mellish musings

for president, the chairman is leaning toward mckinney. there are a few reasons. mckinney has touched more on racism and sexism than nader. she is younger. she is running as a member of a political party (flawed as it is), and not just as an independent. i think she should be supported for her decision to leave the democratic party, and i like the idea of voting for a women of color ticket. having said that, i haven't ruled out nader, who is one of the great men of our age. i am infuriated by how he is dismissed, and his knowledge of the issues is surely unsurpassed. i can go either way on this one. as far as obama goes, my state is in his pocket. i am happy i don't live in a swing state, but i may still vote third party even if i did. i couldn't even bring myself to vote for him in the primary against clinton.

ma questions

question 1, if it passes, would eliminate the state income tax. while no one likes paying taxes, this would eliminate 40% of the state's revenues, likely leading to an increase in property and sales taxes, and further cuts in various social services. college tuitions at state schools would wildly increase. word has it that umass tuition would go up by $4,500 a year! that amount alone is more than the average savings of 3,700 per person that would accrue due to an elimination of the state tax. the thing about averages is that the working man doesn't pay that much in state taxes. rather, that average includes everyone, such as those who make 6 and 7 figures. my savings would be less than $1,000. sure, i could use the money, but let's say that property taxes go up as a result of the law. this may lead to a rent increase (of course, your rent can always go up, but it is more likely to go up, and by a bigger amount, if property taxes rise). let's say the rent increase is 100 dollars when it otherwise may have been a 50 dollar increase, or no increase at all. therefore, i am either losing 600 or 1200 dollars per year in this instance. not to mention the likely increased sales tax, and the decreased funding of higher education and other significant social services. so, while it pains me to say this, i encourage a no vote.

question 2 would would turn possession of less than an ounce of weed into a civil violation rather than a criminal offense. under the proposed law, possession of such would be akin to a traffic ticket, though youth under 18 caught with it would have to attend some classes on the dangers of drugs. i don't even think there should be a fine involved, unless you want to start ticketing every redneck you see walking out of a liquor store, but it beats the current set up. vote yes on 2.

question 3 would ban dog racing in the state. this is a no brainer. if dogs want to run around, they should, but we have no right to force them to. as far as the argument that people will lose jobs, we should stop building bombs too, even though doing this would mean that people will lose jobs. guards in the concentration camps lost their jobs after ww2, and bush will soon lose his job as well. not all jobs are worth defending. rather, some jobs should be eliminated. so, for all those who work at race tracks, i recommend that they start training their bodies now, so that someday, they can become professional runners.

election day (11/4)
the major difference between the two parties are the people who vote for them. all the good people, many of them quite progressive, are democrats. if only they organized and began to insist on a radical transformation of the society. of course, many democratic voters don't want such a transformation, but alot do, and if they began to work for it, we would be off and running.

marcuse once spoke of "the incorporation of opposites," and understanding this idea is crucial to our awareness of where we currently stand. the system is brilliant at incorporating seemingly contradictory aspects in order to maintain its hegemony. so, a mixed race man stands at the cusp of being elected president in a country that continues to oppress its black population. the opposite, (obama) in terms of race, is incorporated into the power structure. his incorporation does not alter the power structure, which practices the systemic oppression of the race the incorporated obama (at least partly) belongs to. this incorporation actually acts to strengthen the existing structure, even though it appears to challenge it. furthermore, the fact that it appears to challenge the existing structure is the source of its power. the apparent challenge convinces the majority of people that it is a real challenge, hence strengthening support for the structures of inequality, racism, and war.

to revisit, jesse jackson and al sharpton are "too black," but obama is not. what does it mean to be "too black?" it means that your views and persona can not be incorporated enough into the existing power structure, for if substantial racial and class criticisms of the current structure were to be incorporated, the structure would be altered. therefore, the trick is to incorporate only what can be incorporated without fundamentally altering the existing power dynamic. this is what bogosian means when he says "everything becomes a part of the system." the trick then, is to alter the system.

having said that, i hope mccain gets the shit kicked out of him.

raising mccain

diego and frida, i know you are not into the mainstream media, so, in case you haven't heard, the latest from our war hero and his supporters.

a young mccain supporter put make up all over her face, including a fake black eye and bruises. she claimed that an obama supporter, a 6 foot 4 black obama supporter, had attacked her. supposedly, he also wrote the letter b on her back. she received calls from both mccain and palin. after the hoax was exposed, we were told that she did the whole thing on her own. mccain voters blogged about how this demonstrated what life would be like under obama. supposedly, big black men would spend all their time going around attacking helpless white women. however, once the hoax was uncovered, they said she was likely an obama supporter looking to make mccain and his backers look bad. and by the way, isn't it funny that in a country that has come a "long way on the race issue," this woman still looked to blame a black man for the "beating?"

the pennsylvania republican party sent out letters to around 75,000 jewish voters in the state, claiming that an obama presidency could well lead to a second holocaust. once the tactic was criticized, they apologized. is this not like hitting a guy in the face, and then apologizing? hey, you still hit the guy in the head! i suppose this scare tactic plays on obama's name, and the theory that he is really a secret muslim who plans to hand the country to al qaeda as soon as he takes power. this is a man who has blindly jumped on the "israel can do no wrong" bandwagon. in fact, if any of his policies lead to jews being killed, it will likely be his military and economic support of the israeli state, which will continue to induce hatred of israel and the u.s by various arab and muslim states. my, what a political discourse exists in this country.

a neo-nazi plot to kill obama and 88 other black people was exposed. wow.

mccain claimed that liberals will imperil the economy. by liberal, does he mean bush? all of a sudden, mccain cares about the economy. not to defend the "liberals" (whatever the hell that means) but isn't the economy already "imperiled?"

lately, mccain has also been blasting obama for wanting to redistribute wealth. oh, if only the charge were true. but, in any case, what in the hell is wrong with redistributing the wealth? does mccain think bill gates needs more money? couldn't the wealthy corporations do much to help finance a massive public works project? shouldn't we redistribute money from the military and its contractors to the unemployed, the uninsured, the homeless, and the hungry? if we don't redistribute the wealth, then what do we do? what good does it do a man making 20,000 if the guy accross town is making 1,000,000? wouldn't they both live well on 150,000, freeing the other 720,000 for the needs of others? someone should ask mccain if it is right for a man to be rich while others starve. they should ask him if it's right for someone to live in a mansion while others sleep on the street. he should be asked if he thinks it's ok for some to wine and dine at fancy restaurants while others eat in soup kitchens and church basements. they should ask him if he loves his neighbor, or if he is his brother's keeper.

the question is, in a country with the economic inequality that we have, how do you not redistribute the wealth?

decoding the news, 2

"the white house has backed away from using us commandos for further ground raids into pakistan after furious complaints from its government." notice how the complaints are described as "furious" but not the ground raids. it as if the pakistanis were the ones being violent. of course, this should read "the white house has backed away from using us commandos to illegally attack pakistan, hence killing scores of civilians, after complaints by the pakistani government."

instead, the us is now relying "on an intensifying campaign of airstrikes by the cia against militants in the pakistani mountains." well, it is not as if the cia is another country! the cia is a part of the us government. and who are these "militants," and what right does the cia have to bomb them? are these militants the only people who live in the "pakistani mountains? hell, they are bombing pakistan! it just sounds a little better to say the "pakistani mountains." it makes you think there aren't any people around except for "militants." left unstated is the blatant illegality and immorality of bombing a sovereign nation, a nation, by the way, that is supposedly our ally. apparently, we have the right to strike pakistani territory because of these so called "militants." therefore, doesn't pakistan now have the right to bomb us cities to avenge these airstrikes? perhaps they could strike "militants in the u.s mountains." the authors do not suggest such a response, although it seems clear that pakistan would have a better case to attack us than we do to attack them.

"according to us and pakistani officials, attacks by remotely piloted predator aircraft have increased sharply in frequency and scope in the past few months." so, we don't even have the courage to send live pilots anymore when we bomb! "remotely piloted predator aircraft?" sounds like a video game. i, for one, am still trying to figure out how suicide bombers are condemned as "cowardly," but no one says a word about the utter cowardice on display here. think of it; we get to bomb and bomb, and if they do shoot a jet down, the aircraft doesn't even have a person in it. the article doesn't mention how disgusting such a scenario is.

"through today, there were at least 19 predator strikes since the beginning of august, some deep inside pakistan's tribal areas." 19 bombings of a country that we aren't even at war with. and what about the name of the aircraft; a "predator." kind of says it all, huh? notice also that some of the attacks were "deep inside pakistan's tribal areas." well, i thought they were bombing the pakistani-afghan border! now we learn the attacks are "deep" inside pakistan. doesn't all of this sound just a little like "the us is bombing the shit out of pakistan, a supposed ally, and killing scores of pakistanis?"

