Kinda. He suspended the sentences of Gladys and Jamie Scott, the two sisters who were each given double life sentences over $11. I'm glad they're free and going home. You can sign a "welcome home" card here with the NAACP.
Suspended sentences.
And, Gladys Scott's release is contingent on giving a kidney to her sister, Jamie, who requires daily dialysis. What the . . .
But I'm happy for the sisters and the family. Not impressed by Barbour. By happy for the sisters.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Friday, December 31, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
A 3rd Problem I Have with Tea Partyists: North Dakota
Listen, this isn't about embarrassing anyone, so I won't call any names. But a commenter for another post expressed concerned about her congressman's representation of and concern for the "working man" of her state, North Dakota.
Now, in addition to having no policy behind their rhetoric, all too often tea partyists actually believe the exaggerations and hyperbole's they hear coming from the people who feign concern but are, in fact, exploiting the country's "working man." Facts don't matter to folks who cry out about being "taxed enough already" just as their taxes are being cut, who think their taxes were raised, and then really get upset that they're portrayed as racists.
So, what're the facts about North Dakota's economy? According to politifact's "Pants on Fire" rating of an ad from one of Karl Rove's organizations, Crossroads GPS:
Now, in addition to having no policy behind their rhetoric, all too often tea partyists actually believe the exaggerations and hyperbole's they hear coming from the people who feign concern but are, in fact, exploiting the country's "working man." Facts don't matter to folks who cry out about being "taxed enough already" just as their taxes are being cut, who think their taxes were raised, and then really get upset that they're portrayed as racists.
So, what're the facts about North Dakota's economy? According to politifact's "Pants on Fire" rating of an ad from one of Karl Rove's organizations, Crossroads GPS:
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Taste Some Real Tea (Updated and Improved)
That's not what I really wanted to say, but I do have a God to "serve and glorify."
I got this from an email for Organizing for America. Mitch Stewart is practically giddy. Like a little boy after his first kiss by his sweetheart (also links to video). So I took down the CNN video, though I'm leaving the link to the url. Here's a link to a 14min clip for the Ed Show of MSNBC and a clip from The Rachel Maddow Show of MSNBC. Also, there's a clip from this morning's The Today Show that demonstrates Republicans' recalcitrance.
I got this from an email for Organizing for America. Mitch Stewart is practically giddy. Like a little boy after his first kiss by his sweetheart (also links to video). So I took down the CNN video, though I'm leaving the link to the url. Here's a link to a 14min clip for the Ed Show of MSNBC and a clip from The Rachel Maddow Show of MSNBC. Also, there's a clip from this morning's The Today Show that demonstrates Republicans' recalcitrance.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Something to Consider
via blog.racismreview.com:
Posted by Adia Harvey on May 10th, 2009 2009
May 10
Recent political news has focused extensively on whether modern times are sounding a death-knell for the Republican party After bruising losses in the mid-term elections of 2006 and in the presidential election of 2008, near record-low numbers of individuals who identify as Republicans, and an extraordinarily popular Democratic president, many commentators and pundits have questioned whether the Republican party is facing a crisis of being. Even some Republican leaders have acknowledged the peril they face as a party, giving rise to debates over whether they should become more moderate and create a “bigger tent” that includes a broader coalition of supporters, or stick to their principles and align themselves even more strongly with their remaining conservative base.
In my mind, these debates reveal a major problem for the Republican party and highlight the ways in which narrow racial framing is limiting their future opportunities and success. When Republicans debate whether to “stick to their guns” (pun intended) or establish a “bigger tent,” they are thinking short term and avoiding some very real racialized realities that have an impact for their future and ultimately their continued existence. This is perhaps unsurprising for a party whose only engagement with racial issues over the last half century has been creating coded language to justify their opposition to civil rights advancements (“states’ rights,” “urban crime,” “welfare queens,”), or appealing to racialized fears (Willie Horton, fabricating links between immigrants and swine flu, blaming “unqualified minorities” for the housing crisis) as a way of maintaining and consolidating reliable votes. So it’s not especially shocking that Republicans would be oblivious of what—and who–they are ignoring when they think only in terms of going more moderate or staying conservative.
The racial issue that I refer to is this. All demographic data indicates that within a mere 30 to 40 years, this country will no longer have a clear white majority. What we are headed towards, whether Republican elites like it or not, is a nation that is mostly multiracial and where whites are irrevocably becoming a numerical minority. I don’t think many Republicans have really taken that fact in, perhaps because it is hard to imagine in a nation that has been run by a white majority for centuries. But it’s happening, and evidence of the implications of this were even present in the last election. While some commentators like to pretend that Obama’s election is indicative of the fact that we’re past “all the racial stuff”, the reality is that most whites did not vote for Obama. It took a multiracial coalition of African Americans, Latino/as, Asian Americans, and a small but important minority of whites to get Obama into the White House. Ultimately, however, he won without the support of most whites, because there are finally enough Americans of color to have a significant, determining impact on electoral outcomes. Had Obama not had the foresight to appeal to a broad variety of racial groups, we would be dealing with President McCain and Vice President “I Can See Russia From My House” right now. Republicans would do well to think about how this dynamic plays into their “more moderate or more conservative” dilemma.
What I think it means is that if they want to “stick to their roots,” that in itself needs to involve a fundamental paradigm shift. Of late, the Republican roots haven’t just been small government and tax cuts, those roots have also included appealing to white racism and demonizing groups of color. Even though he broke with his party to champion immigration reform, McCain paid the price for his party’s thinly veiled anti-Latino/a sentiment when they went decisively for Obama. If Republicans want to stay relevant in an America that looks less and less like their base, they need to consider strategies that will endear them to the voters they’ve been excluding from that base. Suggesting that these voters carry swine flu or are responsible for the housing crisis is not the way to do this.
This does mean Republicans will have to make some changes that will probably be painful for them. They can’t just do what has been comfortable in the past, like appealing to those charming folks who show up at their rallies with sock puppets that suggest Obama looks like a monkey. If Republicans want to stay a viable political party, it is time to drop the racist ideology, language, and imagery that has too often been a part of their “core values.” This alienates voters of color that they will need if they want to win at a national level. If Republicans really believe in small government, they should think about how they can make that commitment appealing to growing, important sectors of the population whose primary concerns may be to immigrate safely and easily, find work, go to good schools, and get affordable health care. If they really want low taxes, they should consider how that can win them votes from the many black women who work in low-paying jobs and struggle to find affordable child care. Instead of working themselves into a frenzy over the president’s preference for Dijon mustard (I’m talking to you, Sean Hannity!), Republicans would be better served putting serious thought into how those core principles they tout can be put to use to attract segments of the electorate that they have derided, but now need to reach, if they want to remain relevant. This may well lose them the base they have cultivated, but it might buy them a newer, more expansive base that can actually get them elected. In an America that is growing increasingly multiracial, there is no other way to win at a national level. Unless Republicans acknowledge this (other) elephant in the room, they will continue having the wrong discussion and missing the big picture.
Posted by Adia Harvey on May 10th, 2009 2009
May 10
Recent political news has focused extensively on whether modern times are sounding a death-knell for the Republican party After bruising losses in the mid-term elections of 2006 and in the presidential election of 2008, near record-low numbers of individuals who identify as Republicans, and an extraordinarily popular Democratic president, many commentators and pundits have questioned whether the Republican party is facing a crisis of being. Even some Republican leaders have acknowledged the peril they face as a party, giving rise to debates over whether they should become more moderate and create a “bigger tent” that includes a broader coalition of supporters, or stick to their principles and align themselves even more strongly with their remaining conservative base.
In my mind, these debates reveal a major problem for the Republican party and highlight the ways in which narrow racial framing is limiting their future opportunities and success. When Republicans debate whether to “stick to their guns” (pun intended) or establish a “bigger tent,” they are thinking short term and avoiding some very real racialized realities that have an impact for their future and ultimately their continued existence. This is perhaps unsurprising for a party whose only engagement with racial issues over the last half century has been creating coded language to justify their opposition to civil rights advancements (“states’ rights,” “urban crime,” “welfare queens,”), or appealing to racialized fears (Willie Horton, fabricating links between immigrants and swine flu, blaming “unqualified minorities” for the housing crisis) as a way of maintaining and consolidating reliable votes. So it’s not especially shocking that Republicans would be oblivious of what—and who–they are ignoring when they think only in terms of going more moderate or staying conservative.
The racial issue that I refer to is this. All demographic data indicates that within a mere 30 to 40 years, this country will no longer have a clear white majority. What we are headed towards, whether Republican elites like it or not, is a nation that is mostly multiracial and where whites are irrevocably becoming a numerical minority. I don’t think many Republicans have really taken that fact in, perhaps because it is hard to imagine in a nation that has been run by a white majority for centuries. But it’s happening, and evidence of the implications of this were even present in the last election. While some commentators like to pretend that Obama’s election is indicative of the fact that we’re past “all the racial stuff”, the reality is that most whites did not vote for Obama. It took a multiracial coalition of African Americans, Latino/as, Asian Americans, and a small but important minority of whites to get Obama into the White House. Ultimately, however, he won without the support of most whites, because there are finally enough Americans of color to have a significant, determining impact on electoral outcomes. Had Obama not had the foresight to appeal to a broad variety of racial groups, we would be dealing with President McCain and Vice President “I Can See Russia From My House” right now. Republicans would do well to think about how this dynamic plays into their “more moderate or more conservative” dilemma.
What I think it means is that if they want to “stick to their roots,” that in itself needs to involve a fundamental paradigm shift. Of late, the Republican roots haven’t just been small government and tax cuts, those roots have also included appealing to white racism and demonizing groups of color. Even though he broke with his party to champion immigration reform, McCain paid the price for his party’s thinly veiled anti-Latino/a sentiment when they went decisively for Obama. If Republicans want to stay relevant in an America that looks less and less like their base, they need to consider strategies that will endear them to the voters they’ve been excluding from that base. Suggesting that these voters carry swine flu or are responsible for the housing crisis is not the way to do this.
This does mean Republicans will have to make some changes that will probably be painful for them. They can’t just do what has been comfortable in the past, like appealing to those charming folks who show up at their rallies with sock puppets that suggest Obama looks like a monkey. If Republicans want to stay a viable political party, it is time to drop the racist ideology, language, and imagery that has too often been a part of their “core values.” This alienates voters of color that they will need if they want to win at a national level. If Republicans really believe in small government, they should think about how they can make that commitment appealing to growing, important sectors of the population whose primary concerns may be to immigrate safely and easily, find work, go to good schools, and get affordable health care. If they really want low taxes, they should consider how that can win them votes from the many black women who work in low-paying jobs and struggle to find affordable child care. Instead of working themselves into a frenzy over the president’s preference for Dijon mustard (I’m talking to you, Sean Hannity!), Republicans would be better served putting serious thought into how those core principles they tout can be put to use to attract segments of the electorate that they have derided, but now need to reach, if they want to remain relevant. This may well lose them the base they have cultivated, but it might buy them a newer, more expansive base that can actually get them elected. In an America that is growing increasingly multiracial, there is no other way to win at a national level. Unless Republicans acknowledge this (other) elephant in the room, they will continue having the wrong discussion and missing the big picture.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Killing Black Business
I am just ripping off Btx3 today! Sorry. You should be getting my own original brand of checking the racism very soon. ~ No1KState
crossposted at dangerousNegro:
Farbeit for me to become another of those black liberals just finding things to hang around white folks and Republicans' necks like fiery cross-shaped albatrosses. Though, they do give us a lot of material to work with. I mean, they have an entire cable news channel we can dress down every day!
But. It is important that we offer policy proposals and other ideas to move us as a community and the nation forward. And here's one idea: the government should actually help keep black business strong and not collaborate in its destruction!
Via my new black blogosphere friend, Btx3:
President Obama wasn’t kidding about the demolition of small business under the Bushit administration. This data derived from statistics kept by the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies pretty much says it all.
The Shrinking Small Business Pie - SBIC Investment Under Bush
Look at that bottom right number, and as part of the “Shrinking pie” - it isn’t hard to discern whose shorts got hit the hardest.
