them was really snobbish as hell to her Indian relatives(so much for Democratic values of inclusiveness). She seemed clueless on the level of effort it was going to take to mobilise voters to compete with Rove's machine. Democrats liked to blame Nader, but what lost them 2000 was not Nader but the lack of sufficient turnout from the Dem base. Nader is entitled to whoever felt like voting for him. But a lot of Dems were like my cousin - prone to relying on lazy ass consultants who collected a paycheck for useless advice. Within party politics, I noticed a more sincere dedication to work among Republicans. My mom is very hard working and sincere and treats people fairly, unlike my cousin, and she is a registered Republican(though I think the Cheney years have finally sunk into her, and she is on a any Democrat but Hillary mood. She actually didn't mind Bill) . So sometimes we cannot make a correlation.

But I suppose that's inevitable if you only have two parties, right?

"whoever stole my bottle of johnny walker black while i was in madrass is as corrupt as arafat or Buthelazy"

i think i know what rachel said last summer. it was, "malcolm x wasn't chosen because he wasn't fat or lazy, you ass, it is because he didn't look black."

That is funny. A certain someone should take notes.

In the beginning, the war had plenty of cheerleaders on all sides. Let’s never forget that.

True, except for Dennis Kucinich. And possibly Mike Gravel and Russ Feingold. (too lazy to google)

i think i know what rachel said last summer. it was, "malcolm x wasn't chosen because he wasn't fat or lazy, you ass, it is because he didn't look black."

that explains it all. it was HMF who was fired.

but what lost them 2000 was not Nader but the lack of sufficient turnout from the Dem base.

I think diebold had something to do with it as well.

Democrats liked to blame Nader, but what lost them 2000 was not Nader but the lack of sufficient turnout from the Dem base. Nader is entitled to whoever felt like voting for him.

Thank you! I agree wholeheartedly.

True, except for Dennis Kucinich. And possibly Mike Gravel and Russ Feingold. (too lazy to google)

Just because you're too lazy to google, I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Though some have mistakenly said he is not "black enough," Obama has been right about the war all along. (BTW, I think Gravel is fat and, besides, he is getting his ass kicked in the primaries.)

Two major parties. :)

Yes indeedy. I'm registered as a Green myself. By the way, that's a really entertaining rundown of the various third parties!

Believe it or not, there are people who read SM, who aren't progressive! They deserve the same respect we show everyone else. Now get back on topic, please.

I wonder if there are any hardcore Paleo/Cultural conservatives here. Maybe they read but they certainly don't comment. Most of the conservatives here are the libertarian types.

I wonder if there are any hardcore Paleo/Cultural conservatives here. Maybe they read but they certainly don't comment.

Correct.

anna, feel free to delete [redacted].

(as an aside, and not for this thread, i am very interested in the question of where force is considered justified by people who oppose the iraq war so vehemently. congo? rwanda? darfur? n. korea? bosnia?)

Democrats liked to blame Nader, but what lost them 2000 was not Nader but the lack of sufficient turnout from the Dem base. Nader is entitled to whoever felt like voting for him.

You can tell it's close to election time when Nader starts to get negative press, and the canard "Nader cost Gore" appears with increasing frequency in reports of (Democratic) presidential candidates and their campaigns. :) :)

Who really spolied?

Methinks, if Bubba had remained zipped up, or if Gore had won his home state Tennessee, he would have ended up in the WH in 2K+1. You do the math as to who spoiled.

Just because you're too lazy to google, I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

DTK, no question about it re: Obama. I was adding more people who were against the war (in addition to Obama) which has nothing to do with how one's doing in the primaries (separate issue). And, if one's winning potential is the only criteria, then people who voted for any of the losing Democratic candidates during Bush Sr. (first time) and Reagan probably wasted their votes. Presidential election is not a horse race, though that's what it has been reduced to.

#87 -- in case it wasn't clear, my comments about Gravel were throw ins just to make the comment work in the game people have been playing in this thread (using the four words Paulose used); I wasn't being serious. I disagree with you somewhat re: Nader, and your comment re: winning potential and the losing Dem candidates in the 80s, but that's a more involved discussion about our system of democracy that I don't have time for right now.

DTK, gotcha! It'll be pretty hard to convince me that Nader was to blame for Gore's defeat as I don't buy into the two-party system. So, we're simply viewing it from different places. Another discussion, another time. :)

OK, simple, probably stupid question here...but sincere...how do you people make yourselves interested in politics, and in the political process? I know that politics ties in with governance, foreign policy, the economy, social issues, and all sorts of very important issues that affect us all in very direct ways..and that should probably be the answer to my question, right? But I just can't get myself to care. If I vote in the upcoming election, it will be the first time in my life. I do have a dislike for Bush based on the stupidity of the Iraq mess, but beyond that I simply can not stand to read a political article or watch a political tv show or have a political discussion. In fact I barely skim most SM threads that deal with politics, and all the labels ("hardcore Paleo/Cultural conservatives") just leave me cold . Some of you are so passionate about this stuff. Anyone care to explain?

