Nader's remarks about Obama

As a die-hard Ralph Nader fan--I voted for him in 2000 and don't blame him, not one whit, for Gore's losing the election--I'm compelled to say that Nader's statements today about "white guilt" and Obama's failure to address inner-city poverty issues are, to be generous, poorly articulated. I agree with the thrust of Nader's intent, which was, I think, to point out that Obama's positions as the Democratic nominee for President are no different from the articulations of such nominees in the past, namely, nonthreatening pap about hope and change and equality. If Nader had stopped there, I'd agree wholeheartedly, because I've now come to see Obama as "merely a politician," whereas I'd heretofore seen him as a transformative historical figure.

But my support of Obama's candidacy isn't out of "white guilt," nor do I think Obama has appealed to that. True, he hasn't adopted the rhetoric of "black candidates" who've championed the economic and social plight of lower-income, city-dwelling blacks. But he's not running for Congress from a ghetto district, he's running for President of all Americans, and his rhetoric reflects that. I believe Obama's the best candidate in a long time--perhaps since our nation's founding--from the standpoint of representing the interests and aspirations of poor and middle-class Americans. And that's not because I feel guilty, but because I feel, finally, vindicated and hopeful that at long last our politics and our culture can address that burning issue.

Nader's remarks were, I think, too abrasive a means to convey--to remind us--that is that we still have a long way to go before any candidate may point out, as directly as Nader repeatedly does, what ails America--its rampant consumerism, its evil gap between rich and poor, its corporate-dominated culture and economic system. John Edwards (whom Nader endorsed) said some of these things, and look where that got him.

So, I agree with much of the content of what Nader said about Obama's campaign and about the state of the major parties' nomination process generally. I just wish he'd said it with a bit more aplomb.

A repeat of a story

I seem to recall blogging about San Francisco's referendum to name its sewage plant after Bush, but this article is so amusing, as are the comments, that it deserves another post.

("He's done so much for the affluent that he deserves to have effluent named after him." Priceless.)

What a piece of crap

This article by AP writers, including its headline, is so misleading as to be fraudulent. When--not until the middle of the article--the poll numbers are finally disclosed, it may be seen that the difference in responders' attitudes toward the candidates' handling of the Iraq occupation isn't dramatic at all, the difference of six percentage points (39% to 33%). The entire article, however, is canted toward the headline's assertion that McCain is seen as more capable of handling Iraq, even though the percentages don't bear that out, less than half of the responders being of that opinion.

That's biased reporting if I ever saw it.

What's worse than recession?

What we're entering now: Stagflation.

I hate when that happens

A pro-Coalition city councilman opens fire on American troops, killing two. Will the corporate media carry this story?

The "Brandeis brief"

In law school, we learned that Justice Louis Brandeis, one of the most potent minds ever to sit on the Supreme Court, would buttress his legal arguments with factual recitations--extensive statistical data that overwhelmingly bore out his opinions.

Compare that to Scalia's recent factual fart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/scalia-cites-false-inform_b_108682.html

Says alot about the state of the Supreme Court, and for that matter, the state of the nation, eh?

Now tell me something I don't know

about network television coverage of the US occupation of Iraq.

Turn out the lights

the party's over--so says a Texas Congressman, whose remarks about light bulbs are right on. Video.

The state of Iraq

Here's Juan Cole's calculation of what the last twenty years have done to Iraq. Read it and weep.

Doing the math

Here's a succinct digest of the status of the likely Electoral College breakdown, at least as the present polling numbers reveal. Conclusion: Webb from Virginia for veep; and we all travel to Nevada to work for Obama this fall.

A nation of impoverished sheep

If these figures don't cause you to leap over the barricades, what will?

I'm in mourning

but not for Russert. For someone really important.

A quiz

Which is the more amazing development on this Monday?:

Al Gore endorses Barack Obama for president.

Tiger Woods wins playoff to capture US Open golf tournament.

Answer: Neither.

My reaction to this headline?

"Bush Contemplates Writing His Memoir":

LOL

All's fair in war

In Iraq, even the children are up in arms.

"It is a good day to die"

One of the finest lines of movie dialog--from "Little Big Man"--seems apt to me this evening, as I read this sad report about the effects of climate change in Africa. Better to bail out now, I say, than to await the catastrophe that will inevitably envelop the rest of humanity.

But then, I think, what about my child, and her child? Shouldn't I hang around as long as I can, and do as much as I can to help them avoid what my generation--I--have wrought?

And then I think this: I have no choice. I'll live as long as I live, and I'll do as much as I can.

WTF????

The Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--the boss of the largest federal circuit in the US, and the position of the federal appellate judge for whom I labored as his only lawclerk for more than a year in 1966-67--has a website with pornographic photos?

I cannot be so. Right?

CBS? NBC? ABC? CNN? MSNBC?

None of the above. In order to learn of the extent of graft and corruption and lost billions of dollars in Iraq, it takes the BBC to uncover and report it.

Just so you know...

Here's a link to a succinct recital of the military/insurgent/violent acts in Iraq and Afghanistan, assembled from daily reports "on the ground." Not a pretty picture. I've referred to it earlier, but because the corporate media has ceased reporting the ongoing violence in our two "wars," I thought it necessary to mention the site again. Whoever coined, "Out of sight, out of mind" sure knew what he was saying.

Idiots, idiots

This is a rant, so don't expect links to sites or cites to authorities. Just my own authority as a student of political science in college, a student of politics since college, and a student of current affairs.

Underway--without much mention in the US, but under intense protest in Iraq--are negotiations, soon to be completed, of an agreement between the US and Iraq that governs our forces in that country. There are provisions about our troops' presence, their powers and immunities, their relationship to Iraq and the US, and, of course, the bases they inhabit and the weapons they use. It's a detailed exposition of this country's military, economic and political future in the Middle East, set forth in a binding agreement.

Many Iraqis are protesting such a deal as infringing on their sovereignty, and as not within the power of the present (puppet) administration of Iraq. They insist that any such agreement be subject to a national referendum, which the Iraq administration is resisting, knowing that the deal will be defeated if subjected to a popular vote.

Meanwhile, here in the US, there's nothing. Yes, there are some spineless protest letters from Senators, addressed to the White House, insisting that there be no provisions in such an agreement obligating the US to intervene militarily on Iraq's behalf--that would require a treaty, the Senators say, which would be subject to Congressional approval. But I haven't heard or seen a peep from the media about the incipient deal, even though it could cost America billions of dollars and countless lives, for an indeterminate period in the future, certainly well into the term of the next administration.

Wake up, America! Wake up, media! Wake up, Congress! The monsters who brought you this evil war and occupation are attempting to bind you to continue it indefinitely, to fix it so that no matter who takes over the administration they will be hamstrung by this odious, horrific deal. And, if you don't think it's odious and horrific, here's a brief exposition of its terms, as presently on the table.