Look at the bottom line - that was the shrinking percentage to Women and Minority owned businesses, down from 26% in 1998.
When you consider that only about 3% of the commercial Venture Capital money goes to women owned businesses, and .03% goes to black owned businesses - you begin to understand the “problem”.
______________________________
Please read the entire article.
crossposted at dangerousNegro:
Farbeit for me to become another of those black liberals just finding things to hang around white folks and Republicans' necks like fiery cross-shaped albatrosses. Though, they do give us a lot of material to work with. I mean, they have an entire cable news channel we can dress down every day!
But. It is important that we offer policy proposals and other ideas to move us as a community and the nation forward. And here's one idea: the government should actually help keep black business strong and not collaborate in its destruction!
Via my new black blogosphere friend, Btx3:
President Obama wasn’t kidding about the demolition of small business under the Bushit administration. This data derived from statistics kept by the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies pretty much says it all.
The Shrinking Small Business Pie - SBIC Investment Under Bush
Look at that bottom right number, and as part of the “Shrinking pie” - it isn’t hard to discern whose shorts got hit the hardest.
Look at the bottom line - that was the shrinking percentage to Women and Minority owned businesses, down from 26% in 1998.
When you consider that only about 3% of the commercial Venture Capital money goes to women owned businesses, and .03% goes to black owned businesses - you begin to understand the “problem”.
______________________________
Please read the entire article.
Racism in Session(s)
On the eve of Pres. Obama's crucial nomination of a justice to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, the Republicans have chosen Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to replace Sen. Arlen Spector (presently D-PA) as ranking member on the senate's judicial committee. I think it's important to know what we're getting so we can begin thinking of how to respond. And also because I think what we're getting sucks.
Closed Sessions
The senator who's worse than Lott.
Sarah Wildman, The New Republic Published: December 30, 2002
Trent Lott must think he's living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond's century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can't scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott's comments "thoughtless" and told CBS's "Early Show" audience on December 12 that "Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down." And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, "I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people ... who don't get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I'm tired of being embarrassed by Republicans ... who don't get it."
It's a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott's east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi--and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.
Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.
Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.
On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.
It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.
During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."
None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.
Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.
And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.
Sarah Wildman was an assistant editor at The New Republic from 1999 to 2003.
Closed Sessions
The senator who's worse than Lott.
Sarah Wildman, The New Republic Published: December 30, 2002
Trent Lott must think he's living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond's century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can't scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott's comments "thoughtless" and told CBS's "Early Show" audience on December 12 that "Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down." And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, "I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people ... who don't get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I'm tired of being embarrassed by Republicans ... who don't get it."
It's a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott's east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi--and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.
Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.
Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.
On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.
It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.
During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."
None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.
Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.
And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.
Sarah Wildman was an assistant editor at The New Republic from 1999 to 2003.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Republican's Plan to Delay
Update: I forgot to comment on the notion that the Democrats, haven been in charge of Congress the last 2 years of BushCo, are as responsible for the economic mess as Republicans, that Dems are the ones in charge of the first failed stimulus attempt and bank bail-out. So here's my comment: poppy cock! Bush vetoed good legislation. Because of his incessant veto threats and the filibuster threat from Senate Republicans, legislation most Dems would reject was passed. And the bank bail-out was an emergency action. Anyone who paid attention knows that.
Also, h/t to Prometheus6, who posted an article with this statement:
In my three decades as a Washington-based journalist, what I have witnessed is a Republican Party that has grown increasingly arrogant about its ability to twist reality into any shape of its choosing – and to get lots of gullible people to go along.
_________________________________________
I know this video is old, but, I think Tom Delay represents the problem with the Republican party. Don't get me wrong, even if they fixed the things I found objectionable, I still would disagree on policy. But at least they'd be, oh I don't know, human.
Delay is awfully disrespectful towards Harold Ford. My first impulse is to say Delay is racist, but I think that Republicans are by and large disrespectful of anyone who disagrees. Not that I don't think Delay is racist. I do. He definitely disrespectful towards our new president.
Don't get me wrong. It's not like I showed the upmost respect for the previous resident, but he deserved it. And isn't it Republicans who claimed disagreeing with the president was tantamount to treason?
Delay is also oblivious to reality. He thinks the problem is that we as a nation and as individuals have been living beyond our means. That's not the case. The problem was what happened in an unregulated sector of the market. I mean selling insured mortgages to investors? Come on. And this obliviousness leads them to offer more tax cuts as the solution. Even though at best, it should be apparent that tax cuts haven't worked. I mean, we are in this problem despite the previous tax cuts of the last administration.
Also, Delay's tossing David Brooks from the "conservative" crowd. On the basis of what? Because he disagreed with Bobby Jindal? Right now, one of the things that's going to do the Republicans in is the increasing exclusivity. Kicking people out of the group is fine if you're in high school. It's a bit problematic if you're an adult, and especially if you're one who believes you should run the government. . . That you say is the problem?
Then Delay wants to tout Jindal's Louisiana as having an examplarary economy. Let's concede that Jindal has revitalized Louisiana's economy. But look:
The problem is we have hundreds of people in positions to influence the direction this country takes who think like him.
Another Republican problem? Arguing against straw-men. I don't remember Pres. Obama saying anything about a cap and trade. Maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't recall that part of the speech. And do you really think a cap and trade system is going to destroy the economy? I can give you two good reasons why it won't. One, somebody's gonna find away to make money off the situation, which would hopefully mean industrial carbon scrubbers. Or, factories using renewable sources of energy like the sun or wind. Either way, building and fixing the necessary parts could create a whole new sector of the economy. And I'm not saying Pres. Obama doesn't have any plans to have carbon regulated as a pollutant. I'm just saying I don't recall the "cap and trade" portion of his speech.
He also makes the argument, I think against Pres. Obama's health care plan, that government has never done anything efficiently. Well, I beg to differ. For one, the Depression-era project of collecting the memories of people who had been born slaves was genius! Historians still use the material. And also, have you driven on the interstate lately? Now, I'm not big on the fact that entire communities of people of color were destroyed (along with white communities, I'm told). And sure the roads may presently need repair, but we got an interstate highway system, right? And the what makes the argument laughable is that all the programs Republicans site as not working or being inefficient worked perfectly fine up till the Reagon-era of "downsizing" government. Bobby Jindal sited the chaos of the Katrina late rescue as evidence of governments undependabilily. But was the head of the government at the time Republican? And hadn't he and his administration kicked out qualified people and hired on the basis of loyalty or friendship? And that's reason why no one should trust Pres. Obama?
Now, to be sure, here's one reason I especially think Delay represents problems with the party - Bill Kristol knows the party has no ideas. He suggests that find anything they can to stall, er, delay Pres. Obama's agenda from passing Congress. Throw any seed of doubt they can find.
You know what else gets me about Republicans, Delay aside? They act like America's just beginning to see Pres. Obama for what he is, as though America voted not completely understanding what we were getting. Some actually believe that. But I kept daily tabs on the campaign. Everything Pres. Obama is doing, he campaigned on. Just because the Republicans weren't listening doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
Also, h/t to Prometheus6, who posted an article with this statement:
In my three decades as a Washington-based journalist, what I have witnessed is a Republican Party that has grown increasingly arrogant about its ability to twist reality into any shape of its choosing – and to get lots of gullible people to go along.
_________________________________________
I know this video is old, but, I think Tom Delay represents the problem with the Republican party. Don't get me wrong, even if they fixed the things I found objectionable, I still would disagree on policy. But at least they'd be, oh I don't know, human.
Delay is awfully disrespectful towards Harold Ford. My first impulse is to say Delay is racist, but I think that Republicans are by and large disrespectful of anyone who disagrees. Not that I don't think Delay is racist. I do. He definitely disrespectful towards our new president.
Don't get me wrong. It's not like I showed the upmost respect for the previous resident, but he deserved it. And isn't it Republicans who claimed disagreeing with the president was tantamount to treason?
Delay is also oblivious to reality. He thinks the problem is that we as a nation and as individuals have been living beyond our means. That's not the case. The problem was what happened in an unregulated sector of the market. I mean selling insured mortgages to investors? Come on. And this obliviousness leads them to offer more tax cuts as the solution. Even though at best, it should be apparent that tax cuts haven't worked. I mean, we are in this problem despite the previous tax cuts of the last administration.
Also, Delay's tossing David Brooks from the "conservative" crowd. On the basis of what? Because he disagreed with Bobby Jindal? Right now, one of the things that's going to do the Republicans in is the increasing exclusivity. Kicking people out of the group is fine if you're in high school. It's a bit problematic if you're an adult, and especially if you're one who believes you should run the government. . . That you say is the problem?
Then Delay wants to tout Jindal's Louisiana as having an examplarary economy. Let's concede that Jindal has revitalized Louisiana's economy. But look:
- Does my state need the money? The state budget deficit for next year is now projected to reach $2.1 billion. State universities are expecting to cut their budgets up to 30 percent.Delay thinks George W Bush was a successful president. So that should end any serious discussion of and with him.
- Does my state already get more money from the federal government than it sends to the federal government? Yes. Louisiana gets $1.78 for every dollar it pays in. Rank: 4
The problem is we have hundreds of people in positions to influence the direction this country takes who think like him.
Another Republican problem? Arguing against straw-men. I don't remember Pres. Obama saying anything about a cap and trade. Maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't recall that part of the speech. And do you really think a cap and trade system is going to destroy the economy? I can give you two good reasons why it won't. One, somebody's gonna find away to make money off the situation, which would hopefully mean industrial carbon scrubbers. Or, factories using renewable sources of energy like the sun or wind. Either way, building and fixing the necessary parts could create a whole new sector of the economy. And I'm not saying Pres. Obama doesn't have any plans to have carbon regulated as a pollutant. I'm just saying I don't recall the "cap and trade" portion of his speech.
He also makes the argument, I think against Pres. Obama's health care plan, that government has never done anything efficiently. Well, I beg to differ. For one, the Depression-era project of collecting the memories of people who had been born slaves was genius! Historians still use the material. And also, have you driven on the interstate lately? Now, I'm not big on the fact that entire communities of people of color were destroyed (along with white communities, I'm told). And sure the roads may presently need repair, but we got an interstate highway system, right? And the what makes the argument laughable is that all the programs Republicans site as not working or being inefficient worked perfectly fine up till the Reagon-era of "downsizing" government. Bobby Jindal sited the chaos of the Katrina late rescue as evidence of governments undependabilily. But was the head of the government at the time Republican? And hadn't he and his administration kicked out qualified people and hired on the basis of loyalty or friendship? And that's reason why no one should trust Pres. Obama?
Now, to be sure, here's one reason I especially think Delay represents problems with the party - Bill Kristol knows the party has no ideas. He suggests that find anything they can to stall, er, delay Pres. Obama's agenda from passing Congress. Throw any seed of doubt they can find.
You know what else gets me about Republicans, Delay aside? They act like America's just beginning to see Pres. Obama for what he is, as though America voted not completely understanding what we were getting. Some actually believe that. But I kept daily tabs on the campaign. Everything Pres. Obama is doing, he campaigned on. Just because the Republicans weren't listening doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, February 26, 2009
My Thoughts On Bobby Jindal Response to Pres. Obama Address to Congress
Sorry I haven't written in the last few days. I've been CFS tired.
That said, I'm really not going to write a lot today. I'll point out that while Rupert Murdoch's apology was one of those, "I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was saying even though it should've been plain so I'm not really sorry," apologies, he was forced to make some effort at amends, and that's something.
And before we get to a response to Jindal's speech, I wanna point out two things. First, here's a quote from Jindal: "You know, a few weeks ago, the president warned that our country is facing a crisis that he said, in quotes, "we may not be able to reverse." " I italicized what's important to notice.
Now, Obama does used those words twice. Once in a speech as president-elect on January 8, 2009:
And oh! I did like Obama's address to Congress.
