Why we are losing - Part 7562

Senate Republicans today defeated an increase in aid to low income people who struggle to pay their energy bills. The vote was 35 to 55, with the 35 being the victors. Democrats were reportedly frustrated. Why? You'd think they'd be used to getting their asses handed to them by half as many Republicans. Seems to happen every day.

If it's so easy to defeat legislation, which for Republicans it apparently is, one wonders why the Democrats couldn't manage it when they were so busy giving away the farm during the Bush years. What's to wonder ese? They can't win when they have a majority. Why would they fight when they are outnumbered?

And where was Barack Obama during this important vote? Oh, he is in Europe. Great, but why couldn't the Democrats wait for him to get back. It was a rare saturday session. Were the Democrats trying to lose before he could get back and make an issue out of it? If played right, McCain and the Republicans' failure to help people could be a day's news leader. Obama votes to help low income people with their energy bills. Where is McCain? What's his problem?

A functional political party would be peppering asshats like McCain and his thoroughly corrupt colleagues with valid questions about their actions. Instead, theyare on the defensive. Can it really be that difficult? I don't see how.

Today's photo (totoro)

Who you callin nigger?

Both Jesse Jackson and Whoopi Goldberg made the news this week for using the word "nigger." Jackson, as I'm sure you know, got caught using it in what he thought was a private conversation. Goldberg used it repeatedly on the daytime television show "The View." Jackson has been in the forefront of those arguing that the word should be verboten. Goldberg argues that it’s okay for blacks to call other blacks "nigger." No one else, however, should be allowed to use the word. That's because, according to Goldberg, blacks live in a different world that only those with certain melanin levels can understand.

I am in the "not okay to call people nigger" camp. Basically, my reasoning is that the word harms people psychologically and keeps a lot of us down socially and economically. How many times do we hear something along the lines of “you can’t imagine how it feels to be called a nigger?” And calling others nigger is widely considered low class for both blacks and whites. It certainly limits one’s job opportunities.

I fear that older African Americans such as Jesse Jackson and Whoopi Goldberg are so damaged by the racism they have experienced in their own lives that some part of them wants the younger generations to experience that same pain. I actually consider Jackson to be the least hypocritical of the two. He knows it is wrong to call African Americans nigger and has fought to get people to stop using it. Goldberg, on the other hand, revels in her right to call black people nigger.

And Goldberg demonstrates a larger pathology. On “The View” she repeatedly referred to her belief that blacks and whites live in different worlds and that there should be different rules for what people can say based on the world in which they live.

Now I’ve lived abroad and traveled quite a bit and have witnessed the fact that peoples often do live in different worlds. And I am aware that, historically, African Americans have all too often lived in a different world from the white majority.

But this “different world” for African Americans is widely recognized as a very bad thing. It is a world in which whites enjoyed significantly more privilege and opportunity than blacks. It is a reality which many people have fought hard to change for hundreds of years. And it is a reality that we have had a lot of recent success in changing. Not for all, but for many. And the trend going forward is very positive.

Unfortunately, sick twits like Whoopi Goldberg (whose different world is upper class New York/Hollywood btw) want to keep blacks mired in that different world; the one in which they most likely can neither succeed nor escape. I trust she doesn't consciously want to keep her niggers down, but that's the result of her beliefs about using the word "nigger."

And who, exactly, is Whoopi calling nigger? She’s calling people who live in housing projects nigger. She’s calling the black working class nigger. She’s calling the African and West Indian immigrants nigger. She’s calling black professionals nigger. She’s calling mixed people like Barack Obama nigger. She's calling Ivy League achievers like Michelle Obama nigger. And she’s calling the cute little Obama children nigger too. That’s what angers me. Whoopi Goldberg is calling innocent little children nigger.

Black children nowadays are very unlikely to experience the trauma of being called nigger from the mouth of a white racist. No, the first, fifth, and five thousandth time they are called nigger will be out of the mouth of an African American. Thanks Whoopi. You are sick

Whoopi Goldberg, and many fucked-up-beyond-repair people like her, argue that calling young children nigger is a form of empowerment. Well, perhaps it gives those who call young children nigger a sense of empowerment, but it certainly doesn’t empower those young children. It hurts them.