"the latest strike was today, when a suspected us missile hit a compound used by taliban militants." a "suspected" us missile? where else could the missile have come from? is pakistan bombing itself? and the missile didn't "hit" a compound. rather, the "compound" was bombed. notice the use of the word "compound." sounds kind of dark and scary, doesn't it? supposedly, this "compound" was "used by taliban militants." well, were they the only ones using it? what were they using it for? were they living there? were other people living there? to me, this just sounds like a building where pakistanis live. by the way, would another country have the right to bomb an american "compound," such as the pentagon, which was used by us "militants?" the author doesn't inform us if this would be acceptable. furthermore, what did the taliban ever do to us? so what if taliban "militants" were using the "compound." what american cities have the taliban bombed? even if one goes along with the demonization of al qaeda, (and we shouldn't) it's important to remember that the taliban and al qaeda are not the same thing.

"pakistani intelligence officials said the strike in south waziristan killed up to 20 people. they said the identity of the victims was not immediately clear." well, the officials said this because it is true. it is not some kind of conspiracy. is this not a crime for the us to kill 20 pakistanis without cause? can pakistan now kill 20 americans? the author is silent on this issue.

"after months of debate within the administration and mounting frustration over pakistan's failure to carry out more aggressive counterterrorism operations, president bush finally gave his approval in july for ground missions inside pakistan." how do we know how "aggressive" pakistan's "counterterrorism operations" have been? pakistanis are likely angered that we are bombing the shit out of their neighbor. our policy of war, ie "terrorism," is probably increasing sentiments and actions within pakistan that we describe as "terrorism." so now, we express "mounting frustration" over a series of events that our policies have set in motion. again, notice the wording; "president bush finally gave his approval in july for ground missions inside pakistan." it's like he was showing great restraint, and then just couldn't wait any longer to invade an ally. why does bush have the right to "give his approval" for such attacks? do other leaders now have the right to "give their approval for ground missions inside the united states?" perhaps these leaders have had "months of debate within the administration" and have shown "mounting frustration over america's failure to cease and desist in bombing several countries at once," and have now "finally given their approval for ground attacks inside the u.s." this would seem to be more fair than the current set up, but is not discussed in the article.

on september 3rd, the first, and to this point, only commando raid was attempted in pakistan. it was a special operations raid, "in which the roughly two dozen people killed included some civilians." well, wasn't everybody killed a "civilian?" we are not at war with pakistan, so who else could have been killed? we can call the dead "militants," but does that mean they aren't civilians? surely, they live in pakistan, an ally that we are not at war with. therefore, they are civilians. we have no right to kill anyone in pakistan. and if the author is going to tell us that the attack didn't only kill civilians, shouldn't he say who they were? just who are these "militants" that we are killing? and if we can kill their militants, why can't they kill ours?

"us officials acknowledge that following the sept 3rd raid they were surprised by the intensity of the pakistani response." surprised? the raid killed 24 people! how would the american government respond to foreign forces invading american territory, and killing 24 americans? notice that it is their response which is "intense," but not our bombing of their country. somehow, their response to our bombing is violent, but not our violence.

finally, "there's always a balance between respecting full pakistani sovereignty, even in places where they're not capable of exercising that sovereignty, and the need for our force protection, said an administation official." why is there a balance? can other countries balance their respect for american sovereignty, and the need for their force protection? and who are we to judge when "they're not capable of exercising that sovereignty?" can other countries make that determination about us? the author doesn't tell us. it seems only we get to "balance" these concerns.

oh, why do i read the globe?

decoding the news

"u.s special forces attack site in syria, killing 8" u.s commits war crime by bombing sovereign nation that it is not at war with, killing 8.

"raid criticized by damascus: qaeda targeted." raid not criticized by us, including the author of the article, even though the bombing is an obvious war crime. qaeda was supposedly targeted, but who was killed?

"u.s helicopters launched an extremely rare attack yesterday on syrian territory close to the border with iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in demascus condemned as a "serious aggression." if another country were to bomb the us, would we preface an article on the bombing by describing it as "extremely rare?" i would think it would be "rare" for one country to bomb another that it is not at war with. the bombed syrian territory "was close to the border in iraq." does this justify the bombing? there are parts of the us that are close to the borders of canada and mexico. would this be a reason for these areas to be bombed? we are told the government in demascus condemned the attack as a "serious aggression." well, isn't it? shouldn't we also condemn it as such? how would a bombing of a u.s city "near the border with canada" be described by an american newspaper?

"we are taking matters into our own hands," an official told the associated press in washington, speaking on condition of anoymity because of the political sensitivity of cross border raids." left unsaid is whether other countries who have problems with america can now "take matters into their own hands" by bombing the u.s. we are informed that there is "political sensitivity" about "cross border raids." yes, i imagine it would be "politically sensitive" to commit the war crime of bombing a sovereign nation that has done you no harm. and why is it described as a "cross border raid" and not "the criminal bombing of a sovereign nation?" there may be al qaeda there, but there are also cuban terrorists in miami. would it be "politically sensitive" for cuba to bomb miami, or would we be outraged by such an attack?

"a syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the sukkariyeh farm near the town of abu kamal, 5 miles inside the syrian border. four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction near sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said." so, the attack was actually 5 miles inside the border, not "on" the border with iraq. four helicopters attacked a civilian building. well, i thought al qaeda was being attacked. instead, "workers" inside the "civilian building" were fired upon. doesn't this sound just a little bit like "bombing civilians?" is that not a war crime?

"the government said civilians were among the dead, including four children." were the children members of al qaeda? if the u.s was attacking al qaeda, how did they end up killing children? isn't the bombing of civilians a war crime? does cuba have the right to kill children in miami in their quest to capture right wing cuban exiles who have committed terrorist acts against cuba? for that matter, does syria now have the right to bomb american cities to avenge the killing of these civilians, or would such "cross border raids" be "too politically sensitive" for syria to attempt at this time?

thoughts

a number of black people in north carolina went to the polls early to cast their votes. they were met by scores of screaming whites who mocked and berated them. this is of course illegal. it was also ignored by the major media, as are most examples of ongoing, crass, white supremacy. supposedly, we have made great progress in terms of race, so anything which demonstrates continuous white supremacy is either ignored or downplayed. furthermore, a 58 year old woman who works for the obama campaign was attacked in wisconsin. and lastly, obama himself was screamed at when he attempted to enter a restaurant in north carolina. a woman saw him and yelled "socialist, socialist, socialist! get out of here!" wow. this ignorance is a very real concern, and will not go away if obama takes power.

however, the news is not all bad. only in america could the following story take place. here it comes, a comic tragedy where racism and tolerance meet... a pollster knocks on a couple's door and asks who they are voting for. the wife, who answered, doesn't know, and yells to the husband for clarification. "we're voting for the n*&^%r!" he screams back at her. she then looks back at the pollster, and with a calm smile, repeats, "we are voting for the n%^&*r." yes, my friends, we have finally made it to the promised land.

the senate just passed another spending bill, this one for 634 billion dollars. it includes 25 billion for the auto industry, 40 billion for homeland security, and 73 billion for veterans benefits. again, i thought the economy was "hurting." if so, why is there 25 billion dollars for the auto industry and 40 billion for homeland security? we should be trying to limit the use of cars and fiercely regulating the auto industry, not bailing it out. my ideas include car pooling, a "one car per family policy," massive funding for public transit, bike lanes, walking paths, and the encouragement and funding of neighborhood/community jobs. as for homeland security, are you serious? 40 billion dollars? first of all, homeland security is total bullshit. it is a fascist program that doesn't do anything to help people. in fact, it hurts them by helping to hasten a surveillance society where everyone is paranoid and afraid to speak their minds, and for which there are very real consequences for doing so. furthermore, 40 billion dollars is a ton of money. what could be done with it? well, let's see. 38 billion would give $50,000 to each of the 760,000 americans who lost their jobs so far this year. 40 billion would provide health care to 18 million people in the u.s. who are currenlt uninsured, close to 40% of the total uninsured population. 40 billion would provide 300,000 affordable housing units. 40 billion would provide four year college scholarships to over 1.5 million students. 40 billion would buy 25 pounds of rice for every person in africa. so again, the issue is not one of available resources, but rather, where our government elects to allocate its resources. to spend 40 billion on "homeland security" and 25 billion on the auto industry when people are struggling is a crime. but sadly, because the crime is being committed by those in charge, no one will pay. except, of course, the tax payer, the breather of air, and the innocents targeted to "protect" the rest of us.

