Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Obama = Wimp
Someone needs to say it. Obama is going to roll over for the Republicans every time. He's pretty much given up the public option because some idiots came out and called him Hitler. Obama cuts a stupid deal with Big Pharma and promises not to use the government to bargain to bring down prices. Looks like we will be in Afghanistan forever. Now Van Jones resigns because Glenn Beck talked about him. Pretty soon Obama won't even try to do anything for fear it might make FOX News sad. All this does is empower FOX News and give them more credibility. I'd really like to hear from these gas-huffers screaming about socialism and vague cries about "losing their freedom" to point out what Obama has actually accomplished. Honestly, where is the fire in this man we saw in the campaign? This has the most cowardly administration I've seen in my lifetime.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Healthcare Bill REQUIRES You To Buy Coverage or Pay a $1,000 Fine?
I have one concern about the bill; it REQUIRES you to buy coverage. This was one reason I liked Obama instead of Hillary, she was for requiring people to buy coverage, even docking their paycheck if they refuse to do so -- same as if they are paying child support. During the election Obama said he just wanted to require parents to cover their children. Now, I am sure most people want healthcare, but what if you don't? According to some stories I have read online you will be fined $1,000 for not purchasing healthcare. What if you don't have a job? How can someone pay $1,000 if they can't afford to buy healthcare in the first place? Forcing people to purchase healthcare and fining them is a terrible idea -- issues of personal freedom aside, this would be a GIFT to the health insurance companies if we don't have a extremely cheap public option included.
I don't consider myself much of a policy wonk, I am more fascinated with how people think politically...but the truth is I don't know a lot about this bill myself, and that's the problem for most people. Everyone wants reform, but even I, a person who consumes a lot of news, I don't have a clear idea of what this bill contains so I don't know if I want it to pass or not!
This appears to be the week that will decide whether a healthcare bill is passed, or at least the direction of it. The Republicans are united and channeling the spirit of Machiavelli a little more than usual when Jim DeMint of South Carolina says, "If we can stop him on this it will be his Waterloo...it will break him." Neo-Con Bill Kristol said this is the week to "go for the kill." This all started when we suddenly started to hear about how the healthcare bill was "on the ropes" -- suddenly it was in crisis. I remember hearing that and I wondered in the back of my mind if that was the set up for another part of the fight against it, and it was.
I don't consider myself much of a policy wonk, I am more fascinated with how people think politically...but the truth is I don't know a lot about this bill myself, and that's the problem for most people. Everyone wants reform, but even I, a person who consumes a lot of news, I don't have a clear idea of what this bill contains so I don't know if I want it to pass or not!
This appears to be the week that will decide whether a healthcare bill is passed, or at least the direction of it. The Republicans are united and channeling the spirit of Machiavelli a little more than usual when Jim DeMint of South Carolina says, "If we can stop him on this it will be his Waterloo...it will break him." Neo-Con Bill Kristol said this is the week to "go for the kill." This all started when we suddenly started to hear about how the healthcare bill was "on the ropes" -- suddenly it was in crisis. I remember hearing that and I wondered in the back of my mind if that was the set up for another part of the fight against it, and it was.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is Iran "Obama's Rwanda"? Should We Get "Involved"?
First, I want to qualify this entry with the following: I think it's terrible what's happening in Iran. If you haven't seen the video of young Neda literally dying on camera, blood gushing out of her mouth and nose, it is something that needs to be seen. That's what state terrorism looks like. And I like the internet as much as anyone else, but I think this "cyber revolution" is going to be brutally crushed by good old-fashioned government violence.
However, I have gradually become more and more concerned about the media coverage of Iran and the tone. It feels a little like they are pushing for some sort of intervention. I have heard the term "Obama's Rwanda" thrown around a time or two; implying that Clinton regrets not intervening there, Obama will regret not intervening here. They seem to be ramping up, there's a slight feeling here that some sort of military force could be employed. I don't like that, not in the least. As tragic as it is, we should be realistic about this and shouldn't get involved in other people's affairs -- I don't have the appetite for it and I don't think the American people do either. Why should we take that upon ourselves? Despite the protests, that country is fairly evenly split, any sort of intervention has the potential to do much more harm than good.
As for the Republicans here at home, they are just using this as a "political football" -- they don't give a goddamn about the Iranian protesters. They want to criticize Obama for anything they can, any time they can. And when all is said and done, I don’t know what good Obama’s words would do anyway. Finally, I find it odd that several neo-cons were hoping that Ahmadinejad would be re-elected and now seem to be advocating for some kind of intervention. But then those egg-head chicken hawks should be ridiculed, not quoted on television as if they had credibility.
However, I have gradually become more and more concerned about the media coverage of Iran and the tone. It feels a little like they are pushing for some sort of intervention. I have heard the term "Obama's Rwanda" thrown around a time or two; implying that Clinton regrets not intervening there, Obama will regret not intervening here. They seem to be ramping up, there's a slight feeling here that some sort of military force could be employed. I don't like that, not in the least. As tragic as it is, we should be realistic about this and shouldn't get involved in other people's affairs -- I don't have the appetite for it and I don't think the American people do either. Why should we take that upon ourselves? Despite the protests, that country is fairly evenly split, any sort of intervention has the potential to do much more harm than good.
As for the Republicans here at home, they are just using this as a "political football" -- they don't give a goddamn about the Iranian protesters. They want to criticize Obama for anything they can, any time they can. And when all is said and done, I don’t know what good Obama’s words would do anyway. Finally, I find it odd that several neo-cons were hoping that Ahmadinejad would be re-elected and now seem to be advocating for some kind of intervention. But then those egg-head chicken hawks should be ridiculed, not quoted on television as if they had credibility.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Remind Me: Why Did I Vote For Obama Again?
OK, I admit, the title of this blog is a little disingenuous; I don’t (yet) regret my vote for Obama. I like the man Obama. I think his concern for people is genuine. But something is going on; something feels very “amiss,” for lack of a better word.