Second, read this:
The problem that Bobby Jindal's first name is Piyush is that he's obviously fully assimilated into white America, casting his Indian heritage aside. Obama stuck to his given name, even going from "Barry" to "Barack" as he started his journey into manhood. Moreover, the name "Piyush" is perfectly neutral, having no similarities to some other figure Americans are supposed to hate, fear, and/or despise. But as usual, Republicans/racists after try to deny their own faults by mischaracterizing what they see in others. Their incapability to think abstractly would be amusing if they didn't have such influence on the lives of others.
Now, this, with a hat tip to Prometheus6, just about sums up my feelings of Jindal's response to Obama address to a joint session of Congress:
Paul Krugman
Conscience of a Liberal
New York Times
February 25, 2009, 11:08 am
What should government do? A Jindal meditation
What is the appropriate role of government?
That said, I'm really not going to write a lot today. I'll point out that while Rupert Murdoch's apology was one of those, "I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was saying even though it should've been plain so I'm not really sorry," apologies, he was forced to make some effort at amends, and that's something.
And before we get to a response to Jindal's speech, I wanna point out two things. First, here's a quote from Jindal: "You know, a few weeks ago, the president warned that our country is facing a crisis that he said, in quotes, "we may not be able to reverse." " I italicized what's important to notice.
Now, Obama does used those words twice. Once in a speech as president-elect on January 8, 2009:
It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.Again, I italicized the pertinent words. He also repeated those words on Febuary 5, 2009 in a Washington Post op-ed, with the pertinent words again italicized:
Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.So you see, Obama meant nothing like what Jindal portrayed. And I find Jindal's purposeful misquoting of Obama despicable. Which reminds me, I'll probaby do a post about how I find Tom Delay despicable as well. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
And oh! I did like Obama's address to Congress.
Second, read this:
Issuing a news release pointing out that Jindal's first name is Piyush, which the state Democratic Party did last week, removed the racist label from the Republican Party and placed it clearly on the backs of the Democrats.Sam Hanna, Jr, the author of those words, couldn't be more wrong. And I'll tell you why. The Republicans were trying to scare people by touting Obama's middle name Hussein. Also, Obama was fairly open about his middle name. No more or less open than we'd expect anyone else to be. No one went around talking about John Sidney McCain.
The problem that Bobby Jindal's first name is Piyush is that he's obviously fully assimilated into white America, casting his Indian heritage aside. Obama stuck to his given name, even going from "Barry" to "Barack" as he started his journey into manhood. Moreover, the name "Piyush" is perfectly neutral, having no similarities to some other figure Americans are supposed to hate, fear, and/or despise. But as usual, Republicans/racists after try to deny their own faults by mischaracterizing what they see in others. Their incapability to think abstractly would be amusing if they didn't have such influence on the lives of others.
Now, this, with a hat tip to Prometheus6, just about sums up my feelings of Jindal's response to Obama address to a joint session of Congress:
Paul Krugman
Conscience of a Liberal
New York Times
February 25, 2009, 11:08 am
What should government do? A Jindal meditation
What is the appropriate role of government?
Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that.
But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.
So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.
And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.
The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Apparently, They Can, Too
Um, yeah. Nine Republican representatives from Florida and joining 9 Democrat reps in asking for stimulus cash. Even though they voted against it, remember? What is this? The Twilight Zone?
Nine Fla. Republicans want stim cash
They voted no, but they want the dough.
We're getting into broken record territory here on Republicans clamoring for stimulus money.
Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash.
“This critical funding is vital to protecting our schools from budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Because Florida has been hit especially hard by a rise in foreclosures, unemployment, and recent natural disasters, we are experiencing a crippling budget crisis. Now more than ever, we must invest in our state’s future,” said the letter.
The Republican co-signers: Adam Putnam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Tom Rooney, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ginny Brown-Waite, Cliff Stearns, John Mica and Bill Posey.
The Dems: Suzanne Kosmas, Ron Klein, Alcee Hastings, Robert Wexler, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor, Kendrick Meek, Alan Grayson and Corrine Brown.
Nine Fla. Republicans want stim cash
They voted no, but they want the dough.
We're getting into broken record territory here on Republicans clamoring for stimulus money.
Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash.
“This critical funding is vital to protecting our schools from budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Because Florida has been hit especially hard by a rise in foreclosures, unemployment, and recent natural disasters, we are experiencing a crippling budget crisis. Now more than ever, we must invest in our state’s future,” said the letter.
The Republican co-signers: Adam Putnam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Tom Rooney, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ginny Brown-Waite, Cliff Stearns, John Mica and Bill Posey.
The Dems: Suzanne Kosmas, Ron Klein, Alcee Hastings, Robert Wexler, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor, Kendrick Meek, Alan Grayson and Corrine Brown.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Money, Money, Money and Race (Updated) (Again)
Update (2/15): It occurs to me that the tax cuts, while massive, are targeted to the working/middle class. So, it's no wonder the Republicans voted against it, and I am not being ironic.
Update: h/t to lamh32, Jack and Jill commenter:
Right now, I'm absolutely enthralled by this economic crisis. Now, of course, I can talk about race in this context. How people of color were more likely to received sub-prime loans, even if they qualified for prime or didn't qualify for anything at all. How people of color will end up being the hardest hit. How we have our first African American president, and if he doesn't do this right, the lily-white Republican party, and I'm including Michael Steele in the lily-white description, is going to hang this on his head. They'll do a worse job than he's doing and the crisis will last that much longer.
But, I'm enthralled by the politics and economics of the situation. I'm even reading Paul Krugman's book The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008; and after his unreasonable bashing of President Obama during the primary and the general elections, I really wasn't a big fan.
But, the general economic argument is that the recovery plan was not nearly enough. Nowhere close. Being that I didn't even take econ 101 in college, I didn't really wanna step on the toes of conservative economists. But when even someone from the stupidly conservative American Enterprise Institute is saying, “I think they know how big it is, but they don’t want to say how big it is. It’s so big they can’t acknowledge it. The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks,” you know the proverbial sky is falling.
Now I'm convinced that this most recent attempt to stimulate the economy won't turn things around. The (re)calcitrant congressional Republicans will try to argue that the package was too big and had too much spending. And some people, because they're not seeing the big results they expected, may buy into the conservatives' arguments.
However, the reason things won't turn as much as people hope is that we're not spending enough money.
What convinced me? It wasn't this op-ed by Paul Krugman, which you should read; it was this article by Hiroko Tabuchi titled, "In Japan’s Stagnant Decade, Cautionary Tales for America."
So. Understand. The package isn't enough and everyone's afraid to do what needs to be done. Kinda like with an addict - sometimes we wait too long for the intervention.
And now that I've given you the economic side of the situation, let me rant about the politics. Even though it's clear that congressional Republicans are just playing pure politics; they don't care anything about the economy or American citizens; and, they only care about regaining the power they've lost; they still weld too much influence on our economic policy. Part of the reason the Obama administration isn't doing enough is because they don't wanna lose fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat. But the fiscal conservatives will land the entire country in the poor house if we listen to them!
Even Republican governors, with perhaps the exception of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, both of whom are prospective candidates for the 2012 presidential elections, are on board. I mean, you did say Florida's governor Charlie Crist hugging up on Pres Obama at the town hall in Ft. Myers, Fl? The states are suffering budget deficits. They need federal money and lots of it to balance their budgets. Money that'll save the jobs of teachers, bus drivers, police and firemen. Money that'll keep people from getting sick or becoming sicker. You can look at state and local balance sheets and see that the $800 billion ain't enough. Even for state and local Republicans. But the Republicans in Congress wanna act like they can't add.
But the past 25+ years have convinced me that really can't add.
And the odd thing is that we have history to guide us, right? Japan's lost decade and our own Great Depression. But conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have decided to re-write history. They have tried to blame the Great Depression on FDR. Even though the unemployment numbers show what FDR was doing was helping and things were turning around until FDR started doing what fiscal conservatives wanted, they blame him for continuing the Depression. And they're arguing the Japan's attempts to stimulate its economy were wastes of money even while numbers bear out that Japan lost a decade because they didn't do enough soon enough! So now, in order to do something without incurring a public backlash, the Obama administration can't do enough. And the thing is, now is the time when he can do what needs to be done. Politically, he can force the senate Republicans to filibuster and push through a plan of the size and scope that will accomplish what the country needs. The Democrats have the numbers. And the time. The next election isn't for almost 2 years. That's enough time for the voters to see the positive effects of what's happening and keep the Democrats in power. Economically, waiting will only make things worse. So, I don't get why the Obama administration is being so timid.
I got it! Think of the situation as taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection. Bronchitis or sinusitis or something. You've had some sort of bacterial infection in your life, right? The doctor gave you antibiotics and told you to take the whole prescription as it's prescribed even if you start feeling better, right? The prescription is for about a month. But if you don't take all that medicine within that month, you end up having take even more medicine later. I know from my own 2 or 4 or more sinus infections. The economy is the same way. Spend all the money you need at the beginning, cause if you don't, you end up spending more money later. I mean, check out this article predicting the Bush tax cut stimulus attempt wouldn't be enough and we'd have to spend more money later, which we're doing now.
For goodness sakes congressional Republicans, read something other than townhall.com and listen to somebody besides a fat, racist, insensitive, ig'nant drug addict!
One issue making Pres. Obama so timid in face of the crisis is that he has way too many people connected to corporate America, former bankers and lobbyists for banks, in his administration. And the bankers wanna keep the power and money they have. So essentially, part of the reason we can't manage to do what we need to is the selfishness of the big bankers and CEOs and the mean-spirited greed for power and the Republicans. The irony is it's precisely the selfishness of the big bankers, CEOs and the Republicans that we're in this mess. The bankers screwed around with people's money and lives. The Republicans gave major tax cuts to people who didn't need them and turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit.
But here's the most ironic thing of all. And it has to do with race. During the Great Depression, the South was solidly Democratic. Remember, due to racism, voters in the South were 99.9% white. They had run out socially liberal Republicans who were for politically empowering blacks during the Counter-Reconstruction after the Civil War. By the time of the Great Depression, the national Republican party was lily white and full of robber barons. People who wanted low taxes and no regulation - things that got us in our present mess, remember. But now, since the Democratic party has become socially liberal and all the civil rights victories of the 60s and 70s are attributed to Democrats, whites in the South have turned to the Republicans.
To make it clear, what I'm pointing out that if it weren't for their anti-anybody else feelings, Southern whites would overwhelmingly be supporting the Democratic party. Now, it is widely known that the South is anti-union, anti-labor. Which is odd given the poverty in the South that effects whites and blacks alike. But I digress. The reason the South is anti-union isn't that they actually believe the only way to create and preserve jobs is to empower business people to the detriment of workers. Remember, while poor whites had the benefits of their white skin in relation to blacks, wealthy whites were screwing over everybody. The majority of whites in the South would not side with business men when it came to the economy. However, they would side with whites against blacks when it came to any issue. So, the reason the South is anti-union is because white workers didn't want to band with black workers even for their own economic improvement.
Now, we have whites in the South voting against their own economic interests under the banner of "legitimate social issues," or rather, latent racism. They are the ones giving political power to a party they wouldn't have supported during the Great Depression.
Did you follow that? If voting habits were the same today as during the 20s and 30s, Republicans wouldn't have the little bit of power they have today. And the reason voting patterns changed wasn't a ideological conversion; it was racism, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong, white Southern Republicans may have convinced themselves that fiscal conservatism is the way to go, but it's only to justify their racist voting. Remember I said in a previous post that wealthy whites would screw over poor whites if it meant more money for them. And they get away with it by blaming people of color. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. Get it?
Okay. So. If the voting habits were the same today as they were during the Great Depression, and the people had an incentive to actually learn from history instead of re-writing it, we would actually spend the $2.3 trillion we need. But instead, the Republican bases which is increasingly white, male, and Southern, have an incentive to act stupid because they're still voting against the Democrats who they blame for supporting civil rights. Their racism is the main cause behind their "socially conservative" votes that empower people who don't care about them. They so concerned about race, they're voting for people who're more concerned about money. And not their money.
