So while mortgage rates fell by at least a quarter of a percentage point on Tuesday, the day of the government announcement, and stayed there Wednesday, it could take months for the piece that affects credit card and small-business loans to kick in.
“It’s not going to be like flipping a light switch,” said Joe Belew, president of the Consumer Bankers Association. “You’re not going to see an avalanche of new loans. But the system is under a lot of stress, and anything that can lubricate the markets is a good thing.”
The federal government made two big moves on Tuesday. The first, already known as TALF, for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, is a $200 billion program that will lend money to private investors who buy securities backed by student and auto loans, credit card debt and small-business loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.
What's this? The government hasn't quite got the message that those "securities" based on debt was part and parcel of the current problem and so they want to encourage more of it? Hasn't there been enough writen about those SIV's to perhaps not encourage that kind of stuff?The goal of the plan is to fix the mechanism that keeps credit flowing freely from lenders to borrowers. Lenders often package consumer loans into securities and sell them to investors. Then the lenders use the proceeds to issue more loans to consumers. But over the last two months, those investors have stopped buying.
And why did they stop buying? Because the joints were worthless because, as determined, the original lenders did not care about the ability of the borrower to pay these debts because the original lenders no longer had a financial stake in those loans. That was the problem. Why encourage more of this? Why support these inflated assets?To qualify for the best rates, borrowers will need to have a credit score of at least 720 and a down payment of at least 10 percent and probably closer to 20 percent. Borrowers seeking to refinance will need to have the same amounts in home equity.
So in these inflated times a house that ought to be say $200,000 is upwards of a $6-700,000 and people need to come in with 100,000 down? Really? $50,000? Perhaps they need to work another job for about 3 years and then continue working that job while they pay for that house for probably the rest of their lives, since, unless you're already rich or have really high income in your 20's, you're not saving that kind of money before your mid 30's unless you live at home or you're married and with singleness rates the way they are in the states, good luck on that.
Still Free
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Same ol Same Ol
This bailout business is simply bizarre. First we seem to be back to the trickle down theory of Reaganomics with the NY Times giving us a nice headline like: U.S. Consumer Loan Aid Will Trickle Only So Far :
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The You Neva Was....
And so one Muhammad Yungai a self described "Black Nationalist" who:
note to Muhammad; the Red, Black and Green is the symbol of Pan-Africanist, given to us by Marcus Garvey who was a Pan-Africanist. If you hoisted the RBG and was not down with Pan-Africanism then perhaps you were...confused.
Again looking back at the Pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey we note that he said that "Negroes" everywhere ought to take whatever opportunities that avail themselves to them wherever they may be situated. Thus there is no ideological conflict between working for a better America and simultaneously being a Nationalist. Secondly, unless you were on some crack pipe how exactly did you think black communities in the United States would be independent of the States in which they are located or the federal government? Not even Garvey announced such a preposterous plan.
Without getting into technicalities, Along with RFK, I noted in 1992 that a black president was possible so long as he (and I said he) would distance himself from the black community and that that community would still vote for him. Yes that was 1992. Summer. While I was at Cornell. In fact I based that on an observation of the Jesse Jackson run and the ratings beating Oprah took when she did her "racism" series. So I have to ask man, were you really paying attention?
Well man that was your fault, no? all serious nationalists stopped with the extreme anger and had moved on from that stage of development a while back. How old are you? Besides there are far larger issues than simple double standards, which by the way are not going anywhere anytime soon.
Hmmmmm... Perhaps you missed that whole Rev. Wright episode? Perhaps you missed the whole passing off Obama's white lineage to make white folk feel good. Maybe the Muslim woman who was forced off camera, among other things. And of course the incessant I'm not a Muslim (as if it mattered) thing. But hey perhaps we're operating on a whole different definition of culture.
No need to display your ignorance on the AJC website like that. Check it. There are white ethnic groups like there are ethnic groups of all other people. Oh I know what you meant but still that statement is wrong on it's face.
Check it, If you're going to claim to be a "nationalist" and allow yourself to be pranced out by the press, get your stuff together. If you just wanted a piece of the American pie, just say so. No need to dress it up in RBG.
As a black nationalist, I have considered myself an American only as a technicality or an accident of birth. I’ve never hoisted the red, white and blue, only the red, black and green.
note to Muhammad; the Red, Black and Green is the symbol of Pan-Africanist, given to us by Marcus Garvey who was a Pan-Africanist. If you hoisted the RBG and was not down with Pan-Africanism then perhaps you were...confused.
I gave up on the American dream a longtime ago. I have worked and looked forward to autonomy and self-determination in our communities.
Again looking back at the Pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey we note that he said that "Negroes" everywhere ought to take whatever opportunities that avail themselves to them wherever they may be situated. Thus there is no ideological conflict between working for a better America and simultaneously being a Nationalist. Secondly, unless you were on some crack pipe how exactly did you think black communities in the United States would be independent of the States in which they are located or the federal government? Not even Garvey announced such a preposterous plan.
