White Supremacy and the Second Amendment

The Intercept's, Jeremy Schahill lays out white supremacy's hypocrisy on guns:

 

Breaking Brown's, Yvette Carnell -- expressing the thoughts and feelings of many Black voters...

Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford -- "We have Learned who is For Real and who is Frontin'."

In the tradition of (in no particular order) -- Garvey, Toussaint, Lumumba, the real -- Toure, Nkrumah, Winnie, Nat Turner, Martin, A. Philip Randolph, Septima Clarke, Romare Bearden, SNCC, Malcolm, Huey, Fred Hampton, Mumia, Assata, the revolutionary -- Angela; Harlem Renaissance writers and agitators (to name a few) -- Claude McKay, James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, Franz Fanon, Paul Laurence Dunbar, James Weldon Johnson, Ralph Ellison, W.E.B. DuBois, Zora Neale Hurston, Gwendolyn Brooks, Hubert Harrison, the pre-capitalist -- Ms. Angelou; Ida B. Wells, Paul Robeson, Drs. -- John Henrik Clarke, Ben Jochannan, John G. Jackson; George Padmore, Eric Williams, Egyptian hieroglyphics (yes, Egypt is in Africa); Tupac, KRS One, DeadPrez, Bob Marley, Lupe -- and the list goes on and on... Glen stands for something, rather than falling for anything.

What about you, Family?

Related:
- Scholars Attribute Institutional Racism to Economic Disparity
- It’s Good to Be a Goldman

Why I care nothing about what EITHER empty suit had to say

Glenn Greenwald is again, on point, regarding the farce that passes for a presidential debate.  In his, "The lame rules for presidential debates: a perfect microcosm of US democracy," he is dead-on about all the, "shinin' up shit and callin' it gold," fed to the public by the MSM and both reigning parties.

Linked within his piece, is this commentary from George Farah on Democracy Now! -- "Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama and Romney Campaigns Exclude Third Parties, Control Questions" (Do listen carefully, and then fact-check it out):

Makes it kinda hard to give a shit, no?

And to top it all off, we have this:  "Green Party candidate arrested outside debate" -- WTH!!  This, is what democracy looks like?  Puhleeze!

People, you are so-o-o being hoodwinked, bamboozled and blinded with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum! {smdh}  Obama (like Romney), did what was "scripted" for your entertainment and distraction -- no more, no less.

Arthur Silber on the "Supremes" ruling: Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People

Just like most of the rest of the country, I was waiting to see what the "Supremes" would do with the Changeling's so-called signature legislation.  And when the word came down from on high--I said to myself, "Self, there's plenty in this milk that ain't clean!"

And as I trawled the internet to see who was saying what, so I could formulate what I believed should be a necessarily scathing condemnation of the "games people play" at other's expense--I  came upon Arthur Silber's, Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People, and he'd said everything I was thinking, and more.

So, once I finished reading all of it, I emailed Arthur and asked his permission to cross-post the piece.  And no, it's not because I'm lazy.  It's because he hits all the nails on their proverbial heads when it comes to addressing points about this decision that should be considered when one critically thinks; it's all about who's doing what, for whom and most importantly, why.

Take some time and read it slowly (internal links and all).  I'm certain if you allow yourself to, you'll find way more truth here, than anywhere in the mainstream media.  Do enjoy!:

~#~

Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People


The self-satisfied smugness and self-congratulation now exhibited by many liberals and progressives is abhorrent and nauseating. In addition to the general argument I made earlier today, I want to address two further issues.

In a brief article, John Stauber captures the essence of the Supreme Court ruling with full accuracy:

It was a brilliant move by far Right (but oh so likable) Chief Justice Roberts to side with the Dem-appointed Justices and uphold ObamaCare. After all, this is a massive victory for corporate power, forcing citizens to buy an expensive insurance product that won’t serve our needs very well but will profit industry, in lieu of receiving real health care. ...

He and his Dem-appointed colleagues have given huge new powers to corporations, and further reduced the rights of citizens. ...

Any real reform — call it single payer, or medicare for all — is doomed in bipartisan fashion. The “pragmatists” who are for Obamacare are duped if they think it is going to be expanded to single payer. From this point on, it will only be picked over and further reinvented to empower the insurance and drug industries.

