This recipe thought up by my brother. He is now a professional chef, years later, but he came up with this in college, when he was not a chef but just a "cook" at Love's--remember them? So this was before he worked for people like Ming Tsai in Wellesley, MA, and Ians in New York.
Scrambled eggs, American style are, in my opinion, awful. They are rubbery. Overworked. And dry. Why chop them up and keep turning them over? Ugh.
Instead, they should be done Chinese style. It is similar to the classic French-style omelette, where the egg is moved from side to side only a few times and then slid off the plate. But it's even better than that. A friend, who hails from New Orleans and who says that there, a man isn't a man unless he can cook, said of these eggs: "I have discovered a whole new respect for eggs."
One to two cloves of garlic, crushed
Salt and Pepper to taste
A dash of white wine
Small chunks of cream cheese
Add these two twe eggs and beat together
The key is the cooking. Heat an omelette pan on high for several minutes. The oil, whether you use Olive or butter or a combination, should be what Americans call "shimmering."
When you add the eggs, it should make a very loud crackling sound--if it doesn't, the eggs won't turn out right. Tip the pan to spread the eggs around the entire bottom evenly. Let cook for no more than 1 minute. Using a spatula (I use chopsticks--it really can work) or a spoon, whatever you have on hand, move one-third of the egg to the middle of the pan and then tip the pan to spread more of the uncooked egg around the pan. The cooked part of the eggs you have moved to the middle should be brown.
Repeat the process of moving a third of the eggs to the middle twice more.
Quickly transfer the egg onto a plate. The eggs should NOT be fully cooked--they should be what is translated from Chinese as "smooth". No chopping of the egg. No rubber. Not overworked.
Just divine.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Race, Racism and McCain
Watching the debate last night, one thing became clear: McCain is desperate. For fear of alienating the extreme right wing, bigoted members of his party, he will not condemn those who say "Kill him" in referring to Obama. Instead, McCain points the finger at Obama for not condemning his supporters who "say the same thing."
First, none of the Obama supporters say that. Because they are actually respectful.
Second, it is unrepentantly amoral and disingenuous to draw a comparison between epithets flung at McCain (of which he had yet to name any) and those by McCain's extreme white, racist supporters.
There is no history of communities of white people being terrorized (yes, that favorite word of Conservatives) in their own homes, neighborhoods and communities by a dominant ethnic group. For Afro-Americans, they were terrorized for hundreds of years through to very very recent history by white people people. This same group was also repeatedly oppressed, exploited and terrorized by governmental institutions (think the police) who either partook in active violence or stood idly by and did nothing while entire communities were terrorized and Afro-Americans were burned, hung, beaten and otherwise physically and mentally exploited and oppressed. For hundreds of years, this has happened.
And recall James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, TX. This was in 1999, people. He was dragged over three miles. And not, as for some weird reason most white television networks were reporting, along a "lonely country road." No. It was in a black neighborhood and as one reporter had the courage to observe, was meant to terrorize the entire neighborhood of Afro-Americans. Hmm. Imagine if that happened in, say Beverly Hills. To some white guy. And imagine if that sort of thing had happened throughout history and not a lot was done about it and moreover, that you felt no matter what, you couldn't protect yourself? Think it would freak you out?
So to have a bunch of people shouting "Kill him" is not idle commentary that can be ignored, though McCain is just the kind of morally reprehensible jackanape that wants to. Words are incendiary. If the leader of your party doesn't think it's a problem for you to say words that reference a long history of domestic terrorism of an entire population of the U.S., then it is easy to think that he would condone just about anything.
And frankly, that's what George Lewis was saying. That words are incendiary. And as the leader and Presidential candidate of your party, you have a fundamental responsibility to keep your followers in line. That's why people can go to jail for inciting violence through their words. Because words can inflame and incite action. For McCain to turn all hypocritical and actually praise his followers, no matter what they say, is another sign of his complete lack of character. I have never been so turned off by any candidate before as I am by McCain. He shows not only a complete absence of character, but a basic meanness, a small-mindedness coupled with an ambition that embraces lying, cheating and obfuscation to get what he wants. And he thinks that isn't more of the same?