I never imagined that I would live long enough to see an African-American president. I never even believed that I would live to see a black Miss America. But America fooled me! Even as I predicted an Obama nomination and then a presidential win, the reality of what happened on Nov. 4 still has me totally stunned.
Without getting into technicalities, Along with RFK, I noted in 1992 that a black president was possible so long as he (and I said he) would distance himself from the black community and that that community would still vote for him. Yes that was 1992. Summer. While I was at Cornell. In fact I based that on an observation of the Jesse Jackson run and the ratings beating Oprah took when she did her "racism" series. So I have to ask man, were you really paying attention?
Like many black folk, I have spent most of my life extremely angry about the oppressive treatment and double standard that has always existed in American society
Well man that was your fault, no? all serious nationalists stopped with the extreme anger and had moved on from that stage of development a while back. How old are you? Besides there are far larger issues than simple double standards, which by the way are not going anywhere anytime soon.
. We had never been made to feel that we are really Americans and accepted as equals, unless we were willing to renounce much of our history and culture.
Hmmmmm... Perhaps you missed that whole Rev. Wright episode? Perhaps you missed the whole passing off Obama's white lineage to make white folk feel good. Maybe the Muslim woman who was forced off camera, among other things. And of course the incessant I'm not a Muslim (as if it mattered) thing. But hey perhaps we're operating on a whole different definition of culture.
No ethnic name had ever been uttered as president of the United States in its history.
No need to display your ignorance on the AJC website like that. Check it. There are white ethnic groups like there are ethnic groups of all other people. Oh I know what you meant but still that statement is wrong on it's face.
Check it, If you're going to claim to be a "nationalist" and allow yourself to be pranced out by the press, get your stuff together. If you just wanted a piece of the American pie, just say so. No need to dress it up in RBG.
Another $3/4 trillion
So the crooks, not satisfied to pimp the people of $700 billion are back at the trough for another $800 billion, which averages out to $3/4 trillion per request. And once again Obama and congress are urging quick approval lest the pesky people start asking questions like you know what about those people about to lose their homes.
Like NYC councilman Charles Barron put it, no way no how can these people say shit.. Well he didn't say shit, about welfare for poor people or the lack of money for Social Security, when $1.5 trillion can appear out of thin air for banks and car companies.
Like NYC councilman Charles Barron put it, no way no how can these people say shit.. Well he didn't say shit, about welfare for poor people or the lack of money for Social Security, when $1.5 trillion can appear out of thin air for banks and car companies.
Will The Real Revolutionaries Please Stand Up?
And so it was the attempted genocide in Rwanda that I read about in the terminal of American Airlines to Jamaica that had me wondering what was going on in Africa among the so called "revolutionaries." Cockroaches this and Cockroaches that. They are outsiders. They are the oppressors. blah de blah blah. I simply could not understand how a people having been colonized and exploited by the British and French could turn on each other in the manner that they did with what had to be the lamest excuses for killing ever. Of course this nonsense was not limited to Rwanda. It was readily observable in other parts of Africa and of one place, Zaire (at the time) was one place that had my attention.
When Laurent Kabila ran Mobutu out of Zaire I was as happy as the Congolese mailroom worker with whom I shared news with. Mobutu was a sellout par excellence. But this is not about Kabila or Mobutu. This is about the new so called freedom fighters in the Eastern Congo and was prompted by a recent article in the NY Times entitled The Spoils Congo’s Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops in which I found the following pretty disturbing:
So an operation that brings in $80 million a year and they can't build a road? Oh well they COULD but there's a reason why it's not.
$80 million a year and porters who had to walk and there's not even a bit of shelter? 10% of the value of whatever they have on their person and not a shelter? $80 million a year and no running water? No sanitation facilities? And this is supposedly a "commercial town"? What kind of joke of a revolution is this?
Ahh free markets at work.
Ahh large houses for the "revolutionaries" and mud huts for the lowly mine worker. Sounds revolutionary to me.
Now back to that dirt path that in any other thinking place would be a road:
So because the "revolutionaries" are concerned about unemployment (read control over the population) they turned down a reliable power plant roads clinics and school buildings. OK then fine. Kick the company out. Why can't these so called revolutionaries build the schools themselves. Wouldn't that boost employment? What's wrong with a power station? Seriously though, what is so revolutionary about keeping people in poverty? Wouldn't the support of the people come voluntarily from the increased quality of life? And let me guess that the "convincing" involved large men and small boys with firearms and conversations that started with "How's the family?"
In the end these so called revolutionaries are simply free market capitalists with guns. They are small minded and are only out for themselves. It is not the minerals that are the curse of Africa but the small minded men and the gun sellers that are the curse of Africa.
