On the Eve of the Inauguration

It is a profound and profoundly moving moment in history. There is simply no other term for it but a moment in history. No one in this world will ever forget where they were and what they were doing on the 20th of January, 2009.

The nature of President-elect Obama's conduct over the past two months and some days has been extremely moving and personal for innumerable people around this country and indeed, the world. I am no different.

What I find most interesting about this incoming President, and I admit I am more interested in him right now than his administration, is that he has changed the tenor of people's attitudes. Despite the fact that we may be in even more dire circumstances than the Great Depression (after all, this Recession is Global), Mr. Obama has inspired people to change the way they view themselves, their empowerment, and their responsibility to those beyond their own narrow lives.

It is one of the most striking contrasts to the kind of culture and mindset that George W. Bush heralded. With him and his "War on Terror" rather than "Terrorism," Bush instituted a culture of "Me First, in fact, Only Me" wherein the rules of conduct applied to everyone else but oneself. Of course, what that meant was that the rules applied to no one, since everyone occupies the role of "someone else" in relation to other people.

Thus people became rude. They were unrepentantly mean. And racist, "hate" crimes increased dramatically. They could call each other names and then, like Sarah Palin, accuse other people of the very conduct they themselves engaged in by hiding behind the excuse, "Well, you're just being mean." Projection and irresponsibility was the order of the day for eight long years.

If I am any measure, everything has changed. I have gone from being extremely cynical about my agency to feeling that empowerment is less important than the fact that I want to serve my country. I am looking for myriad ways of doing so, despite that I am unemployed and have been for several months. Nevertheless, I am glad I am American. I am actually contemplating wearing an American flag shirt for the celebration in Downtown L.A. though in honesty, I don't have anything like that so I won't. But if I did possess such an item, I certainly would.

I am attending tomorrow morning to watch the Swearing in Ceremony live on enormous screens with thousands of other people. I am taking my daughter to this event, unlike some people I know who are attending the actual inauguration and have left their seven-year old at home. I am going to take photos. Because unlike those other people, I know that though I am not old, this election has not been about me, and this inauguration is likewise, not for just me. It is for and about the younger generation. So while my daughter is not yet two, I intend to take her to this celebration. She will experience what it is like for people to join together in strength, unified in purpose and joined by a vision that can accommodate personal goals in a way that benefits the many. Because even if she does not remember the event when she grows older, I will share that experience with her. With photos and video. And she will know that her life, which began the day before Mr. Obama declared his candidacy, was improved in innumerable, countless ways by this singular event.

I am glad, and proud, to be American. And I will be proud when I go abroad. And people will no longer scorn me when they discover I am American, though I am of color. They will congratulate me. As a representative of something for good.

Some Thoughts

In an article in the LA Times, which is a far more liberal newspaper than any of the other national newspapers, including the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times, I read an article about race, white voters and Obama.

I thought this one quote, by a 47 year old man whose ancestors were slave owners, was really on point. Bear in mind that while this was in the context of voting, it is generally relevant to Euro-Americans and their approach and reluctance to discuss racism.

He says: "For me, the Obama thing is a giant step forward for America," he said. The 47-year-old's ancestors once lorded over black slaves as owners of one of the Old South's largest plantation empires. Electing a black candidate, he said, would show that "we're not just the slavery nation, the Jim Crow nation." He then later observes, that Obama, if elected, would quell overseas critics who accuse the United States of racism. If critics like Steele called that "white guilt," he said, then so be it.

Guilt, he said, "has a place and a role. Those who fail to feel guilt are sociopaths."

It is good to see this kind of article in a national newspaper that can also be accessed online. Though whether people will read this, and whether more importantly it will spark the kind of critical self-examination needed, is another question.

Too long, those of color have been forced to dance around the "politically correct" position of not raising the issue of racism, or indeed even mentioning the word, around Euro-Americans. Too long. It is as if we must acknowledge that, "Hey, if I feel guilt, isn't that enough?"

