December 5, 2008, 1:24PM
There are moments in life that crystalize your sense of identity and other moments that make you question whether your tongue functions and whether you've remembered your name correctly. Some people are more prone to these affirmations and lapses, people like me, and Barack Obama.
I mean who is Barack Obama, really? And for that matter, who am I? Once upon a time in the West, these questions were easier to answer: colored or not colored. This was the case in Ohio, too, and elsewhere I'm told. So, please, I'm not singling out the West. As far as aggressive discrimination goes, I regard it much higher, in its discrimination against gays and non-celebrities, just so we're clear.
Those were simpler times. Frightening and nationally embarrassing times, but simpler. You knew who you were, or at the very least, what you were told you were. Shades of gray were found only on film and in George Wallace's suits. We are no longer provided the luxury of distinction between black and white.
As you may recall, a Presidential election in which the candidate's race was a famous issue, of famous for not being an issue, depending on who you talk to, was recently held. Not in dispute is the national catharsis we all felt when the results were announced. For a moment we all knew again, who we were and why we cheered. All of us sincere, all of us different. Those were simpler times.
Al Qaida is a terrorist organization of some note, famous for, among other things, being very difficult for Republican's to catch. After Barack Obama's election, their second in command called our President Elect a "house negro". This is a loaded term. Malcom X, Al Qaida and the Huffington Post so inform me, used the term to describe slaves that lived in their master's houses, implying that they, and by extension contemporary black leaders that got along with whites, were more servile than the slaves in the field or the foot soldiers of the speaker's movement. The terrorist said the term should be applied to Secretary of State Rice and General Powell, as well.
I doubt anybody's feelings were particularly hurt by the terrorist's insult. Sticks and suicide bombs, after all. I recommend taking his words with a grain of salt. He's not know for being fair minded.
In fact, I shouldn't be writing this story, or even discussing his diatribe, because, by doing so I give him a platform. So please, forgive me. I trust that you won't be influenced. If I'm wrong about that, about you being influenced, please don't tell me, and don't for the love of god tell anyone, ever. In fact, just kill yourself, and do something good for someone else, for once in your life.
I shouldn't be writing this story, but it's frankly got something stuck in my craw. The terrorist used that slur to point out his affiliation with oppressed minorities of color. He said Barack is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans", which, apparently the terrorist counts himself among. Again, forgive me for printing that.
That terrorist is a white man. He's a white. Osama bin Laden: white man. Saddam Hussein: white man. Andy Rooney: white man. Steven Van Haren: white man. My Indian mother: white. She's the kind that might have ridden an elephant, during childhood, had she not been so adorably short.
Believe me, I understand that classification of people by race is arbitrary, socially constructed, and unscientific. We've all got a lot in common. But, the last, if ridiculous, categorization of race places Middle Eastern terrorists, and for that matter, South Asian and Oklahoman terrorists, firmly in the caucasian branch of the vastly overgeneralized tree that is race.
This is a stupid reason to be mad. I should be mad that anyone would give this wacko a stage, and I am. I should be mad that anybody could talk that way, and I am. I should be mad about a lot of things, and I am.
I just want you to know that racially, you (most of my readers are white) are more closely related to Al Qaida terrorists than our President. And so am I. And if I ever hear a white person call someone a house negro, again, I am going to find them and take away their Mac Book Air, then make the watch as, one by one, I delete all of their Feist tracks off of iTunes. Also, if you are from Al Qaida, I will kill you without discretion. You have been warned.
October 15, 2008, 12:12PM
The real republicans will vote for Obama this year, or just stay home.
I can't imagine any rational republican condoning the reactionary, erratic, and dangerous behavior of McCain and his campaign. well... fine. I know that William Kristol, George Will, and David Brooks, not to mention many of their followers will hold their noses and vote for McCain, under the false belief that McCain's slime belies his true honor. What these normally sane people ignore is that McCain and those who remain his vocal supporters are intentionally fomenting hatred, violence and fear, in order to have a icicles chance in hell of not losing in a blow out. Voting for McCain will condone his behavior. McCain has demonstrated the height of cynicism, and the absence of a moral compass. A vote for McCain demonstrates the same cynicism and absence in his supporters.
McCain will lose this election. And perhaps, that is the greatest salve to the consciences of McCain's rational supporters. They know McCain will be a terrible president, and vote for him anyway. But, they also know they won't have to suffer the consequences of responsibility for their nod to him: his loss is a forgone conclusion.
February 27, 2008, 2:43PM
Apparently there's more than one way to pull out, of Iraq.