Update: h/t to lamh32, Jack and Jill commenter:
According to [Republican Senator David] Vitter, the GOP is basically betting the farm that the stimulus package is going to fail, and the party wants Democrats to go down with it. "Our next goal is to make President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress own it completely," he said. Instead of coming up with serious measures to save the economy, the party intends to devote its time to an "we told you so" agenda that will include GOP-only hearings on the bill's impact in the coming months to highlight the bill's purportedly wasteful elements and shortcomings.Update: h/t to djchefron, a commenter on Jack and Jill Politics for this The Washington Monthly article pointing out that the Republicans just voted for the Biggest. Tax cut. Ever. This article just shows that congressional Republicans are only interested in being obstructionists. They're not standing on principles at all.
Right now, I'm absolutely enthralled by this economic crisis. Now, of course, I can talk about race in this context. How people of color were more likely to received sub-prime loans, even if they qualified for prime or didn't qualify for anything at all. How people of color will end up being the hardest hit. How we have our first African American president, and if he doesn't do this right, the lily-white Republican party, and I'm including Michael Steele in the lily-white description, is going to hang this on his head. They'll do a worse job than he's doing and the crisis will last that much longer.
But, I'm enthralled by the politics and economics of the situation. I'm even reading Paul Krugman's book The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008; and after his unreasonable bashing of President Obama during the primary and the general elections, I really wasn't a big fan.
But, the general economic argument is that the recovery plan was not nearly enough. Nowhere close. Being that I didn't even take econ 101 in college, I didn't really wanna step on the toes of conservative economists. But when even someone from the stupidly conservative American Enterprise Institute is saying, “I think they know how big it is, but they don’t want to say how big it is. It’s so big they can’t acknowledge it. The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks,” you know the proverbial sky is falling.
Now I'm convinced that this most recent attempt to stimulate the economy won't turn things around. The (re)calcitrant congressional Republicans will try to argue that the package was too big and had too much spending. And some people, because they're not seeing the big results they expected, may buy into the conservatives' arguments.
However, the reason things won't turn as much as people hope is that we're not spending enough money.
What convinced me? It wasn't this op-ed by Paul Krugman, which you should read; it was this article by Hiroko Tabuchi titled, "In Japan’s Stagnant Decade, Cautionary Tales for America."
So. Understand. The package isn't enough and everyone's afraid to do what needs to be done. Kinda like with an addict - sometimes we wait too long for the intervention.
And now that I've given you the economic side of the situation, let me rant about the politics. Even though it's clear that congressional Republicans are just playing pure politics; they don't care anything about the economy or American citizens; and, they only care about regaining the power they've lost; they still weld too much influence on our economic policy. Part of the reason the Obama administration isn't doing enough is because they don't wanna lose fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat. But the fiscal conservatives will land the entire country in the poor house if we listen to them!
Even Republican governors, with perhaps the exception of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, both of whom are prospective candidates for the 2012 presidential elections, are on board. I mean, you did say Florida's governor Charlie Crist hugging up on Pres Obama at the town hall in Ft. Myers, Fl? The states are suffering budget deficits. They need federal money and lots of it to balance their budgets. Money that'll save the jobs of teachers, bus drivers, police and firemen. Money that'll keep people from getting sick or becoming sicker. You can look at state and local balance sheets and see that the $800 billion ain't enough. Even for state and local Republicans. But the Republicans in Congress wanna act like they can't add.
But the past 25+ years have convinced me that really can't add.
And the odd thing is that we have history to guide us, right? Japan's lost decade and our own Great Depression. But conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have decided to re-write history. They have tried to blame the Great Depression on FDR. Even though the unemployment numbers show what FDR was doing was helping and things were turning around until FDR started doing what fiscal conservatives wanted, they blame him for continuing the Depression. And they're arguing the Japan's attempts to stimulate its economy were wastes of money even while numbers bear out that Japan lost a decade because they didn't do enough soon enough! So now, in order to do something without incurring a public backlash, the Obama administration can't do enough. And the thing is, now is the time when he can do what needs to be done. Politically, he can force the senate Republicans to filibuster and push through a plan of the size and scope that will accomplish what the country needs. The Democrats have the numbers. And the time. The next election isn't for almost 2 years. That's enough time for the voters to see the positive effects of what's happening and keep the Democrats in power. Economically, waiting will only make things worse. So, I don't get why the Obama administration is being so timid.
I got it! Think of the situation as taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection. Bronchitis or sinusitis or something. You've had some sort of bacterial infection in your life, right? The doctor gave you antibiotics and told you to take the whole prescription as it's prescribed even if you start feeling better, right? The prescription is for about a month. But if you don't take all that medicine within that month, you end up having take even more medicine later. I know from my own 2 or 4 or more sinus infections. The economy is the same way. Spend all the money you need at the beginning, cause if you don't, you end up spending more money later. I mean, check out this article predicting the Bush tax cut stimulus attempt wouldn't be enough and we'd have to spend more money later, which we're doing now.
For goodness sakes congressional Republicans, read something other than townhall.com and listen to somebody besides a fat, racist, insensitive, ig'nant drug addict!
One issue making Pres. Obama so timid in face of the crisis is that he has way too many people connected to corporate America, former bankers and lobbyists for banks, in his administration. And the bankers wanna keep the power and money they have. So essentially, part of the reason we can't manage to do what we need to is the selfishness of the big bankers and CEOs and the mean-spirited greed for power and the Republicans. The irony is it's precisely the selfishness of the big bankers, CEOs and the Republicans that we're in this mess. The bankers screwed around with people's money and lives. The Republicans gave major tax cuts to people who didn't need them and turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit.
But here's the most ironic thing of all. And it has to do with race. During the Great Depression, the South was solidly Democratic. Remember, due to racism, voters in the South were 99.9% white. They had run out socially liberal Republicans who were for politically empowering blacks during the Counter-Reconstruction after the Civil War. By the time of the Great Depression, the national Republican party was lily white and full of robber barons. People who wanted low taxes and no regulation - things that got us in our present mess, remember. But now, since the Democratic party has become socially liberal and all the civil rights victories of the 60s and 70s are attributed to Democrats, whites in the South have turned to the Republicans.
To make it clear, what I'm pointing out that if it weren't for their anti-anybody else feelings, Southern whites would overwhelmingly be supporting the Democratic party. Now, it is widely known that the South is anti-union, anti-labor. Which is odd given the poverty in the South that effects whites and blacks alike. But I digress. The reason the South is anti-union isn't that they actually believe the only way to create and preserve jobs is to empower business people to the detriment of workers. Remember, while poor whites had the benefits of their white skin in relation to blacks, wealthy whites were screwing over everybody. The majority of whites in the South would not side with business men when it came to the economy. However, they would side with whites against blacks when it came to any issue. So, the reason the South is anti-union is because white workers didn't want to band with black workers even for their own economic improvement.
Now, we have whites in the South voting against their own economic interests under the banner of "legitimate social issues," or rather, latent racism. They are the ones giving political power to a party they wouldn't have supported during the Great Depression.
Did you follow that? If voting habits were the same today as during the 20s and 30s, Republicans wouldn't have the little bit of power they have today. And the reason voting patterns changed wasn't a ideological conversion; it was racism, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong, white Southern Republicans may have convinced themselves that fiscal conservatism is the way to go, but it's only to justify their racist voting. Remember I said in a previous post that wealthy whites would screw over poor whites if it meant more money for them. And they get away with it by blaming people of color. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. Get it?
Okay. So. If the voting habits were the same today as they were during the Great Depression, and the people had an incentive to actually learn from history instead of re-writing it, we would actually spend the $2.3 trillion we need. But instead, the Republican bases which is increasingly white, male, and Southern, have an incentive to act stupid because they're still voting against the Democrats who they blame for supporting civil rights. Their racism is the main cause behind their "socially conservative" votes that empower people who don't care about them. They so concerned about race, they're voting for people who're more concerned about money. And not their money.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Lord, the Lies! - CBO Report & Other News
I was reading through the comments session of a blog in The Nation by John Nichols, "Obama: 'Send Me A Bill That Creates or Saves 4 Million Jobs'," when I came across this comment:
I can't let it go. A number of things are wrong. First, the reason Japan lost a decade is because they never did enough. All their tries at a stimulus plan were too small. Or, at least I think that's what the president or the economic advisor to the vice president said. Something like that.
Okay, so anyway, I read the most recent CBO report, an "analysis is based on an average of the effects of two versions of H.R. 1—as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate. (The economic effects of those two bills are broadly similar.)" (pdf). The closest thing it says that resembles what Republicans are apparently saying about it is this:
You should read the rest of the CBO report for yourself. To my understanding, the stimulus plans would have a positive short-term impact. In the long run, the economy will even out. They expect no negative growth, just a decline in wages. I'm not happy about the potential for a decline in wages, but anything we can do right now to boost the economy might be worth it. I'm not an economist or anything, but a decline in wages seems reasonable if we have more people working, you know?
Now, to other news. It was Smart Pants's birthday today, so I called her. As soon as I said, "Hey!" she told me it was her birthday. She had cake and pizza. I asked if it was fun. Answer, "Yes." Lauren and Jamie already bought her tricycle - I may have spilled the beans about that before my aunt and uncle actually gave Smart Pants the tricycle, though. And Lauren ordered the cake from overseas. As she explained to me, she couldn't help it.
Things are okay for Lauren and Dee for now. She told me it was like her regular training, but that other people on the bases were warning that things would get worse as soon as the weather got warmer. Which seems about right if I remember correctly from past summers. I can't lie. Right now, I'm kinda scared for my cousin. Sadly enough, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Pres. Obama had a genius plan for getting us out of Afghanistan.
I can't imagine how other military families deal with this. This is just my cousin who's been living in the Northeast for the past 4 or 5 years. She's only been here to visit every year or so, and there were some visits when I didn't get a chance to see her. And yet, the next 11 months can't go by fast enough.
Even "more better"...ask BO how all their massive government spending helped end Japan's 1990s recession...(hint: it's a trick question)
And then ask why he continues to promote this massive spending when his own CBO believes we'll be out of this recession by the 2nd half of 2009 if we do NOTHING...and ths bill will make our economy WORSE in the long run...
I can't let it go. A number of things are wrong. First, the reason Japan lost a decade is because they never did enough. All their tries at a stimulus plan were too small. Or, at least I think that's what the president or the economic advisor to the vice president said. Something like that.
Okay, so anyway, I read the most recent CBO report, an "analysis is based on an average of the effects of two versions of H.R. 1—as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate. (The economic effects of those two bills are broadly similar.)" (pdf). The closest thing it says that resembles what Republicans are apparently saying about it is this:
In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt.Yeah. Slightly. And correct me if I'm wrong, but won't a plan full of tax cuts do the same? And the report does not say that we'll be better of doing nothing. In fact, if I'm reading correctly, and I'd like to think that I am, in every year, the worst expectations of the plan is better than doing nothing.
You should read the rest of the CBO report for yourself. To my understanding, the stimulus plans would have a positive short-term impact. In the long run, the economy will even out. They expect no negative growth, just a decline in wages. I'm not happy about the potential for a decline in wages, but anything we can do right now to boost the economy might be worth it. I'm not an economist or anything, but a decline in wages seems reasonable if we have more people working, you know?
Now, to other news. It was Smart Pants's birthday today, so I called her. As soon as I said, "Hey!" she told me it was her birthday. She had cake and pizza. I asked if it was fun. Answer, "Yes." Lauren and Jamie already bought her tricycle - I may have spilled the beans about that before my aunt and uncle actually gave Smart Pants the tricycle, though. And Lauren ordered the cake from overseas. As she explained to me, she couldn't help it.
Things are okay for Lauren and Dee for now. She told me it was like her regular training, but that other people on the bases were warning that things would get worse as soon as the weather got warmer. Which seems about right if I remember correctly from past summers. I can't lie. Right now, I'm kinda scared for my cousin. Sadly enough, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Pres. Obama had a genius plan for getting us out of Afghanistan.
I can't imagine how other military families deal with this. This is just my cousin who's been living in the Northeast for the past 4 or 5 years. She's only been here to visit every year or so, and there were some visits when I didn't get a chance to see her. And yet, the next 11 months can't go by fast enough.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
President Barack Obama News Conference on the Recovery Plan (aka Stimulus Package)
I think he did a great job. What did you think?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Oh, Wow! Please, Read and Discuss
I can across this article in my inbox via Portside. It's practically a gift-wrapped blog post for me! It discusses the economic stimulus and its racial implications.