No, it isn't. Changes must be wrought, not simply in individual minds, but collectively. So that the Neo-Nazis who hatched a plan to assassinate Obama are not merely brushed under the media rug. This is not a mere blip on the screen of information. This is a postule that reveals a much deeper, systemic rot underneath: the systemic, institutionalized racism that is symbolized by Palin's followers. Immoral. Radical. And yet, knowing that they are referencing hundreds of years of domestic terrorism, otherwise referred to as racism, that they are buoyed still by institutions that inadequately address Neo-Nazism, racism, and "hate-based" crimes. Because today, these crimes are treated as individual acts, rather than collective acts that reference history. And becuase of that referencing, have a greater deleterious and pernicious effect on the psyche of its victims: people of color.

Joseph Ellis on Conservatism and Liberalism

In reading Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, Professor of History at Mt. Holyoke Joseph Ellis defines Conservatism and Liberalism.

On liberalism, Ellis says, "The core revolutionary principle...is individual liberty. It has radical and, in modern terms, libertarian implications, because it regards any accommodation of personal freedom to governmental discipline as dangerous. In its more extreme forms it is a recipe for anarchy, and its attitude toward any energetic expression of centralized political power can assume paranoid proportions," (2000: 14).


On conservativism, he says, "...the American Revolution [was seen by some] as an incipient national movement with deep, if latent, origins in the colonial era...The core revolutionary principle in this view is collectivistic rather than individualistic, for it sees the true spirit of '76 as the virtuous surrender of personal, state, and sectional interests to the larger purposes of American nationhood, first embodied in the Continental Army and later in the newly established federal government. It has conservative but also protosocialistic implications, because it does not regard the individual as the sovereign unit in the political equation and is more comfortable with the governmental discipline as a focusing and channeling device for national development. In its more extreme forms it relegates personal rights and liberties to the higher authority of the state, which is "us" and not "them," and it therefore has both communal and despotic implications," (2000: 14).

As soon as I read this, I thought again of the irony of the Republicans having usurped the mantle of "Conservatism" since according to this classical definition, they are actually quite liberal (!!) and I'm sure that those radical, right-wing jackanapes who think plotting to kill leaders based on their skin color is a good idea would cringe at the thought.

But another implication that I'm certain not many have thought of is that these diametrically opposed interpretations of the purpose of the American Revolution is how they apply to dominant Euro-American understandings of China. Many a Euro-Am will lament at the lack of freedom in China and the lack of understanding of "Democracy" not only the government, but regular Chinese people in China have. They immediately attribute this condition to the oppressive government: if not for the oppressive regime, Chinese people would understand "Democracy, U.S.-style" and indeed, they would validate the Euro-American value system, i.e. they would be more like "us."

No, they wouldn't. China and its value system, without falling into essentialisms or transhistoricisms, consistently subscribes to this principle: sacrifice of the individual for the greater good of the state. For stability to reign, each individual must sacrifice, and that doesn't mean literally they need to sacrifice certain things--horror to your average American. They mean that people must know their roles. And for each situation, there are appropriate roles to play. If everyone maintains those, then society will not experience upheaval. It is when people do not understand these roles that chaos ensues.

And frankly, what's happening in the U.S. culturally and politically, with skinheads plotting to kill the next president and the V.P. pick by McCain demonstrating that, once again, Americans can be unimaginably, shockingly stupid at the highest levels of government, seems to be a testament to what happens when people do not understand their place, their limitations, have no decorum, manners and basic honor. And if that isn't enough proof that America's way isn't so great, can we just once more contemplate how the U.S. singlehandedly ushered in a GLOBAL DEPRESSION by sanctioning an 8-year period of rapacious, hey-if-the-president-can-steal-an-election-why-can't-I-do-a-little-stealing-of-my-own mentality? I don't think we should be pointing fingers at how inferior "they" are or looking for validation for our way of being "free." W have been steadily losing our freedom under Bush for the last Eight Years, and for those who object to the Democrats controlling Congress and the
White House, it was the 6 Years of Republican Congress that helped Bush along.

Steve Lombardo, Republic Analyst, Says McCain is Heading for Defeat

That's two people, one, the pundit David Brooks of the NY Times, and now a former Mitt Romney advisor, Steve Lombardo.

Published in The Guardian, Mr. Lombardo says that McCain is heading for near-certain defeat barring a "crippling error" by Obama or terrorist attack on the US.

