Category Archives: politics

Hillary be damned

Posted on by
1

I think that Hillary Clinton would be damned by public opinion no matter how she ran her campaign. If she had Barack’s eloquence, charm, and public persona, she would have been damned for being to theatrical, too smooth, not tough enough etc. etc. Oh yes, she’s made too many mistakes in her campaign, but I don’t think that’s the reason there’s so much animosity toward her.
Many American’s love the idea of good vs. evil, the bad vs. the good, and they’ve been handed a perfect opportunity to set up a METAPHORICAL (not racial) black vs. white battle. No grays here (except creeping in on Hillary’s battered head.)
And, despite all of the backlash against Ferraro, I believe that if a white male with Barack’s change agenda AND LACK OF EXPERIENCE were running, he wouldn’t have made it this far.
Oh, wait a minute. A white male with Barack’s change agenda AND CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE was running and didn’t make it.
Perhaps what it all just means is the time is right for someone like Barack — a moving, persuasive orator, a symbol of radical change from the status quo (symbolized by his bi-racial ethnicity), someone from a new generation who appeals to the new generation. If he could be canonized by us liberals, he would be called Saint Barack, patron saint of idealists.
So often, timing is everything. And, as we saw on Ellen, Barack’s got the timing down pat.
And late middle-aged, thick waisted, experienced, tough broad Hillary be damned.
But not by me.

powwow at the end of the world

Posted on by
Reply

I repost this poem from Jim Culleny’s entry here at 3 quarks daily.

Powwow at the End of the World
Sherman Alexie
I am told by many of you that I must forgive and so I shall
after an Indian woman puts her shoulder to the Grand Coulee Dam
and topples it. I am told by many of you that I must forgive
and so I shall after the floodwaters burst each successive dam
downriver from the Grand Coulee. I am told by many of you
that I must forgive and so I shall after the floodwaters find
their way to the mouth of the Columbia River as it enters the Pacific
and causes all of it to rise. I am told by many of you that I must forgive
and so I shall after the first drop of floodwater is swallowed by that salmon
waiting in the Pacific. I am told by many of you that I must forgive and so I shall
after that salmon swims upstream, through the mouth of the Columbia
and then past the flooded cities, broken dams and abandoned reactors
of Hanford. I am told by many of you that I must forgive and so I shall
after that salmon swims through the mouth of the Spokane River
as it meets the Columbia, then upstream, until it arrives
in the shallows of a secret bay on the reservation where I wait alone.
I am told by many of you that I must forgive and so I shall after
that salmon leaps into the night air above the water, throws
a lightning bolt at the brush near my feet, and starts the fire
which will lead all of the lost Indians home. I am told
by many of you that I must forgive and so I shall
after we Indians have gathered around the fire with that salmon
who has three stories it must tell before sunrise: one story will teach us
how to pray; another story will make us laugh for hours;
the third story will give us reason to dance. I am told by many
of you that I must forgive and so I shall when I am dancing
with my tribe during the powwow at the end of the world.
………………………………………………………………………………….

Sherman Alexie, “The Powwow at the End of the World” from The Summer of Black Widows by Sherman Alexie; Hanging Loose Press.


Meanwhile, all around the rest of us, politicians spin us into oblivion.

ego, power, entitlement, and politics

Posted on by
Reply

By now, everyone knows about Spitzer’s fall from grace.
I have found it very interesting that his government colleagues of both parties have not said anything about the the morality of the actions that precipitated his downfall. Instead, the all simply express their concern for Sptizer and his family.
Why are they being so “compassionate” you might wonder.
Duh. It’s because most of them have active extra-marital lives themselves. I found that out decades ago when I worked at my state’s legislature. Hell, everyone there knew what Nelson Rockefeller was involved in long before he died so memorably..
To be a politician, you have to have a strong ego. If you are a successful politician, you will have amassed considerable power that will bolster your ego even further. Ego combined with power generates a sense of entitlement to dispensation from the obligations of ordinary people. Throw in a good dose of testosterone, and, well, just check this out.
In my 30s and pretty enough, I wasn’t working at the legislature more than two months when one legislator, who chatted with me as we waited for an elevator, asked if I would like to accompany him to the Bahamas. Maybe he was kidding; maybe not. (No, I didn’t take him up on it.)
After a while, I became friends with a female on the staff of a still-prominent legislator, who, I found out, had kept a mistress for as long as he’d been there. Having worked for him for many years, she knew all the dirt about him and many other legislators as well. And there was a lot of it. And everyone seemed to obey an unwritten rule to keep it all secret.
And that’s what so puzzling about Spitzer’s actions.
On my way out to my birthday visit with my daughter and family, I was listening to WAMC, where well-known local defense attorney Terry Kindlon began a list of all the things Spitzer did that would guarantee that he would be caught. It’s as though he wanted to be caught.
One radio station listener called in to comment that perhaps Spitzer was going through a mid-life crisis. Whatever it was/is, it sure is a crisis. For such a smart man, he he made really dumb decisions.
Ego, power, entitlement, and politics can be the perfect recipe for hubris (iin it’s modern definition.)
I wonder if all of those other politicians who have their mistresses stashed away in nearby condos are feeling just a little more vulnerable. Yeah. Right.
Ego, power, entitlement, and politics — can’t beat ’em, until they beat you.