First some relatively minor criticisms to get out of the way. The main reason I voted for Obama was McCain appeared all too eager to start another war. But Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and essentially keeping us in Iraq another two years isn’t change.[1] I believe he’s going to be bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Meanwhile we’re hemorrhaging, this isn’t the time for another adventure. As Mos Def said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” last week, “I don’t care about Bin Laden, how about we fix New Orleans?” On top of this, although he closed Gitmo, Obama is allowing the CIA to continue the policy of rendition; abducting people and taking them to foreign countries where they can be held and possibly tortured.[2] Obama has kept the PATRIOT Act.[3] The Obama administration has even “threatened to halt intelligence co-operation with Britain” if they allow evidence of torture committed under the Bush administration to become public there.[4] But no one in the media wants to talk about this, they would rather discuss Michelle Obama’s arms.
But these are mere disappointments compared to these huge bailouts and the way we are throwing money around. First, lets have no illusions, Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street-types and lobbyists, top to bottom. Take William Lynn, Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist. Obama made him Deputy Secretary of Defense.[5] As for Wall Street types, take Lawrence Summers and his “protégé” Timothy Geithner. Summers is a man who helped to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act which was put into place after the depression, which could have helped prevent the situation we find ourselves in today through stricter regulation.
There is a blatant double standard with how this money is being used. We are literally throwing money at the banks to the point that they are trying to give it back in some cases. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile the auto industry is asking for a mere pittance by comparison; $22B. And what are they told? They’re told that bankruptcy might be an option for them. The wizard behind the curtain tells them to go away and come back with another restructuring plan, and it better be suitable this time. And asking for concessions from the auto industry unions is common while they would have allowed $165B in bonus payouts for AIG if there hadn’t been outrage among the public.
And then Obama essentially “fires” the CEO of GM. Sure, maybe he deserved it, but it shows the different manner with which the auto industry and the banks and are being handled. Gloves off for one, kid gloves for the other. Remember the “outrage” at the CEO’s of the “Big Three” for arriving in Washington in private jets? I wonder how those bank CEO’s arrived at the White House for the cushy meeting they had with the President himself? I agree with the Republicans on this one, I don’t like the government “firing” a CEO at a private corporation, but if we are going to do it, fire some of these bankers as well. Or at least cap their pay, Obama has made it _appear_ that he’s done that, in fact what he has done in this regard is very weak.[6]
To the Republicans I say shut up about socialism. If this was socialism would do a better job of keeping up with where the money is going and how it’s being used. If this was socialism the Treasury Secretary wouldn’t give provisions allowing tax payers to give bonuses to employees at failed corporations. If this was socialism we would fire the people currently in place and take over the corporations for the benefit of everyone. What we are doing is giving money away to rich people who spent their days essentially making money out of thin air and taking stupid gambles.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me makes connections and sees this entire crisis as just “too convenient.” Here’s how it goes for the fun of it. First of all, we have learned that all of the “wealth” we thought we had in the Bush years was essentially based on inflated housing prices and people living on debt. Meanwhile we have become an almost entirely “service-based” economy. We make nothing tangible anymore. There are two types of economies in America, the real one which includes manufacturing and the auto industry, and the “money wizards” like the banks who sit around making money out of thin air and come up with great ideas like credit default swaps. We are gradually getting rid of all our “real economy” while giving tons of money to this “fake economy” to prevent the entire house of cards from collapsing (much of the money is going overseas too, don’t forget). And since property values in the country have hit rock bottom and we are broke these banks can essentially move in and grab up the “real world.” So it’s not only a wealth transfer, it’s a property transfer and a transfer of the real and tangible for the imaginary. We are paying for our own coffin and digging our own grave.
But then that’s just the paranoid, conspiracy theorist in me, surely the world isn’t that controlled? It always comes back to the question of evil intent or incompetence, and we can only hope it’s the latter.
I think the government has to spend, and spend a lot, and that’s never pretty, but the way it’s being done really just feels wrong in almost every aspect. I find myself agreeing with Republicans when they want to slow down these huge bailouts, but the problem is whenever we oppose the same thing, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Republicans just oppose spending period, and want to give more tax cuts to the rich and hope that will magically solve our problems. That option is thoroughly discredited. In the future I don’t want to hear anything about the glories of the free market from anyone who has supported these bailouts. The free market only exists for the poor who don’t get bailouts.
-------------------------------
1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUAD977ODC00
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4513620/US-accused-of-threatening-Britain-over-terrorism-torture-evidence.html
5. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html
6. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008703273_apbailoutexecutivepay.html
First some relatively minor criticisms to get out of the way. The main reason I voted for Obama was McCain appeared all too eager to start another war. But Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and essentially keeping us in Iraq another two years isn’t change.[1] I believe he’s going to be bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Meanwhile we’re hemorrhaging, this isn’t the time for another adventure. As Mos Def said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” last week, “I don’t care about Bin Laden, how about we fix New Orleans?” On top of this, although he closed Gitmo, Obama is allowing the CIA to continue the policy of rendition; abducting people and taking them to foreign countries where they can be held and possibly tortured.[2] Obama has kept the PATRIOT Act.[3] The Obama administration has even “threatened to halt intelligence co-operation with Britain” if they allow evidence of torture committed under the Bush administration to become public there.[4] But no one in the media wants to talk about this, they would rather discuss Michelle Obama’s arms.
But these are mere disappointments compared to these huge bailouts and the way we are throwing money around. First, lets have no illusions, Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street-types and lobbyists, top to bottom. Take William Lynn, Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist. Obama made him Deputy Secretary of Defense.[5] As for Wall Street types, take Lawrence Summers and his “protégé” Timothy Geithner. Summers is a man who helped to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act which was put into place after the depression, which could have helped prevent the situation we find ourselves in today through stricter regulation.