During the debate, it was also ironic that the talking head who claims Obama is all for "big government" in terms of his health care plan, McCain himself proposed a huge big government plan for helping individuals with their mortgages. Hypocrisy much?

And this excerpt from the article cited above is particularly satisfying:

"McCain saw fresh signs yesterday of the damage to his prospects in polls showing him trailing in four battleground states and fighting to keep Indiana and North Carolina. He suffered another blow when the wife of a retiring Republican senator seen as one of the Republicans' experts on national security officially endorsed Obama. "We're in two wars, two of the longest we've ever been in. We've run up a third of our nation's debt in just the past eight years. We're in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression," said Lilibet Hagel, whose husband, Chuck, is a senator from Nebraska."

No wonder he has been sicking Palin on Obama.

McCain is no "maverick"--he's a mean, unpredictable, volatile old man. Maybe he should just pack it in.

Volunteering at the SoCal Obama Campaign HQ

The inclusiveness is evident in the campaign HQ located on Motor Avenue in LA. Attempting to volunteer for the Kerry campaign in 2004 was futile. I couldn't even locate the HQ in Century City and once I did, evidently I wasn't allowed in because I hadn't been added to some list.

The Obama campaign is different. Everyone is invited. Do what you can. No one cares what you do outside--it isn't a forum to network and it isn't a venue to brag. Indeed, I've often overheard that many of these people are in the "Industry" which means the entertainment industry. But nothing like that matters, which is unusual in a city whose many inhabitants often care a great deal about such things.

Instead, you bring your passion. Your skills. And you contribute what you can, when you can. It is what I had thought of when I was much younger, that this is what politics was: a collective. On the ground. Contributing what you can. And that contribution is valued.

I enter data. I type quickly. So I enter a lot of data. And then I leave. And I'm always appreciated. And I feel good. Inspired. This is a campaign I can finally believe in.

And About Race...

Still think that race is not an issue in America? Or embarrassed that it is? This new poll, conducted in conjunction with Stanford University, shows that Obama would lead by 6 more points than he is now if he were white.

Some excerpts:

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey."

"The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain."

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

About this last opinion, wow. And perhaps if whites hadn't enslaved black people, raped their culture, their women, exploited their labor, split apart their families, and then systematically terrorized them and disenfranchised them for over another hundred additional years to the present, maybe they would be better off.

Ignorant people have no idea what it is like to be systematically terrorized and to have governmental institutions support that oppression by criminalizing that same entire social and ethnic group. Because they are ignorant and most often white.

Until the late '60's, lynching was still prevalent. Ignorant people will often say, "Well, I feel scared walking down such and such a street." What they don't understand is that is an individual experience, it is not institutional. It is not on a collective, social level. Your entire neighborhood isn't terrorized while authority sits back and does nothing. People who go abroad and experience racism, they know. They can imagine what it is like to grow up with that feeling of fear, because not only does everyone feel that they can victimize you with impunity, but you also fear the supposedly authoritative, protective government institutions which are meant to protect people but not you if you're colored.

However, there is some hope that despite racism, people are seeing that Obama will do what is in their best interests, while McCain will merely continue the rapacious streak of exploitation and cronyism that Bush/Cheney have instituted. Read the story of one Pennsylvanian's change of mind, if not heart.

But then there is the other side. On Patt Morrison's show on KPCC 89.3, there was a man who said that on the one hand, he was concerned about Obama's lack of experience. But then in a dizzying display of circular reasoning, he thought that even though McCain had exactly the kind of experience that led us to this crisis (actually, McCain, Bushites and Cheneyites) it was alright that Palin had no experience because she was "like me." If that isn't a code for racism, what is?

McSame Pulls out of Michigan

McCain has conceded the state that has the highest unemployment rate in the country, Michigan. He also lags in several states that were contested but are leaning more heavily towards Obama given the current economic meltdown and McCain's unrepentant incompetence in the area.

A Pew Research Center poll also finds that the initial "bounce" Palin gave McCain's candidacy is clearly backfiring. Over 50% of those polled think Palin, surprise, is unqualified to be President should something happen to McCain. The presidential debate helped undecideds realize that McCain is more of the same unprincipled ambition as Bush. For McCain and Palin, the "rules don't apply" so that even still, Palin's husband refuses to answer the court summons regarding Palin's firing of a former brother-in-law.