is Obama Rove’s Frankenstein?

Posted on by
1

It’s a long article, but you really need to go here and read it. Excerpts follow:
Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it’s curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he’s gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.
Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets haven’t done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.
The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy. Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the Democratic mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th, according to Fox News Channel. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in what appears to be a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination. Even with his more well-known dirty tricks arsenal – phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. – Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she’s generally popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn’t close, the vote-rigging won’t matter. (Several influential Republicans admit as much in a February 11th story for Politico.)
If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove’s prospects brighten considerably.
AND
Last year, at the same time she commanded a huge lead in the national polls, political analysts and professional strategists retained by CNN and other broadcast networks began hammering across the notion that “the voters don’t like her”. The adjectives “unlikable”, “divisive” and “polarizing” used to characterize Clinton have been repeated over and over in the same manner that “biological warfare” and “weapons of mass destruction” were employed during the lead-up to the Iraq War. In both cases, the terminology traces back to a cadre of right-wing, neocon ideologues who keep the studio seats warm at Fox News. “There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party’s nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has,” Rove told Reuters last August. Earlier this month, Bush’s former senior political advisor joined Fox as a part-time election analyst.
Obama himself recites Rove’s “high negatives” comment in press interviews whenever discussing Clinton. His often bitter criticism of the former First Lady and other “Washington insiders”, who he says want to “boil and stew all the hope out of him”, represents a staple of his core political message. His campaign slogan to the effect of “I’m a uniter, not a divider” is also reminiscent of the Bush 2000 campaign, which Rove managed. Perhaps that’s not suprising when you discover that one of Obama’s speechwriters is Ben Rhodes, the brother of Fox News VP David Rhodes. (Marisa Guthrie, of BC Beat, reported this connection recently.) The latter Rhodes has been with the network since its inception in 1996. You may recall that on election night in November 2000, it was Fox that called Florida for Bush, even though the other networks declared Gore the winner, citing the exit polls. How Fox knew the polls were wrong in advance of the vote tabulation has never been explained.
I, who have not necessarily been a supporter of Hillary Clinton, am changing my mind.

1) ??? 2) ???

Posted on by
Reply

(Monday is myrln’s day to blog here at Kalilily Time.)
1) ??? 2) ???
There are two items that could use some attention since both involve our tax dollars and in some ways, they point out just how ignorant we may be about the use of OUR money by the feds.
First off, for the past how long, we’ve been endlessly bombarded about the primary contests being waged to help find our candidates for the next president. We can’t escape the news about them — which in truth is good. It reminds us that our government is our choice and ultimately our responsibility. So far, what we’ve been seeing is a number of senators and congressmen mostly out campaigning, trying to whip up votes. Day after day they’re out “on the stump,” working hard to make their points to the potential voters.
Only, when you look a little harder or just sit and think about it, you come to realize something they don’t mention very much. Consider: for months they’re out there somewhere in the country and moving from one locale to another, days on end. What they are not doing during this time and in those activities is their job. Remember, they were elected to go to Washington as representatives of their state or district. Yet here they are anywhere but D.C. — while still getting paid, still getting health care (the best in the nation), and still piling up credits toward their pensions. All of it paid for with OUR tax dollars.
Doesn’t bother you? No big deal? It’s the process? Oh yeah? Try getting the same deal from your boss.
***
Item 2 is different. It’s this: why do we have an FDA, a Food and Drug Administration? At least as far as concerns new drugs coming into the marketplace? Without FDA’s approval, no new drug makes it out for sale here. Good idea, a watchdog for our protection against the release of dangerous substances. Oh yeah? Then why in this flood of TV commercials for new and existing drugs does every one of them finish off with someone sounding like a shady used-car dealer talking a mile-a-minute and warning us, almost unintelligibly he’s talking so fast, about all the potential dangers of the product?
If it’s so dangerous, why was it approved by the FDA for sale in the first place? Hm-m. Good question. Our tax dollars going to approve drugs that in normal use could harm us, even kill us.
A great service, huh?