The word “nigger” is the opposite of empowerment for blacks, particularly the lower economic classes. It is a wound for all. A shackle for all too many.

Addendum: I am aware that in blog world, it is right bloggers who overwhelming, albeit superficially, share my position on this. I see no evidence that they believe a word of what they are saying. For them, Jackson and Goldberg's hypocrisy is just a weapon. That, and as so many note, wingnuts probably feel victimized and lash out because they want to call blacks niggers and society won't let them.

A commenter at the conservative"Hot Air" blog, responding to Goldberg's idiocy, expresses the conservative mindset quite well:

Can we ship them all back to Africa then? I mean really, how much more of this crap do we have to put up with? It just goes on and on and when you think they can’t be serious you realize they are.

I figured, OK give them Barak Hussein Obama and maybe the deal would be that we no longer have to listen to these people who are so not victims of anything whine about their victimhood...

Victimhood indeed.

Another photo

Window

$

The new ballgame

Have you noticed how pretty much nothing remains of left field? The New York Times this morning has a piece about how "far leftists" are abandoning Senator Obama's campaign, yet it never tells us what defines the "far left."

The photo that accompanies the story seems to imply that two young twenty-somethings are far leftists. It's a terrible photo--off kilter with some guy's out-of-focus stomach protruding from the right, but I guess the photographer felt the need to keep his distance in case the leftists were to do something radical. They don't look particularly dangerous though. It's true that one is wearing some kind of message buttons, though we can't make out what they say, and the other has on a green shirt, which is ominous, but otherwise they just look like a couple middle class college kids.

The story's only example of a political belief embraced by the far left is an opposition to warrantless domestic spying. When I was a young'un, the far left wanted to nationalize industry, collectivize the farms and further the cause of international Communism. If opposition to warrantless domestic spying now defines the far left, then everyone in the United States except J. Edgar Hoover was a crazy radical before the second attack on the World Trade Center.

But as many note, we live in a post second-attack-on-the-World Trade Center-world. Americans now share a broad consensus that the police should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want (as long as it's someone else). Anyone who believes in politically incorrect parts of the constitution such as the First or Fourth Amendments is obviously a far leftist. The constitution, you see, is what the party in power says it is, at least as long as far leftists are not in power.

It's not until the end of the article that we get any other hint of what actually defines a far leftist.

Ms. Shade, the Green-turned-Democrat-returned-Green voter, spoke about Mr. Obama while leaning out her second-floor apartment window, where she has placed homemade signs urging the impeachment of President Bush. Others say “Free Gaza” and “Occupation is Terrorism.” She said twice that the American political system was “rotten.”

Not exactly nationalized industry or collective farms, but with a little analysis the definition of a far leftist begins to take shape.

The word green is the first giveaway. Green is the new Red. Then the fact that the woman has homemade signs. Any decent American would contribute to the economy (even if it's China's) by purchasing their signs. And off course anyone advocating the impeachment of Bush is a far leftist. That's practically the same thought crime as reading the constitution. And anything that remotely smacks of opposition to government-approved military conquest is marks one indelibly as a far leftist.

But while all of those thought crimes might conceivably be excused as legitimate policy difference or the idealism of youth, I suspect the girl's gravest crime, and that of the other far leftists, is the forbidden thought that the American political system is rotten. She didn't just say it once. As the reporter for the NY Times emphasized, she said it twice! That's out there, man. Out in left field.

Picture of today

What to do, what to do...

Despite the horseshit coming out of Washington, new evidence continues to arrive that shows the United States is beginning to spiral up to Latin American levels of hyperinflation. Today, the lesson comes in the form of our electric bills:

Utilities across the USA are raising power prices up to 29%, mostly to pay for soaring fuel costs, but also to build new plants and refurbish an aging power grid.

Even more dramatic rate increases are ahead. The mounting electric bills will further squeeze households struggling with spiraling gasoline prices.

"Consumers now face a tough reality on electricity," says Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation of America.

Rocco Sacramone, the owner and executive chef at Trattoria L'incontro, a well-regarded Italian restaurant in Queens asks:

"What are we going to do? We're going to pass it on to customers. What else can we do?" he said, adding that that hikes come at a particularly bad time. "My meat prices went up. My fish prices went up. Everything went up."