In my post from December 2009 -- "How Bad Is The Fuck You Act?" -- I closely analyzed some of the extraordinary mental contortions and distortions engaged in by Digby. I began by noting the following:

First, and this merits strong emphasis, the "health care reform" legislation will fatally undercut all the goals set forth by Democrats and progressives themselves. To restate the point: if the Democrats and progressives are sincere and genuinely committed to what they say their goals are, they should be working day and night to defeat this abomination. That most of them are doing the opposite is deeply revealing. And they are doing the opposite for the most transparent and pathetic of reasons: they are desperate for something they can call a "win" as an alleged demonstration of perceived political power."

After examining Digby's "argument," which is fully representative of "the Horror Hall of Mirrors of the fatally corrupted world now inhabited by the 'leading' progressives" (and not only with regard to this subject, but in connection with every issue of significance), I said:

And the people who won't be helped are precisely those people these same Democrats and progressives endlessly told us they so desperately wanted to help when this wretched, abysmal process began.

This is the very definition of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. In certain respects, it is not possible to go any lower. If you're willing to give up this much -- and as far as "health care reform" is concerned, they've given up everything that matters -- is there anything at all you won't give up? This is the inevitable result of engaging in this manner with a fundamentally corrupt system:

Thus, the lesson: when you choose to
be a critical part of a system that has
become this corrupt -- and the endless
corruptions of our corporatist-
authoritarian-militarist system have
been documented at great length here
and in other places -- you will not
ameliorate or "save" it. The system
will necessarily and inevitably corrupt
you.

That last point is absolutely critical, and it must never be forgotten.

I want to stress that it is a huge error to believe that liberals and progressives who are happy about the Supreme Court "victory," and who generally support Obama and view his reelection as vitally important -- despite the fact (among other similar facts) that Obama asserts that he can murder anyone he wishes, anywhere in the world, for any reason he chooses or invents -- will somehow recognize the truth and come to their senses. I'm not referring here to those Americans who barely follow politics and who vote automatically and without any measurable degree of analysis and consideration beforehand, if they vote at all -- but to those liberals and progressives who follow politics even somewhat closely. And I'm especially referring to liberals and progressives who are active in politics, including writers and bloggers.

It must be understood that they cannot and will not grasp the actual meaning of the Supreme Court ruling, just as they will not grasp the meaning of Obama's other numerous, heinous acts. I explained some of the reasons for this phenomenon in a post from almost five years ago: "Blinded by the Story." I noted the self-proclaimed inability of leading progressive bloggers (including Atrios, and Digby once again) to understand why the Democrats acted as they did, and then wrote:

I suggest we take these leading lights of the progressive blogs at their word: they most certainly do not get it, and they absolutely cannot "for the life of [them] figure out why the congress is doing this."

I also note that, following the Senate cave-in, Atrios has dubbed Harry Reid the "Wanker of the Day." Will all this diminish in even the smallest degree Atrios's, or Digby's, or any other leading progressive blogger's efforts to ensure a huge Democratic victory in 2008? Of course not.

The reason for that is very simple, and it goes to the progressives' central articles of religious faith: The Democrats aren't really like this, not in their heart of hearts. The Democrats don't actually favor a repressive, authoritarian state. The Democrats are good, and they want liberty and peace for everyone, everywhere, for eternity, hallelujah and amen.

People who continue to believe this have evicted themselves from serious political debate, and they have willingly made themselves slaves to their enthusiastically embraced self-delusions. They confess a comprehensive ignorance of history, a stunning inability to understand the political developments of the last century, and a desire to place the story they have chosen, primarily because it flatters their own false sense of vanity and self-worth, above every relevant fact.

None of this has changed in the five years since I wrote it; to the contrary, developments have proven the truth of these observations repeatedly.