Amitabh, I hear this a lot. I think that a lot of people equate 'politics' with 'assholes in suits in Washington' and are understandably turned off. Beyond that, even, if you're one of the people being affected directly in a negative way (and most of us are) it's so disheartening that it's easy to want nothing to do with it. It seems to me like a completely valid reaction to the loads of lies and BS that are thrown at us every day, by liberals and conservatives and the media. For me the key to breaking out of that was getting involved in grassroots organizing, and realizing that you don't have to be a politician to be political. But there's still plenty of reading between the lines and shouting back at the TV involved...

90 · Amitabh

Political apathy is rational, but I guess I have a taste for it--kind of like a color or food preference. I find it more interesting to watch than most elements of pop culture.

For me, it started as a kid when I was part of a second grade project to put a picture of all the Presidents of the US on the wall. The students in my class took turns putting one up every day. THen I remember watching the Ford-Carter election coverage on the news and being fascinated even though I was too young to know the complexities of the election. I actually rooted for a Republican because he happened to be the President. Later on in life, I went to India. My grandpa was a freedom fighter, but never sought major office even if he had the connections in his hometown to do so. But I heard all the stories and became interested in Indian politics too. I got sick during middle school for a month and spent it reading most of the Encylopaedia Brittanica covering every single US President and other stuff. I used to enjoy talking to adults about politics even when I was in middle school. It helped that my cousins were all politically aware at a young age too. Reading about the Underground Railroad and Martin Luther King really got me interested in racial injustice. And then, one thing they do cover in India a lot in those days was the injustice in South Africa.

I got back and I think living in both places has given me a balanced picture of the world. I think leaders take advantage of the fact that politics turns a lot of people off. It gives them more leeway to get away with crap.

Politics is great drama. It shows you how absolute power corrupts regardless of ideology. It's fascinating and frustrating to see how people with good intentions get into politics and are unable to defeat either the inertia or corruption that exists.

I am not really as jaded as my last sentence implies.

maybe she was doing an ashcroft and singing to be fat, lazy and black, that's where it's ass.

how do you people make yourselves interested in politics, and in the political process?

*For the Ontarians in the mix, we may be revolutionizing government with the upcoming referandum**. I had a scintillating (yes!) conversation with the electoral officer the other day. It really makes the sky bluer, the grass greener, in control of one's destiny.

**This may remedy the disenfranchisement of the few who feel their votes are inconsequential.

For ontarians - here's something to chew on. btw - the first person to speak on the interactive video is desi - sounds like Canada. ;-)

Long live Kos.

Long live Kos.

Agreed. Over there.

so what anna feels about kos and conservatives is: we are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here :)

Amitabh, my interest into politics was through my passion for food. Many years ago (early 1990s I think), Congress tried to pass a bill to lower the standards of organic food to include sewage as fertilizer (Toxic Sludge is Good For You), which thankfully, failed. So, that was my starting point and since then, I've kept myself aware of what's happening at the national as well as state/local level. Actually, I'm more interested in activities at the local and state level because it does tend to have a greater impact on my day-to-day life. Being active and involved with the local groups in the area helps. Lucky to live in Jamaica Plain which is a thriving community of activists who care about myriad issues. I keep an eye on the voting records of Senators and Congressmen who represent me, and send emails to them on issues that affect me. Of course, it's not possible to evaluate what outcome my actions have had, but I do what I can given the time I have without going crazy about it.

so what anna feels about kos and conservatives is: we are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here :)

SCORE. I was hoping one of you would hit that one out of the park, in under two hours. I love how I can count on all of you. ;)

so what anna feels about kos and conservatives is: we are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here :)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love it.

On Paulose, and the main thrusts of this thread (if not the actual post):

Paulose is no doubt smart, but as others have pointed out, she holds office thanks to her ideology, not her brains. And she's already made a few blunders, not the least of which was her grodily self-congratulatory welcome-to-office party. We've all heard about her three staffers who resigned (have you ever seen a government employee willingly take a demotion? Freakin' WEIRD, man), and they have their allegations about her Bible-quotin' Alberto-Gonzales-loves-us ways, too. Odd, possibly illegal in a civil servant job (you'd think a Yale Law student would maybe get that) but not really hate-worthy.

My problems with Ms. Paulose don't stem from the fact that she's a Republican, either. We NEED Republicans in the government, just like we need Democrats. No, my issues are much more about her bizarre ideology, and that she holds office and affects national politics thanks to that ideology, which is an outcome of this administration's perverse insistence on loyalty above all other considerations.*

Does anyone else think that politics in this country has become far too polarized to work well anymore? Forget for the moment the whole cynical dimissal of everyone in politics as corrupted by their love of power, which I definitely disagree with. I mean, it says something that a sitting President has to indoctrinate his staff, or at least surround himself with yes-people, like this.