When Laurent Kabila ran Mobutu out of Zaire I was as happy as the Congolese mailroom worker with whom I shared news with. Mobutu was a sellout par excellence. But this is not about Kabila or Mobutu. This is about the new so called freedom fighters in the Eastern Congo and was prompted by a recent article in the NY Times entitled The Spoils Congo’s Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops in which I found the following pretty disturbing:
The chokehold begins far from the mine. At the trailhead, a burly soldier demands 50 cents from each person entering the narrow trail to the mine. A clamoring crowd hands wrinkled bills to the soldier, who opens the wooden gate a crack to let in those with cash.
So an operation that brings in $80 million a year and they can't build a road? Oh well they COULD but there's a reason why it's not.
At the other end of the trail, at the base of the mountain, another crowd forms at the gate into Bisie. Porters exhausted from the two-day trek sprawl on felled trees, waiting for soldiers to inspect their loads and extract another tribute. The price is usually 10 percent of entering merchandise and cash.
The men at the checkpoints describe these payments as taxes. But the people of Bisie do not get much in return. The village is a filthy warren of mud huts. Hundreds of haphazard latrines flood narrow, trash-filled alleyways. Disease courses through the town, carried by water from a river that is used for everything from washing clothes to cleaning ore. Jawbones of slaughtered cows and goats stud the riverbed. When it rains, the river overflows, spreading cholera and dysentery.
In some ways, Bisie is a thriving commercial town. It has makeshift theaters showing bootleg kung fu movies on televisions powered by sputtering generators. Its bars are stocked with Johnnie Walker whiskey and Primus beer, each bottle carried through the jungle. There is no telephone service, but a ham radio system passes messages between the mine and the outside world. It has hotels that double as brothels. There is even a clapboard church.
$80 million a year and porters who had to walk and there's not even a bit of shelter? 10% of the value of whatever they have on their person and not a shelter? $80 million a year and no running water? No sanitation facilities? And this is supposedly a "commercial town"? What kind of joke of a revolution is this?
A bowl of rice and beans costs $3 here, six times the price along the main road. Mud huts rent for $50 a month or more, in part because opportunism is the town ethos.
Ahh free markets at work.
Tin has replaced lead content in the solder used to make many electronic devices. And as the price shot up in recent years, to a high of $25,000 a ton in May, Colonel Matumo and his men staked out a whole ridge of the mine complex as their personal property. Senior commanders of the brigade have built large houses and opened businesses, like hotels and bars, with the proceeds of the mine.
Ahh large houses for the "revolutionaries" and mud huts for the lowly mine worker. Sounds revolutionary to me.
Now back to that dirt path that in any other thinking place would be a road:
When the company started working on a road to link the mine to the main road, local officials blocked the route. When it began working on a campsite for its geologists to begin prospecting, soldiers opened fire on the workers, injuring several, company officials said.
“We have all our documents and permits in order,” said Brian Christophers, the weary managing director of the company. “We have written to the head of the military, the minister of mines and even the president. But there are no rules in Congo, just the rule of the gun.”
Mr. Christophers said that his company was prepared to help pay not just for a road to the mine but also for schools, clinics and a hydroelectric power station. It also promised to invite government agencies to enforce labor standards. But none of them have had the chance.
Indeed, some workers are suspicious of the company’s plans, fearing that a road would put thousands of porters out of work and that mechanized mining would drastically reduce employment here. The militia has tapped this unease to convince some workers and local officials that the company will simply abscond with the minerals and leave the local people empty-handed.
So because the "revolutionaries" are concerned about unemployment (read control over the population) they turned down a reliable power plant roads clinics and school buildings. OK then fine. Kick the company out. Why can't these so called revolutionaries build the schools themselves. Wouldn't that boost employment? What's wrong with a power station? Seriously though, what is so revolutionary about keeping people in poverty? Wouldn't the support of the people come voluntarily from the increased quality of life? And let me guess that the "convincing" involved large men and small boys with firearms and conversations that started with "How's the family?"
In the end these so called revolutionaries are simply free market capitalists with guns. They are small minded and are only out for themselves. It is not the minerals that are the curse of Africa but the small minded men and the gun sellers that are the curse of Africa.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Do These People Know the US Constitution?
This past year I have been pretty shocked at the number of clearly unconstitutional laws that have been placed on the books. Not to mention the clearly bad judging such as that of the case of Sean Bell's murder by the NYPD. The latest from the NY Times is from said PD in which Raymond Kelly has apparently been tangling with the US. Justice Department. The Times quotes Mr.Allan is what has to be one of the stupidest comment to come from a supposed "law enforcement" official:
What, the NYPD has a problem with high standards of probable cause? Do tell!