Similar to this administration's actual VP, Cheney, as noted in The Nation who refuses to turn over the records he has generated during his term because he claims he is "not part of the executive branch" because he is also President of the Senate. Again, if you are the party that has

Karl Rove
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
George W.

why in the world would you think the rules apply to you? They hijacked the election and it was smooth sailing from there. Except that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and that our problems are reverberating throughout the world. Because if you can hijack the presidency and get away with it, then you can create home loans and sell them in a bundle to other investors at incredibly inflated prices, exploit people by persuading them to take out multiple mortgages and then threaten states with withholding banking services if they implement legislation that demands proof of income.

Palin represents the kind of racist incompetence that Republicans embrace: cover up the incompetence with constant shouting and attacks and hopefully no one will notice you are not only incompetent, but a rapacious, unrepentant, exploitative nincompoop who represents the worst of corruption, cronyism, and amoral dissolution. Yes, that's what Republicans who think Palin is a "fox" (yes, she is, and she's in your hen house) will be voting for.

The Curiosity of Republican Politics

In a discussion with another member of this blog, I came upon a realization. Not earth-shattering, but nevertheless, curious and interesting. The dominant discourse promoted by McCain, Palin, Bush and Cheney can be summed up thusly:

"Do not vote for anything the Democrats want because it will take something away from you."

In other words, they play on your fears. That you will lose more money from taxes. Do you really make more than $250,000??

That you will lose the ability to "choose" your healthcare, even if Republicans know you don't have any to begin with and they certainly aren't about to help you acquire some affordable, let alone decent, healthcare for you or your kids.

That you will "lose" your civil rights by voting for someone or some bill. Better to vote for a negative: vote against any and all things and people.

That's the Republican ticket in a nutshell: Vote against ideas and people, rather than be positive and vote for someone or a set of ideas.

Indeed, throughout the entire debate with Obama, all McCain could do was reiterate how people supposedly loved him and how bad he thought Obama was. But not once did he demonstrate a plan. About anything.

About tax relief. About healthcare. About education.

Voting for Obama means a vote for real goals and ideas. But McCain is just like so many other Republican politicians: make people afraid and get them to vote negatively, against a void, rather than positively for something.

Strange

McCain's Superfluos in Bailout, Yet Exploits it as Political Opportunity

An excerpt from Mark Anderson's blog on the Strategic News Service, which argues that McCain is not only superfluous to brokering a deal--he isn't even part of the committee--but that he is exploiting it, an opportunity to politicize what transcends this small man's personal goals. In short, he is using this as an opportunity to aggrandize himself, even though he is doing nothing and is unimportant to the entire situation.

"September 25th, 2008

It’s hard to be a hero, when no one wants you.

Imagine, John McCain talks George Bush into having a special meeting of just him, George, Obama (which will make him look like he is being beckoned), and a few Congressional heads, to sort out the big mess.

Only problem: it was already sorted out.

Then, a few hours late from his campaign speech at the Clinton Initiative in NYC, McCain shows up. Unfortunately, he has a whole new document in hand, that no one, not the president, not the cabinet, not the taxi driver, has seen before.

As Reid put it later: we had a deal, and then McCain showed up.

McCain NEEDS dissension, so he can look like a leader. He also needs an excuse to prevent him from showing up at the debate with Obama, where he will probably lose.

Most important, he needs to show the far right that he is NOT Bush.

So, decrying campaing politics, he uses Bush to call an un-needed meeting, while the real negotiators are doing really good work, then he shows up, blows up the meeting, blows off Bush et al., and — the country is nowhere, and he creates a situation in which he now can say that he must really skip the debate, because, thanks to him, there really is no deal.

In some races, there is a disqualifying behavior. Cheating, for instance. If this presidential campaign were a footrace in Somalia, McCain would be drawn and quartered.

Cheating is bad."

And the NY Times' view is that Congressional Republicans remain skeptical of McCain's "helpfulness" in resolving this crisis, the single largest financial bailout proposed in US History, which will essentially create an "Economic Czar" with NO oversight.