This country's swinging further to the right, and the to the left again, and I can't help but feel like these "natural" political oscillations are getting amplified. And something's going to give soon. Watergate was almost a dampening effect, in a certain sense, but now here we go again.

Wheee!

*As evidence, I offer Susan Powers refusing to answer questions before the House because "she took an oath to the President," only to have Leahy set her straight that her oath was to uphold the Constitution...AND NO ONE THOUGHT THIS WAS REMOTELY WEIRD. WTF?

pravin

I'm a big fan of Ron Paul too despite not agreeing with his politics. My favorite story about him is how he votes AGAINST everyone (including Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa) for a medal of honor. He proposed that all member of congress pay for it by chipping in $100 each. It never works...

"It's easier to be generous with other people's money." -Ron Paul
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul

Sorry, Susan TAYLOR. It's late.

I thought this post was to be about Ms.Paulose and not about if desi can be a republican.

The funny thing is this website and many of the other posters here have played a part in me moving from the left of center to the right of center when it comes to my political views, but I'm more of Libertarian then conservative.

This may be off topic, but on the sepia mutiny facebook site, I think I'm the only one that let everybody know who I am.

107 · Clueless on September 20, 2007

The funny thing is this website and many of the other posters here have played a part in me moving from the left of center to the right of center when it comes to my political views, but I'm more of Libertarian then conservative.

Woot, woot! Welcome to the club!

which shows why we uncles want our kids to be doctors. cuz the alternative is to be wingnuts like jindal or paulose.

Honestly, many ordinary people use those ordinary words (fat, black etc.) in everyday speech. Since this issue involves a politician, someone (or some people) probably wants to mess with her reputation, etc.

However there is one issue that is baffling me. (If someone can give a reasonable answer, it will be appreciated!) Why did she mention her grandparents had to flee Kerala in the 1960's from communism? (According to this link at http://www.sajaforum.org/2007/04/law_rachel_paul.html she this in a speech.) Was or is Kerala really in such a dire situation? Of course, living under communist or facist rule is no picnic. How many people here or that you may know have escaped Kerala due to a political reason? Or did she say this to endear herself to the right wing and to be politically correct?

My own parents left India back in the mid 1950's for the US for better economic opportunities. (Of course, they left Bangalore behind so they did not escape any political situations. To this day, they will still visit India. They do worry about the air pollution from which everyone should have a chance to escape, but that's another story.....)

The funny thing is this website and many of the other posters here have played a part in me moving from the left of center to the right of center when it comes to my political views...

Woot, woot! Welcome to the club!

What's that phrase? "Good riddance to bad.."

;)

I held back a little until now in judging her. But reading that SAJA link, she pretty much sounds like a right wing nut, not the reasonable conservative which tend to come to this blog. Her grandparent fled Kerala due to communism????? What the hell? Either her grandparents lied to her(Which I highly doubt) or she knew she could use the facts to misrepresent her past or she is an ignorant twit. Kerala had a communist government but they still abided by the constitution over there. It was pretty much like the socialist parties you see in Europe. Like them or not, they did not use persecution tactics they used in Russia and other communist countries. If anything, communist parties in India are not hostile to Christianity at all. And then she makes a reference to how her grandmother held the bible like she is holding it(not that there is anything wrong in the act, but the opportunistic reference of hers makes me extrapolate). So we got an opportunistic liar and a bible thumper. Great.

And the people who resigned - they are probably republican, right? Makes me wonder if her driven personality makes her not so much of a people person(unless she kisses ass to the person in power).

Honestly, many ordinary people use those ordinary words (fat, black etc.) in everyday speech. Since this issue involves a politician, someone (or some people) probably wants to mess with her reputation, etc.

considering the fact that her actual sentence has mysteriously been withheld and the prevalence of racial mccarthyism is our culture, ie false charges of racism for personal/political gain, there's reason to be skeptical.

However there is one issue that is baffling me. (If someone can give a reasonable answer, it will be appreciated!) Why did she mention her grandparents had to flee Kerala in the 1960's from communism? (According to this link at http://www.sajaforum.org/2007/04/law_rachel_paul.html she this in a speech.) Was or is Kerala really in such a dire situation? Of course, living under communist or facist rule is no picnic. How many people here or that you may know have escaped Kerala due to a political reason? Or did she say this to endear herself to the right wing and to be politically correct

i'm sure it was no picnic either, after all the commies opened fire on students and protesters, but i'm also sure the amount of people who fled kerala b/c of the commies is about the same as those who fled the US b/c of racism. call this a form of regular mccarthyism.

i'm sure it was no picnic either, after all the commies opened fire on students and protesters, but i'm also sure the amount of people who fled kerala b/c of the commies is about the same as those who fled the US b/c of racism. call this a form of regular mccarthyism.

If it was, it had nothing to do with the party being communist. The Communist parties in india used to shamelessly idolise Commie leaders from China and Russia and like to trot out anti capitalistic slogans. But they were limited in what they could do bec