zinn did it again. this time, he was insulting toward nader in an interview posted on the commondreams site. on my last blog, i mentioned that i saw zinn speak at a rally for nader in 2000, and he has often praised candidates who attempted to transcend the two party system, people such as debs, henry wallace, norman thomas, and nader himself. well, yesterday i pulled out my copy of a people's history, and reread certain parts of that text. within it, zinn praised debs for getting 900,000 votes, which, while a higher percentage of the total vote than nader's vote in 2000, represented less votes than the few million that nader received in that year. nowhere did zinn say debs's vote total was "puny." later, zinn mentions that truman, while feeling pressure to his left from the independent run of henry wallace, decided to integrate the armed forces. the point here is that truman felt the need to do something "progressive" (although, i'm not sure that the races killing people abroad side by side is really that progressive. in fact, i think it would be great if everyone was barred from the armed forces) because of the presence of a third party candidate running to the left of him. this is of course, a main function of third parties. whether they get a lot of votes is only one indicator of their success. wallace in 48 did no better than nader in 2000, and no where in the book does zinn say that wallace's effort was "puny," or that it was a waste of wallace's time and energy to run for president when he could have been out "agitating" in the streets, where "real change" supposedly takes place.

going back to the significance of third parties having an impact. often times, elements of their platforms are incorporated by one of the major party candidates. socialist norman thomas, a six time presidential candidate, once said that he considered his "greatest accomplishment" to be the theft of his platform by the democratic party, ie, the new deal. central elements of perot's platform were also co-opted by the major parties, such as erasing the federal deficit and balancing the budget. so, while a third party candidate may help to influence an election in a way that progressives may not be thrilled about, they also help to encourage the implementation of policies that would not have been on the table without their presence. and, on a deeper level, democracy demands choices. those of us on the left have a right, and a need, to vote for people who represent our ideas. there is nothing "puny" about the attempt to widen the electoral choices available to the public. rather, it is "puny" to mock and discourage such attempts from the sidelines, and to vote for candidates that you disdain.

sinner vs zinner

and now, much to my regret, i must do battle with howard zinn on the issue of that great barack star, obama. (for zinn's article, check the progressive mag's web page)

zinn tells us that there is a difference between the candidates, but not a big enough difference for him to have confidence in an obama presidency. well, shouldn't one have "confidence" in who they are voting for? otherwise, why are you voting for them? would you eat or drink something you didn't have any confidence in? zinn tells us this difference is "just enough" to make him want to vote for obama. my question is, at what point would the difference have not been "just enough?" what would obama had to have done to lose zinn's vote? zinn doesn't tell us. by the way, zinn also supported kerry in 04, so obviously there was also "just enough" of a difference in that election as well.

in any case, it seems clear that zinn is not in love with obama, and yet he is voting for him. let me remind you that zinn is a resident of mass, a state that obama will dominate. in fact, in 1972, ma was the only state that went democrat. so, why does zinn, a man with socialist and anarchist sympathies, feel the need to vote for obama in such a safe state? certainly, zinn is aware of the electoral college. he surely knows that his vote for obama will mean nothing here. why doesn't zinn suggest to voters to watch the polls in their state to determine whether they should vote their conscience or their fears? is this the same man who spoke at a nader rally in boston in 2000?

zinn then mentions nader. he says "i have no doubt that by far the wisest, the most reliable, with the most integrity, of the recent presidential candidates, is ralph nader." my, this is a pretty strong endorsement of someone you are not going to vote for! i would think you would want to vote for the wisest, most reliable candidate, especially if that candidate also had the most integrity, and if you lived in a state that obama was sure to carry. the question is, if someone on the far left is not going to vote for a third party candidate in ma, what are the chances that the electoral arena will ever be expanded? i suppose the democrat will always be a "little better" than the republican, but what of it if you are a leftist who lives in ma or alabama?

now that i think of it, this is a stunning remark by zinn. he comes right out and tells us that nader is the best candidate! well, shouldn't this matter? if we know this to be true, shouldn't we act on it? otherwise, what is the point of knowing it? zinn later says he "thinks it is a waste of nader's political strength, a puny act, to expend it in the electoral arena, where the result can only show weakness." how is running for president a "puny act?" it would seem to me not nearly as "puny" as teaching rich, white students at boston university, even if one of these students did write a good line in a journal once, comparing war to cyanide. if anything, it has taken great courage and will on nader's part to stand up to the attacks that have come his way since his run in 2000, a run, mr zinn, that you once supported. in fact, i have no memory of you calling nader's run in 2000 a "puny act." there is nothing puny about fighting the odds in order to speak the truth. you of all people should know that. and why is it that in the electoral arena, nader's "results can only show weakness?" could it be because many people who find him to be "the wisest and most reliable" candidate are not voting for him? wouldn't his showing be stronger if the people who felt that way did vote for him? and what does nader's electorally "weak" showings say about our media, the power of money in the political process, and the sidelining of progressive viewpoints? surely you know these factors to contribute to his lack of support, but you make no mention of them here.

furthermore, does zinn feel it was a "puny" act for debs to run for president, even though he knew he couldn't win? if so, why does zinn quote debs so often in his books? surely, there were differences between the democrats and the republicans when debs ran too. would zinn have not voted for debs? and how about henry wallace in 1948? was his effort also "puny?" in 2000, nader did about as well as wallace did in 48. does this discount what wallace attempted to do? i am sure there were differences between truman and dewey as well. it was truman who argued for national health insurance, and who integrated the armed forces. would these reforms have constituted a difference "just enough" for zinn to vote for truman? in fact, zinn was 26 years old in 1948, so this is not a rhetorical question. who did you vote for in 1948, howard? remember, it is a zinn to tell a lie. if you voted for wallace, along with a couple of million other brave souls, do you now believe that to have been a "puny" act?

zinn tells us "so yes, i will vote for obama, but only because the corrupt political system offers me no choice, but only for the moment i pull down the lever in the voting booth." but you just told us that there is a choice in nader and that he is the wisest and most reliable of the candidates. furthermore, if the political system "offers you no choice," why are you then making a choice? of course you have a choice! you are choosing to vote for a candidate you don't like in a state he already has won! perhaps a strange choice, but a choice it is.

finally, zinn says that he thinks obama is more likely to listen to social movements than mccain. as he says, "whoever is president, the crucial factor for change will be how much agitation there is in the country on behalf of change." fair enough, but who is going to protest an obama presidency? the left? most on the left are supporting him! is it possible to support someone one second, and then immediately start pressuring him the next? won't these people say "he needs time," or "give him a chance." where was this protest movement when clinton cut welfare, signed nafta, and bombed serbia and iraq? there was no movement, because many on the left did not want to question the democratic leader. i suspect something similar will happen with obama.

now, of course, if you are a progressive, and you live in the handful of states that could decide the election, and you find obama to be the better candidate, than voting for him makes sense. but for a howard zinn, or anyone who thinks like zinn, to vote for obama in a "safe" state when they know nader to be the superior candidate, seems to me to be a crime of grave hypocrisy.

in the end, it is nothing more than a "puny act."

dave vs dave

lindorff that is. yesterday, the man wrote a piece on why he will vote for obama. i would like to dialogue with and/or rebut some of his points.

he starts his piece by criticizing obama and praising nader, an unusual tactic for a man writing on why he will vote for obama. he tells us that he lives in pennsylvania, a state that obama seemingly has in the bag. this was the reason why he was going to vote for nader, but now "he feels it is a cop out" to vote for nader in pennsylvania when he would have voted for obama in ohio or indiana, where it is up for grabs. how would this be a "cop out?" if obama has pennsylvania wrapped up, what is the point of voting for him there, especially if you admittedly prefer nader? it's like being up 30 points in a basketball game with 2 minutes to go. what's the point of winning by 35? a win is a win, particularly with the electoral college. now, if it was a popular vote, that would perhaps be another discussion, but with our system, lindorff's vote means nothing, since pennsylvania is already obama's. furthermore, logic tells us that you act differently depending on the situation you are in. if a man is having a heart attack, he will try to get to the hospital, but if he cuts himself shaving, he will not. voting in pennsylvania and voting in ohio are not the same thing. of course, if someone who lives in ohio thinks nader is the best candidate, than he too has every right to vote for nader. if anything, it is a "cop out" to support a candidate you don't really like. in a sense, when a guy does a job he doesn't really like because he has to pay the bills, this man has "copped out," just as someone in ohio may vote for a candidate they don't really like to avoid what they perceive to be a bleaker alternative. this is not to say whether this is right or wrong, but only to argue that it is much closer to a "cop out" than supporting your favorite candidate.

he then states that all the racism and hate speech that has lately been directed against obama makes him want to see obama resoundingly defeat mccain. well, didn't he want obama to defeat mccain anyway? it took some guy to yell "kill him" during a palin speech to convince him that obama is the better of the two mainstream candidates? surely, he didn't think his voting for nader was going to swing the election in ralph's favor. of course any progressive, anti-racist is angered by the crass racism that has been displayed against obama, but what does that have to do with voting for obama in a state that has already been decided in his favor? can't one stand against racism and support the candidate who best represents their interests and concerns? how are these mutually exclusive?

