Okay, to respond to a few of the arguments I've seen.

-(The FCC thing) The irony of that solution is that Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to the FCC, it is federal regulation therefore = bad.

-(Ron the anti-rich) I have no idea where people are getting the idea that Ron Paul is against the rich/or pro-poor. His policies would be extremely beneficial to the rich as far as I can see. Someone please explain how Ron Paul would less the rift between the rich and the poor instead of increasing it exponentially.

-(Civil Rights, States, and Ron Paul)I wouldn't go so far as to say most states are more progressive than the federal government. Again I think this is an issue on where you live. I firmly believe if not for federal intervention many a large portion of the south would still be working under the old Jim Crow system. People down here are still mad about the Supreme Court rulings on desegregation. (assuming he got his way) Ron Paul only thinks the federal government can prosecute matters of treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. This means the federal courts would not be there when civil liberties are trampled on. Maybe in the blue states things like affirmative action seem unfair, in most of the south it's a necessary evil. I'm not saying things haven't changed, the racism isn't overt at all (well in some places it is) but there seems to be an attitude among a large enough percentage of the population that African Americans, (and other minorities) are lesser as a people. And here is my point, Ron Paul's policies would be disastrous to minority populations living in those states, and there wouldn't be anything the federal government could do about it.

The man who broke this whole story was Greg Palast, the narrator and the man in the suit in this video. He writes for a British newspaper - The Guardian. His original article about this can be found at http://www.gregpalast.com/jim-crow-revived-in-cyberspacernby-greg-palast-martin-luther-king-iii/
If you're hunting for sources, you'll have to check out the book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" - as they're all cited there and I'm not gonna type 'em out. heh.

If anyone is interested there is a great book called "America's Kingdom: Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier" by Robert Vitalis - recently published by Stanford University Press.

"America’s Kingdom debunks the many myths that now surround the United States’s “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia, or what is less reverently known as "the deal": oil for security. Taking aim at the long-held belief that the Arabian American Oil Company, ARAMCO, made miracles happen in the desert, Robert Vitalis shows that nothing could be further from the truth. What is true is that oil led the U.S. government to follow the company to the kingdom. Eisenhower agreed to train Ibn Sa’ud’s army, Kennedy sent jets to defend the kingdom, and Lyndon Johnson sold it missiles. Oil and ARAMCO quickly became America’s largest single overseas private enterprise.

Beginning with the establishment of a Jim Crow system in the Dhahran oil camps in the 1930s, the book goes on to examine the period of unrest in the 1950s and 1960s when workers challenged the racial hierarchy of the ARAMCO camps while a small cadre of progressive Saudis challenged the hierarchy of the international oil market. The defeat of these groups led to the consolidation of America’s Kingdom under the House of Fahd, the royal faction that still rules today.

This is a gripping story that covers more than seventy years, three continents, and an engrossing cast of characters. Informed by first hand accounts from ARAMCO employees and top U.S. government officials, this book offers the true story of the events on the Saudi oil fields. After America’s Kingdom, mythmakers will have to work harder on their tales about ARAMCO being magical, honorable, selfless, and enlightened."


The book is really very good and it offers a detailed survey of the origins of American imperialism in the Middle East. The book also challenges the prevailing idea that Wahhabi ideology alone is responsible for the wide-spread dislike of Americans in Saudi Arabia. Instead, the book identifies the racial discrimination which Saudis experienced in the Dhahran oil fields - including forced segregation - as a major factor in explaining Saudi attitudes towards Americans and other foreigners.

A related question is whether we allow the votes to take care of this kind of submission or allow gold stars to make the discard call. (Please don't ban anyone . . .you know who you are).

I would downvote this video precisely because the viewer is the only person providing the external context. If the viewer is already aware that cartoons like this one were a direct descendent of Jim Crow, lynchings, 'coon' films, Stepin Fetchit, and Sambo, then I suppose that you (as the well-informed viewer) can sidestep all of the race-baiting.

However, if a ten-year old or quantummushroom is watching this clip, it probably just seems like an awesome piece of truthful Spike & Mike. Shock for shock's sake. Ultimately, VS is a public site and not wholly our little salon (tho' ladybug is staying up nights to rectify that issue).

Historical mustiness does not alter the fact that something is appalling.