There is a blatant double standard with how this money is being used. We are literally throwing money at the banks to the point that they are trying to give it back in some cases. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile the auto industry is asking for a mere pittance by comparison; $22B. And what are they told? They’re told that bankruptcy might be an option for them. The wizard behind the curtain tells them to go away and come back with another restructuring plan, and it better be suitable this time. And asking for concessions from the auto industry unions is common while they would have allowed $165B in bonus payouts for AIG if there hadn’t been outrage among the public.
And then Obama essentially “fires” the CEO of GM. Sure, maybe he deserved it, but it shows the different manner with which the auto industry and the banks and are being handled. Gloves off for one, kid gloves for the other. Remember the “outrage” at the CEO’s of the “Big Three” for arriving in Washington in private jets? I wonder how those bank CEO’s arrived at the White House for the cushy meeting they had with the President himself? I agree with the Republicans on this one, I don’t like the government “firing” a CEO at a private corporation, but if we are going to do it, fire some of these bankers as well. Or at least cap their pay, Obama has made it _appear_ that he’s done that, in fact what he has done in this regard is very weak.[6]
To the Republicans I say shut up about socialism. If this was socialism would do a better job of keeping up with where the money is going and how it’s being used. If this was socialism the Treasury Secretary wouldn’t give provisions allowing tax payers to give bonuses to employees at failed corporations. If this was socialism we would fire the people currently in place and take over the corporations for the benefit of everyone. What we are doing is giving money away to rich people who spent their days essentially making money out of thin air and taking stupid gambles.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me makes connections and sees this entire crisis as just “too convenient.” Here’s how it goes for the fun of it. First of all, we have learned that all of the “wealth” we thought we had in the Bush years was essentially based on inflated housing prices and people living on debt. Meanwhile we have become an almost entirely “service-based” economy. We make nothing tangible anymore. There are two types of economies in America, the real one which includes manufacturing and the auto industry, and the “money wizards” like the banks who sit around making money out of thin air and come up with great ideas like credit default swaps. We are gradually getting rid of all our “real economy” while giving tons of money to this “fake economy” to prevent the entire house of cards from collapsing (much of the money is going overseas too, don’t forget). And since property values in the country have hit rock bottom and we are broke these banks can essentially move in and grab up the “real world.” So it’s not only a wealth transfer, it’s a property transfer and a transfer of the real and tangible for the imaginary. We are paying for our own coffin and digging our own grave.
But then that’s just the paranoid, conspiracy theorist in me, surely the world isn’t that controlled? It always comes back to the question of evil intent or incompetence, and we can only hope it’s the latter.
I think the government has to spend, and spend a lot, and that’s never pretty, but the way it’s being done really just feels wrong in almost every aspect. I find myself agreeing with Republicans when they want to slow down these huge bailouts, but the problem is whenever we oppose the same thing, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Republicans just oppose spending period, and want to give more tax cuts to the rich and hope that will magically solve our problems. That option is thoroughly discredited. In the future I don’t want to hear anything about the glories of the free market from anyone who has supported these bailouts. The free market only exists for the poor who don’t get bailouts.
-------------------------------
1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUAD977ODC00
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4513620/US-accused-of-threatening-Britain-over-terrorism-torture-evidence.html
5. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html
6. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008703273_apbailoutexecutivepay.html
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Party's Over, Assessing the Future...
I've been trying to decide how I feel about all of this, I'm a liberal white person who is not as overwhelmed as many African American people are, but much more impacted than the average American that pays less attention to politics.
I think the best way to describe how I feel about Obama's election is that two weights have been lifted. One of them grew heavier as this current campaign dragged on and thoughts of a McCain and possibly Palin administration swirled in my head like a virus that evidentially was on many people's minds.
The other weight I was not completely aware of until it was lifted, then I realized that it had been there for much of the past eight years. Four years ago I thought Kerry was a terrible candidate, but I could also not imagine a Bush re-election, but it happened.
It feels like this vale of tears has been renewed. Literally the air smells better, sunlight feels warmer and I even feel like I have more energy. I can only imagine how good I would feel all the time if I could IGNORE politics, but I doubt that will happen.
I've got to emphasize, I was voting AGAINST more than FOR. I think McCain would lead us into another war and Palin is a half-wit fool who could possibly replace him, and that for me is the definition of being up shit creek without a paddle. No, I feel like I am in a nation of adults again, even if Obama can't bring about big "change," we elected a man with a brain for Gods sake and we did so for the right reasons, not because we were distracted by fear and loathing.
Obama Until 2012 or 2016?
I suspect Obama will be a 1-term president unfortunately. This economic mess is severe and when it gets worse under his watch the Republicans will be back in two years and then another four to blame a government controlled entirely by the Democrats. Combine that with a backlash that will come from an Obama term regardless what he does, and you likely see a Republican back in the white house.[1]
I guess what I am trying to say is that, if there were a GOOD time to be OUT of office and power, this would be it. I have to think that this train wreck wasn't entirely accidental; Republicans say government is inefficient and they ensure it is true while they are in power. This all assumes that Obama doesn't come in and just totally turn the economy around, I don't think it's totally under his or anyone else's control.
It's too far off to project much, but while the GOP does have problems adjusting it's ideals to a changing electorate and a new generation who has helped to put Obama into office, to count them out would be foolish. As Obama said, they may not know how to govern, but they know how to win elections.
Palin, Poor Palin...
A quick note on Palin, I find all of this Republican infighting incredibly entertaining of course, but I am still trying to understand what it's all about. Perhaps the aides from McCain's camp are really just pissed off and hate her. Keith Olbermann brought up the point that the Republicans are the ones that called her a "Wasilla hillbilly" (what an elitist thing to say!) and that perhaps Palin was the real deal "average American" and while they speak of being a party for that group this behavior toward Palin suggests they really are a party that just wants that as a facade.