"Mr. McCain’s advisers cast his role on Friday as a supportive, essential presence to Republicans who were enraged by what they considered their harsh treatment at the White House on Thursday afternoon, and the dismissive attitude of their Republican colleagues in the Senate. They also tried to push back against a narrative that emerged Thursday, which portrayed Mr. McCain as injecting partisan politics into delicate dealmaking, and replace it with the image of a presidential candidate who stopped a bad deal from going through...many House Republicans remain deeply skeptical of Mr. McCain, and it is not clear whether he would have had the clout to change any minds in the Republican caucus. One of Mr. McCain’s own advisers said Friday that the financial crisis found the senator working with people who were “not historically his closest friends on Capitol Hill.”

Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, said that “if McCain came out and said, ‘Here’s a deal that I like,’ that would be significant.” But when asked if lawmakers would back a deal just because it had Mr. McCain’s support, Mr. Kingston said: “Not so much. This becomes a vote of conscience. It’s a vote of principle.”

Finally, why is it that no one notices that, once again, the Bush/Cheney axis is proposing another significant governmental move that increases BIG GOVERNMENT without regulation.

With our civil rights continually being whittled away, we should be more vigilant about the "package" being proposed now.

As for McCain, do we really want someone who thinks that all that matters today is to appear as hawkish as possible regarding the Iraq war, hoping that no one will notice that he was WRONG about the war, and that he will "cut spending."

Did no one notice he has no plan. For anything?

Why Did McCain Pull Out,?

Excerpts from the Washington post article on McCain's sad attempt to escape the first debate. One wonders if this is because he knows that his weakness with the economy. Consider these points:

1) the Deregulator while Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee,
2) the candidate who recently thought the economy was financially sound, and then
backtracked by saying he meant "the workers" (huh?)
3) who thinks it is a good idea to cobble together a commission to study the situation
even after government bailout of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG, and Lehman Brothers
4) and whose concept of personal wealth is so skewed as to be unaware of his own
property holdings

"...Obama called McCain early this morning to seek a joint statement on on their goals for the bailout measure now being negotiated between Congress and the Bush administration. But before that statement was issued, McCain went before television cameras to say he was putting the campaign on hold and wanted to delay Friday night's presidential debate on foreign policy. Among other things, McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt said McCain would begin unilaterally pulling down his campaign ads and cease fundraising...

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) said that it is "moving forward with its plan for the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS this Friday, September 26," despite the McCain announcement. "We believe the public will be well served by having all of the debates go forward as scheduled," the Commission said."

And the LA Times:

""This is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said. "In my mind, [the debate] is more important than ever."

The Commission on Presidential Debates said it planned to hold the debate on Friday despite McCain's request.

"The plans for this forum have been underway for more than a year and a half," the commission said. "The CPD's mission is to provide a forum in which the American public has an opportunity to hear the leading candidates for the president of the United States debate the critical issues facing the nation. We believe the public will be well-served by having all of the debates go forward as scheduled."


See also the NY Times.

Other articles regarding McCain's cynical and pathetic gambit.

Analysis: McCain's debate ploy a sign of weakness which highlights that McCain's ploy was meant to derail Obama's 9 point lead according to some polls.

Another poll finds a 46%-34% lead by Obama on economic issues--no wonder McCain doesn't want to have a debate now:

Obama-McCain debate to go ahead: commission

Poll: Wis. voters may be swayed by debates

Get Out and Vote!

A friend who was listening to Amy Goodman last week on the radio heard this lament, paraphrased: Obama was leaning "towards the middle" and appeared to be compromising on his early stances.

This is one step away from saying, "Well, they're the same, McCain and Obama."

Isn't this the argument people were using when Kerry was running against Bush in 2004? I think it is safe to say they are NOT the same. We would not be spending billions of dollars on the Iraq Imperial Invasion and we would not have done things like "fix" the K-12 educational crisis by merely testing students every year using culturally-biased testing.

And to those who protest that Obama will compromise, taking a "moral high ground" is by definition naive. There is too much at stake during this election and they are NOT the same. Do you really want Palin as a possible president?? Do you want to be the spoiler? Several states are in contestation, and sorry to say, but if you are not part of the solution, what are you?

The Bailout: Republicans Advocate Big Government

In case this is of concern, the tab is $700 billion dollars.