But one derivative aspect of this sickening business has changed, and I also described that aspect in the earlier entry:

Whenever a preexisting and preselected narrative assumes primary importance in this way, the longer one clings to the preferred story, the stupider one becomes. This is why the truth or falsity of the stories we tell is so critical, and why our methodology matters so much. If a story that is central to our view of ourselves fails to comport with the facts, and if we refuse to give up or even question the story, this necessitates that we block ourselves off from more and more information that might "undermine" that story ... Rather than eagerly seeking out further facts and trying to find out if a given story remains accurate or needs to be significantly revised (and sometimes even jettisoned altogether), we will lower our heads, narrow the scope of our inquiry, and progressively restrict the kind of data we permit ourselves to examine and even acknowledge. As time goes on, our intellectual curiosity steadily decreases. We won't want certain facts and information, because we might have to wonder whether particular cherished beliefs are correct.

With regard to these issues, people do not stay the same. The intellectual framework within which they operate either increases or decreases; to put it informally, they become smarter or dumber.

In those cases where the preexisting and preferred narrative is crucial to a person's self of self-worth (and often, when it is critical to their livelihood), it is close to impossible that a fundamental reassessment of that narrative will be permitted or seriously considered. The only direction psychologically is steadily downward: the frame of reference constantly diminishes, and the person becomes less and less able to address any issue accurately and truthfully. Neither "side" has a monopoly on this fundamental failure -- and even though both conservatives and liberals furiously deny that they act in this manner, their own commentary and behavior reveals the truth on a daily basis.

The other issue I want to discuss is a contention that was frequently offered during the debate over the health "care" bill, and I'm certain it will put in another appearance in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. A certain kind of commentator would ruefully note the bill's numerous shortcomings (including the fact that it was bought and paid for, and sometimes written, by the major insurance and pharmaceutical interests), but go on to support the bill anyway -- because, they claimed, it would help "some" people.

This is one of the most awful arguments imaginable. I discussed it in detail here: "Concerning Those Who Manufacture and Eat Shit." My particular target was Paul Krugman, but many others proceed in the same manner. So I will simply offer my analysis again:

I would not argue and, in fact, I haven't argued that this bill won't help anyone. I've seen lots of analyses that force me to conclude that the bill will help far less people than its supporters claim, but time will tell as they say. I think it's going to be very ugly, and I also think partisans like Krugman will never acknowledge just how ugly it is.

But the fact that this bill will help some people is a ridiculous, completely asinine standard. It is utterly illegitimate as a matter of analysis, as well as being vile in moral terms, to use the fact that it will help some people as justification for its passage. Think about it for a moment. Any bill in any political system will help some people. This is true even in a dictatorship, and even under totalitarian rule. As I feel compelled to remind people when they appeal to the "sanctity" of "the law" (which I noted only yesterday I myself shit on insofar as what most people mean by such vacuous blather is concerned), even dictatorships have laws. Hey, I'll make it easy for you to ignore this argument by violating a singularly idiotic prohibition. They had laws in Nazi Germany. And guess what? All of those laws helped some people. In some instances, perhaps it was only sadists who enjoyed torturing and murdering other human beings -- but some of Germany's laws certainly helped them do that.

Or to pick a less confrontational example: many laws in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia indisputably helped those who were members of the ruling clique or well-connected to same accumulate wealth and/or power, or benefited them in any number of other ways. So the laws helped some people. Take a more obvious aspect of the same issue: in any corporatist system (such as ours), legislators receive all sorts of payoffs for enacting legislation that benefits certain interested parties. When the legislation is passed, it's passed because it helps those interested parties. That's true of any major piece of legislation you care to name (and almost all minor ones as well). You need only trace back the effects of the legislation far enough, and you'll find an interested party that sought to have it passed. And the payoffs help the legislators themselves. So some people are always helped.

That cannot ever be the standard for judgment. The standard must focus on the primary or major effect of the legislation: on what lies at the heart of the bill. What lies at the heart of the health "reform" bill is a massive transfer of wealth from "ordinary" Americans to an already hugely wealthy and powerful insurance industry via the mandate system, which is made still worse by being a subsidized mandate system (which means that taxpayers are robbed at gunpoint twice). As a result, the legislation in its totality is, right, a piece of shit.

And that's all I have to say about that.

For the moment.

~#~

And when that moment has passed Arthur, I'll be reading. I don't know about anybody else, but I need commentary, critically thought-out (as opposed to what passes for "news" in this country), in order to continue doing my "first works over" as James Baldwin so wisely advised us, so very long ago. Thanks again--very much.