---------------------
FOOTNOTES
1. I would like to send readers to the following link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHIVt7MERGIbR6SEMaTMPoeCiuiwD94AB9280, since Obama whipped McCain gun sales have risen dramatically, a perfect example of the white, scared, knee-jerk reaction.
I think the best way to describe how I feel about Obama's election is that two weights have been lifted. One of them grew heavier as this current campaign dragged on and thoughts of a McCain and possibly Palin administration swirled in my head like a virus that evidentially was on many people's minds.
The other weight I was not completely aware of until it was lifted, then I realized that it had been there for much of the past eight years. Four years ago I thought Kerry was a terrible candidate, but I could also not imagine a Bush re-election, but it happened.
It feels like this vale of tears has been renewed. Literally the air smells better, sunlight feels warmer and I even feel like I have more energy. I can only imagine how good I would feel all the time if I could IGNORE politics, but I doubt that will happen.
I've got to emphasize, I was voting AGAINST more than FOR. I think McCain would lead us into another war and Palin is a half-wit fool who could possibly replace him, and that for me is the definition of being up shit creek without a paddle. No, I feel like I am in a nation of adults again, even if Obama can't bring about big "change," we elected a man with a brain for Gods sake and we did so for the right reasons, not because we were distracted by fear and loathing.
Obama Until 2012 or 2016?
I suspect Obama will be a 1-term president unfortunately. This economic mess is severe and when it gets worse under his watch the Republicans will be back in two years and then another four to blame a government controlled entirely by the Democrats. Combine that with a backlash that will come from an Obama term regardless what he does, and you likely see a Republican back in the white house.[1]
I guess what I am trying to say is that, if there were a GOOD time to be OUT of office and power, this would be it. I have to think that this train wreck wasn't entirely accidental; Republicans say government is inefficient and they ensure it is true while they are in power. This all assumes that Obama doesn't come in and just totally turn the economy around, I don't think it's totally under his or anyone else's control.
It's too far off to project much, but while the GOP does have problems adjusting it's ideals to a changing electorate and a new generation who has helped to put Obama into office, to count them out would be foolish. As Obama said, they may not know how to govern, but they know how to win elections.
Palin, Poor Palin...
A quick note on Palin, I find all of this Republican infighting incredibly entertaining of course, but I am still trying to understand what it's all about. Perhaps the aides from McCain's camp are really just pissed off and hate her. Keith Olbermann brought up the point that the Republicans are the ones that called her a "Wasilla hillbilly" (what an elitist thing to say!) and that perhaps Palin was the real deal "average American" and while they speak of being a party for that group this behavior toward Palin suggests they really are a party that just wants that as a facade.
---------------------
FOOTNOTES
1. I would like to send readers to the following link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHIVt7MERGIbR6SEMaTMPoeCiuiwD94AB9280, since Obama whipped McCain gun sales have risen dramatically, a perfect example of the white, scared, knee-jerk reaction.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I'm Mostly Happy, But...
An Obama Victory and the "Sins of the Fathers"
We have come a long way in terms of diversity. We will have our first black president, and before that we had our first retarded president. I am proud we have come so far and are willing to be so diverse.
Nothing can "make up" for centuries of slavery, but I do think this is more than just symbolic. This country has been living under the "sins of the fathers" since it's founding, and it's hard to say what this will mean in the long-term for race relations. I am still taking it all in, and anyone who says they really understand how this will affect the American psyche is probably lying.
CA Bans Gay Marriage, With a BIG Help from the Black CA Population
For gay Americans this is a bittersweet time, Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California passed. Interesting how California overwhelmingly voted for Obama but still managed to pull this off too. I have always believed that a minority group gets very little if any help from other minority groups once the group they are seeking help from has risen to acceptance or power in society.
This is aimed squarely and without regret at the African American votes in California. Exit polls revealed 70% of African Americans who voted were FOR the ban, only about half of white voters voted for the ban. I really don't get it, and I have no regret pointing this FACT out.[1]
A Big "Fuck You" To Unity with Far-Right Republicans
On the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show Joe Scarborough went on a rant about how the "liberal elites" are saying that Americans were getting involved for the first time, but in fact, Joe says, there was just as much enthusiasm about Bush in 2004 when the Christian evangelicals came out to re-elect him. And shame on "closed-minded liberals" who dare to criticize the REASONS those Bush voters were energized.
I just can't let such a statement pass. First of all, those voters in 2004 were coming out to vote largely because a gay marriage ban was likely on the ballot in their state. They were voting out of fear about national security, two wars and a government that has taken advantage of a terrorist attack. I see no comparison between the election of Barack Obama and the re-election of George Bush in terms of the issues or the general spirit in which it was done.
Not all enthusiasm is equal, and frankly while America needs "unity;" division along racial, geographical, cultural and class lines has been the destructive Republican strategy for decades. I don't want to be unified with an extreme right-wing, and I don't even think it's possible.
--------------------------
Footnotes
1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD9493TBO0
We have come a long way in terms of diversity. We will have our first black president, and before that we had our first retarded president. I am proud we have come so far and are willing to be so diverse.
Nothing can "make up" for centuries of slavery, but I do think this is more than just symbolic. This country has been living under the "sins of the fathers" since it's founding, and it's hard to say what this will mean in the long-term for race relations. I am still taking it all in, and anyone who says they really understand how this will affect the American psyche is probably lying.
CA Bans Gay Marriage, With a BIG Help from the Black CA Population
For gay Americans this is a bittersweet time, Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California passed. Interesting how California overwhelmingly voted for Obama but still managed to pull this off too. I have always believed that a minority group gets very little if any help from other minority groups once the group they are seeking help from has risen to acceptance or power in society.