See the LATimes

The irony of course is that this is bigger government than anything ever done in the past by either party. But the hypocrisy is that Republicans are always clamoring for "smaller government."

Translation: We don't want to pay for any programs that do not directly benefit our own pet projects, i.e.earmarks. Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere ring any bells? Indeed, it appears Republicans are not concerned with helping anyone who actually needs it:

1) Children without health care insurance: we're only discussing giving them reasonable ACCESS, here.
2) Single parents: Because, after all, they must be colored, right?
3) Lower ratio of Teacher-to-Student: Let's just test our students, rather than actually improving teacher pay, infrastructure, and access for all people, no matter their social and economic class, let alone their race.

It certainly does appear that Republicans are for Big Government--when it suits them.

Sarah Palin and Corruption

Sarah Palin initially asked for this investigation, but now a McCain spokesman is saying that her husband will refuse to testify before a Republican Alaska State Senate Committee regarding her attempt to abuse power and fire a former brother-in-law from his position as a State Trooper. The reason? The process has become "politicized."

Republicans enjoy projecting. Clearly

As for Palin, is this truly the face of "reform" that McCain is touting?

Here are some excerpts from the Washington Post:

"Sarah Palin initially welcomed the bipartisan investigation into accusations that she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. "Hold me accountable," she said.

But she has increasingly opposed it since Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his running mate. The McCain campaign dispatched a legal team to Alaska including O'Callaghan, a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York to bolster Palin's local lawyer."

Hillary supporters, take note. This woman is not Hillary. Surprised? Not every woman is the same. That would be why so many colored woman objected to Hillary as serving their needs when she was a candidate.

McCain's Economic "Plan"

According to Mark Anderson, CEO of Strategic News Service, McCain has no viable economic plan.

In case you are a couple making less than $250k or single and making less than $150k, and are planning on voting for McCain, consider these observations from someone who is not backing either candidate:

1) McCain's top economic advisor is the failed, fired CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina

2) McCain was Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee that deregulated the Banking Industry, which has directly resulted in the economic crisis the U.S. is experiencing. He is therefore not credible to those serious in the financial world, according to Anderson.

3) McCain's assertion that he will fix the broken system while his opponent, Obama, will "raise taxes" is patently false: McCain's ad, to real financial people, sounds like he is merely instilling fear to get people's votes.

4) McCain's solution is to start a commission to study the economic crisis--Obama actually has concrete solutions. McCain does not. Obama will regulate, and then he lays out clearly a concrete plan.

Hear the entire program from TheWorld.org

Another View of the Election

A member of this blog has been keeping up on the entries, which lean heavily political right now. Here are some important responses which deserve consideration, not only to offer balance, but to afford an even deeper understanding of the issues:

"...in law school, I read case law and law journal articles that revealed how little change has been effected through the courts/laws. And often, whenever there is change, it is rolled back through the courts/laws to a point where the initial vision of the change is lost and forgotten (as in affirmative action). Some argue, and I believe this as well, that one of the major reasons for the failure to achieve social justice through the law is that the Constitution is flawed. It's the wrong document with which to base our whole system of laws. It sanctioned slavery, the disenfranchisement of women, the oppression against Native Americans, internment, etc., etc... Plus there is the historical fact that the Framers were white supremacist patriarchs. In addition, the non-elites were actually generally against the ratification of the Constitution. There were even riots in some areas. Ultimately the Constitution was ratified through trickery, deceit, and violence. In fact, if anything, trickery, deceit and violence are the keys by which our government continues to operate...

...Obama's nomination and possible presidency are highly significant for the reasons many have talked about. There are concerns, though. One is that it will be harder to argue for the existence of systemic racism when we have a Black president. (Related to that is the possibility that voting for a Black president might serve to ameliorate white guilt--"I'm not racist. I voted for Obama."--the step-child of the more well known, "I'm not racist. My best friend is Black.") Another concern is that Obama, when faced with the realities of representing the interests the President often must represent, will lose sight of his initial vision. Plus, on a societal level, the rednecks aren't the ones we have to worry about. They're like the smokescreen that hides the systemic racism. Notice how (even, and especially liberal) white folks loooove to hate on the Klan, but then turn around and talk about single welfare mothers and their "hand outs" or unqualified job candidates and government "set asides/quotas."