he then mentions obama's upbringing, stating that he could have named his price on wall street, but elected to work as a community organizer, and that he lived in kenya and indonesia. hence, he supposedly possesses an empathy for the third world and a more wordly and tolerant outlook than the typical politician. well, what does your country of origin or where you have lived have to do with anything? suharto also lived in indonesia, but that didn't make him any more tolerant. living in africa didn't seem to teach mobutu anything about "toleration." if it is wrong for racists to criticize someone because of where they are from, than it is also wrong for anti-racists to turn the accidents of birth and nationality into a positive. this information tells us nothing about the kind of leader obama will be.

he then diverts himself by mocking the left, even calling the left "a joke." well, isn't he on the left? what could be more funny than supporting candidates that you dislike? he tells us the left is fragmented, but why is that? who fragmented it?

he tells us important things "could" happen if obama is elected president. well, anything "could" happen. he says obama could elect liberal supreme court justices. i suppose he could, but how do we know what he will do? has he mentioned the supreme court at all during the election? lindorff also claims that he could help to strengthen unions by passing certain legislation. well yes, anyone can do anything at antime, but that doesn't tell us what they are likely to actually do.

finally, he tells us that he "doesn't take obama's warmongering seriously." i quote "given the man's background, i am confident that he is not a militarist by nature." what does "the man's background" have to do with anything? we have already learned that simply living in indonesia didn't make suharto a pacifist. by background does he mean that obama went to harvard? well, the men who created napalm also went to harvard. one does not need to be a military man to have an imperial foreign policy. the fact that clinton avoided vietnam didn't stop him from bombing yugoslavia. lindorff tells us that it is merely politically oppotunistic for obama to claim to be militaristic about afghanistan. somehow, we are supposed to believe that he doesn't really mean what he is saying. but, what else besides his words do we have to go on? does he really have to say the things he does just to get elected? is threatening pakistan a way to get elected? who among the american people is in favor of bombing pakistan? does he have to say that a nuclear iran is unacceptable? what are we to believe? and why should we give him the benefit of the doubt, but not mccain? surely, mccain also needs to say certain things to get elected. certainly, lindorff takes mccain's warmongering seriously, so why not take obama's seriously? perhaps it would be wise for lindorff to remember that the two world wars, the korean war, and the vietnam war were fought either completely or in part by democratic presidents.

he claims that obama is a "smart guy" and will therefore want the wars "off his plate as soon as possible." what does intelligence have to do with anything? smart men built the atomic bomb. smart men fight wars all the time. it is not your intelligence, but your decency, and more importantly, it is not the strength of your brain, but the interests you serve, that will determine your foreign policy. lindorff tells us that because the economy is bad, obama will likely try to end these wars as soon as possible. no, lindorff would try to do this, but obama won't. there is certainly no evidence to say that he will. and yes, the economy may be bad, but it's not bad for the war contractors. how can we assume that obama will look to end the wars because of the economy? he is on record as saying we need more troops and a bigger military budget. he would likely not be as militaristic as mccain, but that doesn't mean he will in any way be an anti-militarist.

he tells us obama will be the "right man" to combat global warming, but he doesn't tell us why this is the case. why is obama the right man for this. is he better on the environment than nader? and by the way, what happened to nader in this article? certainly, nader's positions on the war, on the military budget, on global warming, and on the economy, are superior to obama's. lindorff himself admitted as much earlier in the piece. and with nader, we don't need to try to figure out what he means or what he really stands for.

finally, he tells us that the prospect of a palin presidency scares the hell out of him. yes, this indeed would be scary, and would be a decent point if lindorff lived in a "battleground" state, but he doesn't. lindorff has already told us that his vote will have no meaning, because the state he lives in is in obama's pocket. therefore, it doesn't matter if barry manilow was mccain's vp.

so, there you have it. a leftist who is much closer in his views to nader and who lives in a state that is already decided in obama's favor, will still vote for obama because to not do so would be a "cop out." besides, obama lived in indonesia for a few years, and went to harvard, so therefore, there is no reason to take his warmongering seriously.

sounds good to me. let's all vote for the better liar in 08.

even if the better liar is already assured to win the state we live in.

the return of joe "the plumber."

it turns out that joe the plumber is not a licensed plumber. joe the plumber is angered that obama wants to raise taxes on people who make more than 250,000 a year. funny that this angers joe so, since he makes 40,000 a year. in fact, according to obama's plan, joe would get a tax cut. joe says that he would not want this tax cut. ok, let me see if i can get this straight; he doesn't want his taxes to be cut, and he doesn't want his taxes to be raised. some guys just can't make up their minds. joe thinks that everybody should have to pay the same tax rate. for example, a guy that makes 400 a week should take home 300, and a guy that makes 40,000 a week, should take home 30,000. if this is how it's done, how will the 400 a week guy make his rent, buy his food, and heat his home? in fact, how will he do this even if he isn't taxed at all? but if you took half or even more of the other guy's bread, he would still have all the money he needed and more. and what's the rich guy gonna do? it's not like he's gonna trade places with the poor guy just because he is "suffering" from a progressive income tax. he's not gonna say "man, i should become a janitor. they only get taxed at 20 percent." of course, obama's goals are likely not nearly as radical as this hypothetical, but the point remains.

joe, by the way, is behind on his property taxes. he "owes" the state of ohio about 1,100 bucks. also, it is unclear if he is even a registered voter. sadly, joe may have just been a plant, a republican trick to try to turn the tide. say it ain't so joe.

by the way, is joe the plumber any relation to joe six pack? and, if so, do either of them know john q. public? it is rumored that all three were seen at a party thrown by john and jane doe.

joe the plumber was a pathetic attempt to bring the personal into this election.

joe the plumber, you see, doesn't want to see the american dream stolen from him. and though he is 210,000 away from that plateau of 250,000, he refuses to stand by and watch the money he doesn't have be taken from him. in an age without heroes, joe has won our hearts, while we have lost our minds.

luckily, only about two weeks remains of this struggle between a political bill cosby and a man who the north vietnamese, unfortunately, let get away. yes, it will soon be over, but the example of joe the plumber will remain, and his spirit will strengthen us in our hour of need.

to paraphrase the great man himself, "don't take the money i don't have!"

enter joe the plumber

so, this was the "new mccain" in action, huh? the third, and, thank god, final debate between mccain and obama has come and gone, and as a result, my sanity has also come and gone. this debate saw the emergence of "joe the plumber." joe the plumber is an angry, bald, white, working man, a plumber from ohio. a couple of days ago, he angrily questioned obama on his tax policy. joe the plumber wondered why he would get a tax increase if he where to make more than 250,000 dollars a year. mccain latched on to this, and threw him and his comments into the debate. wow. here is a man getting angry over a theoretical. "if he were to make more than 250,000." what are the chances that a plumber is going to make more than 250,000 a year? it says so much about the ignorance of many working americans that they get angry that rich people may be taxed! these guys don't identify with their economic situation. rather, they identify with the economic situation they hope to be in someday. this is insanity "hey liberal, don't take the money i don't have!"

angry "working people" (ie, dumb white idiots) were quoted extensively in today's globe. someone stated "we have a choice between a black guy and a republican." man.

mccain mentioned ayers. he started by saying "i don't care about some washed up terrorist," and then proceeded to show how much he cared by talking about it. now that i think of it, doesn't that phrase "washed up terrorist" apply to mccain? mccain is surely walking on thin ayers when he has to invoke such gibberish.

again, no mention of the poor. you would think we didn't have any. but the phrase the middle class again made several appearances.

in a shocker, obama actually mentioned the fact that labor leaders are being murdered in columbia. sadly, he left out the fact that columbia receives the most u.s. military aid of any country in latin america. might there be some connection between these two bits of information? obama also said that he would like to "spread the wealth around." this drew the usual "class warfare" response from mccain. i know a good way to spread the wealth around; reduce the military budget. oh, that's right; obama wants to increase it. well, it was a good thought.

well, here we are. we have a population of white working people who don't want the rich white people they hope to become to be taxed to help out the working people they actually are. despite all of obama's efforts to emphasize his white mother from kansas and his small town upbringing, millions of americans still won't vote for the "black guy." but then, what should we expect from a country that was built to a large degree by mixed race slaves? the one drop rule is still very much with us, and has mixed with anti-arab bigotry to produce even more stupidity than can usually be found during the run up to an election. obama has not strongly answered the attacks, and sadly, may be winning because of his inaction. it is a testament to the ineptitude of the bush administration and mccain's own inadequacies that obama may well win.

manny ramirez is out. he did all he could, hitting 13 for 25 with 11 walks in eight playoff games. that means that he reached base 24 of the 36 times he came to bat. he hit 4 home runs in the 8 games with 10 rbi's. his 28 post season home runs are the most in the history of baseball. in 53 regular season games with la, he hit 396, with 17 home runs and 53 rbi's. along with bonds in 02 and ortiz in 04, it was the greatest postseason performance i have seen in 20 years of watching baseball. where will he end up next?

let the bidding begin. it brings to mind babe ruth's line about making more than the president...

