Little Tart loves it all…most of the time

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

And they have a right to be!

The Obama “bitter” controversy is out of hand!  I lived in Pittsburgh, PA for 3 years.  I grew up in the industrial Midwest – also known as the Rustbelt – of which Pennsylvania is part.  25-30 years ago the jobs that regular people worked; The jobs that in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s put kids through college, bought summer cabins and speed boats, the jobs that allowed you to work hard, get your hands dirty and retire when you were 60 LEFT for foreign soil.  Washington D.C. and the political establishment betrayed the working middle class.  The white collar children who benefited from their parents’ blue collar jobs betrayed the working middle class.   If you have ever been to Pittsburgh, PA you would see that betrayal is happening today.  That betrayal continued all through the “prosperous” Clinton years. Years when the majority of the country saw economic growth, but Western Pennsylvanians saw 60 year old men who had worked hard their whole life competing for minimum wage convenience store jobs because there were no more options.

        Are rural, suburban and former industrialized urban Pennsylvanians bitter?  Absolutely.  Do they take comfort in conservative values, religion, gun ownership and xenophobia?  Absolutely.

        When I lived in Pittsburgh I lived on Carson Street on the Southside and I lived on Mount Washington.  Geographically they are at most 2 miles and up a steep mountainside from each other.  It was an unpleasant 20 minute walk or a 3 minute cable car ride.  Many of the residents had not made that trip in years.  Men my age (26 at the time) recalled going “downtown” as a child.  Downtown was 2.5 miles from where they lived.  Pittsburghers no longer go “downtown” because of the “crime”.  By crime, they actually mean Black People.  Pittsburghers, and by this I mean multi-generational families of eastern European descent who live within blocks of the homes they grew up in and socialize only with people they have known their whole lives, are the most narrow minded insolated people I have ever interacted with.  They are bitter.  Bitter because they are told by liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, academics and intellectuals, that as white people they are part of the ruling class in this country.  That they should be grateful for the prosperity and the opportunities this country has to offer them.  When their ancestors came to fill the steel mills and coal mines with cheap labor they were grateful. When they could afford to send their kids to college they were grateful.  What on earth do they have to be grateful for today?  If every time you left home and some pissed on your head and told you it was raining, you’d start staying at home too.   

        Did Obama word his statement wrongly?  I don’t know.  I read the speech – it seems pretty straight forward to me.  I didn’t take it a derogatory; I took it as pretty factual.  My guess is that Hillary Clinton and John McCain have never been deeper into Western Pennsylvania than the University of Pittsburgh Campus or the home of their biggest donor.  Because if they had, they would know that Pennsylvanians are bitter, and they have EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO BE!

For those who have not read the comments, here they are:

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). […]

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Posted on: April 3, 2008

I’m not going to reveal the source of this email, but since I basicly agree I thought I would post it:

… its’ OK to throw out the envelope from the DNC saying “YOUR MEMBERSHIP HAS LAPSED!” — a demand for your membership renewal? I feel like any money we want to spend on politics should go to the Obama campaign. Some shithead milktoast pansy liberal from THE NATION was berating Obama on FORUM for not being liberal enough and for being a political opportunist. WTF? A writer for THE NATION wants fucking McCain to win? Fucking get on the boat, motherfucker.

Posted on: March 26, 2008

Why do they keep saying shit like this?: 

From AP:“Blacks have solidly supported Obama in the Democratic presidential contest, while whites have tilted toward Clinton.”

African-Americans make up between 9 and 12% of Americans – Obama is winning – even if we believe that all 9-12% of African-Americans are voting in the Democratic primary – Obama could not win if “whites” were tilting towards Clinton.  It is a fiction!  Obama has support across racial lines or he would not be winning. 

Via AP 

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Sen. Hillary Clinton, viewed last year as virtually unstoppable in her bid to become the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee, is now seeking to portray herself as the underdog against rival Sen. Barack Obama.

The Clinton campaign has labeled the Illinois senator the “establishment” candidate as she tries to wrest from him the message of a vow to bring change to Washington…”

 ICK.

This is a great collection of interviews produced by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.  My favorite is Melvin Wilkerson, from my home neighborhood here in West Oakland – appears he voted at my polling place too.  He has one of the most delightful comments about Obama’s experience that I have yet heard (4th row, 3rd from the left):

“What we are hearing now is Hillary’s got more experience the Barak Obama.  But George Washington was first, and he had no experience.”

John Edwards has announced his withdrawal from this presidential race. I for one am very sorry to see him go. He has been my candidate, and I truly believe the best candidate for America.

As I read the articles and the punditry over why he failed, why his campaign has not taken off, why he has never managed to connect with the public even as his opponents stole his platform and his agenda, I can only come to one conclusion. His focus was on struggling families in this country, the struggling middle class, the forgotten working man and he did so eloquently with quotes such as this “If you’re one of the forgotten middle class, people who are working and struggling just to pay their bills, literally worried about every single day, we will give you voice in this campaign.”

but his vernacular, the day to day language of his campaign was “poverty” and no American, no matter how few paychecks they may be from the “street” will willingly wear that nomenclature.

John Edwards’ mistake was not speaking for the poor, but calling them poor. The “Right” has so vilified the word “poor” and “poverty” attaching it to images of welfare queens (myth) and urban blight, that no one self identifies as poor. His language was asking people to acknowledge themselves as poor, and in our self-starting, pull your self up by your bootstraps – if you are poor it is your own fault – nation, that kind of label just wont jibe. If only he had couched his platform in less loaded terms, if only…if only…if only…

John Edwards

John, thanks for running, thanks for remembering New Orleans, thanks for remembering the working class, thanks for speaking for me. Good luck and I hope to see you in the future.