Related:
- Seven Consequences of the Healthcare ruling
- Nobody Wins: High Court Backs 'Obama/Romney Care,'Leaves Public on Life Support
- Drugmakers Wary Despite Apparent Win
- Health Insurers Duck Worst-Case Scenario

The Changeling and the Democrats still lying about equal pay

Well.  Well.  Well.  Dems push 'paycheck fairness' bill.  Now this would have been some stellar politrickin' - if not for their hubris. Some of us have long memories - and they didn't wait long enough.  From the Politico piece:

“Either Ledbetter was the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history,” he said, “or Democrats are getting nervous about new polls that show Obama losing ground among women.”

Have to say  - even though the latter might also be true for those into polls - I'm going with the former.  And as you walk with me,  do keep the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind, particularly as you see Boxer's mug framing the issue - not Pelosi's.  But I digress.

In the Fall of 2008, when I took my old behind back to school to work on a master's degree in Journalism (full disclosure:  took a leave of absence, didn't finish), my Covering Capitol Hill class required we actually GO to some committee hearings and then come back and write about them.  I chose the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).  In light of the Democrats' pure f*ckery tomfoolery - here's that first paper (which I'd posted here on January 31, 2009):

###

Major gender-based pay-equity legislation remains in Committee

Women are still waiting for the Paycheck Fairness Act to become a law. But, since passing by a party line vote of 256-163 in the House on January 9, it remains in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Unlike the recently passed Ledbetter bill which extends the statute of limitations for everyone in a protected class with a proven claim of pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act’s aim is to provide women with more effective tools to combat pay inequities based on gender. But, given its overwhelmingly partisan vote in the House, it appears the wait will be a little longer than expected and I don't think the Republicans are the only ones to blame - after all we all know who has the majority. If they wanted it to pass, Republicans alone could not stop it.

According to a January 27 CNBC transcript of a media event held in the Capitol following passage of the Ledbetter bill, Speaker Pelosi’s comments seem to hint it may well be some time before the bill passes.

When asked what the next workers’ rights bill she would attempt to take up, she replied:

” Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that's the obvious next step.”

If the bill becomes a law, women would be able to sue for unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to include expert fees either individually or as a class. Companies would have a greater duty to prove that job performance alone was the reason for any pay inequities that do exist. Additionally, the bill would usher in a never-before-seen era of wage transparency in our culture by preventing companies from retaliating against employees who share salary information.
The opponents of the bill feel it would strip employers of the right to manage their businesses and lead to more frivolous class action lawsuits. But the sponsors believe its passage is imperative in order to:

• provide a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities
• substantially reduce the number of working women earning unfairly low wages thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance
• promote stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay
• remedy the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex
• ensure equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments

If implemented as written (guess I should say "if implemented at all), it could either seriously close the gender wage gap, or clog the judicial system to such an extent that no substantive progress is realized. We'd just have to wait and see.

###

Staying with the Politico piece:

In January 2009, when Democrats controlled both chambers, the bill cleared the House but fell two votes shy of the 60 needed to move forward in the Senate.

Republican opposition has given Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a chance to frame the issue of equal pay as yet another example of the GOP’s war on women.

“As I look at the record of Republicans on women, it is not good,” Boxer said. “Personally, I say it’s a war on women. The more they protest it, the more I say it, because I truly believe it.”

But Republicans say such legislation is unnecessary since the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is already on the books. President Barack Obama himself has toured the country talking up the Ledbetter Act, which was the first bill he signed into law upon taking office. The law “ensures equal pay for equal work,” he said in Maine this past March.

“I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons,” he told the House Democratic Caucus in 2009. (emphasis mine)

First of all, let's look at the emphasized portions, shall we?  Women,  most importantly marginalized women of color - please hang in there with me:

•  It's been three and a half years since the Democrats dangled this carrot in your face (they also held the majority when Shrub went to war, but that's off-topic).  Two votes in the Senate kept this from passing!  Really??  Yes really.  Amy Siskind lays it all out, here.

Though she obviously had no real power in how the vote would go - she certainly represents someone who supposedly had some real power.  Most relevant in this piece, is Siskind's #4 on the "Cowards" list:

Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett (D) (Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls) -- progressive blogger Joanne Bamberger said it best on Facebook: President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett have said time and again they are committed to passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and it was a priority to them. Wednesday, fair pay failed by 2 votes. They couldn't use their "commitment" to women to get us 2 votes?