Truth and McCain/Palin

McCain and Palin have repeatedly been exposed as lying about both themselves and about Obama. They have drawn considerable and justifiable criticism for resorting to lying, rather than admitting a few things:

1. McCain has no health care plan that will significantly relieve the condition of the uninsured who are overwhelmingly poor and of color--supposedly the demographic he cares about. This is why he focuses on Obama's plan: so no one will notice his lack of one.
2. McCain's repetition of "drill for oil offshore" will do nothing to alleviate current oil shortages and does nothing to reframe the fundamental issue: a reliance on oil. He is, indeed, continuing the Bush legacy.
3. Palin does the ultimate flip-flop, from not being someone who thinks global warming is caused by people to believing that there may be something to what the scientists, who are actually educated, have discovered. Odd how Republicans think science is merely a convenience.

A story on McCain, "McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions," from the NYTimes. And another story entitled "Palin Under Fire after Grudging U-turn on Global Warming," from The Guardian.

"The Reality Behind the Claims" (NYTimes, September 13, A13):

"Taxes: 'Barack Obama and out-of-touch Congressional leaders' have plans for 'painful tax increases on working families.'

Reality Check: The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group, analyzed both candidates' tax plans and concluded that Mr. Obama 'offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpowers (bold added).' It found that for four-fifths of the population--households making $112,000 a year or less--Mr. Obama's tax cuts would mean a net savings (bold added) of more than $900 a year on average while Mr. Mccain's proposals would save people less than half that (bold added).

Energy: 'Senator Obama doesn't want to have nuclear power, and he doesn't want to drill offshore.'

Reality Check: Mr. Obama has been less enthusiastic about nuclear power (and why explore that when we can explore scientifically-driven wind and solar?? Where is Mr. McSame on those issues?) and offshore drilling than Mr. McCain, but he has repeatedly said he is open to both. He has said he would be open to increased offshore drilling (though that will do nothing to alleviate current problems and will not for several years) as part of a broader energy plan, and to more nuclear power plants if the government resolves questions about hte safe disposal of nuclear waste and the security of nuclear materials.

Health Care: Mr. Obama's 'plan will force small businesses to cut jobs and reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.'

Reality Check: Under Mr. Obama's plan, eople could keep their current insurance. For the uninsured, he would create a voluntary public plan. He would require coverage for children only, a position that set him apart from his rivals in the Democratic primary. His plan exempts very small businesses from the requuirement that they either offer health coverage or contribute money to the new plan. It offers tax credits to encourage them to provide coverage.
And now for the Lies of Sarah Palin:

Earmarks: 'I told Congress, thanks, but no thanks for that 'Bridge to Nowhere' in Alaska. If we wanted that bridge, we'd build it ourselves.'

Reality Check: As a candidate for governor, Ms. Palin supported the project to build a bridge to a sparsely populated Alaskan island. She told The Anchorage Daily News in2005 that she would like to see it and other projects built sooner rather than later, (bold added) "while our Congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." After (italics added) the bridge drew national ridicule, making it harder to secure more federal money to meet rising cost projections, Ms. Palin abandoned it, citing the financial shortfall. Alaska was able to keep the federal money and direct it to other projects."

Fact-checking the Republican Ticket

The McCain/Palin ticket has told numerous lies, about themselves and about the Obama/Biden proposals, over the past several days. This is, after all, what Republican politicians excel at: lying loudly so as to drown out the truth. Which is why we no longer blink at having our wireless phone records mined by government officials, are resigned at having our phones tapped, and why we anticipate the continued loss of our civil rights. We’ve been deadened by lies.

And by the fact that McCain/Palin have NO PLATFORM. Has anyone noticed this fact? They just spend their time lying.

A few facts to combat the lies. This fact-checking has been provided by three sources: Politifact.com, supported by the St. Petersburg Times, the NY Times, and USA Today (surely conservatives cannot argue with that source) and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

1. The Bridge to Nowhere:

Congress decided to kill this particular earmark before SP ever got her chance to say no. Indeed, she said yes UNTIL she realized that funding for it was going to be killed anyway. Conveniently for SP, Alaska still got to keep the over $200,000,000 (200 million dollars) of the $220,000,000 originally slated for the bridge to spend on other projects. How nice.