Clinton's 60 day plan specifies that she will begin pulling troops out after 60 days in office, beginning a gradual troop reduction. Obama promises to begin immediate withdrawal of troops, withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months.
That neither candidate has promised categorical, universal withdrawal from Iraq is, of course, pragmatic. Permanent US military bases have already been constructed. We will always have some presence in Iraq, like it or not. Regardless, the military cannot continue to function if our troop levels there remain at current levels. Even the Pentagon has acknowledged that prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the military dangerously unprepared for any future national crisis.
There is no reason to maintain or re-up troop levels in Iraq, from a National Security standpoint. Both candidates demonstrate an understanding of this with their proposed policy towards Iraq. Obama's policy is strong because it enumerates the future levels of US presence, and eliminates the presence of combat brigades. Clinton's plan is strong because because the token of the "60 day" promise will stick in the minds of all concerned parties, forcing a universal reevaluation.
February 26, 2008, 4:26PM
Barack Obama is fond of saying that his opponents are stuck in the old politics, leveling negative ads and one liners, releasing smear through surrogates, distorting his record, any number of implied sins. David Plouffe writes "This is the same stale, Washington playbook that has driven so many Americans away from the political process." Barack Obama has inarguably been on the receiving end of all these "stale" sins.
Obama's campaign and Obama himself have repeated this one liner more times in the last month than I can count. It's the attack angle of his central meme, We (I) Can Change Washington. The one liner is true and it's been working for him, working very well.
But, tell me, isn't the "Same Stale Line" line getting stale?
February 11, 2008, 8:20PM
They should have Lehrer question nominees for positions in the administration before they take office. Lehrer gave Mukasey a thorough going over, in what was a refreshing return to form for the news program, from the recent campaign grind.
Of course, such interesting and important news comes at a cost, the cost of America's innocence and naiveté regarding our judicial system.
Mukasey was explicit and deliberate in his answers, the most interesting of which elucidated the legality of waterboarding. According to Mukasey, right now, waterboarding is neither legal nor illegal, because it's use has not been requested by intelligence gatherers. According to Mukasey, he and his subordinates will decide whether or not waterboarding is illegal, when they are asked permission to use it.
The debate on all this is heating up because 6 gitmo detainees, including Kalid Sheik Muhammed, are being brought to trial. Kalid was waterboarded, and the evidence gathered from that torture might be admissible in court. If the presiding judge, Susan Crawford, thinks it's torture, it won't be admissible. If she doesn't think waterboarding is torture, the evidence will be admissible. In general, the standards for evidence are much lower than in civilian trials, based essentially on a test of "reliability" issued by the tribunal of judges.
Mukasey looked and sounded like he was operating independently from the White House, but I don't take much comfort in that. If Mukasey is independently coming to these conclusions I worry they will only be that much more difficult to unravel under a new administration.
Did anyone else see the interview? I'd love to know what the lawyer readers thought.
February 9, 2008, 12:12PM
Hi... and, hi. Hello. It's nice to meet you, all of you.
You've all been using this cafe, well not THIS cafe, but you know what I mean, you've been here for awhile. Thank you for building such an interesting, useful, calm, thoughtful and engaging community. I've been using TPM for a number of months now, god, has it been over a year? And, I'll be the first to admit, the Cafe was the last area I found, but once introduced it became my favorite. I don't need to enlighten you all to the best parts of the old cafe, you helped create them. I have heard, since the change over, some confusion at the proliferation of new bloggers, of which I am one. Who are we? Where did we come from? Why did we come here? What do we have to offer?
So, allow me to tell you a little about myself. My name is Steven, I live in Madison, WI, the Berkely of the Midwest. The land of 5,000 lakes, cows, cheese, Favre, Neenah steel, Milwaukee, Door County and Washington Island wheat. I've lived here my whole life and so have come to, I think, internalize a lot of what my city and state strive to represent: progressivism, community, inquiry, compassion, patience and family.
I'm married to a young, beautiful woman, who makes me look like Jerry Falwell on some days, and is far too busy running our lives to participate on this blog. She is a student and works in textile and apparel.
I favor sociology, and I've had a particular focus on wealth inequity, segregation, civil religion, the arts, and people with disabilities. The first half of that list composes my academic passion, and there has been some spill over from there into my activist habits, but the latter half of the list are my private passions. I have worked in our cities community theater for 10 years, started a few small companies therein, written, produced, directed and (mostly) acted in hundreds of performances. I have a sympathetic streak for what's going on in the art world, in general, I try to keep abreast.