First, none of the Obama supporters say that. Because they are actually respectful.
Second, it is unrepentantly amoral and disingenuous to draw a comparison between epithets flung at McCain (of which he had yet to name any) and those by McCain's extreme white, racist supporters.
There is no history of communities of white people being terrorized (yes, that favorite word of Conservatives) in their own homes, neighborhoods and communities by a dominant ethnic group. For Afro-Americans, they were terrorized for hundreds of years through to very very recent history by white people people. This same group was also repeatedly oppressed, exploited and terrorized by governmental institutions (think the police) who either partook in active violence or stood idly by and did nothing while entire communities were terrorized and Afro-Americans were burned, hung, beaten and otherwise physically and mentally exploited and oppressed. For hundreds of years, this has happened.
And recall James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, TX. This was in 1999, people. He was dragged over three miles. And not, as for some weird reason most white television networks were reporting, along a "lonely country road." No. It was in a black neighborhood and as one reporter had the courage to observe, was meant to terrorize the entire neighborhood of Afro-Americans. Hmm. Imagine if that happened in, say Beverly Hills. To some white guy. And imagine if that sort of thing had happened throughout history and not a lot was done about it and moreover, that you felt no matter what, you couldn't protect yourself? Think it would freak you out?
So to have a bunch of people shouting "Kill him" is not idle commentary that can be ignored, though McCain is just the kind of morally reprehensible jackanape that wants to. Words are incendiary. If the leader of your party doesn't think it's a problem for you to say words that reference a long history of domestic terrorism of an entire population of the U.S., then it is easy to think that he would condone just about anything.
And frankly, that's what George Lewis was saying. That words are incendiary. And as the leader and Presidential candidate of your party, you have a fundamental responsibility to keep your followers in line. That's why people can go to jail for inciting violence through their words. Because words can inflame and incite action. For McCain to turn all hypocritical and actually praise his followers, no matter what they say, is another sign of his complete lack of character. I have never been so turned off by any candidate before as I am by McCain. He shows not only a complete absence of character, but a basic meanness, a small-mindedness coupled with an ambition that embraces lying, cheating and obfuscation to get what he wants. And he thinks that isn't more of the same?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Project Implicit at Harvard
This is really an interesting cognitive study being conducted at Harvard. After reading a previous post, I decided to give the test a try. I discovered that I have a strong automatic preference for Justice vs. Injustice, Democracy vs. Fascism (that surprised me a little, with my critique of the Ameri-centric "Democracy"), but this surprised me, a strong automatic preference for the Present vs. Past. You may not learn anything new about yourself, but it will amuse you for around five to ten minutes.
Study Shows People Equate White with American, Colored as Foreign
An article in the Washington Post demonstrates what colored people have known for years: colored people are often considered foreigners. Hence the question, "So, where are you from?"
Here is the beginning of the article:
"A few years ago, psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Thierry Devos showed the names of a number of celebrities to a group of volunteers and asked them to classify the well-known personalities as American or non-American. The list included television personality Connie Chung and tennis star Michael Chang, both Asian Americans, as well as British actors Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. The volunteers had no trouble identifying Chung and Chang as American and Grant and Hurley as foreigners.
The psychologists then asked the group which names they associated with iconic American symbols such as the U.S. flag, the Capitol building and Mount Rushmore, and which ones they associated with generically foreign symbols such as the United Nations building in Geneva, a Ukrainian 100-hryven bill and a map of Luxembourg.
The psychologists found that the participants, who were asked to answer quickly, were dramatically quicker to associate the American symbols with the British actors, and the foreign symbols with the Asian Americans. The results suggest that on a subconscious level people were using ethnicity as a proxy for American identity and equating whites -- even white foreigners -- with things American.
The psychologists initially assumed that this bias began and ended with Asian Americans and would not apply to other ethnic groups. But in another experiment involving famous black athletes around the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, they found that the same pattern applied to African Americans. Although white volunteers agreed explicitly that hurdlers Allen Johnson and Angelo Taylor, who won two golds at Sydney, "contributed to the glory of America" and "represent what America is all about," they were slower to associate photos of black athletes than white athletes with American symbols. Black participants, on the other hand, were as quick to associate black athletes as white athletes with being American.