Apparently Mr. Kelly doesn't realize that just because the phone is in public it does not make it city property. And since a pay phone is actually the property of whatever phone company that has leased the spot that the phone sits on, then yes, you need a warrant. Secondly, that a phone is public doesn't mean that what conversation is had with it is public. It's like your car. If you have something in clear view of an officer, they can stop and ask you about it. However; just because they can se in your vehicle does not grant them the right to search it for things that are not in plain sight.
I suggest Mr. Kelly get his house in order, starting with Sean Bell's killer and then moving on to that officer that assaulted a citizen on a bike in Times Square earlier this year.
In a statement, the Police Department’s deputy commissioner for legal matters, S. Andrew Schaffer, who has advised Mr. Kelly on the matter, said that Mr. Mukasey’s contention that Mr. Kelly had proposed an illegal course of conduct was “preposterous and categorically untrue.”
“We have asserted,” the statement continued, “based on actual cases, that FISA warrants were not sought in a timely manner in part because of a self-imposed standard of probable cause which is higher than that required by Supreme Court precedent.”
What, the NYPD has a problem with high standards of probable cause? Do tell!
While the letters do not specifically identify the target of the eavesdropping requests, Mr. Mukasey said that the Police Department had sought authority in one of them to eavesdrop on “numerous communications facilities” without providing an adequate basis for their requests. Some officials who have been briefed on the cases said the requests, from the police Intelligence Division, were unusually broad, and included telephones in public places, like train or subway stations, rather than phones used by a specific individual.
Apparently Mr. Kelly doesn't realize that just because the phone is in public it does not make it city property. And since a pay phone is actually the property of whatever phone company that has leased the spot that the phone sits on, then yes, you need a warrant. Secondly, that a phone is public doesn't mean that what conversation is had with it is public. It's like your car. If you have something in clear view of an officer, they can stop and ask you about it. However; just because they can se in your vehicle does not grant them the right to search it for things that are not in plain sight.
I suggest Mr. Kelly get his house in order, starting with Sean Bell's killer and then moving on to that officer that assaulted a citizen on a bike in Times Square earlier this year.
Full Text of the message from Ayman al-Zawahri
From the NY Times
While it is amusing to watch white people take offense to the use of the term "house negro," any honest reading of the linked text would see that it is, for the most part an accurate description of the differences between Malcolm X and Barack Obama. Furthermore, his reflection on the defeats of the British and Russians in Afghanistan are also straight from any history textbook. Page two of the linked text is a whole other issue. Of course the academic question would be what would the Malcolm X of February have to say about his namesake being used by Al-Q and how would he have addressed this issue? For example while Malcolm X was a Muslim I cannot see how he would have had much positive to say about the bombing in Kenya.
While it is amusing to watch white people take offense to the use of the term "house negro," any honest reading of the linked text would see that it is, for the most part an accurate description of the differences between Malcolm X and Barack Obama. Furthermore, his reflection on the defeats of the British and Russians in Afghanistan are also straight from any history textbook. Page two of the linked text is a whole other issue. Of course the academic question would be what would the Malcolm X of February have to say about his namesake being used by Al-Q and how would he have addressed this issue? For example while Malcolm X was a Muslim I cannot see how he would have had much positive to say about the bombing in Kenya.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Hard Work and Opportunity
And so there is an article in the UK Guardian which is an excerpt from the forthcoming book: Outliers: The Story Of Success. While the entire article is interesting and worthy of a read (I'll probably get the book) if you're the type who is for reparations then some parts of the article will jump out at you:
So then it would be clear that the long term subjugation of the African in America had a direct impact in our ability to put members of our own into this top class. Oh sure we can do that now but that's not the point. Further:
If we follow this fellow's logic we would see that the African in America between the years 1831 and 1839 were for the large part chattel slaves. And so according to the author were effectively locked out of this group. Furthermore by the time 1860-1870 came around, we see that the African had just been given legal "emancipation" but still generally lacked the free time that the author shows was necessary to achieve mastery.
Further:
1955. If you were black you were effectively shut out of any of these areas. 1975. a mere 6 years out from the legal destruction of segregation and just into the age of Affirmative Action. Black people, by and large still found themselves outside the mainstream.
If anything, this article shows how much damage white supremacy in America was to the African.
Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work.
So then it would be clear that the long term subjugation of the African in America had a direct impact in our ability to put members of our own into this top class. Oh sure we can do that now but that's not the point. Further:
Recently Forbes Magazine compiled a list of the 75 richest people in history. It includes queens and kings and pharaohs from centuries past, as well as contemporary billionaires such as Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim. However, an astonishing 14 on the list are Americans born within nine years of each other in the mid-19th century. In other words, almost 20% of the names come from a single generation - born between 1831 and 1840 in a single country. The list includes industrialists and financiers who are still household names today: John Rockefeller, born in 1839 (the richest of the lot); Andrew Carnegie, 1835; Jay Gould, 1836; and JP Morgan, 1837.