This is aimed squarely and without regret at the African American votes in California. Exit polls revealed 70% of African Americans who voted were FOR the ban, only about half of white voters voted for the ban. I really don't get it, and I have no regret pointing this FACT out.[1]
A Big "Fuck You" To Unity with Far-Right Republicans
On the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show Joe Scarborough went on a rant about how the "liberal elites" are saying that Americans were getting involved for the first time, but in fact, Joe says, there was just as much enthusiasm about Bush in 2004 when the Christian evangelicals came out to re-elect him. And shame on "closed-minded liberals" who dare to criticize the REASONS those Bush voters were energized.
I just can't let such a statement pass. First of all, those voters in 2004 were coming out to vote largely because a gay marriage ban was likely on the ballot in their state. They were voting out of fear about national security, two wars and a government that has taken advantage of a terrorist attack. I see no comparison between the election of Barack Obama and the re-election of George Bush in terms of the issues or the general spirit in which it was done.
Not all enthusiasm is equal, and frankly while America needs "unity;" division along racial, geographical, cultural and class lines has been the destructive Republican strategy for decades. I don't want to be unified with an extreme right-wing, and I don't even think it's possible.
--------------------------
Footnotes
1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD9493TBO0
Friday, October 31, 2008
Some Final Pre-Election Thoughts
The Encouragement of "White Anger" and the Hunky-Dory Black Man
There’s lots of "angry white men" out there these days. Joe the Plumber is the archetypical angry, white, working-class man, but he's not the only one. "Mad Mike" is the name of a video put out by a group called "Let Freedom Ring," in it Mike discusses how he won't take the risk of expanding his business if Obama wins, and proceeds to go on a tirade with rock guitar underlining it saying, "People like Obama have no idea what it's like to run a small business! They say they know, but they don't!"
I find it strange that this working-class white anger is not only forgiven but is more or less encouraged and expected while Obama has to act like the least disaffected black man in the country.
The fact is, even if Obama wins, this country has a long way to go before it acquires a mature view of both race and class in this country. Because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have talked to people like Joe while he drives to work, he's become convinced that up is down, that he will be a millionaire someday, that the real enemy isn't unchecked corporate rule but liberals and that America has a God-given right to intervene in other countries affairs. But when you're finished chanting "U-S-A" and you've made sure the queers can't marry, and everyone's gone home, what have you gained?
The Black Community (and Young Generation) Wonders: What if Obama Loses?
There was an article in Newsweek recently all about how the black community has gotten involved with this election. They can hardly believe that a black man might actually become president, and then the article asks, "what if he loses?" What will that community feel? Will it be concluded that, "it just can't happen in this country?"
I suppose the question ought to be asked, did the Democrats step out a little too far, should they have gone with a(nother) boring white guy? Would victory have been assured or did they have to take this chance? With the Gore loss, the Kerry loss and Republicans getting away with anything they wanted for so long the Democratic Party in my mind began to have an air of "bland malaise." Obama shook that up and has thrown a curve ball to the Republicans in many ways. Perhaps it was, necessary that is.
More than just the black community, there's another question that might be an even bigger deal: How will all those young people feel who have gotten involved and put in so much hope and energy? Literally an entire generation has been inspired. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that having young people involved is important because of the energy, new ideas and lack of cynicism they bring to the table. Even if all of their ideas can't be put into action, they provide a momentum you don't get anywhere else.
If Obama loses will we have a young generation turned cynical too soon? Or will they have made a long-lasting connection with the political process?
Electronic Voting: Is The Fix In?
This is a story that was a big deal after 2000, but finding anyone in the media to speak on it today is literally impossible. If there was any sense of urgency about our democracy, this story would be covered, not ACORN. The corporation that makes many of these machines, Diebold, is a big Republican contributor, their CEO said that he would "deliver Ohio to Bush in 2004," and there are tons of other conflicts of interest that are easily discovered if one takes the time.
Is a paper-trail so fucking difficult? The fact is I do not trust these machines, every time there's an error it just happens to go in the Republican's favor. I don't understand why this issue is not talked about anymore.
If Nothing Else, It Will Be Over Soon
Even I will be glad to see this election over, it has gone on too long and is taking my focus from other things I want to be doing (like watching film noir at 1am). Personally I am prepared for an Obama loss, I think there's a 50/50 chance he will win or lose.
Surprises could happen, I am half expecting an Osama Bin Laden tape to surface, but I think the "narrative" of this race has been set and is just being played out now.
See everyone on the other side, whatever happens its interesting times...that’s the one certainty we have.
There’s lots of "angry white men" out there these days. Joe the Plumber is the archetypical angry, white, working-class man, but he's not the only one. "Mad Mike" is the name of a video put out by a group called "Let Freedom Ring," in it Mike discusses how he won't take the risk of expanding his business if Obama wins, and proceeds to go on a tirade with rock guitar underlining it saying, "People like Obama have no idea what it's like to run a small business! They say they know, but they don't!"
I find it strange that this working-class white anger is not only forgiven but is more or less encouraged and expected while Obama has to act like the least disaffected black man in the country.
The fact is, even if Obama wins, this country has a long way to go before it acquires a mature view of both race and class in this country. Because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have talked to people like Joe while he drives to work, he's become convinced that up is down, that he will be a millionaire someday, that the real enemy isn't unchecked corporate rule but liberals and that America has a God-given right to intervene in other countries affairs. But when you're finished chanting "U-S-A" and you've made sure the queers can't marry, and everyone's gone home, what have you gained?
The Black Community (and Young Generation) Wonders: What if Obama Loses?
There was an article in Newsweek recently all about how the black community has gotten involved with this election. They can hardly believe that a black man might actually become president, and then the article asks, "what if he loses?" What will that community feel? Will it be concluded that, "it just can't happen in this country?"
I suppose the question ought to be asked, did the Democrats step out a little too far, should they have gone with a(nother) boring white guy? Would victory have been assured or did they have to take this chance? With the Gore loss, the Kerry loss and Republicans getting away with anything they wanted for so long the Democratic Party in my mind began to have an air of "bland malaise." Obama shook that up and has thrown a curve ball to the Republicans in many ways. Perhaps it was, necessary that is.