But, before I paste it, I would like to mention another issue attached to the stimulus: the future. Watching CNN, a saw a few comments concerning the stimulus plan. (You know, CNN twitters now.) A couple of them were by guys in their mid20s complaining of the tax implications for them in the future. One surmised we'd be experiencing another recession 20 years from now due to the spending in today's package.
Now, I thought of a couple of responses to these assertions. First off was how incredibly selfish these two and anyone like them are to whine and complain about their future taxes when people are hurting right now. The second one is more for those who profess to be Christians. I wanted to remind them Jesus teaches us not to worry about tomorrow as today has enough problems of its own. But then, as I was writing this, it suddenly occured to me how illogical the arguments were. Are the mistakes of one generation paid by their children? Yes. But a recession due to taxes? I'm not sure that's ever happened so I really doubt it ever will.
But, yes, tomorrow's generation will pay for what we do or don't do today. I think it's best if we do something. Don't you? Cause seriously. If we don't get a handle on the situation, those of us in our mid20s may not have incomes to pay taxes on 20 years from now.
Selfish bastards.
So anyway, here an article by Dean Baker.
_________
Spending Versus Tax Cuts: Who Pays the Cost of Political
Compromise?
BY DEAN BAKER
Center for Economic and Policy Research
January 2009
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2009-01-Spending-Vs-Tax-Cuts.pdf
President Obama and the Democratic leadership will
undoubtedly have to make some political compromises in
order to get a stimulus package through Congress.
However, it is important to keep in mind that there will
be real costs associated with these compromises insofar
as they result in a less effective stimulus package. A
less effective package will mean less economic growth,
which will, in turn, mean that fewer people will have
jobs.
This paper calculates how the costs of a less effective
stimulus package will be borne. Relying on estimates of
the multipliers from various spending and tax measures
from Moody's Economy.com, this paper projects the impact
on overall job growth and employment, as well as on job
growth and employment for African Americans and
Hispanics, of political compromises that lead to less
effective stimulus.
Table 1 below [moderator: please go to original article
to view tables] compares the projected impact of
spending increases to a temporary rebate of the payroll
tax or to a cut in corporate taxes. The assumed
multiplier for spending increases is 1.5, which is
approximately the average multiplier for the various
types of spending from Moody's Economy.com. The
multiplier for a payroll tax holiday was estimated as
1.29. The multiplier for cuts in corporate tax cuts used
in the table is 0.3. This is the estimated multiplier
for a cut in corporate income tax rates. This figure
might be a reasonable approximation for some of the
corporate tax cuts that the administration is reportedly
considering, however, it almost certainly overstates the
multiplier for one tax cut supposedly under
consideration.
According to several reports, President Obama is
considering a measure that will allow firms to write off
losses in 2008 and 2009 against five years of past
profits, instead of the two years allowed under current
law. This change in the tax code would only help a
relatively small number of firms, disproportionately
banks and builders, who have very large losses. Unlike a
cut in the corporate income tax, which changes firm's
incentives going forward, this tax cut simply hands
firms money, without changing their incentives going
forward.
Therefore, there is little reason to believe that this
particular tax cut would lead to any noticeable increase
in investment. For this reason, a multiplier of 0.3
likely overstates the impact of this proposed tax cuts.
The table shows that $100 billion of additional
government spending will lead to an increase in GDP of
approximately $150 billion (about 1 percent of GDP at
current levels). Following the analysis presented by
President-elect Obama's staff, the table assumes that an
increase in GDP of 1 percent leads to an increase in
employment of 1 million workers. This means that $100
billion of additional spending will lead to 1 million
additional jobs, while a temporary cut in payroll taxes
will generate 860,000 jobs. By contrast, a $100 billion
cut in corporate taxes will lead to just 200,000 new
jobs.
Using the assumption that a 2.0 percent increase in GDP
leads to a 1.0 percentage point drop in the unemployment
rate (Okun's Law), we can project that a $100 billion
increase in spending will cause the overall unemployment
rate to drop by 0.5 percentage points. A reduction in
the payroll tax of the same size will lead to a 0.4
percentage point drop in the unemployment rate, while
the same cut in corporate taxes will cause the
unemployment rate to fall by just 0.1 percent.
African Americans and Hispanics feel the effects of a
downturn (and upturn) disproportionately. Assuming that
unemployment for these groups tracks the overall
unemployment in the same way as it did in the last two
downturns,3 the $100 billion increase in spending can be
expected to reduce unemployment among African Americans
by 0.71 percentage points and among Hispanics by 0.67
percentage points. The payroll tax rebate lowers the
unemployment rate amongst these groups by 0.57
percentage points and 0.53 percentage points,
respectively. By contrast, the corporate tax cut will
lead to drops of just 0.14 percentage points and 0.13
percentage points, respectively.
Finally, the same comparisons can be made with
employment. The $100 billion increase in spending leads
to a 0.7 percentage point increase in total employment.
The payroll tax rebate increases employment by 0.6
percentage points, while the corporate tax cut leads to
an increase in employment of just 0.14 percentage
points. The effects of the employment of both African
Americans and Hispanics are 1.5 times as large.
This means that a $100 billion increase in spending will
lead to 1.05 percentage point increase in employment for
African Americans and Hispanics, while a corporate tax
cut of the same size will increase employment for these
groups by just 0.21 percentage points.
These projections indicate that insofar as tax cuts are
substituted for government spending, there will be fewer
jobs created by the stimulus and that African Americans
and Hispanics will feel this effect disproportionately.
Insofar as corporate tax cuts are substituted for
spending, the impact of a given amount of stimulus will
be only one-fifth as great. This sort of substitution
could lead to considerably higher rates of unemployment
for African Americans and Hispanics.
But, before I paste it, I would like to mention another issue attached to the stimulus: the future. Watching CNN, a saw a few comments concerning the stimulus plan. (You know, CNN twitters now.) A couple of them were by guys in their mid20s complaining of the tax implications for them in the future. One surmised we'd be experiencing another recession 20 years from now due to the spending in today's package.
Now, I thought of a couple of responses to these assertions. First off was how incredibly selfish these two and anyone like them are to whine and complain about their future taxes when people are hurting right now. The second one is more for those who profess to be Christians. I wanted to remind them Jesus teaches us not to worry about tomorrow as today has enough problems of its own. But then, as I was writing this, it suddenly occured to me how illogical the arguments were. Are the mistakes of one generation paid by their children? Yes. But a recession due to taxes? I'm not sure that's ever happened so I really doubt it ever will.
But, yes, tomorrow's generation will pay for what we do or don't do today. I think it's best if we do something. Don't you? Cause seriously. If we don't get a handle on the situation, those of us in our mid20s may not have incomes to pay taxes on 20 years from now.
Selfish bastards.
So anyway, here an article by Dean Baker.
_________
Spending Versus Tax Cuts: Who Pays the Cost of Political
Compromise?
BY DEAN BAKER
Center for Economic and Policy Research
January 2009
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2009-01-Spending-Vs-Tax-Cuts.pdf
President Obama and the Democratic leadership will
undoubtedly have to make some political compromises in
order to get a stimulus package through Congress.
However, it is important to keep in mind that there will
be real costs associated with these compromises insofar
as they result in a less effective stimulus package. A
less effective package will mean less economic growth,
which will, in turn, mean that fewer people will have
jobs.
This paper calculates how the costs of a less effective
stimulus package will be borne. Relying on estimates of
the multipliers from various spending and tax measures
from Moody's Economy.com, this paper projects the impact
on overall job growth and employment, as well as on job
growth and employment for African Americans and
Hispanics, of political compromises that lead to less
effective stimulus.
Table 1 below [moderator: please go to original article
to view tables] compares the projected impact of
spending increases to a temporary rebate of the payroll
tax or to a cut in corporate taxes. The assumed
multiplier for spending increases is 1.5, which is
approximately the average multiplier for the various
types of spending from Moody's Economy.com. The
multiplier for a payroll tax holiday was estimated as
1.29. The multiplier for cuts in corporate tax cuts used
in the table is 0.3. This is the estimated multiplier
for a cut in corporate income tax rates. This figure
might be a reasonable approximation for some of the
corporate tax cuts that the administration is reportedly
considering, however, it almost certainly overstates the
multiplier for one tax cut supposedly under
consideration.
According to several reports, President Obama is
considering a measure that will allow firms to write off
losses in 2008 and 2009 against five years of past
profits, instead of the two years allowed under current
law. This change in the tax code would only help a
relatively small number of firms, disproportionately
banks and builders, who have very large losses. Unlike a
cut in the corporate income tax, which changes firm's
incentives going forward, this tax cut simply hands
firms money, without changing their incentives going
forward.
Therefore, there is little reason to believe that this
particular tax cut would lead to any noticeable increase
in investment. For this reason, a multiplier of 0.3
likely overstates the impact of this proposed tax cuts.
The table shows that $100 billion of additional
government spending will lead to an increase in GDP of
approximately $150 billion (about 1 percent of GDP at
current levels). Following the analysis presented by
President-elect Obama's staff, the table assumes that an
increase in GDP of 1 percent leads to an increase in
employment of 1 million workers. This means that $100
billion of additional spending will lead to 1 million
additional jobs, while a temporary cut in payroll taxes
will generate 860,000 jobs. By contrast, a $100 billion
cut in corporate taxes will lead to just 200,000 new
jobs.
Using the assumption that a 2.0 percent increase in GDP
leads to a 1.0 percentage point drop in the unemployment
rate (Okun's Law), we can project that a $100 billion
increase in spending will cause the overall unemployment
rate to drop by 0.5 percentage points. A reduction in
the payroll tax of the same size will lead to a 0.4
percentage point drop in the unemployment rate, while
the same cut in corporate taxes will cause the
unemployment rate to fall by just 0.1 percent.
African Americans and Hispanics feel the effects of a
downturn (and upturn) disproportionately. Assuming that
unemployment for these groups tracks the overall
unemployment in the same way as it did in the last two
downturns,3 the $100 billion increase in spending can be
expected to reduce unemployment among African Americans
by 0.71 percentage points and among Hispanics by 0.67
percentage points. The payroll tax rebate lowers the
unemployment rate amongst these groups by 0.57
percentage points and 0.53 percentage points,
respectively. By contrast, the corporate tax cut will
lead to drops of just 0.14 percentage points and 0.13
percentage points, respectively.
Finally, the same comparisons can be made with
employment. The $100 billion increase in spending leads
to a 0.7 percentage point increase in total employment.
The payroll tax rebate increases employment by 0.6
percentage points, while the corporate tax cut leads to
an increase in employment of just 0.14 percentage
points. The effects of the employment of both African
Americans and Hispanics are 1.5 times as large.
This means that a $100 billion increase in spending will
lead to 1.05 percentage point increase in employment for
African Americans and Hispanics, while a corporate tax
cut of the same size will increase employment for these
groups by just 0.21 percentage points.
These projections indicate that insofar as tax cuts are
substituted for government spending, there will be fewer
jobs created by the stimulus and that African Americans
and Hispanics will feel this effect disproportionately.
Insofar as corporate tax cuts are substituted for
spending, the impact of a given amount of stimulus will
be only one-fifth as great. This sort of substitution
could lead to considerably higher rates of unemployment
for African Americans and Hispanics.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Pork in the Stimulus Package?
Update (2/8 3:28p): more Michael Steele inanity.
One of the things Republicans have been complaining about is the money supposedly earmarked for ACORN. Some of the angst is due to their false allegations last fall that ACORN was involved in voter fraud. Well. Not only was ACORN not involved in voter fraud, there is not money earmarked for ACORN.
Now, I bring this up for a few reasons, the most important of which I'll lay out last.