Two of my bothers are severely, physically disabled, and I am sensitive to their plight, what will make their lives easier, and all the issues, from care to solutions to policy, that come with that experience. Most of my extended family lives here, in Madison.
I'm passionate about issues of sustainability, I have worked for the greenest restaurants in my state, and am friends with the farmers whose food I sell. I have the fortune of living a block from my food co-op, they sell the same farmers' wares. That being said, I love my car, and I drive too much.
I liked the original cafe because of the quality of thought and writing that was taking place, the format was nice too. I know a lot of you miss it, I do too, and I used it for a much shorter time than any of you. I hope this format tightens up.
As an adult undergraduate student, I don't have as much opportunity for thoughtful conversation as you might think. That's why appreciate the cafe. Please keep writing, and say hi to the new guys, as they keep letting themselves in.
Have a great weekend, I'll see you in the book club.
February 8, 2008, 7:49PM
The AP reports that a classified Pentagon memo concludes that prolonged wars in Iraq and Afganistan have prevented the military from preparing for any future crises.
It's a good thing that that memo was classified, because we sure wouldn't want anyone finding out that our military was stretched too thin. I, personally, never would have guessed that spending $500 billion dollars annually on a losing proposition would amount to losses elsewhere. Had this memo never been leaked I would have guessed that our military's response to Hurricane Katrina was so shoddy because the military just hated Louisiana, not because their leadership was inept, shortsighted, ill-prepared or broke. Until today, I firmly believed that our military was the strongest in the world, invincible and led by super genius, genetically perfect, philosopher economists that were able raise capital from bake sales while waging urban warfare.
Now that this secret information has been released, we might all be doomed. Now the terrorists know that we're not really ready for them. If only we had all voted for Rudy, like we promised him we would on September 12th, 2001.
I won't be able to sleep tonight.
February 8, 2008, 2:43PM
Regarding criticisms about the perpetual victim narrative of the Clinton campaign: what saddens me most about this narrative is that it seems almost necessary, not just for Clinton, but for marginalized demographics. It's the idea that you have to co-opt destructive narratives from the hands of your enemies, and tell them yourself in order to gain agency. I'm not sure it's possible to rend power without this device, even though it is not the only tactic, probably not the most powerful. And, I applaud the Obama campaign for rejecting it's efficacy. That being said, Clinton has been attacked, in a style that is unique, condescending and inappropriate in its tone towards women, for a very long time. If pundits didn't victimize her, we wouldn't have to bare the victim narrative, or we could at least all be as suspect about it, as her detractors. But, she is stepped on in ways that women are uniquely stepped on. The proof is in the pudding.
And regarding the "fair's fair" commentary by a number of readers i.e. If Clinton can see a pattern in MSNBC's comments, they should be able to see their own pattern of subtly portraying Barack Obama as the "black candidate," egging him into being defensive:Probably the only people who would seriously disagree that those comments were tactical, are the Clintons.
But, for the record, Barack Obama worked very hard to become the "black candidate" in Illinois, at first he wasn't accepted as such. He succeeded, and after having won over the grass roots, working class, African American constituency, he was able to return to being the "race-transcendent" candidate. Being the "black-candidate" has rarely been a liability for Obama, but I respect and support his vision of addressing "human" problems, above all else.
I find the idea that Clinton's machine made Obama the "black candidate" a little bemusing. Not without merit, but neither the sufficient condition.
February 7, 2008, 1:15PM
Barack Obama's dot com has proven to be one of the most powerful fundraising tools ever devised, turning a wave of small donations into a tsunami of cash, for the independent minded Democrat. Also enjoying a happy fiscal position is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). They have about $35mil to burn on this year's contests, and are facing a happy dilemma: they have too many seats to contest. $35mil is a lot of money for the DCCC to throw around, yet they will have to pick their battles carefully, since there will be so many seats under contention, between 40-45, already. That's a lot of seats and even $35mil can't be everywhere at once.
As the new leader of the party, Senator Obama, or one of his surrogates, should parlay his small donation movement into fundraising for the DCCC. In the last few days, Obama's ability to ensure the election of more Democrats to congress has become central to his campaign message. What better way to make good on this promise than to put our money where our mouths are? By using his ability to raise massive capital in small chunks for his fellow congressman and congress hopefuls, Obama will not only make good on his promise to strengthen and expand the party, he will buy even more good will for himself among Democratic voters and lawmakers.
If Obama's dot commers can direct the momentum of their donations into the congressional races, via the DCCC, Obama's dream of building a permanent majority will be that much closer to reality.