"i had a better year than he did."

viva manny.

and so i face the final curtain

when a woman shouted at a mccain rally that obama was "an arab," mccain defended obama by saying "no, he is a decent family man." so, arabs can't be decent family men? as has been mentioned, what would the reaction have been if someone said "obama is a jew," and mccain responded "no, he is a decent family man." what about "obama is a chirstian," being responded to with "no, he is a decent family man." finally, how about "john is white," and the response "no, he is a decent family man." now, for this tepid defense of obama, mccain was harshly booed. ironically, it is the republican sponsored onslaught which may have encouraged the comment. for example, corsi's book "obama-nation" insinuates the possible arab/obama connection. the deal is mccain needs these racist rumors out there to scare the average dickhead, but he himself, to uphold the facade of american fairness and equality, needs to speak in a manner of relative inclusion. of course, this relative inclusion apparently doesn't encompass arabs.

yeah, the "new mccain." reminds you of the "new nixon." remember that? the only thing that allowed the new nixon to come into being was the assassination of every kennedy over the age of 5. the new mccain...what a load of crap. speaking of mccain, he has repeated a few things that i would like to comment on. for one, he often says "we give 700 billion dollars to countries that don't like us very much." i suppose he is referring to oil rich muslim countries, such as saudi arabia. of course, these are client states that do our bidding. certainly, mccain doesn't suggest altering these relationships? if he does, why doesn't he explicitly state his support for secular, democratic forces in the middle east and beyond? venezuela is a progressive, secular democracy. that doesn't stop either candidate from referring to its leader as a "rogue" and their society as "authoritarian." mccain doesn't mention how much money saudi royalty has invested in the u.s. economy. the relationship is mutual; it is not just a matter of the u.s. "giving" anybody money. is it possible that a lot of money flows to saudi arabia, egypt, and elsewhere, because a lot of oil flows in our direction? furthermore, we arm these nations so that their militaries will control their populations, for yes, it is true that these countries "don't like us very much." therefore, we buy off their governments to ensure access to resouces and compliant populations.

moving on, but in connection, mccain has mentioned in both debates that we did a great thing to help the afghanis in their struggle against the soviets, but then left the country after the soviets were defeated, hanging the new government out to dry. you would never know from this statement that the guys we supported against the soviets are the same guys we are fighting now! in fact, you can trace the rise of so called militant islam, or islamic fundamentalism, to u.s. support in this period. bin laden himself was one of the guys who received u.s. training and funds in afghanistan during the afghan-soviet war. say what you want about the soviet union, but it was they who supported the more democratic forces, it was they who believed in women's equality, and it was they who supported a government that attempted to bring education and health care to the masses of people. by no means does this excuse their conduct in the war, but it is the case. it was the u.s. who funded the fundamentalists. in fact, this is the secret they don't want you to know. the question is, why does "islamic fundamentalism" exist? well, there are a few reasons. for one, all of the major western religions have militant members, aka fuckheads. islam is no exception, and we practice racism and ignorance when we insist on this being a unique characteristic of islam. more specifically, people like bin laden have been funded. they have been trained with u.s. money. schools of religious fundamentalism were created in pakistan that the cia closely supported. our money and training have a lot to do with this. why did we fund it? we did it to create a force that would fight the progressive forces that existed in these nations. in the 50's, you heard a lot about "arab nationalism." nasser of egypt was a representative of this. they wanted no part of the cold war. they did not want to blindly follow american orders, and therefore, we considered them the enemy. hence, funding an extremist force to fight a secular, comparatively progressive force in afghanistan was a logical outgrowth of a policy that already existed. it is only now that "blowback" has occurred, that these forces are now "our enemy."

lastly, a lot of these "extremists" are guys that have had enough of occupation and war. for in today's afghanistan, and now iraq, where is a young person, angered at the bombing of his country, supposed to turn, if not to something we would label "extremism?" what else is there to turn to? arab nationalism has been destroyed, thanks in large part to us. even a right wing nationalist leader, like saddam, who slaughtered the left when he was in the pay of the cia in the 60's, has been gotten rid of. let us not forget that saddam's iraq offered relative gender equality, the best health care system in the middle east, and quality education. where now christians are being attacked in mosul, under saddam they served in government. where now the various ethnic groups are at each others throats, under saddam they often intermarried. saddam offered no political freedom, but today, there are no freedoms of any kind to be had in iraq, thanks to our "freeing" of that country. so yes, extremism is in part a reaction to the extremism of war practiced by an imperial america. with every society we decimate, we will likely create some people who will become "extremists" in there attempt to end that decimation. when that happens, we can blab on about a "clash of civilizations" and then excuse our violence, which precipitated the confrontations, as self defense. lunacy.

the new mccain, i am sorry to say, continues to tell the old lies.

and the guy from kansas still hasn't knocked him on the canvas.

kenya believe it?

let ralph debate!

and now, the 300th blog is near

the next time an obama commercial comes on, look closely. he is the only black man in them. the cosby show comes to the white house. yeah, i know he's just trying to win, but couldn't he have at least thrown in a latino or asian? would that have doomed any chances he has of taking office? question; why would anyone want to be president of a country where even showing a black person on a commercial would possibly doom their chances of winning?

the stock market is doing better now that the u.s. government has agreed to nationalize some of the banks. isn't it nationalization that makes fidel and chavez evil? come on guys, have a little faith in the free market. of course, we are nationalizing the banks to save our system, while fidel nationalized to introduce socialism. but think about it. isn't it crazy to nationalize the banks to stabilize the economy, and then, once the economy is stabilized, to turn it back to the same institutions that created the crisis in the first place? insanity. all a corporation cares about is profit. that's what it is built for, and as long as our economic system is capitalist, this will be so. our economy is like an alcoholic who is hungover. in order to feel better, or to "stabilize" the situation, the alcoholic doesn't drink for a while. he then feels better, and goes back to drinking, which then leads to another hangover. well, that's the economy. nationalizing is a good thing, but not if it is done with the idea of stabilizing a bad economic system. so yeah, nationalization will make the economy "feel better." stocks will go up, and people will relax. they will start to borrow again, banks will lend credit, interest rates will level out. we will then think all is well, until the next time we are told that all is not well. meanwhile, while something called the economy improves, thousands of children throughout the world will continue to starve everyday. we will still have close to 2 million homeless, over 2 million in prison, close to 50 million uninsured, and we will still be wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in order to kill people who have done us no harm to better take their resources. police will still brutalize youth of color, and immigrants will still be deported everytime they attempt to form or join unions.

so yeah, it will likely get back to normal soon.

i am fascinated by this thing we call the economy. cuba can eliminate homelessness. it can guarantee health care and education to all of its people. it can evacuate millions of people to safety everytime a natural disaster strikes the island. and yet, their economy is "struggling." this proves yet again that the state of an economy has been completely disconnected from the needs of real people. economies have no basis in reality. when pinochet was killing thousands and creating a police state in chile, we were being told that the economy was thriving. even hitler, we are told, fed the people and put them to work. this begs the question...who are the people? certainly hitler wasn't feeding the jews, and while he may have been putting them to work, this isn't what is meant when you hear this statement. when it is decided that an economy is doing well or not doing well, we need to ask "for who?" we are told the economy is doing well when something called "growth" is happening. ok. so, when nike grows, this means more sweatshop labor is producing more goods for low pay which will then be sold at a high cost to consumers. when mcdonalds grows, this means more underpaid workers sell unhealthy food to poor, overworked, and obese citizens. when walmart grows, more sweatshop labor produces more goods that are sold by underpaid, nonunion labor to poor and overworked citizens. when ge, raytheon, and haliburton grows, that means wars are being fought by poor and propagandized youth who are killing poor and brutalized members of the "third world." when general motors grows, this means more overpriced cars are being produced that will negatively impact the environment, helping to bring about climate change that will eventually doom us all.

so, i'm not that into growth.

well, at least that kind of growth.