Enough said (keeping manipulative, hubris and lying in mind?).

• Of course Republicans have given Boxer a chance to frame the issue as "the GOP’s war on women!"  - there's no difference between the two of them , people!!!

• Republicans saying the law is unnecessary is at least honest, because they truly believe that.  Plus, they already know that Ledbetter was " the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history!!” 

But keeping the reposted paper in mind, the Changeling on the other hand - is a LIAR  (quite animatedly bolstered by the then, just happy-dancin', now boisterously vocal, Mikulski):

And so is Nancy Pelosi (which is why Boxer - not Pelosi is out front, framing this issue for the 2012 election):

Back to the Politico piece:

Democrats counter that the Paycheck Fairness bill is much stronger than the Ledbetter Act. They say Ledbetter keeps the courthouse door open for women to sue for discrimination, while Paycheck makes it tougher to discriminate in the first place. Ledbetter does not address compensatory or punitive damages; Paycheck does. And Paycheck makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers for inquiring about their colleagues’ wages. (emphasis mine)

Keeping the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind - finally, they admit it!

Two and and a half years later, I wrote this - Paycheck Fairness, Ledbetter and the "Walmart Women" (that picture is as funny now, as it was then!).  I'm sure the Walmart women knew exactly what was up with the Changeling and his crew after that.

It's taking everything I have - to contain the absolute schadenfreude I'm  feeling about the clearly exposed Democrats, and their deus ex machina that is the Changeling (and no, Republicans don't get a  free pass in this farce, but I'm not talking 'bout them right now). 

I'm exercising this restraint solely because, rather than arousing your naked emotion, I want you to first, consider this quote - 

"It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."

Mr. James Baldwin

And secondly, because I'd like to try to inspire some of the critical thinking skills Margaret Kimberley so effortlessly exhibits - from the 16:35 to the 23:25 click in this video.

There's a whole lotta hoodwinking and bamboozling goin' on folks - and it's not just the Republicans who are doing it.  

Paycheck Fairness, Ledbetter and the "Walmart Women"

I'm no attorney, but I think I'm safe in saying that - had Congress passed that pesky Paycheck Fairness Act (about which I wrote here and mid-page here) instead of Lilly Ledbetter, the "Walmart Women" would have had some real muscle behind their fight for equality.

Maybe, they would've been able to use pages 8 - 11 of Paycheck's amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b) to skip the Supremes altogether, rather than having this cruel joke played on them:  "The Supreme Court sides with Wal-Mart."

Pelosi and the Changeling, with their respective, bamboozle-cum-hoodwink little jigs, had so many women believing he'd rode in on his white horse and saved the damned day, that Ms. Magazine got this absolutely hilarious cover out -- PDQ (Come on now, tell the truth and shame the devil -- how many of you ran right out and made them a lot of money buying their little poster?).

Congress and the Changeling, with the Supremes bringing up the rear with this ruling, have told women - in no uncertain terms - "We will do nothing to change the status quo so - just stay in your damned place!

UPDATE:  "It's Time For Congress To Act On The Paycheck Fairness Act"  Well, at least one Congress Critter had the 'nads to tell the truth!

Now that it's all over but the shoutin'...

...I'm gonna make this short.  Note to the Changeling-n-nem:  If you don't stand for something, you will fall - period! 

There were few surprises for me in these mid-term elections - but there were a couple.  First and foremost, my home state of South Carolina (one of the of the original 13s) - which propped Strom Thurmond up in Congress until he was a-damned-100(!) years old (those last couple years were pretty scary.  Watching him in Congress, I was convinced he'd already passed, but had somehow been dyed and shellacked (Let's be clear here - I mean a type of lacquer that becomes as hard as a shell.) to his seat in his Sunday-go-to-meetin' suit by some upstart mortician.) - "elected the first black Republican to Congress from the Deep South since Reconstruction."