More than just the black community, there's another question that might be an even bigger deal: How will all those young people feel who have gotten involved and put in so much hope and energy? Literally an entire generation has been inspired. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that having young people involved is important because of the energy, new ideas and lack of cynicism they bring to the table. Even if all of their ideas can't be put into action, they provide a momentum you don't get anywhere else.
If Obama loses will we have a young generation turned cynical too soon? Or will they have made a long-lasting connection with the political process?
Electronic Voting: Is The Fix In?
This is a story that was a big deal after 2000, but finding anyone in the media to speak on it today is literally impossible. If there was any sense of urgency about our democracy, this story would be covered, not ACORN. The corporation that makes many of these machines, Diebold, is a big Republican contributor, their CEO said that he would "deliver Ohio to Bush in 2004," and there are tons of other conflicts of interest that are easily discovered if one takes the time.
Is a paper-trail so fucking difficult? The fact is I do not trust these machines, every time there's an error it just happens to go in the Republican's favor. I don't understand why this issue is not talked about anymore.
If Nothing Else, It Will Be Over Soon
Even I will be glad to see this election over, it has gone on too long and is taking my focus from other things I want to be doing (like watching film noir at 1am). Personally I am prepared for an Obama loss, I think there's a 50/50 chance he will win or lose.
Surprises could happen, I am half expecting an Osama Bin Laden tape to surface, but I think the "narrative" of this race has been set and is just being played out now.
See everyone on the other side, whatever happens its interesting times...that’s the one certainty we have.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Paranoid Thought in American Politics; 1797 through Today
Conspiracies and Paranoia of Old
In 1964, one year after publishing his classic, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," Richard Hofstadter wrote an article for Harpers Magazine titled, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."[1] In it he traces a strain of political thought in American politics which is based on fear of some all-powerful "elite" group who plan to destroy our way of life and keep us in bondage. In the past century, perhaps the most prominent example of this would be Communism and the Soviet Union wielding influence with it's tentacles outstretched across the world. But as Hofstadter shows us, this phenomenon has been going on since our nation’s inception.
Americans first learned of Illumism in 1797, a conspiracy which was out to destroy all religion and governments. Hofstadter writes of a Scottish scientist who first "exposed" the conspiracy, John Robinson. He spoke Illumism, "fermenting and working all over Europe."[2] The anti-Christian Illumaniti corrupted women, “cultivated” sexual pleasure and promoted abortion.
By the late 1820s the anti-Masonic movement spread across America, was intensified and was no longer contained to New England territory. It was believed that Masonic influence festered in "sheriffs, juries and judges [who] must all be in league with the Masonic criminals and fugitives." In a modern-day parallel perhaps most shocking, it was believed that the Masons controlled and "muzzled" the press.
In the 1830s rumors began to spread of a vast Catholic conspiracy which sought to destroy American values and the American way of life. The inventor of the telegraph, S.F.B. Morse wrote a book titled, "Foreign Conspiracies against the Liberties of the United States." He spoke of well-funded "Jesuit missionaries" who were spreading out across the nation "in every possible disguise." Catholics were blamed for the economic depression of 1893, and rumors spread of a possible Catholic uprising and war to mutilate and exterminate the opposition.
The enemy is always with some great source of power whether it is money or media, and he tries to create crises and benefit from them. Furthermore in times of crisis, this type of thought naturally increases in popularity. The paranoid mind does not see history as merely history, but finds clues of a grand conspiracy within it, directed by some elite group. Hofstadter writes that, throughout history, to combat conspiracy groups, "secret organizations [are] set up to combat secret organizations...The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy."
In Hofstadter's Time
Hofstadter writing of the conspiracies in his own time notes that one difference he saw that presented itself was that in previous times the right-wing saw themselves as fending off threats to American values, but now they see themselves of trying to recover what has actually been lost. Essentially the right feels they are dispossessed victims, not of changing times but of a powerful elite. Furthermore Hofstadter saw the conspiracies of his own time as being in the public eye more than ever before with the anti-communist sentiment and suspicion that education and government are infiltrated with the enemy.
What's Happening Today
The Right has now taken up the old call that the media is our current vast conspiracy. I have to think that this paranoia has been actively created when Sarah Palin only has to say the words, "media" or "New York Times" and receives a chorus of boo's, or when media vans at rallies are flipped the bird or screamed at by rally attendees. While the “liberal media” has been a talking point for decades, this is essentially a variation on a familiar theme as is evidenced above.
After "Joe the plumber" had his life sifted through by the media John McCain sent up the call that Obama's media attacked a common man and destroyed his life. While I do not believe the media should have gone through Joe Wurzelbacher's life either, the right-wing speaks as if Obama gave the word and his minions in the media attacked on cue. The other side of this issue is that calling Obama a “socialist” has become commonplace, invoking an old favorite in American politics.
Another example of this was after the New York Times wrote an article about Cindy McCain and in it spoke of her previous addiction to pain-killers there was outrage and calls for an investigation into Obama's past drug abuse, as if it were some sort of secret the media has not touched.
A final example, this past week was on the show Hardball, where Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in all seriousness asked for an investigation into "anti-American sentiment in Congress." This woman is the most extreme example we have yet in this election season of this paranoid sentiment, and as Katrina Vanden Heuvel said later in the show, she seems to be "channeling McCarthy."
This is nothing singular to America, the conspiracy of the Jews in Europe has perhaps caused the most harm of any paranoid thought in history. Even dating back to the Black Death of the 1340s Jews were accused of poisoning public wells and were burnt alive. However, the one necessary ingredient of paranoia is fear, and America has been a fearful country dating back to our conflicts with the Native Americans. It seems fear or the capacity for it is more rampant here than elsewhere, evidenced by the fact that before the invasion of Iraq we feared Saddam Hussein more than countries next to him in Europe.