making the march

saw nizer, borkson, pratt, brian, alpina, keach. strangers tried to get my phone number. people stuck flyers in my hand. food not bombs handed out free food. i learned that dahr jamail will be speaking in jp in two weeks. a stranger came up to me and told me not to vote for obama because obama wants to kill osama. i wanted to sing "osama these days, i'm gonna miss you honey," but something called maturity held me back. somebody sang "i'm not marchin anymore." a young rapper wasted about 10 minutes of my life. an anti-war vet seemingly invented new profanities on stage. local congressman (bold, bald, and bright) chuck turner gave a great speech, as did joe gerson, local head of the american friends service committee. vegan activists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists made an appearance. a guy with a bush mask held a plastic sword with "power' written on it. it took until april for us to march. there was an "alternative" stage, which made me think of the newport rebels. borkson "sang" on this stage. sadly, coleman hawkins was not in attendance.

finally, we marched. i got to hear people shouting "whose streets? our streets" one more time. the new "they say bail out, we say troops out" was introduced. sadly the rapper who at an earlier rally had yelled "when i say fuck, you say war" was not heard from. every few minutes, a cop would go flying by on a motorcycle, missing a marcher by a foot, almost removing their foot in the process. amused passerby took pictures, others flashed the peace sign, as they debated which fast food joint to eat at. there were signs for obama, nader, and mckinney. i looked for my favorite sign, "another fuckhead for peace," but didn't see it. the march went down several streets. hours before the march, there were several police guarding the armed services center. those police remained in position as we passed. sadly, the induction center still stands. ah, the wonders of pacifism. eventually, i heard the lame "there ain't no power like the power of the people because the power of the people don't stop." at least nobody followed this chant with the quasi hip hop response "say what?" finally, another standard "the people united will never be defeated" was chanted. ironically, this was a chant in allende's chile, and of course, we know who won there. other marchers pounded drums until it sounded like the world would come to an end. the chant "what do we want? troops out. when do we want it? now!" lasted longer than a nun's virginity.

eventually, we ended up back at park street for yet more speeches. at this point, mellish, along with papa and mama mellish, decided to call it a day.

all and all, a good and exciting protest.

i expect that as a result of this rally, the war will end any minute.

more things i haven't heard

we have heard some things about the environment and the energy crisis from the two major candidates, but nothing of substance. for example, you would never know that the leading user of oil is the military. of course, both candidates want to increase the military budget. how can you battle the energy companies and fight wars? and the "average american" is never at fault. obama did mention that "we are 3% of the world's population, but we use 25% of the world's energy," but he put no responsibility for this on the military and the american people. who is it that's driving all those cars? isn't there something we could do to live in a more sane and environmentally friendly manner? supposedly, something called the "middle class" is an innocent bystander in all of this, but who brought all the consumer goods, who used all the credit cards, who has all the cars?

we are hearing a lot about health care, but neither candidate has mentioned the importance of eating well and exercising. neither of them has mentioned how our corporations and military have polluted our air, our water, and our food, hence increasing the preponderance of a number of fatal diseases. they will not mention the links between a meat centered diet and heart disease. neither of them will touch the issue of childhood obesity and its links to television and video games. neither has attacked agribusiness or said a word about the dying small farmer.

labor unions have not been mentioned. worker's rights have not been mentioned. just how are workers supposed to defend thermselves against giant corporations without a strong labor movement? you would never know, that in a capitalist state, there is always a struggle between labor and capital. but, of course, there is no such thing as "the working class,'" so i suppose it makes sense that labor unions are never mentioned.

neither has mentioned the idea of war crimes. obama opposed the war in iraq not because it is a crime to invade a nation and bomb it, but because it was a "mistake" that "diverted" our attention from "the war on terror." he also wants to add troops in afghanistan, but that war is also criminal. mccain, of course, supports all things military. connected to this, impeachment is never mentioned, for in order to impeach someone, you would have to first show that they have committed a crime. but, in our system, no one ever does anything criminal. according to obama, the war in iraq was a mistake, but you can't impeach someone for making a mistake. last year, i made a mistake by forgetting my house keys. annoying though it was, it was not an impeachable offense. so, "they" commit war crimes, while "we" make mistakes. this reasoning accepts the underlying system as being fundamentally good. it also accepts the idea that each leader means well, though some may make mistakes from time to time. so, the discourse runs from the idea that we never do anything wrong to the idea that we always mean well, but are sometimes mistaken. hence, bush and mccain were "wrong" on iraq, and that is the extent of their fault. and you can't impeach someone for being "wrong."

think of it. we don't say that hitler made a mistake when he invaded poland. we don't say the concentration camps were a mistake. we don't say that stalin made a mistake when he filled up the gulag. when our media attacked hussein, they never said that he made mistakes. these men and others are talked about as criminals. it says much about our collective denial and hypocrisy as a society that we do not honestly examine the behaviors of our government. also, we do not use a language that properly explains what our leaders are guilty of. as long as this is so, we can not deal with our problems. if bombing iraq is only a mistake, and not a crime, than all we need to do is bomb iran instead. than, all will be well.

there is so much more. no one ever mentions prison reform anymore. both are for the death penalty. neither has uttered a word about our total neglect of new orleans in the wake of katrina. this certainly says much about our racial and class bias, but apparently, doesn't warrant acknowledgement. neither has mentioned police brutality. you would never know there was racism in the american system of policing. both tell us that our soldiers have performed "brilliantly" in iraq, but neither has mentioned torture at abu ghraib. is it "brilliant" to drop bombs on people from thousands of feet in the air? why is it brilliant for us to drop bombs on people, but criminal for them to fly planes into buildings? this hypocrisy was not addressed, and likely never will be within our mainstream political structure.

what will be addressed?

little to nothing, as usual.

things i haven't heard

both major party presidential candidates have talked a lot about the "middle class" but neither of them has said a word about the poor or the working class. you would think there was no poverty in the united states. they are afraid to say the words. if you mention the working class, you may be guilty of practicing "class warfare." and the words bring up very different images. the phrase the "middle class" brings to mind old sit coms. yeah, the 2 and a half kids, the picket fence, marriage, the dog, the house in the suburbs. and, by the way, the term is a white term, ain't it?

now, the poor on the other hand, well, that's not such a white term, is it? so, let's not mention it at all! that way, it won't exist. of course, there are millions of whites in poverty, but no matter. obama does not in anyway want to show sympathy for sectors of the population that are thought of as nonwhite. for them, solutions include not throwing garbage out of cars, and not feeding your children cold chicken for breakfast. and since the poor are not being talked about, the homeless are not being mentioned. you would never know that the self proclaimed richest nation on earth has millions of homeless people. neither candidate has acknowledged the issue.

furthermore, we have heard a lot about homeowners, but nothing about renters. you would never know that about half the country rents. renters tend to have less money than homeowners. perhaps that is why we are not hearing about them. also, while a majority of whites own a home, a majority of nonwhites do not. perhaps this too is why they haven't been mentioned. of course, if there is an economic crisis for homeowners, there will also be an economic crisis for renters. if the value of the dollar goes down, landlords will charge more, hence impacting renters. it is nonsense to address the housing crisis without mentioning renters, and is proof of the acceptable forms of class warfare practiced by the ruling class.

so yes, we have millions of impoverished workers. we have millions of people making minimum wage. we have millions of homeless, and millions in prison. we have millions of uninsured. we have hundreds of millions of renters.

and, as always, most of these people, and hence, the nation, will not have their issues dealt with come election day and beyond.

just as the cosby show did little to improve american television, an obama presidency won't do much for the american political system.

that doesn't mean i am saying to watch cheers, or vote for mccain.

but, every once in a while, it's helpful to keep reality in mind.

round 2

this time, it seemed clear to me that obama took mccain to school. of course, it was done within the narrow confines of the mainstream political structure, but bust him he did.

ok, having said that, let's get started. obama again knocked venezuela for no reason. he repeated that "if we have osama in our sight, and the pakistani authorities are unable or unwilling to act, we will strike." he reminded us that a nuclear iran is unacceptable.

what has venezuela done wrong? well, they have asserted a degree of independence. they have attempted to educate and provide health care for the poorest of their citizens. they have spoken out against u.s militarism and the system of global capitalism that impoverishes much of humanity. for this and only this, they are criticized.

ok, what is up with this whole "bin laden in our sight" shit? for all we know, the man may be dead. this is just a way for obama to show that he is tough. how do we know he is in pakistan? and if he were, what right do we have to bomb pakistan? certainly innocent people would die in such a strike. would obama sacrifice his wife and children to get osama? if not, why should he have the right to sacrifice someone else's family? it is easy to play with the lives of faceless others, but that doesn't make it just.

and again, why can't we allow iran to have a nuclear weapon? how is it up to us to allow anything? what are we, iran's parents? what arrogance! what if iran said they would not allow the u.s. to have nuclear weapons? hey, sounds like a good idea to me!

mccain again called for a spending freeze, yet, also proposed buying homes to avert the financial crisis. per chance, where would this money come from? he referred to obama as "that one." he again lauded general petraeus, who i like to refer to as general betray us, and claimed that the surge is working. yes, but for who? the holocaust worked for the nazis, but i for one don't see that as cause for celebration.