What's going on here is obvious, if you think about it. In the 1860s and 1870s, the American economy went through perhaps the greatest transformation in its history. This was when the railways were built, and when Wall Street emerged. It was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It was when all the rules by which the traditional economy functioned were broken and remade. What that list says is that it was absolutely critical, if you were going to take advantage of those opportunities, to be in your 20s when that transformation was happening.
If you were born in the late 1840s, you missed it - you were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820s, you were too old - your mindset was shaped by the old, pre-civil war ways. But there is a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect. All of the 14 men and women on that list had vision and talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportunity, in the same way that hockey players born in January, February and March were given an extraordinary opportunity.
If we follow this fellow's logic we would see that the African in America between the years 1831 and 1839 were for the large part chattel slaves. And so according to the author were effectively locked out of this group. Furthermore by the time 1860-1870 came around, we see that the African had just been given legal "emancipation" but still generally lacked the free time that the author shows was necessary to achieve mastery.
Further:
If January 1975 was the dawn of the personal computer age, then who would be in the best position to take advantage of it? If you're a few years out of college in 1975, and if you have had any experience with programming at all, you would have already been hired by IBM or one of the other traditional, old-line computer firms of that era. You belonged to the old paradigm. You have just bought a house. You're married. A baby is on the way. You're in no position to give up a good job and pension for some pie-in-the-sky $397 computer kit. So let's also rule out all those born before, say, 1952.
At the same time, though, you don't want to be too young. You can't seize the moment if you're still in high school. So let's also rule out anyone born after, say, 1958. The perfect age to be in 1975, in other words, is young enough to see the coming revolution but not so old as to have missed it. You want to be 20 or 21, born in 1954 or 1955.
1955. If you were black you were effectively shut out of any of these areas. 1975. a mere 6 years out from the legal destruction of segregation and just into the age of Affirmative Action. Black people, by and large still found themselves outside the mainstream.
If anything, this article shows how much damage white supremacy in America was to the African.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Kwame Toure
A post from 2006:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2006/11/we-remember-kwame-ture.html
If you've heard the recording of this speech you'll note that the crowd is highly amused by the commentary on George Washington but is dead silent when Toure discusses King. I didn't pick up on this for a long time. In fact, until this past presidential election cycle I really hadn't paid much attention to it. I will not comment on what it reminds me of though.
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2006/11/we-remember-kwame-ture.html
History can never be made by one man and we smash this one quickly. History is only made by the masses of the people this is clear. Even a cursory glance at the fallacious presentation of history by the American capitalist system would demonstrate just this.
Take George Washington as bad as he is. Put him in the middle of Valley Forge by himself surrounded by the British, he could do nothing.
Take Martin Luther King as righteous as he is; put him in the middle of Birmingham by himself speaking out against racism; he would be lynched.
but you take this same King, you take this same Washington; put them in Valley Forge put them in Alabama surround them with thousands of people who have the same ideas they do willing to make those ideas reality and the situation changes drastically.
If you've heard the recording of this speech you'll note that the crowd is highly amused by the commentary on George Washington but is dead silent when Toure discusses King. I didn't pick up on this for a long time. In fact, until this past presidential election cycle I really hadn't paid much attention to it. I will not comment on what it reminds me of though.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
I Did Ask The Question
A few days before the election I posted a video asking why both candidates were making promises to Israel. it was by far the most viewed of the set of videos I posted.
Turns out that it was more prophetic than I imagined as we have this report from Counterpunch
Of course this isn't entirely surprising as Obama made the claim that he found the story and history of the Jewish people to be the most profound and moving thing. How any so called "African-American" cane even let something like that leave his or her lips is beyond me. But it is clear by this appointment of a foreign national into the cabinet of the highest office in the land who is clearly in the pocket of a foreign government that the hooks are deep into Obama and the Democratic party. Lets see how long it takes the rest of the so called black leadership to bring this up.
Meanwhile tucked away in a sidebar of the NY Times we find "new" information regarding that little conflict in Georgia:
Exactly as reported before and noted by yours truly. Now Obama first came out on the right side of this issue however by the third debate he had joined John McCain in making ridiculous claims against so called Russian aggression. Now had he been President at the time, would he have allowed his staffers to convince him to change up like he did on the campaign trail? Given his recent appointment it seems that would be likely.
Turns out that it was more prophetic than I imagined as we have this report from Counterpunch
In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.
Of course this isn't entirely surprising as Obama made the claim that he found the story and history of the Jewish people to be the most profound and moving thing. How any so called "African-American" cane even let something like that leave his or her lips is beyond me. But it is clear by this appointment of a foreign national into the cabinet of the highest office in the land who is clearly in the pocket of a foreign government that the hooks are deep into Obama and the Democratic party. Lets see how long it takes the rest of the so called black leadership to bring this up.
Meanwhile tucked away in a sidebar of the NY Times we find "new" information regarding that little conflict in Georgia:
Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.