But first, in the weekly Republican address, Michael Steele question if power had gone to the Democrats head. His complaints are that congressional Democrats fashioned the stimulus bill without Republican ideas and that the bill is full of spending. Well. The past 8 years, if not 2 decades, has proven that Republicans ideas are bankrupt, both figuratively and literally. And as Pres. Obama has recently made clear, as far as spending, "that's the point!" Most economists across the political spectrum agree that their should be more spending in the package than tax cuts. But still, or rather, Steele, the Republicans insist on opposing the package? Even John McCain found the gall to talk smack after having his behind gift-wrapped to him this past November.
Let me remind Republicans, "bi-partisanship" does not mean you get your way.
Then we have former Vice President Dick Cheney getting chesty about the war on terror. I mean, with the mess we've created in the Middle East, Gitmo being used as recruitment material for terror groups, you'd think he'd go somewhere and hide. But no. So. If you didn't already think little to nothing of Cheney, let me inform you that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton where Cheney was CEO until 2000, has been charged with bribing the Nigerian government for defence contracts.
But now, for the coup de grace. I opened this post with ACORN and the stimulus bill for the particular purpose of distributing information I've just received that tells a story of ACORN helping a family buy property they had been renting that had been foreclosed on. Yeah. The Republicans are despicable.
Enjoy.
A Startling Statistic & an Appeal from ACORN
(1)
Fifteen percent of all houses and apartments in the
United States stood empty at the end of 2008 - a record
19 million homes - according to data released this week
by the U.S. Census Bureau. Vacant housing units in the
fourth quarter increased nearly 7 percent compared with
the same period in 2007, largely because of bank
foreclosures and owners who abandoned their
properties.'
San Francisco Chronicle
February 5, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/d8msev
(2)
ACORN: Starting the Recovery - Ending Foreclosures
ACORN February 6, 2009
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/3071/signUp.jsp?key=2134
Dear friends,
I have an amazing story to share with you - a story of
a community coming together and, through collective
action and civil disobedience, saving the home of a
family of renters in Oakland caught up in the
foreclosure crisis. And not just save the home, but
help them buy it from their foreclosed landlord!
The reason I'm sharing this with you is because we are
going to be doing this exact same thing in cities
around the country and I wanted to invite you to join
in the fight to end the financial crisis and save the
homes of individuals caught in the storm.
But first, here's the story of Eddie and Martha Daniels
of Oakland, California.:
http://tinyurl.com/df4e6x
At 6:00 am on Wednesday, February 4, more than 30
members of ACORN gathered at the home of Eddie and
Martha Daniels in West Oakland, armed with prayers,
cell phones, and the hope that Wednesday would not be a
day in which yet another family who had done no wrong
was claimed as a victim of the raging foreclosure
crisis.
Since 2006, the Daniels had paid their rent each month
to their landlord, who had not told them that he was
not, in turn, paying the mortgage on time. The
landlord's lender had foreclosed on the property and
terminated the lease, and on Wednesday the sheriff was
scheduled to come to their home and evict the Daniels,
a family on the verge becoming another statistic in the
national economic catastrophe.
ACORN members rallied their neighbors, spoke with local
media, including one radio station that broadcast live
from the home, and flooded the sheriff's office with
calls urging compassion and forbearance of the
scheduled eviction. At the same time, ACORN Housing
Corporation was working furiously behind the scenes
with the lender to negotiate a stay on the eviction,
which successfully came through.
This alone would have saved their home, but what
happened next was uniq ue: ACORN Housing Corporation
was able to counsel the Daniels and help them apply for
a VA loan that would enable them to purchase the very
property from which they were almost evicted earlier
that day!
Maud Hurd, ACORN's President, said, "This shows the
power of communities coming together to fight back
against the foreclosures that are taking our homes and
ruining our neighborhoods."
Amen. And that's why I wanted to write to you. Today
ACORN is launching a national effort modeled on what
happened yesterday in Oakland: the ACORN Home
Defenders. The Home Defenders gives everyone an
opportunity to stand in solidarity with families like
the Daniels as they face the economic maelstrom
engulfing our country. It is designed to help keep
families in their homes and put pressure on our elected
officials to address this root cause of the economic
collapse.
The Home Defenders program links members of local
communities with families who have taken the bold step
of refusing to cooperate with the foreclosure process.
It responds to the desperate calls for help found in
the grim foreclosure statistics (2.3 million families
faced foreclosure in 2008) and echoes the sentiments of
leaders like Toledo,=2 0Ohio-area Congresswoman Marcy
Kaptur who recently said, "Stay in your homes. If the
American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed,
don't leave."
The urgency of this crisis demands immediate action. So
the Home Defenders program is rolling out in two
stages. The first stage will include eight "Tier 1"
metro areas: Baltimore, MD; Contra Costa County, CA;
Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Oakland,
CA; Orlando, FL and Tucson, AZ. Initial trainings for
people located in these metro areas will take place
during the second week in February, with kick-off
events scheduled to occur during the 3rd week of the
month.
The second stage will include 16 "Tier 2" metro areas:
Albany, NY; Boston, MA; Bridgeport, CT; Broward County,
FL; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver,
CO; Detroit, MI; Durham, NC; Flint, MI; Minneapolis,
MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Raleigh, NC; San Mateo County, CA;
and Wilmington, DE. Trainings and kick-off events will
occur a few weeks after those in the Tier 1 cities.
New cities are continuing to join this campaign, so if
you do not live near any of the metro areas listed
above, you can still participate in actions to save the
homes of families in your community as they come on-
board. For people who live in areas that will not have
local organizers helping drive this program, ACORN is
creating Home Defender Tool-Kits that help you fight=2
0back against the crisis in your neighborhood.
I urge you to take this step in helping local families
fight back against the crisis caused by reckless
financiers who made billions in bonuses in equity-
stripping schemes designed to set homebuyers up for
failure.
By showing that communities are refusing to participate
in their own decimation, we will force elected
officials to finally shift their emphasis from bailing
out Wall Street to bailing out Main Street.
Join with me.
In strength and solidarity,
Bertha Lewis ACORN CEO and Chief Organizer
One of the things Republicans have been complaining about is the money supposedly earmarked for ACORN. Some of the angst is due to their false allegations last fall that ACORN was involved in voter fraud. Well. Not only was ACORN not involved in voter fraud, there is not money earmarked for ACORN.
Now, I bring this up for a few reasons, the most important of which I'll lay out last.
But first, in the weekly Republican address, Michael Steele question if power had gone to the Democrats head. His complaints are that congressional Democrats fashioned the stimulus bill without Republican ideas and that the bill is full of spending. Well. The past 8 years, if not 2 decades, has proven that Republicans ideas are bankrupt, both figuratively and literally. And as Pres. Obama has recently made clear, as far as spending, "that's the point!" Most economists across the political spectrum agree that their should be more spending in the package than tax cuts. But still, or rather, Steele, the Republicans insist on opposing the package? Even John McCain found the gall to talk smack after having his behind gift-wrapped to him this past November.
Let me remind Republicans, "bi-partisanship" does not mean you get your way.
Then we have former Vice President Dick Cheney getting chesty about the war on terror. I mean, with the mess we've created in the Middle East, Gitmo being used as recruitment material for terror groups, you'd think he'd go somewhere and hide. But no. So. If you didn't already think little to nothing of Cheney, let me inform you that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton where Cheney was CEO until 2000, has been charged with bribing the Nigerian government for defence contracts.
But now, for the coup de grace. I opened this post with ACORN and the stimulus bill for the particular purpose of distributing information I've just received that tells a story of ACORN helping a family buy property they had been renting that had been foreclosed on. Yeah. The Republicans are despicable.
Enjoy.
A Startling Statistic & an Appeal from ACORN
(1)
Fifteen percent of all houses and apartments in the
United States stood empty at the end of 2008 - a record
19 million homes - according to data released this week
by the U.S. Census Bureau. Vacant housing units in the
fourth quarter increased nearly 7 percent compared with
the same period in 2007, largely because of bank
foreclosures and owners who abandoned their
properties.'
San Francisco Chronicle
February 5, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/d8msev
(2)
ACORN: Starting the Recovery - Ending Foreclosures
ACORN February 6, 2009
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/3071/signUp.jsp?key=2134
Dear friends,
I have an amazing story to share with you - a story of
a community coming together and, through collective
action and civil disobedience, saving the home of a
family of renters in Oakland caught up in the
foreclosure crisis. And not just save the home, but
help them buy it from their foreclosed landlord!
The reason I'm sharing this with you is because we are
going to be doing this exact same thing in cities
around the country and I wanted to invite you to join
in the fight to end the financial crisis and save the
homes of individuals caught in the storm.
But first, here's the story of Eddie and Martha Daniels
of Oakland, California.:
http://tinyurl.com/df4e6x
At 6:00 am on Wednesday, February 4, more than 30
members of ACORN gathered at the home of Eddie and
Martha Daniels in West Oakland, armed with prayers,
cell phones, and the hope that Wednesday would not be a
day in which yet another family who had done no wrong
was claimed as a victim of the raging foreclosure
crisis.
Since 2006, the Daniels had paid their rent each month
to their landlord, who had not told them that he was
not, in turn, paying the mortgage on time. The
landlord's lender had foreclosed on the property and
terminated the lease, and on Wednesday the sheriff was
scheduled to come to their home and evict the Daniels,
a family on the verge becoming another statistic in the
national economic catastrophe.
ACORN members rallied their neighbors, spoke with local
media, including one radio station that broadcast live
from the home, and flooded the sheriff's office with
calls urging compassion and forbearance of the
scheduled eviction. At the same time, ACORN Housing
Corporation was working furiously behind the scenes
with the lender to negotiate a stay on the eviction,
which successfully came through.
This alone would have saved their home, but what
happened next was uniq ue: ACORN Housing Corporation
was able to counsel the Daniels and help them apply for
a VA loan that would enable them to purchase the very
property from which they were almost evicted earlier
that day!
Maud Hurd, ACORN's President, said, "This shows the
power of communities coming together to fight back
against the foreclosures that are taking our homes and
ruining our neighborhoods."
Amen. And that's why I wanted to write to you. Today
ACORN is launching a national effort modeled on what
happened yesterday in Oakland: the ACORN Home
Defenders. The Home Defenders gives everyone an
opportunity to stand in solidarity with families like
the Daniels as they face the economic maelstrom
engulfing our country. It is designed to help keep
families in their homes and put pressure on our elected
officials to address this root cause of the economic
collapse.
The Home Defenders program links members of local
communities with families who have taken the bold step
of refusing to cooperate with the foreclosure process.
It responds to the desperate calls for help found in
the grim foreclosure statistics (2.3 million families
faced foreclosure in 2008) and echoes the sentiments of
leaders like Toledo,=2 0Ohio-area Congresswoman Marcy
Kaptur who recently said, "Stay in your homes. If the
American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed,
don't leave."
The urgency of this crisis demands immediate action. So
the Home Defenders program is rolling out in two
stages. The first stage will include eight "Tier 1"
metro areas: Baltimore, MD; Contra Costa County, CA;
Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Oakland,
CA; Orlando, FL and Tucson, AZ. Initial trainings for
people located in these metro areas will take place
during the second week in February, with kick-off
events scheduled to occur during the 3rd week of the
month.
The second stage will include 16 "Tier 2" metro areas:
Albany, NY; Boston, MA; Bridgeport, CT; Broward County,
FL; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver,
CO; Detroit, MI; Durham, NC; Flint, MI; Minneapolis,
MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Raleigh, NC; San Mateo County, CA;
and Wilmington, DE. Trainings and kick-off events will
occur a few weeks after those in the Tier 1 cities.
New cities are continuing to join this campaign, so if
you do not live near any of the metro areas listed
above, you can still participate in actions to save the
homes of families in your community as they come on-
board. For people who live in areas that will not have
local organizers helping drive this program, ACORN is
creating Home Defender Tool-Kits that help you fight=2
0back against the crisis in your neighborhood.
I urge you to take this step in helping local families
fight back against the crisis caused by reckless
financiers who made billions in bonuses in equity-
stripping schemes designed to set homebuyers up for
failure.
By showing that communities are refusing to participate
in their own decimation, we will force elected
officials to finally shift their emphasis from bailing
out Wall Street to bailing out Main Street.
Join with me.