County Councilman Scott - whose district had encompassed the Sea Islands, where the Gullah roots of my family lay; the city of Charleston, where I was born and raised; and North Charleston, where I've also lived on a few separate occasions - defeated the Shellacked One's SON in the June, GOP primary, paving the way for his victory on Tuesday!  As leery as I am of politicians in general, and Black Republicans in particular - I must admit a clearly discernible feeling of schadenfreude in that irony (What?  I keep tellin' ya'll I am human!).

Real Change? Or, more games? 

Though he can legitimately claim more in common with "the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass" - instead of just using it as a convenient stage prop and sound-bite, as the Changeling did during his, "I'm gonna run for president speech" on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Illinois - being a Carolina girl myself, I'd definitely choose the latter.
 
I don't know Mr. Scott, but according to three fellow councilmen in this piece that I do know, or know of  (and I am considering the sources) - it seems a toss-up as to what the Palmetto State will get, once Mr. Scott goes to Washington.

The other surprise?  That Sen. Harry Reid managed to hang onto his seat.  I guess I can partially understand the support from the Latino community, given they were literally voting for their lives and freedom from illegal arrests, after Harry played his games (I wonder why Charlie Christ's efforts to get Meek out in FL was a bigger story than what Harry was doing in Nevada?).

I do believe if the Tea Party's, Sharron Angle had been elected - she would have definitely posed a way more "clear and present danger" to their very existence in this country in the short-term, than Ole Harry probably has in his very, long-term.  We shall soon see what his brand of payback looks like.

I said I'd keep it short, and I am.  But as you consider the ramifications of the mid-terms, as well as the upcoming presidential election in two years, I ask you to also consider my sister's words below - for all our sakes:

All in what game???

I purposely omitted this last - "What the hell are you talking about Earl?!" - from the previous post. It was directed toward all the broken promises the Changeling made to the Latino community as he bellowed his co-opted, “¡Sí, se puede!” from both the campaign trail and the Big House. They were so numerous, and so blatantly flaunted, I had to stop, take a breath and gather myself before I wrote another word.

In the interim, I received two “new post” alerts from similar-but-different sources within hours of each other. One was Earl’s - Obama Plays the Race Card, and There's Nothing Wrong With That; the other was - News With Nezua Empire Games - MAJOR POWERS PLAY MAJOR GAMES (posted below).

While both were impassioned entreaties to their respective kinfolk about the Changeling, upcoming elections and the “games people play” - it was impossible to miss that they were clearly polar opposites in both their motivation and in their giving a shit about the whole of humanity.

As if in “response” to my “call” – Nezua posted his honest, enlightened and documented account, of exactly what I wanted to say. I knew I couldn’t say it any better, so I asked him to let me post it here, and he graciously consented:



I'm so proud of Nezua for standing up and saying, “No! Using us for votes – is NOT okay! Lying so you can “claim credit” – is NOT okay! And having the unmitigated gall to come back again, after screwing us over so brazenly - is certainly NOT okay!”

In solidarity, I too say - “This is not a game!”

As I told my friend Kitty in the comments a couple posts ago, “Latinos “don't need "aid." What they need – is a clear path to the same citizenship opportunity made available to the European immigrants who came here - and later became "white." Once they get that, no "Dream Act" - which would again, pit them against each other, and us - would be necessary.” And I stand by that statement.

Yet, even though the pain of Obama’s deception obviously cut very deeply, Nezua, in stark contrast to Earl, advised his “gente” - in truth, love and respect for their decision-making - to do what they believe is right for them - not the Changeling - in November. Imagine that!

Now my brother, Earl on the other hand, took a decidedly different tack in advising his kinfolk. As I read his above-linked post, I lost all the respect I was trying to have for this man.  All I could do was shake my damned head in disgust and say, "Man, you have no shame at all do you?”