And that's everyone's answer, starting with the electric companies. Raise prices. Pass the costs along to the customer. And if you are a giant oil or utility company, tack on a whopping windfall profit to make you feel better.

Is it true that there is no other solution? Perhaps not for the struggling restaurateur in Queens, but for large companies making billions in profits?

Would it not be possible for them to take less profit?

Well, no and yes.

In today's political economy, it is not even possible for a company to decrease the rate of profit growth without dire consequences. This is because we have bought into the ideology of Shareholder Value, which posits that the purpose of a company is to enrich its shareholders. It's not like the old days when a family run business could ride out the hard times and emerge stronger. Today, a business must sell out everything for current share price, which is largely dependent on the rate of profit growth. This is what used to be known as a pyramid scheme.

Perhaps that's all fine and good for companies selling widgets, but it makes no good sense whatsoever for a company selling basic public services.

The alternative is government control or strict oversight of essential service providers. That's how it works in the most successful countries. That's how it worked in the United States when we were a successful country. And that's how it will work in the future after this pyramid scheme reaches its inevitable conclusion. The only realistic question is how much damage will be done before the economy is totally wrecked and we have to buy Euros from hustlers on street corners as soon as we get paid in or else we wake up the next day with another pile of worthless paper.

We've established what she is... (continued)

Senator Barack Obama continues to urge us to pay off Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign debts. Keep in mind that Senator Clinton is a multimillionaire who can easily pay her own debts and still be a multimillionaire. But no, she'd rather you and I ration our beer money and feed the kids macaroni and cheese so that she can regain a smidgen of her pride. Keep in mind, also, that she ran up those debts after she had effectively lost the nomination. She wants you and I to sacrifice for her folly. Or if not you and I, then the wealthy people who might otherwise help other Democratic Party candidates.

Personally, I find it morally monstrous that anyone would give her a dime when the election is in doubt. Or if people are not going to support the black guy no matter what, they should at least help the homeless or some worthy cause if they are in the mood to give.

The fact that Senator Clinton keeps playing these games provides a wonderful demonstration of what a twisted sociopath she has become. That's what I like about her. And that's why I have still not counted her out for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Even if she loses, I suspect she will not go down without making an ugly scene or three. What price must Obama pay to get her to turn over her delegates? If there is a price, I'm sure we'll find out. And it will be high.

And I pity Senator Obama if he becomes President Obama. Dealing with the Republican dead-enders will be bad enough, but he'll have Senator Clinton in the senate working late nights to thwart his every move.

Then there's the cult she created, Our Women of the Perpetually Aggrieved. It looks like they'll be wailing until the end of days, or at least until Senator Clinton claims her rightful crown.

You have to wonder about how Senator Obama is handling this. I think it's one of those situations where all of the answers have ugly consequences. Nothing he can do will make her go away. Giving her everything she demands would not make her happy and she would never stop increasing her demands. Worse than that, it would make him appear weak. No, it would show that he is weak. If he's that much of a doormat, imagine how he'd handle Iran. He wouldn't just talk to them without preconditions, he'd right them a check without preconditions in the hope that they would talk.

I trust he's better than that. My guess is he'll do whatever he has to to get through the convention and then try to lose the psycho. Of course he can never lose the psycho entirely, but he will try getting as far away as possible so that she can only bite his ankles rather than his jugular.

Who woulda thunk it?

Reuters reports that the government of Panama has declined to host a U.S. military base on their soil.

PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - Panama has ruled out hosting a U.S. military base to replace one in Ecuador which is being reclaimed by the Quito government, a senior Panamanian official said on Friday....

Panama's Justice Minister Daniel Delgado said his country's often turbulent history with the United States made the establishment of new bases impossible.

Funny how the article fails to mention that we invaded Panama, killed, wounded and displaced a lot of people, and have a rich history of fucking over Latin American countries, particularly those stupid enough to let us build military bases.

Those reading the article with no knowledge of history would be mystified. We are so good, so righteous. Why do these poor, deluded people always distrust our good intentions? Why o why?

Picture of today

Chuckling does his part

I just got a call from a representative of Senator Obama asking me to help out with a campaign donation. I want to help Senator Obama, I genuinely do, but I figure at this stage in the campaign he needs my advice more than he needs my money.