In strength and solidarity,
Bertha Lewis ACORN CEO and Chief Organizer
WWJD
Yes, that's for, "What would Jesus do?"
Now, I know there is a wall separating the Church and State. But you can't separate personal faith from active politics. Personal faith drove the abolition movement, women's rights, civil rights, etc. Don't get me wrong, I know people of faith were the ones supporting slavery, women's subordination, segregation, etc. But these people weren't acting in faith, they were acting in fear and greed.
So my point is this. The Republicans have made a big deal the past few decades over their moral virtue. It was moral virtue that excused their impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's their moral virtue that informs their "pro-life" stance. It's their moral virtue that has funded their abstinence-only sex education.
And where is their moral virtue now? Jesus instructed his followers to look out for the poor, the orphaned, the widow. They were trained in healing the sick, giving sight, giving hearing, giving speech, ect and so on. They were told not to trust wealth. "How hard it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23 NIV). "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but manage to find loopholes for getting around basic matters of justice and God's love" (Luke 11:42 Message).
So, where's your moral virtue, Jon Kyl? Mitch McConnell? What do you think Jesus would do if he were designing this stimulus bill? Do you think he'd block a good plan just to put a black eye on Caesar? Do you think he'd look out for the Herods of the day . . . or the carpenters?
Now, I know there is a wall separating the Church and State. But you can't separate personal faith from active politics. Personal faith drove the abolition movement, women's rights, civil rights, etc. Don't get me wrong, I know people of faith were the ones supporting slavery, women's subordination, segregation, etc. But these people weren't acting in faith, they were acting in fear and greed.
So my point is this. The Republicans have made a big deal the past few decades over their moral virtue. It was moral virtue that excused their impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's their moral virtue that informs their "pro-life" stance. It's their moral virtue that has funded their abstinence-only sex education.
And where is their moral virtue now? Jesus instructed his followers to look out for the poor, the orphaned, the widow. They were trained in healing the sick, giving sight, giving hearing, giving speech, ect and so on. They were told not to trust wealth. "How hard it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23 NIV). "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but manage to find loopholes for getting around basic matters of justice and God's love" (Luke 11:42 Message).
So, where's your moral virtue, Jon Kyl? Mitch McConnell? What do you think Jesus would do if he were designing this stimulus bill? Do you think he'd block a good plan just to put a black eye on Caesar? Do you think he'd look out for the Herods of the day . . . or the carpenters?
Senate Negotiators Agree to Cut Education
I found this CNN article via Huffington Post
Essentially, billions of money marked for school construction was cut from the stimulus plan. I guess because building and improving schools doesn't provide jobs. But I could be wrong. About why the money was cut.
I am very disappointed in the Republicans for having played politics with children's education. I consider myself fairly informed about the current state of public schools in America, and I wonder what Republicans senators like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are going to say to parents and students of white poor, rural schools. I mean, yes, there're black poor, urban schools, but these parents and children voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. But if it's one thing I've always figured about well-to-do whites, it's that they'll screw poor whites over if it means keeping an extra buck for themselves, then pull a Rush Limbaugh move and encourage poor whites to blame their problems on people of color.
Anyway, this whole thing sucks. I just wanted to give you the latest info since I was up and am feeling okay. Hopefully tomorrow, I'll be back to ignoring politics and on to subjects I find not as depressing.
Essentially, billions of money marked for school construction was cut from the stimulus plan. I guess because building and improving schools doesn't provide jobs. But I could be wrong. About why the money was cut.
I am very disappointed in the Republicans for having played politics with children's education. I consider myself fairly informed about the current state of public schools in America, and I wonder what Republicans senators like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are going to say to parents and students of white poor, rural schools. I mean, yes, there're black poor, urban schools, but these parents and children voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. But if it's one thing I've always figured about well-to-do whites, it's that they'll screw poor whites over if it means keeping an extra buck for themselves, then pull a Rush Limbaugh move and encourage poor whites to blame their problems on people of color.
Anyway, this whole thing sucks. I just wanted to give you the latest info since I was up and am feeling okay. Hopefully tomorrow, I'll be back to ignoring politics and on to subjects I find not as depressing.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Not Just Cuts to Taxes, Unfortunately
Hat Tip to Jack and Jill Politics
Huffington Post obtained a memo of Senator Ben Nelson's proposed cuts to the stimulus bill (pdf).
While his spokesperson, Jack Thompson, is apparently arguing that the list is unimportant because it's days old and negotiations are ongoing, I do think it important to note where politicians head when looking to shave money from the budget.
Yeah. We can't shave our overbloated military budget, which, by the way, gives tons of money to projects politicians know are a waste. We can't possibly ask the wealthy to be their brothers' keeper. No. Let's target the people who can't defend themselves.
Contact your Congresspeople. I am.
Huffington Post obtained a memo of Senator Ben Nelson's proposed cuts to the stimulus bill (pdf).
While his spokesperson, Jack Thompson, is apparently arguing that the list is unimportant because it's days old and negotiations are ongoing, I do think it important to note where politicians head when looking to shave money from the budget.
Total Reductions: $80 billion
Eliminations:
Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, School improvement, Child Nutrition, Firefighters, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, Prisons, COPS Hiring, Violence Against Women, NASA, NSF, Western Area Power Administration, CDC, Food Stamps
*****************************
Reductions:
Public Transit $3.4 billion, School Construction $60 billion
*****************************
Increases: Defense operations and procurement, STAG Grants, Brownfields, Additional transportation funding
*****************************
Yeah. We can't shave our overbloated military budget, which, by the way, gives tons of money to projects politicians know are a waste. We can't possibly ask the wealthy to be their brothers' keeper. No. Let's target the people who can't defend themselves.
Contact your Congresspeople. I am.
Tax Cuts?! Tax Cuts?!
I am fed up with the Republicans. They have to be the stupidest bunch in politics around the world. And to make matters worse, they have a healthy dose a pure evil, too.
After all this time and whining and complaining, they finally get something they should be happy with. Something they should be thrilled with in my opinion. A Senate stimulus plan that is 58% spending and 42% of the same tax cuts that got us in the mess in the first place. And David Vitter, who won his seat after castigating Bill Clinton for dishonoring the Oval then turned around a slept with a couple of prostitutes at least, is leading the Republican delegation who is asking for "time" to look things over. They wanna read exactly what's in the 42% of tax cuts.
Now, on one hand, you can't blame them. They don't want "tax cuts" that are targeted to workers. They especially don't want "tax cuts" that really aren't "tax cuts" at all that are targeted to the working poor, those who work but don't make enough to pay income tax. No. Even though these are the people who're really hurting, the people who haven't caused this whole mess, god forbid they get some help.
Not to mention, the unemployed, whose numbers keep growing by the day, don't pay taxes and therefore can't receive any tax relief.
Really. The Republicans are just putting on this whole show just to make sure President Obama fails. This isn't about the stimulus. This isn't about doing what's "right" for America. Economists across the ideological spectrum all agree Washington is gone have to turn the spigots wide open. So it's not the economics of the bill. Not the tax cuts, not the amount of spending, none of that. They just want Pres. Obama to fail, pure and simple.
The past 8 years have demonstrated that Republicans neither care nor know what's best for American citizens. Yet, they have the gall, the unmitigated audacity to get self-righteous over this?
You, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and all the other Congressional conservatives should be mortality ashamed of yourselves. Really.
You know what I hope? I hope Pres. Obama burns them Monday, and the final bill has everything the House Democrats wanted in the first place. The family planning spending, the National Mall grass, and everything. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, for once, make them stand and talk and explain to everybody why they want this recession to become worse.
After all this time and whining and complaining, they finally get something they should be happy with. Something they should be thrilled with in my opinion. A Senate stimulus plan that is 58% spending and 42% of the same tax cuts that got us in the mess in the first place. And David Vitter, who won his seat after castigating Bill Clinton for dishonoring the Oval then turned around a slept with a couple of prostitutes at least, is leading the Republican delegation who is asking for "time" to look things over. They wanna read exactly what's in the 42% of tax cuts.
Now, on one hand, you can't blame them. They don't want "tax cuts" that are targeted to workers. They especially don't want "tax cuts" that really aren't "tax cuts" at all that are targeted to the working poor, those who work but don't make enough to pay income tax. No. Even though these are the people who're really hurting, the people who haven't caused this whole mess, god forbid they get some help.
Not to mention, the unemployed, whose numbers keep growing by the day, don't pay taxes and therefore can't receive any tax relief.
Really. The Republicans are just putting on this whole show just to make sure President Obama fails. This isn't about the stimulus. This isn't about doing what's "right" for America. Economists across the ideological spectrum all agree Washington is gone have to turn the spigots wide open. So it's not the economics of the bill. Not the tax cuts, not the amount of spending, none of that. They just want Pres. Obama to fail, pure and simple.
The past 8 years have demonstrated that Republicans neither care nor know what's best for American citizens. Yet, they have the gall, the unmitigated audacity to get self-righteous over this?
You, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and all the other Congressional conservatives should be mortality ashamed of yourselves. Really.
You know what I hope? I hope Pres. Obama burns them Monday, and the final bill has everything the House Democrats wanted in the first place. The family planning spending, the National Mall grass, and everything. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, for once, make them stand and talk and explain to everybody why they want this recession to become worse.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Republican Stupidity and also, Bono and Israel
They make inane arguments, such as the one Ken Blackwell makes about the stimulus creating jobs being a bad thing for two reasons: it would create more Democratic voters in Virginia and use taxpayer money to provide jobs without putting it back in the economy.
First of all, the point is jobs not votes. And if Republicans don't like the fact that most government workers vote Democratic, they should articulate a vision that doesn't require those thick, nerb-bird glasses. Second of all, these people with these government jobs . . . don't they eat and live and drive? And don't they pay taxes on the money they make?
-I checked out the article after hearing Keith Olbermann mention Blackwell in his "3 Worst People in the World" segment. I can't believe such sheer stupidity passes as critical thought for anybody.
Oh! BTW - Did you catch Bono's shout-out to Palestine! Yeah! Israel, if you do right by Palestine, you won't have to worry about rockets coming into Israel. Now, the train has left the station when it comes to actually giving them their land back; though, if that's possible, I'm for it. But you could treat them like, oh I don't know, human beings!
First of all, the point is jobs not votes. And if Republicans don't like the fact that most government workers vote Democratic, they should articulate a vision that doesn't require those thick, nerb-bird glasses. Second of all, these people with these government jobs . . . don't they eat and live and drive? And don't they pay taxes on the money they make?
-I checked out the article after hearing Keith Olbermann mention Blackwell in his "3 Worst People in the World" segment. I can't believe such sheer stupidity passes as critical thought for anybody.
Oh! BTW - Did you catch Bono's shout-out to Palestine! Yeah! Israel, if you do right by Palestine, you won't have to worry about rockets coming into Israel. Now, the train has left the station when it comes to actually giving them their land back; though, if that's possible, I'm for it. But you could treat them like, oh I don't know, human beings!
Friday, December 12, 2008
My Two Soldiers
Blagojevich smalojevich. Barack Obama has had nothing to do with this pay-for-play scandal. Whatever Blago had in mind, it's clear he knew that bleeping Obama was only interested in giving him bleeping appreciation.
And to the US Senate Republicans: come of it! Stop hating on the UAW. The labor union isn't the problem. US auto companies haven't been making cars people want to buy. When I buy a car, I don't even have intentions of buying from the US auto industry. So, if you wanna clear out the ranks of upper-level, executive management, please do. But leave the union alone. Cause the way I see it, you're coming up against to philosophical contradictions. One is that the cost of workers in the North is too high, especially do to healthcare cost. One way to get rid of the healthcare cost burden on employers would be some sort-of "socialized medicine" via national medicaid/medicare for all, some sort-of single payer system. At the very least, we got to get rid of the system we have know: healthcare for profit. Sorry. People's lives shouldn't depend on insurance companies' bottom lines. And some form of "socialized medicine" will help cut costs for American business - and that's important to you, right?