Instead of presenting some useful, sensible, truthful analysis on which Black voters could rely to help make informed decisions next week, he chose to ratchet-up his speechifying instead - peppering it with the same fear, lies and disrespectful, parroted blather being spewed by the other side of the same coin:

The pitch to black voters is to get out in November and vote like your life depends on it. That means voting to save a slew of endangered Congressional Democrats. The stakes are well-known. A GOP grab of the House, even without the Senate, will almost certainly mean endless committee investigations of Obama administration actions, funding and appropriation stalls and sabotage, and a relentless no to every Obama initiative from energy to immigration reform. The escalation of congressional wars would be distracting, debilitating, and pose deep danger to Obama's reelection bid in 2012. (link mine)

Translation:

• “Yeah, Black folk, he’s coming back to USE you to help him keep those do-nothing clowns in office. And that’s okay.
• Forget he’s given you nothing but his ass to kiss since he came begging and lying the first time. That’s okay too!
• Forget you’re unemployed, or have been for some time, or still do not make a living wage. All okay.
• Forget that your “American Dream” homes are being foreclosed upon as we speak, or you can barely pay your rent. Of course, that’s okay!
• Forget he and his, continue to “play games” not only with your very lives, but with those of your children, by continuing to funnel Byrne Grant money to states, which then use it to hurt, not help our community - by funneling it to their respective agencies overseeing their prison industrial complexes. I’m sure that’s okay witcha!
• As a matter of fact, forget ALL of their hypocrisy and just run on out there and Pull That Lever for whomever the “O” man says you should. There’s nothing wrong with that!

I swear I felt like I’d been transported to Bizarro World, with Earl blasting the Bizarro Code from his perch at HuffPo:

"Us do the opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is a big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!"

Why on earth should people be trying to “save a slew of endangered Democrats” who’ve not done one thing they’ve been saying they would do – for two administrations??  Personally, I welcome the “endless committee investigations of Obama administration actions and funding (seeing as over the last few years, they’ve raised enough money to feed, clothe and house a small nation for eternity!).” And since he’s not had an “initiative” worth two cents since his transcendance ascendance to the throne - to what exactly, will the Republicans say “No?”

When one cannot point to any substantive change in an existence, after throwing all that support behind a man who did his damndest to degrade them – when he wasn’t ignoring them, the time for “playing games” are over. It’s time now that we create a new reality for ourselves – one that reflects the love, power, humility, persistence, strength, knowledge and grace - that got us this far in the first place.

Sure, the Republicans, and their red-headed (no offense HT!), Tea Party step-children, are - without a doubt - the epitome of the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy. With their privilege still very much intact, their racism is palpable and their fear-stoked, twisted lies are even more obvious than they’ve been in a very long time. But, so what! At least now you know exactly with whom you’re dealing!

And who, in their right mind, will stand with them in their overt hatred and spiteful bigotry toward their fellow countrymen that is sure to come? I say -no better way to find out than if their supposed Congressional take-over happens (now had the Changeling really been a “change agent” from the jump, we’d have all been well on our way to figuring that out by now! Just sayin’).

But rather than be afraid of their supposed, Congressional take-over (which I doubt will happen completely), I look forward to it. Why? Because I know they won’t be able to contain themselves - perhaps then, ushering in the “real revolution” this country sorely needs.

Politicians are always on the stroll for the next deep-pocketed John or Jane, willing to pay handsomely (both literally and figuratively) for their “favors.” Sadly, that's what democracy looks like in these United States. But trust me, there is something very wrong with joining that cabal of “the greedy-using-the-needy” for "sport" because, again – this is not a game. But if it were, just keep in mind - no team goes undefeated forever!

Black Republicans not the only ones "peddling fantasy"

Earl Ofari Hutchinson's been churning out what I can only describe as lunacy, amid dribs and drabs of truthfulness lately. His Black Republicans Peddle Fantasy of Ousting Democrats in November" had me talking back to him just like one of my great-aunts used to do while watching TV a long time ago (she was in her 70's then). But instead of her, shouted-at-the-screen warnings to the unsuspecting good guy to, "Watch out! He's right behind you!" - my "conversation" with Earl went like this:

EOH: Blacks in the past have groused at and bashed the Democrats. But they still overwhelmingly vote for them.

ME:  I agree, which has set us up for Democrats to shit on us quite openly and often (particularly during this administration) - just like the Republicans have for decades.