One has to be concerned in uncertain times such as these about scape-goating. As a gay person I become more concerned in times such as these when the reactionary half of America is inevitably and easily whipped up and directed toward an enemy. If we are really facing the “once in a century” economic crisis that Alan Greenspan says we are, I have to think we are ill-suited to deal with it in our current frame of mind.
------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
1. You can find the full article here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
2. In times when we hear constantly of socialism and Islam taking hold in Europe, this language is not something new even centuries later.
In 1964, one year after publishing his classic, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," Richard Hofstadter wrote an article for Harpers Magazine titled, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."[1] In it he traces a strain of political thought in American politics which is based on fear of some all-powerful "elite" group who plan to destroy our way of life and keep us in bondage. In the past century, perhaps the most prominent example of this would be Communism and the Soviet Union wielding influence with it's tentacles outstretched across the world. But as Hofstadter shows us, this phenomenon has been going on since our nation’s inception.
Americans first learned of Illumism in 1797, a conspiracy which was out to destroy all religion and governments. Hofstadter writes of a Scottish scientist who first "exposed" the conspiracy, John Robinson. He spoke Illumism, "fermenting and working all over Europe."[2] The anti-Christian Illumaniti corrupted women, “cultivated” sexual pleasure and promoted abortion.
By the late 1820s the anti-Masonic movement spread across America, was intensified and was no longer contained to New England territory. It was believed that Masonic influence festered in "sheriffs, juries and judges [who] must all be in league with the Masonic criminals and fugitives." In a modern-day parallel perhaps most shocking, it was believed that the Masons controlled and "muzzled" the press.
In the 1830s rumors began to spread of a vast Catholic conspiracy which sought to destroy American values and the American way of life. The inventor of the telegraph, S.F.B. Morse wrote a book titled, "Foreign Conspiracies against the Liberties of the United States." He spoke of well-funded "Jesuit missionaries" who were spreading out across the nation "in every possible disguise." Catholics were blamed for the economic depression of 1893, and rumors spread of a possible Catholic uprising and war to mutilate and exterminate the opposition.
The enemy is always with some great source of power whether it is money or media, and he tries to create crises and benefit from them. Furthermore in times of crisis, this type of thought naturally increases in popularity. The paranoid mind does not see history as merely history, but finds clues of a grand conspiracy within it, directed by some elite group. Hofstadter writes that, throughout history, to combat conspiracy groups, "secret organizations [are] set up to combat secret organizations...The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy."
In Hofstadter's Time
Hofstadter writing of the conspiracies in his own time notes that one difference he saw that presented itself was that in previous times the right-wing saw themselves as fending off threats to American values, but now they see themselves of trying to recover what has actually been lost. Essentially the right feels they are dispossessed victims, not of changing times but of a powerful elite. Furthermore Hofstadter saw the conspiracies of his own time as being in the public eye more than ever before with the anti-communist sentiment and suspicion that education and government are infiltrated with the enemy.
What's Happening Today
The Right has now taken up the old call that the media is our current vast conspiracy. I have to think that this paranoia has been actively created when Sarah Palin only has to say the words, "media" or "New York Times" and receives a chorus of boo's, or when media vans at rallies are flipped the bird or screamed at by rally attendees. While the “liberal media” has been a talking point for decades, this is essentially a variation on a familiar theme as is evidenced above.
After "Joe the plumber" had his life sifted through by the media John McCain sent up the call that Obama's media attacked a common man and destroyed his life. While I do not believe the media should have gone through Joe Wurzelbacher's life either, the right-wing speaks as if Obama gave the word and his minions in the media attacked on cue. The other side of this issue is that calling Obama a “socialist” has become commonplace, invoking an old favorite in American politics.
Another example of this was after the New York Times wrote an article about Cindy McCain and in it spoke of her previous addiction to pain-killers there was outrage and calls for an investigation into Obama's past drug abuse, as if it were some sort of secret the media has not touched.
A final example, this past week was on the show Hardball, where Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in all seriousness asked for an investigation into "anti-American sentiment in Congress." This woman is the most extreme example we have yet in this election season of this paranoid sentiment, and as Katrina Vanden Heuvel said later in the show, she seems to be "channeling McCarthy."
This is nothing singular to America, the conspiracy of the Jews in Europe has perhaps caused the most harm of any paranoid thought in history. Even dating back to the Black Death of the 1340s Jews were accused of poisoning public wells and were burnt alive. However, the one necessary ingredient of paranoia is fear, and America has been a fearful country dating back to our conflicts with the Native Americans. It seems fear or the capacity for it is more rampant here than elsewhere, evidenced by the fact that before the invasion of Iraq we feared Saddam Hussein more than countries next to him in Europe.
One has to be concerned in uncertain times such as these about scape-goating. As a gay person I become more concerned in times such as these when the reactionary half of America is inevitably and easily whipped up and directed toward an enemy. If we are really facing the “once in a century” economic crisis that Alan Greenspan says we are, I have to think we are ill-suited to deal with it in our current frame of mind.
------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
1. You can find the full article here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
2. In times when we hear constantly of socialism and Islam taking hold in Europe, this language is not something new even centuries later.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Put Away the Party Hats, Obama Can Still Lose
Much of the media seems to have decided that this race is close to over, not in terms of time but in terms of the polls. I say Obama can still lose for a few reasons:
1. A big foreign policy event could occur (Israel attacks Iran, for example), or another attack on our own soil. I am sure that foreign terrorists would love nothing more than for us to elect another raving lunatic who will continue to drive our country into the ground so they don't have to.
2. Obama may need to overcome a Bradley Effect to win, which means he would need to have a certain number of percentage points ABOVE McCain just to break even. I find it interesting that it seems entirely forgotten that Obama is as much WHITE as he is black, but I digress.