The other contradiction you're up against is this notion of the free-market. The way I've understood it, in a free market, labor is a form of capital. Why are you so willing to help one side of the free market, business, but not the other, labor? In a truly free market, labor is allowed to make the same self-interested decisions that business is allowed to make. So, in the end, quit hating on a system you purport to support.
Now that I've expressed my feelings about that, I'm moving on. The Republicans are idiots. They're being obnoxious to block the American auto bail-out, or rather, bridge loan. And they're being especially obnoxious to demand Obama come clean about any contact and talk he or his staff or any emissary may have had with Blagojevish. I repeat: if we know nothing else, we do know that Blagojevich was angry that Obama wouldn't play game with him. Doesn't that clear Obama? Quit trying to paint him with Illinois corruption and call me when the Cubs win the Series, or the Bulls win the Finals. I have bigger fish to fry.
My cousin and her husband are due to be ship out to Afghanistan in early January. Hence, my title. And, quite frankly, I'm conflicted about the situation. I understand we need to finish the job in Afghanistan's, and I'm pissed that lame-a, er, -duck Bush didn't do so in the beginning. And the latest reports are that Afghans aren't do any better than they were before. For some, especially women, the situation has become worse. Just a few months ago, I watched part of a special about Afghan women setting themselves on fire as acts of rebellion against someone, be it an abusive husband or an abusive mother-in-law. (I don't know whether or not they had access to guns. But I do know that women aren't likely to use guns to commit suicide. And, I suppose, watching "your" woman burn to death at her decision can stick in the craw of the men who claim control of them.) I only watched part of the special because my stomach couldn't take it. Many of these women were unsuccessful at the quick suicide they intended and eventually died slow, painful deaths. They lived long enough to tell their story, so I guess that's something to support. But watching these talking faces with charred skin and lips noses burned off was more than I can take. Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the crime dramas I love so much, I can stomach stuff like that. I know it's fake. But when it's real, it causes not just my stomach to ache, but my heart as well.
So, part of me understands we may need the military to stabilize the situation enough so that, I would hope, we could send in more nonmilitary aid. But I hate that my cousin and her husband's lives are at risk. Now, I must confess, my cousin, who I'll call Lauren, and I aren't that close. I haven't really spoken to her in almost a year. But she's my cousin, and I love her. And I think she was dumb to have joined the army in the first place. I mean. First of all, I don't believe the myth that for this country is all that honorable. I mean, for me, it kinda depends on the war. I don't know. I just don't think America is worth my life. It's kind of hard to explain, so I'll leave it for a later post. Suffice it to say I think dying for America means you've died to maintain a system that cause more harm than good. And, I just can't accept the notion of dying for America in the face of having committed my life to Christ. I and anyone else who professes to be a Christian is supposed to be seeking God's kingdom and righteousness, and I just don't think America represents either one.
Plus, all the military deaths I can think of post-WWII haven't been for "freedom." They've been for oil or just maintaining control of the world. All this hype about winning the Cold War without bloodshed is just that - hype. Hundreds of thousands have died in the "Cold" War between Russia and America. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the situation never came to a war of nuclear weapons, but really. Do you really think someone would've turned America into a communist nation against our will? If you do, it's no wonder you think Al Qeada or any other terrorist organization could turn us into a Muslim country against our will. Or that the immigrants from south of the border will suddenly turn us into a Spanish-speaking 3rd world country. You're delusional.
Did I mention I'm actually angry at Lauren for having joined the Army in the first place? That's why I'm a bit conflicted about her and her husband, who I'll call Jamie, being called to Afghanistan. That's a choice they made as much as a mess BushCo. created. Now, from what I understand, the army was a way out for him. But her? She just initially joined the National Guard for the grad school money. It's not like she couldn't have earned scholarships or my aunt and uncle couldn't have chipped in. In fact, another aunt of ours said they would've gone door to door raising money for my cousin to go to school. For generations, our family has supported education, starting with my great-grandfather who opened a school.
And here's what really bothers me. Lauren and Jamie have three children. Three. One child should be two-years-old by now. Another turns three after Christmas. The oldest turns four in February. So, with 12-16 month tours, my cousin and her husband are going to miss the birthdays of their children, and the missing starts right away.
And what happens if Lauren and Jamie die? I know all of my family will do whatever we can to take care of the children. In fact, that's not even anything I personally have to worry about. But it's something the children will have to deal with. One memory I have of the oldest when she wasn't quite one is of her picking up telephones and remote controls and saying into them, "Elno. Doing!" as though she were expecting Lauren on the other end. And I can hear my cousin always answering the phone, "Hello? How you doing?" I'm not sure the children are old enough to understand death. In my mind, I can only imagine how long they'll expect their parents to be on the other side of a ringing phone or opening door.
Then again, what happens if Lauren and Jamie both survive? We know that post-traumatic stress disorder is under-reported and undertreated. Are they going to be the same parents the children remember?
I'm just conflicted about this whole thing.
And to top it off, cause I feel it needs to be, bin Laden has lived to see his nefarious plan come to fruition. At this point, over 4200 American soldiers have died in Iraq alone. That's more than the number of people who died in the 9/11/01 attacks. 540 Americans have died in Afghanistan. I haven't even started on the number of dead, injured, or displaced Iraqi and Afghan civilians. The total is well over 2 million. Closer to 3 million I would venture to guess. And for what? Are we really any safer? Isn't Obama still sending out messages? And last I heard, this whole Gitmo/torture/rendition method has been working against us; and, according to someone who's talked to foreign insurgents in Iraq, there's an untold number of American deaths due to US torture of so-called enemy combatants.
And now, the Mumbai attacks.
What of my cousin? What of her husband? What of their children? What of them and other families like them. Has this venture really been worth it? If you think it has, you're either delusional or evil. Maybe both.
And to the US Senate Republicans: come of it! Stop hating on the UAW. The labor union isn't the problem. US auto companies haven't been making cars people want to buy. When I buy a car, I don't even have intentions of buying from the US auto industry. So, if you wanna clear out the ranks of upper-level, executive management, please do. But leave the union alone. Cause the way I see it, you're coming up against to philosophical contradictions. One is that the cost of workers in the North is too high, especially do to healthcare cost. One way to get rid of the healthcare cost burden on employers would be some sort-of "socialized medicine" via national medicaid/medicare for all, some sort-of single payer system. At the very least, we got to get rid of the system we have know: healthcare for profit. Sorry. People's lives shouldn't depend on insurance companies' bottom lines. And some form of "socialized medicine" will help cut costs for American business - and that's important to you, right?
The other contradiction you're up against is this notion of the free-market. The way I've understood it, in a free market, labor is a form of capital. Why are you so willing to help one side of the free market, business, but not the other, labor? In a truly free market, labor is allowed to make the same self-interested decisions that business is allowed to make. So, in the end, quit hating on a system you purport to support.
Now that I've expressed my feelings about that, I'm moving on. The Republicans are idiots. They're being obnoxious to block the American auto bail-out, or rather, bridge loan. And they're being especially obnoxious to demand Obama come clean about any contact and talk he or his staff or any emissary may have had with Blagojevish. I repeat: if we know nothing else, we do know that Blagojevich was angry that Obama wouldn't play game with him. Doesn't that clear Obama? Quit trying to paint him with Illinois corruption and call me when the Cubs win the Series, or the Bulls win the Finals. I have bigger fish to fry.
My cousin and her husband are due to be ship out to Afghanistan in early January. Hence, my title. And, quite frankly, I'm conflicted about the situation. I understand we need to finish the job in Afghanistan's, and I'm pissed that lame-a, er, -duck Bush didn't do so in the beginning. And the latest reports are that Afghans aren't do any better than they were before. For some, especially women, the situation has become worse. Just a few months ago, I watched part of a special about Afghan women setting themselves on fire as acts of rebellion against someone, be it an abusive husband or an abusive mother-in-law. (I don't know whether or not they had access to guns. But I do know that women aren't likely to use guns to commit suicide. And, I suppose, watching "your" woman burn to death at her decision can stick in the craw of the men who claim control of them.) I only watched part of the special because my stomach couldn't take it. Many of these women were unsuccessful at the quick suicide they intended and eventually died slow, painful deaths. They lived long enough to tell their story, so I guess that's something to support. But watching these talking faces with charred skin and lips noses burned off was more than I can take. Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the crime dramas I love so much, I can stomach stuff like that. I know it's fake. But when it's real, it causes not just my stomach to ache, but my heart as well.
So, part of me understands we may need the military to stabilize the situation enough so that, I would hope, we could send in more nonmilitary aid. But I hate that my cousin and her husband's lives are at risk. Now, I must confess, my cousin, who I'll call Lauren, and I aren't that close. I haven't really spoken to her in almost a year. But she's my cousin, and I love her. And I think she was dumb to have joined the army in the first place. I mean. First of all, I don't believe the myth that for this country is all that honorable. I mean, for me, it kinda depends on the war. I don't know. I just don't think America is worth my life. It's kind of hard to explain, so I'll leave it for a later post. Suffice it to say I think dying for America means you've died to maintain a system that cause more harm than good. And, I just can't accept the notion of dying for America in the face of having committed my life to Christ. I and anyone else who professes to be a Christian is supposed to be seeking God's kingdom and righteousness, and I just don't think America represents either one.
Plus, all the military deaths I can think of post-WWII haven't been for "freedom." They've been for oil or just maintaining control of the world. All this hype about winning the Cold War without bloodshed is just that - hype. Hundreds of thousands have died in the "Cold" War between Russia and America. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the situation never came to a war of nuclear weapons, but really. Do you really think someone would've turned America into a communist nation against our will? If you do, it's no wonder you think Al Qeada or any other terrorist organization could turn us into a Muslim country against our will. Or that the immigrants from south of the border will suddenly turn us into a Spanish-speaking 3rd world country. You're delusional.
Did I mention I'm actually angry at Lauren for having joined the Army in the first place? That's why I'm a bit conflicted about her and her husband, who I'll call Jamie, being called to Afghanistan. That's a choice they made as much as a mess BushCo. created. Now, from what I understand, the army was a way out for him. But her? She just initially joined the National Guard for the grad school money. It's not like she couldn't have earned scholarships or my aunt and uncle couldn't have chipped in. In fact, another aunt of ours said they would've gone door to door raising money for my cousin to go to school. For generations, our family has supported education, starting with my great-grandfather who opened a school.
And here's what really bothers me. Lauren and Jamie have three children. Three. One child should be two-years-old by now. Another turns three after Christmas. The oldest turns four in February. So, with 12-16 month tours, my cousin and her husband are going to miss the birthdays of their children, and the missing starts right away.
And what happens if Lauren and Jamie die? I know all of my family will do whatever we can to take care of the children. In fact, that's not even anything I personally have to worry about. But it's something the children will have to deal with. One memory I have of the oldest when she wasn't quite one is of her picking up telephones and remote controls and saying into them, "Elno. Doing!" as though she were expecting Lauren on the other end. And I can hear my cousin always answering the phone, "Hello? How you doing?" I'm not sure the children are old enough to understand death. In my mind, I can only imagine how long they'll expect their parents to be on the other side of a ringing phone or opening door.
Then again, what happens if Lauren and Jamie both survive? We know that post-traumatic stress disorder is under-reported and undertreated. Are they going to be the same parents the children remember?
I'm just conflicted about this whole thing.
And to top it off, cause I feel it needs to be, bin Laden has lived to see his nefarious plan come to fruition. At this point, over 4200 American soldiers have died in Iraq alone. That's more than the number of people who died in the 9/11/01 attacks. 540 Americans have died in Afghanistan. I haven't even started on the number of dead, injured, or displaced Iraqi and Afghan civilians. The total is well over 2 million. Closer to 3 million I would venture to guess. And for what? Are we really any safer? Isn't Obama still sending out messages? And last I heard, this whole Gitmo/torture/rendition method has been working against us; and, according to someone who's talked to foreign insurgents in Iraq, there's an untold number of American deaths due to US torture of so-called enemy combatants.
And now, the Mumbai attacks.
What of my cousin? What of her husband? What of their children? What of them and other families like them. Has this venture really been worth it? If you think it has, you're either delusional or evil. Maybe both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Share This Article
But Don't Jack My Genuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.