"The reason this is powerful is it shows our minds will not just distort our preferences but distort facts," said Banaji, who works at Harvard. "African Americans in their [own] minds are fully American, but not in the minds of whites."
The experiments, based on tests that are accessible at http:/
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Clinton Backers Resist Palin and Debate Audience Unimpressed with McCain
These articles show the arrogance and meanness of McCain, the one in highlighting his cynical move to co-opt not just women, but Alaska by having Palin be his running mate (boy, I bet Republicans are really regretting his decision right about now), but the other article highlights his attitude, towards his opponent and towards the audience he supposedly wants to impress. Just peppering your speech with "My friends" does not make people your friends, nor does it make you appear sympathetic. McCain's handlers should tell him that. It is quite condescending.
"Palin Meets Resistance Among Clinton Backers"
and
"Debate Audience Members Talk About Candidates"
Some observations by audience members:
Both women, as well as the third audience member, were especially emphatic about their feelings on the two men’s performance after the debate. All three said that Mr. McCain shook hands with several audience members and then left fairly quickly. Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, stuck around to shake far more hands, pose for pictures, sign autographs, and answer more questions, including from people who had been on stage but did not get a chance to ask their questions. Only when Secret Service agents told them it was time to go did the couple leave (upon which they headed for a post-debate fundraiser at Al and Tipper Gore’s house nearby)."
"Palin Meets Resistance Among Clinton Backers"
and
"Debate Audience Members Talk About Candidates"
Some observations by audience members:
"The Republican, Lindsey Trella, a family business consultant, said she was disappointed that both men used her question – should health care be treated as a marketable commodity? – to lay out their own health care plans and take jabs at each other. Neither gave her a Yes or No.
“I came away thinking John McCain has a position that supports marketable health care, whereas I think Obama supports affordable health care in a universal sense though he wasn’t really specific,” Ms. Trella said. “Personally I don’t think health care should be a marketable commodity – under the current system, too many people are excluded, and I think that’s sad in this country,”...Both women, as well as the third audience member, were especially emphatic about their feelings on the two men’s performance after the debate. All three said that Mr. McCain shook hands with several audience members and then left fairly quickly. Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, stuck around to shake far more hands, pose for pictures, sign autographs, and answer more questions, including from people who had been on stage but did not get a chance to ask their questions. Only when Secret Service agents told them it was time to go did the couple leave (upon which they headed for a post-debate fundraiser at Al and Tipper Gore’s house nearby)."
Ms. Trella said that on the whole, she was more impressed with Mr. Obama during the debate, and that she now planned to vote for him.
“Obama talked at one point about responsibility, Americans have acted responsibly or should do so, while government really hasn’t – I liked that,” she said. “McCain, I felt more like he went over points he had already made, and went over some set answers. There wasn’t anything he clarified, in terms of what he would do.”
Bear Baiting
It is so easy to judge cruelty in other cultures: about their people, the way they treat their minorities and the way they treat their animals. Oftentimes, those judgments are projections: those things we despise in our own culture but are too passive, afraid or just plain ignorant about, to change.
But I confess that this was just too sad: bear baiting in Pakistan. Not that I have a serious problem with what goes on in Pakistan--I'm not a fear-monger or racist or worse, stupid. And I frankly think our policy regarding Pakistan borders on the same old American hegemony. But this issue of bear baiting seems unnecessarily cruel. Rather like poaching (hunting) elephants in Africa for their tusks. Or tigers in India to sell their furs to the nouveau-riche in China. Or like bull-fighting in Spain and Mexico.
So here's one website that helps with bear baiting, the World Society for the Protection of Animals.
For anti elephant poaching, here are a few sites to donate to: The Friedkin Fund and the African Wildlife Foundation.
Anti tiger poaching: the World Wildlife Foundation. The Tiger Foundation was interesting, but perhaps needs more investigation.