Nader’s nadir

Posted on by
2

(Monday is myrln’s day to blog here at Kalilily Time.)
NADER’S NADIR
Once upon a time there was a man named Ralph Nader, a tireless champion. He spoke up on behalf of the American working class by taking on industry and big business and government. He ceaselessly showed up their shortcomings, their lack of concern or care for consumer’s safety and pocket books. Product after product, business after business, government policy (or lack) after policy put the almighty dollar ahead of people. So Nader took the abusers on.
And he so rallied the working class to his side that he actually forced Big $$$ and government to make changes. Changes that actually benefited consumers — meaning all of us. He was a hero and deserved all the credit in the world. The big shots hated him.
Today, there’s still a Ralph Nader. But it’s a different story. He still takes on the power elite, tho’ with much less success. He is particularly critical of politics and government failures — all good intentions and a necessary voice (tho’ largely unheard). Only now he’s complicated matters: he insists on running for President as a third-party candidate. Some would say he’s obsessed with it. Others that he’s delusional, which may be nearer the truth because when he’s reminded his last run likely cost Al Gore the presidency and stuck us with what we got (remember Florida?), the current Ralph Nader disagrees and denies. What about the Democrats and Republicans, he asks, and their support of war, attacks on freedom, and free-hand function for big business? All valid points — but whose hopeless candidacy gave us George W. Bush, Ralph? (Remember Florida?)
But he insists on running yet again — even tho’ he makes no inroads toward valid ends, even though he holds such huge responsibility for the presence of the incumbent in the White House. If he can’t see that, he indeed at least borders on the delusional.
Ralph: REMEMBER FLORIDA? Apparently not. Too bad. It fries all the respect he once attained.
Nader’s nadir.

our president, ourselves

Posted on by
Reply

I have not been a supporter of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but I was given a good smack on the head by an article by Robin Morgan, which, among other things, makes this point:

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Morgan pointedly criticizes this campaign…

… where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

.
And she reminds me of why I am a devoted feminist:

Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Morgan’s lengthy piece brings the issue of electing Hillary Clinton into focus.

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

And she ends with:

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

The above excerpts can’t really capture the force and fury of Morgan’s article. Go and read the whole thing here.

thissa and thatta

Posted on by
Reply

(Monday is myrln’s day to blog here at Kalilily Time.)
THISSA AND THATTA
Thissa: Moving into a greener world (as the term goes) is an urgent matter. But as we make that move, we ought to be careful about choices and making them fixtures. And speaking of fixtures, one of the green decisions is that which will move us from incandescent light bulbs to screw-in fluorescents to reduce energy consumption. A commendable objective to be sure, but is this a really good way to go?
It’s no secret (or shouldn’t be) that the fluorescents contain mercury, and we can only wonder what happens when — after they burn out — we start dumping millions of them into our landfills. Where do we suppose all that mercury’s going to go as the bulbs get crushed? Into our environment, that’s where. And a recent item in Parade Magazine this week also noted that the fluorescents with their barely noticeable flicker can cause migraines or seizures. They also can aggravate skin rashes for people with lupus, eczema, and other skin conditions. The makers say the new bulbs have been improved so we don’t have to worry. Wanna risk it?
It was also noted what to do if a bulb breaks. Don’t vacuum it up cuz the debris can spread toxic dust into the air. Nope. Leave it where it lies and depart the room for 15 minutes. Then with gloves on, put the “fragments into a plastic bag, seal it and take it to a recycling center.”
This is progress? Sounds more like stupidity. The neon manufacturers must have a good lobby.
***
Thatta: Speaking of a greener world and good lobbies: Exxon Mobil reports a profit this past year of $45.6 BILLION dollars. That’s pure profit. Aren’t you pleased at how much you helped the company by paying their higher prices? Now we have to root for them to get a really good tax rebate from Dumbya and Darth…both of whom have been real good to the industry they have big ties to.
$45.6 BILLION in profit.
Oh, and while we’re on the oil business, some folks buying new cars to improve their gas mileage have found they’re getting much worse mileage than they’re supposed to be getting. Why? Cuz it turns out that E-gas — which includes the corn-based ethanol — doesn’t burn as well as plain gas. But let’s remember, ethanol’s our savior. And will improve the profit line of oil companies as we spend more cuz we burn more.
Be less corn on the cob next summer, too.