both candidates kept telling us that we are a great nation. i wanted to ask a native at random about this, but i couldn't find one.

i am tired of hearing people praise mccain for being a pow. fuck him. he shouldn't have been there. even people who are voting against him seem to feel that they need to acknowledge his "heroism." hey, the heroes are the ones who shot his plane down. the heroes are the ones who resisted the brutal bombardment of vietnam. suffering doesn't make you a hero. hitler suffered at the end.

supposedly, retirement funds across the nation lost 2 trillion dollars. 2 trillion! that is 20% of all the money in retirement funds in the country. i expect to see more old dudes at the supermarket, and everywhere else, as even the idea of retirement becomes a fantasy for most working people. for many, it was never an option, but this will surely make the situation worse.

oh yeah, it isn't just a spending freeze. it's a spending freeze on everything but the military, veterans, and certain entitlements.

like tax cuts for the wealthy?

when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

but, of course, the flowers were never here.

awful

the supreme court has denied mumia a new trial. now, it pretty much boils down to whether he will spend his life in prison, or be executed by the state.

a new report has come out which says that the u.s and nato have killed 3,200 civilians in afghanistan since 2005. today was the 7 year anniversary of our bombing of afghanistan. by march of 2002, 5 months into the war, the u.s bombing had already killed more civilians than were killed in 9/11 (2800) something to remember...killing afghanis doesn't mean we are battling terror. rather, killing afghanis is terror. this war is no better than the war in iraq.


mccain wants to cut the medicare and medicaid budget by 1.3 trillion dollars.

while palin was giving a speech, someone from the crowd yelled "kill him" about obama. palin said nothing in response.

a mccain spokesperson said they don't want to talk about the economy, because if they talk about the economy, they will lose.

much has been said about obama's relationship with bill ayers and reverend wright. the funny thing is, these are probably the two best guys obama knows. in fact, he barely knows ayers. they live in the same neighborhood, and have worked for a couple of the same non profits. in short, it sounds like he is about as close to ayers as i am to virginia pratt.

while we are hearing a lot about ayers, we are not hearing about the number of people ayers killed, and that's because he didn't kill anybody, unlike the government he opposed as a member of the weathermen. mccain, by the way, actually dropped bombs on living, breathing people. there is nothing symbolic about that kind of terrorism. sadly, it is that kind of terrorism, which also goes by the name of war, that obama supports in afghanistan. so, if it is terrorists we are out to get, let's not bother with ayers.

let's start with the white house and work our way down.

the boston sports fan

he will often mockingly chant the name of an opposing player. this player is almost always black. yesterday, it was torri hunter, a good player and better guy who never did anything to warrant the treatment. hunter ignored the chants, and hit a game tying single. unfortunately, the angels lost the game and the series. the whole name chanting thing started in the 86 world series, when the sox played the mets, and a certain guy with the last name of strawberry, was given the treatment.

the boston sports fan is a clueless homer with no sense of fairness. once, i was watching a patriots game at a sports bar when they clearly got the benefit of a call against the raiders. a guy sitting next to me said this made up for a bad call the patriots had received against oakland in 1980. 1980! bill buckner had to leave the area after his error in the 86 series. lately, people have talked how we should "forgive" buckner. hey, a ball went through his fucking legs. it ain't like dropping bombs on people. the boston sports fan has yelled at kidd for being a "wife beater" but said nothing about bird having nothing to do with his daughter, parish throwing his girlfriend down a flight of stairs, and dennis johnson pulling a knife on his wife. in 1981, a number of celtic fans put sheets over their heads and called themselves "the ghosts of celtics past." doctor j said, "i thought the klan was at the game." bobby jones, a young boston pitcher from a couple years back, gave up three walks in a game. he was booed loudly. the young black man with a good fastball was never heard from again. in the 80's, black pitcher dennis boyd was known as "oil can" boyd. when bill russell tried to move to a suburb of boston in the 60's, his house was broken into, and someone even took a shit on his bed. this was uncalled for, as there was a bathroom in the master bedroom.

often times, in these parts, i will hear angry, talentless whites bemoan the state of sports today. supposedly, today's athletes "have no fundamentals," "they aren't as tough as the athletes in the past, "they can't shoot," "they have no respect for the game," and "the inmates are running the asylum." and it often gets weirdly personal. i don't know how many times i have heard sam cassell mocked for his looks. he "looks like an alien" people comment, the same people who have never commented on the looks of a white athlete. if a player sweats a lot, we hear about it, if the player is black. for example, many a line has been uttered about kevin garnett and kendrick perkins sweating. the patriots used to have a receiver with big eyes. this was also a constant source of amusement for the local white and uncle tom fan base.

nat hentoff referred to boston, the city of his youth, as a "hateful place." i'm sure former celtic dee brown would agree with him. brown made the mistake of driving while black through the streets of wellesley, a local suburb. he was pulled over and manhandled. we heard about it because he was dee brown, not because he was brown. regular brown men get fucked with all the time, and it ain't news. if you mention it, you are paranoid, "too sensitive," perhaps even living in the past.

more from the local sports scene. in the mid 80's, dave henderson was a hero in these parts. he hit a huge home run in the 86 alcs, helping to turn that series around. shortly thereafter, a story about henderson came out in the boston globe magazine. in it were pictures of the black henderson with his white wife. henderson was gone in no time. a couple of years later, lee smith, one of the great relievers of all time, was in the clubhouse when the red sox wanted to put him into a game. smith likely had to take a shit, but no matter; the black pitcher was not heard from in these parts again.

much of the crap is media driven. black dominican jose offerman was referred to in the globe as "a piece of junk." manny ramirez was often referred to here as a "hitting savant," which was another way of calling him an idiot. after he was traded, the herald ran a front page headline which read "trash removal." this about a player with 527 career homeruns who helped the red sox to two world championships. after the trade, a local writer said "that while latin music used to be heard in the sox clubhouse, we are now hearing country again." yes, us whites have our team back again!

the economy will continue to crumble, but somehow, we will still have money for war. as always, there will be money for certain things, and not for other things. for you see, the "economic crisis" started for the average iraqi quite a while. but he doesn't play the market, you see. so fuck him. he doesn't count. as far as the economy goes, why don't you ask those starving children from the infomercials how the economy was doing before the "crisis." crisis is the norm for many. it's only when those who count get concerned that it becomes an issue.

mccain is getting scared. palin even mentioned rev wright and bill ayers again. it looks like desperation city, but we should not make light of it. in 1988, bush was trailing dukakis by 17 points before he started running his ad claiming that dukakis was soft on crime. he even showed the picture of an individual black man, willy horton, who got out of jail in MA and committed a crime. somehow, this was the fault of dukakis, who ended up losing big to bush. so yeah, mccain and palin will get dirty. the fact that wright is still being mentioned is amazing. it is okay for right wing politicians to stand with, and be endorsed by, the likes of pat robertson and jerry falwell, and no one in the major media says a word about it. as always, a conservative white man can say whatever he wants in this culture, but a progressive black man better watch what he says. also, palin referred to ayers as a "domestic terrorist." ayers a terrorist? he is a respected educator. yes, he was once with the weathermen, but the last time i checked, they never invaded countries in the service of imperial power. yes, there are terrorists among us, like all of those who chose to fight wars in other lands. we like to think of them as heroes, but surely, to the vietnamese peasant, to the iraqi child, and to many more, they were international terrorists of the highest order. of course, obama, and no one else in mainstream culture, will say something like this. in fact, neither will i in a public setting.

and so, it will go on as before.

bill, i just wish they would stop putting on ayers.

stuff

we always hear about swing states. well, if there are so many of them, why didn't benny goodman run for president?

once my dad tried to hip a guy to a turrentine record. the dude looked at it and said "yeah, stanley tarrintino is a good player." great scott, shirley, doesn't anyone know the deal?

tina is a fey palin, but a good one.

the cho show may be the worst one yet. if she does a black voice one more time, or cries about how much she wanted to be "pretty" as a youngster once more, i may even become more bitter and cynical than i already am. yeah, it's that bad.

all you need to know is that all the farms in cuba are organic. isn't it a little strange that a guy asking a question about whether cuban farms were organic was eating a bag of kfc at the time? i mean, did he really care? i don't think he did. i think he just wanted to fuck with the guy's presentation. hey, not only are all the farms in cuba organic, but wasn't it the irish who made it so? don't be a child, ed, and believe otherwise. if you do, you're a stupid man. you're not stupid, snoop dogg is stupid.

ben webster playing ballads. wow. his wee small hours of the morning is much too much and just too very very to ever wind up in ben webster's dictionary.