Can anyone tell me where Hilary Clinton’s popular support is coming from?

 I watch PBS’s political talk shows every Sunday and all those pundits beat the drum for a Clinton nomination.  The polls show Clinton is th front leader.  WHO is supporting her?  I know plenty of Democrats across the country, red states and blue states and none of them support her.  WHO is this mysterious majority? 

I’m not talking about individuals who are excited to see her when she comes to speak in their town (attending a rally does not constitute support)

I’m looking for illumination.

Posted on: October 19, 2007

It is Nancy Pelosi, not Rep. Pete Stark who should be embarrassed by his comments yesterday! 

 “Republicans sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”[ 

 Her inaction on either Iraq or impeaching the President has resulted in individual members being forced to radical statements to press the issue within the mainstream.

 Shame on you Nancy, shame on you!

I will admit to knowing very little about President Hugo Chavez’s civil rights track record – but I want to get on the record right now, that I love the crazy ass anti-American strangeness he perpetuates. His plan to offer low cost eye surgery jointly with Cuban doctors for low-income Americans. His current madness to set the Venezuelan clocks back a ½ hour, putting Venezuela on the map as the only nation at 4.5 GMT.

How can you not love a President who goes on record with gems such as this:

“Now some people think, ‘My daughter’s turning 15, let’s give her breast enlargements.’ That’s horrible. It’s the ultimate degeneration,” Chavez said

I’m not trying to belittle the man. I actually admire the sentiment in many of his international actions, and it is nice to see a President discussing the poor. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with his actual domestic policy, but he sure makes for fun sound bites.

Picture from Miraflores Palace/Handout/Reuters

    Via techyum via Sierra Club via Atlantic Monthly comes this Greenpeace commercial in which a 13 year old declares his generation’s war on adults who do not actively seek to correct global warming/climate change.

    Watch the video and then follow the various links to read the comments; there are interesting opinions on Atlantic Monthly especially.

    The problem as I see it is the commercial is so aggressive and in the viewer’s face that even believers in the cause are turned off. One commentator on Atlantic Monthly even said:

“I’m also a big environmentalist, but if I were exposed to that ad for any extended period of time, I’m sure I would end up wanting to fuck up the environment on purpose just to spite this kid: send him to bed without his polar ice caps until he unknits his brow and stops throwing a tantrum.”

    Are veiled threats and petulance really the way for the environmental movement (or any movement) to activate people? How fair is it for Greenpeace to declare war on anyone over the age of 15 when many of us are powerless to enact the sweeping policy changes that are necessary to re-stabilize the climate? Or are we all responsible? Is what the mini-unabomber said true? If we aren’t for him, we are against him? I can see both sides, but in the mean time I worry that commercials such as this can become tools for anti-environmentalists and conservative media.

    After all, is it such a far step for FOX NEWS (which as we all know is “Fair and Balanced”) to start touting environmentalists as terrorists when they have footage like this they can air? And when Greenpeace starts advocating a “green war” would Fox News actually be wrong?

Oh, by the way, so far mainstream media hasn’t mentioned this commercial, but keep your eyes open. My guess is that in the next few days it show up everywhere.

Update 9/10/07:

I am in no way attempting to diminish the rights to anger that all future generations have towards our current shepherding of the globe. The world is screwed up and we all are to be blamed. My point in selecting this commercial was to point at the use of terror as a technique and how easily we legitimize the use of terrorizing language when it involves issues we believe in vs. issues we disagree with, or don’t understand.

Think about it this way:

What if the face were brown and topped by a black turban and framed just as tightly by the camera while he coldly explained why the West is responsible for all the problems in the world, and if you the viewer did not stand with him then by default you are against him, and he can’t be held responsible if you get caught in the cross fire of his war.

Would you have a different response?

Why is the threat of violence acceptable in the context of an environmental crisis but not the Pan-Arab crisis? Arab extremists believe in the righteousness of their cause as devoutly as Eco-Extremists believes in ending global warming. Perhaps our comfortablity with one extreme over the other stems from the perceived hallowness of Greenpeace’s threat. Muslim extremists have actually backed up their threats with action while the Eco-Extremists are simply talking hard to facilitate ideas and action in the population. I would argue that social extremists from all ideological walks of life (Socialist, Islamic, Christian, Capitalist, Environmental, Feminist, Anti-War, and more) release writings and recordings in which they “talk hard” right up until they take violent action. Greenpeace its self has a long history of direct action that some would argue is the precursor of violent action and active terrorism.

I’m not trying to give what ultimately is a high concept advertisement by Greenpeace more weight than it actually merits. This commercial will not be the straw that breaks the back of our national inaction on global climate change, nor do I believe that a band of science fiction inspired, hoodie wearing, pasty skinned children of the corn will rise up to punish us all when action fails to happen. (BUT, if it does, don’t say I didn’t warn you.) What will happen in response to this commercial is that legitimate discussions about solving the problem will be mudded by hyperbole and rhetoric, accusations and threats, leaving us in the same boat we are in currently. Greenpeace might have been better served setting aside its vitriol and spending their advertising money on a commercial that discussed how we as individuals can take action, rather then simply threatening us for our inaction.