2. Fighting the Earmarks and the “Establishment”:

SP, Governor of “Pork Central,” has requested $197 million alone for 2008—and the year isn’t even over. That is, by the way, more per person than any other state has received. As mayor of a town of less than 7000, SP received $27,000,000 (27 million) in earmarks.

3. The Tax Plan:

Obama’s plan lets the Bush cuts expire for couples making $250,000 or more and individuals making $200,000 or more. NO ONE ELSE. Obama REDUCES taxes for all those couples and individuals who make less than those amounts, respectively. Thus, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 95.5% of those with children will receive a tax cut, and 81% of those without children would receive a tax cut. This results in taxpayers keeping roughly $2,200 more per year (about 5%). The top 1% of income earners would pay about $19,000 more in taxes—sorely needed.

McCain’s plan reduces the corporate income tax rate (didn’t know they needed a tax break). McCain reduces people’s taxes about 3%. McCain also cuts the top 1% of income earners taxes by more than $125,000 (didn’t know they needed it, either, but we could certainly use their taxes for other programs like education and health care). Whose side do you think he’s on?

4. Rudy Giuliani’s constant clarion cry: “When I dealt with 9/11…”

Like McCain, that Giuliani dealt with a crisis hardly makes him an authority about anything. But his assertion that Democrats don’t discuss terrorism is wrong—they did discuss it during the convention and now. It is just that they don’t sensationalize and exploit issues for their own gain. Perhaps this is what Giuliani doesn’t recognize: the inability or unwillingness to exploit because it is immoral, which he certainly does.

5. The Mantle of “Family Values”:

Bristol is getting married, in a gunshot wedding because she is pregnant. Her husband advocates seceding from the Union. It is difficult to see how this does not reflect upon Palin as a choice for Vice President. An inexperienced, slick, earmark-loving, lying woman who thinks that being a pit bull soccer mom is a good example of family values?

6. Drilling and Nuclear Power

McCain never explains that drilling will not alleviate our current problems. If he did, people would suddenly see through his ploy, to play on people’s fears to get their votes. At least, one would hope.

The Presidential Race

With the stakes so high, it is impossible not to enter the discourse. To preface, the Mccain/Palin ticket have implied that the Obama/Biden ticket, and their Democratic ilk, are "poverty pimps" and "limousine liberals." Implying that while these Democrats may profess concern for the general populace, they are neither in touch with, nor are they interested in, helping those people. In short, Democrats are presumably elites. Republicans represent the "people" since they are like them. Many forget that though most people thought George Bush seemed "nice" and that they could "break bread" with him, in actuality he is an elite, extremely wealthy oil man, like his V.P.: it's simply that he talks like an idiot.

Lest we forget certain facts.

1: Obama's mother was the quintessential single American mother who pulled herself up from her bootstraps to help herself and her son, and later daughter, succeed. That this is so successfully masked by the dominant Republican discourse exemplifies the power of shouting lies about Obama's "elitism": soon, people will listen to your lies, no matter how blatantly false the information is. By the way, what is wrong with having an intelligent, educated president? We've already had eight years of a dumb one.

2. In re: family values. If Biden's oldest daughter were a hard-drinking, party-hearty gal of seventeen, you can bet the Republicans would not agree that she were "off limits" but aver that this is indicative of the decadence of the Democratic ticket. Instead, and we must not forget this, it is the Republicans who are dissipated, decadent, and out of touch. Sarah Palin's daughter is an underage, hard-partying child of a father who advocates cessation from the union. This is who could be the first lady and first man if John Mccain gets ill? Frightening. See photos below.

3. For those who are still feeling hurt about Hillary, it is reasonable and understandable. If Obama had lost, it would be the same for many others. But unlike the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, during which many could be heard to say, "They're the same," this is not the case. Two words:

SUPREME COURT.

The two oldest members will most likely retire this next term. They are John Paul Stevens, 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75. Stephen Breyer is 69. Bush has already appointed two justices and we already see the tightening of our civil rights. For those of you concerned about that, remember, these people will decide not only your civil rights over the next thirty years, but whether women have the right to not "choose" but DETERMINE what they can and cannot do.