Exactly as reported before and noted by yours truly. Now Obama first came out on the right side of this issue however by the third debate he had joined John McCain in making ridiculous claims against so called Russian aggression. Now had he been President at the time, would he have allowed his staffers to convince him to change up like he did on the campaign trail? Given his recent appointment it seems that would be likely.
Re. Wright Resurfaces...
Thursday, November 06, 2008
An Open Letter to Cynthia McKinney
Hello.
I want to thank you for your service. I know that the 5% goal was not reached but I also know that goal was not the entirety of your campaign. You will (continue) to be ignored by most of the press but we know that you were one of the first, if not the first of our representatives to challenge the Bush criminal. A lot of the credit for this current Democratic victory goes to you. We know that so called progressives used your grilling of Rumsfeld as material to incite their supporters. We know that your uncompromising questioning of the Bush administration over who knew what and when and who was profiting cost you your seat in Georgia. We know that you were later vindicated by the 9-11 commission and other reports on the events of 9-11.
A lot of people are going to call you a hater for running against the Democrat and Republican tickets (particularly the Democratic ticket) but remember that the prophet is hated in his (or her) own land. You are one of the truth tellers. Marcus was a truth teller. Delany was a truth teller. Malcolm was a truth teller. Kwame Toure was a truth teller. You mentioned Fred Hampton in a recent interview I watched on YouTube, He was a truth teller. That is why you are marginalized. Though I am sure you know this already.
The point of this letter though is not to state things that you already know. I just wanted to let you know that you are loved and appreciated.
Thank you and keep up the good works.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
I want to thank you for your service. I know that the 5% goal was not reached but I also know that goal was not the entirety of your campaign. You will (continue) to be ignored by most of the press but we know that you were one of the first, if not the first of our representatives to challenge the Bush criminal. A lot of the credit for this current Democratic victory goes to you. We know that so called progressives used your grilling of Rumsfeld as material to incite their supporters. We know that your uncompromising questioning of the Bush administration over who knew what and when and who was profiting cost you your seat in Georgia. We know that you were later vindicated by the 9-11 commission and other reports on the events of 9-11.
A lot of people are going to call you a hater for running against the Democrat and Republican tickets (particularly the Democratic ticket) but remember that the prophet is hated in his (or her) own land. You are one of the truth tellers. Marcus was a truth teller. Delany was a truth teller. Malcolm was a truth teller. Kwame Toure was a truth teller. You mentioned Fred Hampton in a recent interview I watched on YouTube, He was a truth teller. That is why you are marginalized. Though I am sure you know this already.
The point of this letter though is not to state things that you already know. I just wanted to let you know that you are loved and appreciated.
Thank you and keep up the good works.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
How the Republicans Lost this race
There are obvious reasons why the republicans fell out this election. We have the obvious "It's the economy stupid" turn of events as well as the most unpopular president in US history. However; looking at the actual returns by county across the country reveals that the Obama near landslide was not as large as it seems. In many states the Obama camp won because they took urban centers and surrounding suburbs. Examples of this is Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This leads us to reason number one why Republicans lost: Demographics.
The Republicans have increasingly been pushed out of urban elections by a demographic of white flight. For example in NYC the only place that Republicans showed was in Staten Island. White Republicans have been moving out of urban areas over the past couple of decades. It has been known for the past couple of years that the total white population of the US has been in decline while the population growth of non-whites has relatively exploded. As such the Republicans having turned themselves into essentially the white (Christian) man's party effectively locked themselves out of contention for urban votes and therefore the meat of the electorate in high population states such as those in the northeast and west coast. This is not to say that they cannot compete in those states, but a look at the electoral maps by congressional district shows that they are essentially marginalized to rural areas.
This problem is exacerbated by the effects of de-industrialization and farm automation found in much of the country. As is noted in the world, people follow the jobs and the money. Whole towns are being depopulated in rural America where Republicans usually do well. Often it is the younger generation that leaves and they end up in the corresponding urban areas further eroding the voting power of those rural areas. If they don't liberalize themselves in these urban areas and they find themselves with the available income, they find themselves moving out of those urban areas further eroding the Republican voting bases in those urban areas.
The only places where this kind of activity does not play against Republicans is in places like Alabama. If one looks at the congressional district returns you'll see the "black belt" of the state that pretty much follows the path of Interstate 85. But the rest of the state, with few urban centers went for McCain. This highlights the urban/rural divide.
Another example was in Virgina Beach where it appears the military vote went Republican and example of a concentration of Republicans in an urban area that flipped the "expected" result for an urban area.