where have the male vocalists gone? in fact, where has the phrase "male vocalist" gone? that's an auld phrase, by george, if you get the tenor of my message. in fact, it's a message from the grass roots, that was delivered at my door by the doors. i was suprised they had the stones to ring my cool papa bell, as they were out of their negro league, but by josh gibson, they did it. now i need to turn the satchel paige. well, here's to you, mrs. jackie robinson.

remember vote or die? how about vote or break your arm? it seems a little drastic to skip right to death, doesn't it? how about a good flu? if you get one, make sure to see dr. dre, who will likely tell you to drink ice tea and coco and get plenty of bed rest.

i'm hearing the bailout is up to 850 billion now. and ths brings up the question yet again... just what will it take for kucinich to bolt the democratic party? i mean, the guy makes a lot of sense. well, what can you do.

i suppose he would rather be in government than writing a blog. well, i'm not gonna cry naomi wolf about it.

words to the wise, tim.

the u.s. has lost jobs every month since december. in september, this country lost 160,000 jobs. that will keep you from agitating for that pay raise. oftem times, when a corporation lays off a bunch of workers, we are told it is done so they "can stay competitive." fine, but how are their newly unemployed workers supposed to "compete" in the "global economy" now that they don't have work? supposedly, a "trim" workforce is "good" for the economy, reminding us once again that real people are not a part of this thing called "the economy."

the house burned down, as they revoted on the bailout and passed it. first of all, why didn't the first vote stick? hell, they voted the bailout down! what is the point of having a vote if you can just vote again in a few days if your vote doesn't satisfy the power structure? and why is it that they were able to change their no vote when their yes vote will surely stand? it isn't like they are going to vote again, now that the power elite has the vote they want. all that no vote did was allow the house to pretend to be defending the american people. it was total bullshit. the fact is, you can not go against the economic power structure in this country and expect to have a viable career in mainstream politics. at most, our system allows for a handful of progressives, which they can then point to to show how free we are. of course, these progressives better not make a run for the presidency. then, they will be mocked and degraded by the same political structure that supports them as long as they know their place.

but yeah, this bailout is a bitch, and it's nonsense. if you want money, stop bombing people. if you want money, redistribute wealth. if you want money, institute a progressive income tax that clobbers corporations and wealthy individuals. the idea that taxing corporations is going to hurt the economy and discourage job growth is beyond crazy. as it is, we are losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands monthly. furthermore, many of these corporations should be eliminated. think of the money, time, and talent that goes into advertising, that goes into product testing, that goes into banal research. think of the money being wasted by the entertainment industry, by the auto industry, by the oil industry, by the water industry. there is much to be confiscated and redistributed. the problem is not a lack of money, but the horrifically uneven distribution of it. and what is money but a means by which to obtain goods? so, why don't we just go about producing the needed goods, and distributing these necessities to all the people of the world? we don't need money for its own sake, but rather, for food, for housing, for clothes, for heat, for health care, for electricity. so, why don't we just produce these things for all? why does money even need to be involved? instead, how about an international system of bartering, and a localized system of trading goods and services? "i'll give you a spanish lesson for a large pizza!" yeah man, it's the stuff we need and want. the money is just a way to get the stuff.

or should be. the fact is, these assholes have been playing with monopoly money, and it's biting them in the ass. all these loans and credit cards. it's bullshit, because it's an economy that is not based on the real needs of real people. it has no manufacturing center; it's not connected to reality at all.

all i'm saying is it's time to keep it real. instead, the house decided to mortgage our future.

praise the (land)lord.

but first, past the ammunition.

post a new creation

i still get these people who tell me that what i am doing is "great experience" for "down the road." these people like to say that they "started out as aides and paras" and "learned so much" from the work they did.

well, i suppose i have learned a couple of things too. i have learned that, on my salary, i can barely afford an apartment that is priced at below market value. i have learned that i do not qualify for the state health insurance that is supposedly mandatory, because i make "too much," despite the fact that if i were to take the insurance offered by my job, i would have no money left over from my paycheck after the rent is paid. i have learned that education and schooling have little to nothing in common. i have learned that teachers, paras, and others that work with youth are a pretty mediocre bunch, no more interested in education than any other group of people. i have learned that, because of racism, special ed programs tend to be dominated by students of color and by those who have a hard time understanding english.

the thing is, you are supposed to want a "career," not just a job. everything you do has to have some kind of purpose, namely the purpose of making a lot of money.

like most of humanity, i work because i have to. my work is not a "stepping stone," or a "valuable learning experience." it is done so that i will have a roof over my head.

palin actually used the phrases "say it ain't so, joe" and "joe six pack" during the vp debate.

i am really into booker ervin at the moment. what a sound. it goes right through you. when he got together with byard, davis, and dawson, it swung hard, and different from what had come before. his music was never barron, kenny. i told sarah that i thought the modern players palin comparison to booker, but she claimed they were biden there time.

do people really think that obama and mccain are the best candidates? are they aware that other people are running? they tell us that third party candidates have no chance, but this is only so because people aren't voting for them. and by the way, since when did americans need a great chance of winning in order to do something? millions of people play the lottery, even though they have next to no chance of winning. people root for teams that will never win the championship. the more i think of it, the more it strikes me as bizarre that an anti-war voter could vote for someone who wants to increase our troop levels in afghanistan, and who supports striking pakistan and iran, "if necessary." they will likely support this candidate because the other candidate is worse, but that is like supporting rape because rape is "better" than murder. no one ever runs around saying that rape is "the lesser of the two evils." if you are anti-war, why not support an anti-war candidate? if you want universal health insurance, why not support a candidate that does as well? if you want a significant increase in the minimum wage, why not support a candidate that calls for one? if you want to see the corporations battled by our government, why not support a candidate who has spent his entire adult life battling these very same corporations? isn't the idea to support someone, as compared to not opposing one candidate as much as the other? there is an old saying that says we should live the change we wish to see in the world. i can't help but think that we should vote that way as well.

essentially the problem is that only one side votes for what it wants, while the other side votes against the guy it wants less. it is an unfair fight, unequally waged. progrssives need to figure out what they want, and then try with all their might to get it. voting is only a small part of this, but i think it matters.

the progressive voter is in an abusive relationship, but is afraid to leave the relationship, for things "could get worse" if they do.

worse?

oh gosh, it's josh

josh howard is a small forward who plays for the dallas mavericks. i must admit, i am not a big fan of his playing style, but recently, he has done something that excites me. of course, it is this very thing that has him in the shit house with the corporate media and ignorant fans. not long ago, on youtube (is it just me, or is everything on youtube now?) howard said that the national anthem doesn't mean shit to him because he is black. judging by the reaction, you would think he was starting wars. well hey, i don't give a shit about the national anthem either. this is the same josh howard, who as a college student at wake forest, said that the iraq war was a war for oil. at the time, it was thought that he would be a lottery pick, but because of his "personality" issues, he wasn't taken until the end of the 1st round.

the treatment of howard brings to mind previous players who have been blacklisted. chris hodges, a great three point shooter for the champion bulls, was also a muslim with strong anti-war convictions. during the first war with iraq, the bulls were invited to the white house to celebrate a championship. hodges took the opportunity to write a letter to president bush, expressing his position. he never played in the nba again. by the way, hodges played with jordan. don't you think a word from jordan could have helped hodges stay in the league? jordan, as always, exercised his right to remain silent.

mahmoud abdul rauf, aka chris jackson, was also a muslim with a progressive politics. his "crime" was not standing for the national anthem. for this, he was castigated by a fascistic media and ignorant fans. jackson was soon run out of the league, and this was a guy that could play his ass off. years later, he built a house in mississippi. shortly after it was built, the house was burned down, and the letters "kkk" were emblazoned on the lawn. i only know of this because dave zirin has written about it. you would think that espn, or a major newspaper, may have found this worthy of mention.

it seems that you better be a dominant player, a kareem abdul jabbar, a steve nash, a bill walton, a bill russell, or a jim brown if you plan on saying anything. anyone else will be thrown aside. people will say that politics has no place in sports, but these same people will never acknowledge that the elimination of hodges and jackson from the league was an act of overt, reactionary politics. in fact, the playing of the national anthem before every game is, of course, an example of the marriage of politics and sports. when they tell us that the army is a sponsor of the game, that is an example of the marriage of politics and sports. when they invite teams to the white house, that is an example of the marriage of politics and sports. when professional teams who have players from all over the world, get american flags stitched onto their uniforms, that is an example of the marriage of politics and sports. when teams are named after people that this country has committed genocide against, that is an example of the marriage of politics and sports.

it is not only "political" to oppose various elements of the warfare state, it is also "political" to support them. but sadly, no one is about to "blacklist" the national anthem, or army sponsorship, or teams named after indians, or american flags on uniforms. in fact, no one will even mention this in a mainstream context. it will appear to the average american to be as natural as air.

welcome to the normalcy i like to call american fascism.