So I said that I would not give anything to Senator Obama for two reasons. First, because I did not want to waste any of my money to retire the mutli-millionaire Hillary Clinton's campaign debt. Second, that Senator Obama is quickly becoming a Republican and that I am not giving a dime to support the Republican agenda.

Apparently they have been hearing a lot of negative feedback over paying back Senator Clinton's campaign debts because the caller had a scripted answer to that criticism, which was reasonable.

But he just sounded exasperated about the charge that the Senator has dropped any pretense of being a Democrat. I pointed out that Senator Obama supports what should be illegal wiretapping, that he wants to funnel tax dollars to so-called religious organizations, and that he is backing off his pledge to get us out of Iraq -- Republican positions all. No scripted answer to those points, yet.

I was polite and asked that the caller please pass my concerns up the chain of command. I'm sure the Obama campaign will get the message if enough people refuse to contribute based on those principles. Of course the message they get may be to rely on corporate donors and their lobbyists instead, but that would speak to their morality not mine. I did the best I could to help.

Picture of today

Party like it's 1999

I'll try not to harp on this continually as the elections season rolls on. I know it doesn't win me any friends or influence. But periodically I just have to point out the overwhelming evidence that we live in a one party state. And now seems to be a good time for a little reminder, seeing how Senator Obama just dropped any pretense of being a Democrat. His embrace of Bush's Iraq policy so soon after his embrace of Bush's domestic spying policies should give you a couple pretty solid clues as to how things actually work. Senator Obama, just like everyone else in any kind of leadership position, is a member of the inner party. Whether he wins or loses, there will be no roll back of the national security state, no sensible universal health care and no change in the direction in the flow of money from the middle class to the wealthy.

But if elected, I wonder what he will accomplish. He's very eloquent and persuasive you know. The sky is not even the limit. President Clinton only managed to fulfill the liberal dream of doing away with Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Maybe President Obama will achieve the holy grail and destroy social security and medicare. For the good of this great nation, you know. For the good of Americans like you, me, and our sainted grandmothers. With a bi-partisan consensus of Republicans and centrist Democrats, he'll be able to accomplish just about anything.

Can't have that

This is sad.

An Indiana teacher who used a much lauded bestseller, The Freedom Writers Diary, to try to inspire under-performing high-school students has been suspended from her job without pay for 18 months.

The forces of ignorance rule most of this country.

The mighty, they fall

In economic news, the NY Times reports that the U.S. is on its knees begging for money in Moscow.

...the American treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., appealed in Moscow for Russian investment in the United States.

Speaking from the grave, Vladimir Lenin counseled the current Russian president to buy any rope we offer for sale.

Photo of the day

Election year observation

It just occurred to me that no one is running against the Beltway establishment this time around. How strange that both candidates would choose not to use such a proven strategy.

Never mind that Senator McCain is the Beltway establishment personified. That kind of grand hypocrisy and hucksterism has never stopped Republicans before.

And what's up with Senator Obama? He's not only running against the Beltway establishment personified but doing it at a time when that establishment is coming off the biggest failures in the history of the country.

What could possibly explain his failure to take advantage of such a winning strategy?

Update: I just saw Senator Obama's top advisor, David Axelrod, on tv saying that the Senator was not really serious about withdrawing troops from Iraq. Hmmmm. What could possibly explain that sudden alignment with the Beltway establishment?

It's a stumper.

Photo of the day

How it plays in peoria

A friend sent me this first hand report of some family friendly fare in the heart of this great country:

Well at least I got to see some family entertainment in Peoria at the Cubs farm team's new family entertainment stadium. Between inning entertainment as a "balloon race" where a girl had to burst a water balloon on her boyfriends chest with her chest. Then run a lap and then bust a water balloon on his crotch and then jump his bones on the ground till they could break a balloon between the two of them on the ground. That was followed by a grind dance contest on top of the visiting teams clubhouse about 10 feet from us. $8 well spent! Oh crap we were with our under 13 girls soccer team.....

Ummmm. Okay. Sounds like good midwestern fun, I've been there, done that. Seems a bit strange doing it at a professional baseball game, but whatever.

He also included this link to a short article that some might consider sexist. I got a chuckle from the denouement, but found it interesting in the context of our ongoing conversation about what is or is not sexist. The major issues surrounding Senator Clinton's campaign for President are relived in comments, but with a better sense of humor.