There is no future in the Republican party should it continue to be the party of white (Christian) men. Which brings us to their next flaw: Policies. The Palin effect which I believe is responsible for the reported 10% drop in Republican turn out in Ohio was symbolic of the Republicans apparent need to appease the Christian right. As I pointed out in my "if I was a Black Republican" posting (I am not a black Republican) The choice of Palin was a slap in the face of potential minority (and female) voters. I gave Palin the benefit of the doubt when she was chosen. I thought it was wrong to pre-judge her based on her looks (which a lot of people did) or the fact that Alaska is sparsely populated. I usually wait until someone opens their mouth. I waited until the interview. I was simply shocked at how little she knew. Even if there are multiple ways to view the Bush Doctrine, she should at least been able to state one of them without prodding.
I believe that this is partially the fault of the Democrats who have been moving to the right for years. This I believe has lead the Republicans to think in part that they can throw out some of the most extremely insulting candidates and win an election with them. And the insult to women to choose Palin over the clearly more qualified women in the Republican party was even worse. Hey I think that sometimes the left feminists can be downright whiney but no way is Palin an antidote to that. Even the women in her own state disagree with her positions on Abortion, Sex-ed, etc. But Palin is a reflection of the Christian conservative base that insisted on extracting their pound of flesh from McCain in order to, in the end, not show up at the polls.
I won't put the Republicans down for playing the fear card since by the exit polls the Democrats did the same thing but from a different angle. I find the Democratic use of the fear card kind of hypocritical since they have been backing certain Bush policies (as a party) that they have been laying on Bush (FISA, Patriot Act to name a few) and of course they declined to impeach Bush so they could use him as a whipping boy for the election.
But the next thing that cost the Republicans was the downright nasty attitude (and dare I say "racist") of a large portion of their supporters. In the age of Youtube one has to be a total ass to not give candy to kids on Halloween if they or their parents are Obama supporters. I'm sure that that particular action cost them votes.
To deny parking to people with cash money because they are supporters of Obama. That's plain stupid politics man. Hate Obama all you like but to be stupid enough to be caught on an international website denying paying customers for being Obama supporters surely cost the Republicans votes of Republicans who may not be warm to Obama (or any non-republican).
The shouts of "Kill him" during Palin rallys. Any bright political person should have known to immediately shut down those people down and put those kids of people on blast. Do they not recognize how ugly that looks to people who haven't taken the usual bait? Now I've read reports that the "kill him" phrase didn't happen. Perhaps but in either case that it was reported and wasn't strongly condemned early on cost the Republicans votes.
That's about it. Again, these are not the primary reasons for the loss but they contributed.
The Republicans have increasingly been pushed out of urban elections by a demographic of white flight. For example in NYC the only place that Republicans showed was in Staten Island. White Republicans have been moving out of urban areas over the past couple of decades. It has been known for the past couple of years that the total white population of the US has been in decline while the population growth of non-whites has relatively exploded. As such the Republicans having turned themselves into essentially the white (Christian) man's party effectively locked themselves out of contention for urban votes and therefore the meat of the electorate in high population states such as those in the northeast and west coast. This is not to say that they cannot compete in those states, but a look at the electoral maps by congressional district shows that they are essentially marginalized to rural areas.
This problem is exacerbated by the effects of de-industrialization and farm automation found in much of the country. As is noted in the world, people follow the jobs and the money. Whole towns are being depopulated in rural America where Republicans usually do well. Often it is the younger generation that leaves and they end up in the corresponding urban areas further eroding the voting power of those rural areas. If they don't liberalize themselves in these urban areas and they find themselves with the available income, they find themselves moving out of those urban areas further eroding the Republican voting bases in those urban areas.
The only places where this kind of activity does not play against Republicans is in places like Alabama. If one looks at the congressional district returns you'll see the "black belt" of the state that pretty much follows the path of Interstate 85. But the rest of the state, with few urban centers went for McCain. This highlights the urban/rural divide.
Another example was in Virgina Beach where it appears the military vote went Republican and example of a concentration of Republicans in an urban area that flipped the "expected" result for an urban area.
There is no future in the Republican party should it continue to be the party of white (Christian) men. Which brings us to their next flaw: Policies. The Palin effect which I believe is responsible for the reported 10% drop in Republican turn out in Ohio was symbolic of the Republicans apparent need to appease the Christian right. As I pointed out in my "if I was a Black Republican" posting (I am not a black Republican) The choice of Palin was a slap in the face of potential minority (and female) voters. I gave Palin the benefit of the doubt when she was chosen. I thought it was wrong to pre-judge her based on her looks (which a lot of people did) or the fact that Alaska is sparsely populated. I usually wait until someone opens their mouth. I waited until the interview. I was simply shocked at how little she knew. Even if there are multiple ways to view the Bush Doctrine, she should at least been able to state one of them without prodding.