3. There's a certain racism or "native-ism" that is festering almost subconsciously on two fronts. First, when the economic crisis is discussed, the causes are always in part blamed on poor people who took on loans. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are cited, who in large part help minorities and lower-income groups buy homes. One would begin to think that all these poor people are the cause of world-wide financial turmoil.
The other thing is this ACORN blow up which is complete nonsense and is reliant on stupidity to have any effect. As Obama has said, the volunteers are often being lazy and will make up registrations rather than go out and do the work. Mickey Mouse isn't going to walk up and vote so it doesn't matter as far as VOTES go. What does matter is ACORN is an organization that mostly works to get minorities to vote. The Republicans complaining about voter-fraud is perhaps the most blatant example of projection I have seen in at least, well, the past few minutes anyway.
A few other thing has been the general message that "Obama isn't like US," the "community organizer" label is used with a sneering tone, or maybe that's just how Palin's voice always sounds.
I just thank God that William Ayres is white or Obama would be in a world of shit. I'm just trying to say, never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
The Asterisk in Karl Rove’s Playbook
On the positive side, it seems that the Karl Rove playbook doesn’t work in times of economic unrest. The problem with the Republican strategy is that when people are worried about the economy the Republican lure only continues to work for a particular fraction of the right-wing. It certainly isn’t appealing to the middle and they get turned off of what they are seeing at McCain rallies. If the “silent majority” was angry at seeing hippies daily on their televisions in the late 1960s, I think now they are tired of this hatred they are seeing in McCain’s rallies.
1. A big foreign policy event could occur (Israel attacks Iran, for example), or another attack on our own soil. I am sure that foreign terrorists would love nothing more than for us to elect another raving lunatic who will continue to drive our country into the ground so they don't have to.
2. Obama may need to overcome a Bradley Effect to win, which means he would need to have a certain number of percentage points ABOVE McCain just to break even. I find it interesting that it seems entirely forgotten that Obama is as much WHITE as he is black, but I digress.
3. There's a certain racism or "native-ism" that is festering almost subconsciously on two fronts. First, when the economic crisis is discussed, the causes are always in part blamed on poor people who took on loans. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are cited, who in large part help minorities and lower-income groups buy homes. One would begin to think that all these poor people are the cause of world-wide financial turmoil.
The other thing is this ACORN blow up which is complete nonsense and is reliant on stupidity to have any effect. As Obama has said, the volunteers are often being lazy and will make up registrations rather than go out and do the work. Mickey Mouse isn't going to walk up and vote so it doesn't matter as far as VOTES go. What does matter is ACORN is an organization that mostly works to get minorities to vote. The Republicans complaining about voter-fraud is perhaps the most blatant example of projection I have seen in at least, well, the past few minutes anyway.
A few other thing has been the general message that "Obama isn't like US," the "community organizer" label is used with a sneering tone, or maybe that's just how Palin's voice always sounds.
I just thank God that William Ayres is white or Obama would be in a world of shit. I'm just trying to say, never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
The Asterisk in Karl Rove’s Playbook
On the positive side, it seems that the Karl Rove playbook doesn’t work in times of economic unrest. The problem with the Republican strategy is that when people are worried about the economy the Republican lure only continues to work for a particular fraction of the right-wing. It certainly isn’t appealing to the middle and they get turned off of what they are seeing at McCain rallies. If the “silent majority” was angry at seeing hippies daily on their televisions in the late 1960s, I think now they are tired of this hatred they are seeing in McCain’s rallies.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Desperate Times Make True Colors Bleed
Yep, its gotten dirty. Palin is bringing up Ayres, people in the audience are screaming about Obama, "terrorist!" and even "kill him!" Meanwhile they are making allegations that he is possibly getting money from shady organizations outside of the US. And his middle name Hussein is used almost daily at McCain events.
It's getting ugly, this is what McCain has decided to focus on while Rome burns, and the thing is I don't think he has any choice. This is how Republicans have won elections over the past several years as they have painted themselves into a corner as a non-diverse party.
Of course, this is all done under the cover, as Palin puts it, to say that the media needs to ask more questions of Obama. We don't really know the "real" Obama, even after campaigning for two years.
Irony was never a Republican strong suit, but this makes my head hurt. I only WISH the media were ALLOWED to ask Palin the "tough questions," instead the campaign has essentially said she won't be having anymore interviews except with FOX News.
The most recent interview with this ditz was again with Sean Hannity, and this time Daddy...I mean McCain was sitting there with her.
If we don't know the "real" Obama after two years, and interview after interview, we sure as hell don't know this woman who can barely speak when she does get an interview.
But this is all beside the point. The fact is, the Ayres connection COULD be a real issue, but why now? Does the fact that it is just being brought up not appear as blatantly desperate? If McCain really cares about Obama having a "tie" with a "terrorist" shouldn't he have brought this up months ago or does he just not care about the American people that much, unless his poll numbers drop?
It's getting ugly, this is what McCain has decided to focus on while Rome burns, and the thing is I don't think he has any choice. This is how Republicans have won elections over the past several years as they have painted themselves into a corner as a non-diverse party.
Of course, this is all done under the cover, as Palin puts it, to say that the media needs to ask more questions of Obama. We don't really know the "real" Obama, even after campaigning for two years.
Irony was never a Republican strong suit, but this makes my head hurt. I only WISH the media were ALLOWED to ask Palin the "tough questions," instead the campaign has essentially said she won't be having anymore interviews except with FOX News.
The most recent interview with this ditz was again with Sean Hannity, and this time Daddy...I mean McCain was sitting there with her.
If we don't know the "real" Obama after two years, and interview after interview, we sure as hell don't know this woman who can barely speak when she does get an interview.
But this is all beside the point. The fact is, the Ayres connection COULD be a real issue, but why now? Does the fact that it is just being brought up not appear as blatantly desperate? If McCain really cares about Obama having a "tie" with a "terrorist" shouldn't he have brought this up months ago or does he just not care about the American people that much, unless his poll numbers drop?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)