But I confess that this was just too sad: bear baiting in Pakistan. Not that I have a serious problem with what goes on in Pakistan--I'm not a fear-monger or racist or worse, stupid. And I frankly think our policy regarding Pakistan borders on the same old American hegemony. But this issue of bear baiting seems unnecessarily cruel. Rather like poaching (hunting) elephants in Africa for their tusks. Or tigers in India to sell their furs to the nouveau-riche in China. Or like bull-fighting in Spain and Mexico.
So here's one website that helps with bear baiting, the World Society for the Protection of Animals.
For anti elephant poaching, here are a few sites to donate to: The Friedkin Fund and the African Wildlife Foundation.
Anti tiger poaching: the World Wildlife Foundation. The Tiger Foundation was interesting, but perhaps needs more investigation.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Chinese Gymnasts' Age Cleared
It was reported on October 1, 2008 that original documents including family booklets, passports and identity cards verify that the Chinese athletes He Kexin, Yang Yilin, Jiang Yuyuan, Li Shanshan and Deng Linlin, whom Americans protested were "too young" were, actually NOT too young, according to the International Gymnastic Federation.
That must irritate some Americans who look for any reason to critique China. Human rights violations being the most obvious. But funny how these same Americans don't care about Chinese people who are exploited. Only minorities in China.
That must irritate some Americans who look for any reason to critique China. Human rights violations being the most obvious. But funny how these same Americans don't care about Chinese people who are exploited. Only minorities in China.
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.
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.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Further Evidence that China's Modernization Doesn't Just Ape the West
From PRI.org comes this article on China's renewable technology.
China might be one of the biggest polluters on the planet, but it's also a world leader in renewable technologies.
China is bigger than the U.S. but does better in investing in renewable technologies gleaned from all over the world. I know so many people critical of China "taking our oil"--who says it's ours and btw, haven't you heard of the futures market that took off when Bush came into office--and that we get all their pollution. Maybe we should stop pointing the finger outside and take a look at ourselves. For a change.
China might be one of the biggest polluters on the planet, but it's also a world leader in renewable technologies.
China is bigger than the U.S. but does better in investing in renewable technologies gleaned from all over the world. I know so many people critical of China "taking our oil"--who says it's ours and btw, haven't you heard of the futures market that took off when Bush came into office--and that we get all their pollution. Maybe we should stop pointing the finger outside and take a look at ourselves. For a change.
The IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species
This is just too important to not get involved with. The IUCN, which stands for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, just convened it's congress in Barcelona today. From an exhaustive study about the world's mammals, which is still incomplete because of a lack of data on some mammals, they reveal some frightening statistics.
They say that at least 1,141 of the 5,487 mammals on Earth are known to be threatened with extinction.
The reason? Man. Shrinking mammalian habitat and hunting.
" The results show 188 mammals are in the highest threat category of Critically Endangered, including the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), which has a population of just 84-143 adults and has continued to decline due to a shortage of its primary prey, the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)... Habitat loss and degradation affect 40 percent of the world’s mammals. "
They say that at least 1,141 of the 5,487 mammals on Earth are known to be threatened with extinction.
The reason? Man. Shrinking mammalian habitat and hunting.
" The results show 188 mammals are in the highest threat category of Critically Endangered, including the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), which has a population of just 84-143 adults and has continued to decline due to a shortage of its primary prey, the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)... Habitat loss and degradation affect 40 percent of the world’s mammals. "
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Even Conservative Pundit David Brooks is Pessimistic About McCain
Even David Brooks thinks that the tide favoring Obama was inevitable: it's simply that our finally acknowledged Recession has sped this process considerably. Listen to his weekly assessment on NPR.org
Why racist conservatives refuse to acknowledge that Obama actually has policies that would benefit them (like the tax cut for them--you know none of the middle class protesting Obama make near $250,000--is testament to just that: the racism in this country.
Why racist conservatives refuse to acknowledge that Obama actually has policies that would benefit them (like the tax cut for them--you know none of the middle class protesting Obama make near $250,000--is testament to just that: the racism in this country.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
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.
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
park
wing #1