I believe that this is partially the fault of the Democrats who have been moving to the right for years. This I believe has lead the Republicans to think in part that they can throw out some of the most extremely insulting candidates and win an election with them. And the insult to women to choose Palin over the clearly more qualified women in the Republican party was even worse. Hey I think that sometimes the left feminists can be downright whiney but no way is Palin an antidote to that. Even the women in her own state disagree with her positions on Abortion, Sex-ed, etc. But Palin is a reflection of the Christian conservative base that insisted on extracting their pound of flesh from McCain in order to, in the end, not show up at the polls.
I won't put the Republicans down for playing the fear card since by the exit polls the Democrats did the same thing but from a different angle. I find the Democratic use of the fear card kind of hypocritical since they have been backing certain Bush policies (as a party) that they have been laying on Bush (FISA, Patriot Act to name a few) and of course they declined to impeach Bush so they could use him as a whipping boy for the election.
But the next thing that cost the Republicans was the downright nasty attitude (and dare I say "racist") of a large portion of their supporters. In the age of Youtube one has to be a total ass to not give candy to kids on Halloween if they or their parents are Obama supporters. I'm sure that that particular action cost them votes.
To deny parking to people with cash money because they are supporters of Obama. That's plain stupid politics man. Hate Obama all you like but to be stupid enough to be caught on an international website denying paying customers for being Obama supporters surely cost the Republicans votes of Republicans who may not be warm to Obama (or any non-republican).
The shouts of "Kill him" during Palin rallys. Any bright political person should have known to immediately shut down those people down and put those kids of people on blast. Do they not recognize how ugly that looks to people who haven't taken the usual bait? Now I've read reports that the "kill him" phrase didn't happen. Perhaps but in either case that it was reported and wasn't strongly condemned early on cost the Republicans votes.
That's about it. Again, these are not the primary reasons for the loss but they contributed.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Black McCain Supporters
Who are these 5% of black men and 3% of black women who voted for McCain? What exactly were they thinking? I mean I am clearly a McKinney supporter since I am to the left of Obama and the Democratic party but exactly WHAT was it that these folks actually saw in the McCain-Palin show? Seriously. If any of you black McCain supporters are reading this I want to know exactly by what logic you voted that ticket. Even if you're to the right of Obama, What did McCain do to demonstrate a grasp of how seriously fooked the policies of the Republicans have been? How exactly did you stomach Mc-Wink Palin?
Nebraska Ends Affirmative Action
With a 58% approval Nebraska ballot initiative to end Affirmative Action is approved by voters. Expect this to happen in the ensuing years in other states.
In other news Prop 8 in California, banning gay marriage passes by a slim majority. Same for the Florida where an amendment to ban gay marriage passed by a wide margin (62% to 38%).
CNN
In other news Prop 8 in California, banning gay marriage passes by a slim majority. Same for the Florida where an amendment to ban gay marriage passed by a wide margin (62% to 38%).
CNN
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
First Black President
Ohio Republicans Don't Show Up!
In what I think is a shocking turn of events, there was a 10% drop in Republican turn out this year. 10%. Either those Diebold machines were hacked for Obama or the Republicans in Ohio are so pissed off about their party and the choice that they were given that they decided to not show up.
I believe there will be heads rolling in the RNC starting tomorrow. Firstly for running a McCain/Palin ticket during an election where the sitting Republican president is the least liked president in American history. A candidate that when the shoe dropped on the finance markets was dumb enough to say "The fundamentals are strong."
I believe there will be heads rolling in the RNC starting tomorrow. Firstly for running a McCain/Palin ticket during an election where the sitting Republican president is the least liked president in American history. A candidate that when the shoe dropped on the finance markets was dumb enough to say "The fundamentals are strong."
CBS and Slate to Call Race Early
NY Times
I agree with them. I called the first Bush 'victory' adter Gore lost his home state. I called Bushes second victory about when three states came ln in a row for Bush. The Electoral map is generally already known and electoral votes decide the presidency. Except for states where it is close, the outcome is not that hard to predict. On this case if McCain takes PA (he should not) then it'll be a harder call but I stand by my prediction made after Super Tuesday: This is Obama's race to lose.
The only spoiler here are the huge uncrease in turnout. This could cost votes on both sides but I think will 'hurt' Obama more. This is a prime example of why election day ought to either be a federal holiday or occur over a weekend. People ought not have to decide between their paycheck and the exercize of the franchise.
I agree with them. I called the first Bush 'victory' adter Gore lost his home state. I called Bushes second victory about when three states came ln in a row for Bush. The Electoral map is generally already known and electoral votes decide the presidency. Except for states where it is close, the outcome is not that hard to predict. On this case if McCain takes PA (he should not) then it'll be a harder call but I stand by my prediction made after Super Tuesday: This is Obama's race to lose.
The only spoiler here are the huge uncrease in turnout. This could cost votes on both sides but I think will 'hurt' Obama more. This is a prime example of why election day ought to either be a federal holiday or occur over a weekend. People ought not have to decide between their paycheck and the exercize of the franchise.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)