EOH: The off the chart vote blacks gave President Obama is repeatedly cited even by black Republican hopefuls as an aberration in that blacks turned the election into a holy crusade to get one of their own in the White House. That's wrong on two counts. Obama was more than just the fulfillment of a civil rights dream. He had a solid program for change that frontally challenged and promise of reversing the social and economic damage, race baiting, and neglect that characterized three decades of Republican rule in the White House and the sledgehammer attacks on or malign neglect of civil rights leaders and concerns when Republicans were out of the White House. (emphasis mine)

ME: I beg to differ there, Earl - on both counts. First, whether Black folk want to own that unholy holy crusade or not, it was an aberration - born out of the very need "to get one of their own in the White House" that you deny.  But as it turns out, he was skinfolk, not kinfolk.  And from Rev. Wright, to Pookie eatin' cold chicken in the a.m. - he made sure everybody knew it.

Now, if the "fullfillment" of which you speak, merely involved havin' skinfolk in the Big House, then yes - the Changeling is that.  But here's my pesky two cents, which basically boils down to - He's not fulfilled a damned thing!  Quiet as it's kept, the civil rights movement was never about merely havin' skinfolk in the White House, bruh.  Please, let's not join the ranks of the revisionists on either the intent of Dr. King, or the civil rights movement, m'kay Earl?; because some of us do know the whole story:



"If other civil rights leaders, for various reasons, refuse or can't take a stand, or have to go along with the administration, that's their business!"  I'm definitely with Dr. King on that one.

Secondly (and it's a long secondly), regarding your "solid program for change that frontally challenged and promise of reversing, blah, blah, blah," I must ask - What the hell are you talking about, Earl? What exactly has he frontally challenged or reversed - particularly for Black folk?

It certainly couldn't be his hastily cobbled together, written-mostly-by-the-for-profit healthcare industry, no-Public-Option havin' (forget single-payer!), fine-mandated-if-you-don't-have-it, health insurance bill.  But if that's what you mean, could you tell me how that "solid program" will work for folk who already don't have health insurance - because they can't afford it?  And if they already can't afford, even the subsidized insurance - how, pray tell, can they afford the mandated fines?  I'm with Bill Moyers on that whole thing:



- Nor could you be talking about his bait-and-switch with the Lilly LedbetterAct, the first bill he signed once selected - which allegedly provided pay equity for women - seeing as both he and Pelosi lied (yeah, I said it - LIED)...





...because that bill had nothing, at all, to do with pay equity - for women of any color. C'mon, Man, political analyst that you are, haven't you even read the bill!

Despite the inequity in pay and wealth just between white women and Black women (forget between men and women!) - his signing Ledbetter into law hasn't done jack about pay equity except maintained the status quo because - Ledbetter wasn't ever about that!

The Paycheck Fairness Act (S.3772) on the other hand - which Reid waited to bring up for a cloture vote (more pre-mid-term elections sleight of hand) - WAS about that!  But, so smooth at conflating it with Ledbetter and getting brownie points for something they didn't (and may not ever do!), the Changeling and his crew bamboozled the hell out of plenty of people - especially women.  Poor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), whose been working on this thing diligently for some time - she just keeps pluggin' away, trying to get the rest of them to do the right thing. {smdh}  This out-of-work-for-so-long-I'm-not-even-counted-among-the-unemployed, Black woman says:

- Nor could it be his signing of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which simply says, "Y'all still ain't equal - but at least your less unequal" (Now there's some real "solid," social and economic damage reversal fantasy right there!).

- Nor his unflinching support of businessman-never-been-a-teacher, Secty. of Education, Arne Duncan in his push to privatize public schools (where we disproportionately find our kids, and those of our Brown brothers and sisters) for money - which many (if not most, parents) do not have (not e'erybody can get into Sidwell Friends, as he so unabashedly reminds).

Instead of getting to the root of why Johnny can't read - no matter where he's economically situated - they say, Johnny can learn better through incentivized programs like Michelle Rhee's, "Capital Gains Program" - blessed, I'm sure by Duncan, since he did the same thing in Chicago with the "Green for Grade$ Project" (even the names of the programs show you how greedy for money they are!) - which only keeps them non-critically thinking, self-hating cripples with a little change in their pockets, since they're still learning all the "Lies My Teacher Told Me,"

Sorry Earl, when education is reduced to a "Race to the Top", or a demeaning lottery, or paying kids for good grades, attendance, appearance, and two other categories I don't remember right now - there's nothing "solid" going on but the Benjamins.

EOH:  President George W. Bush escalated the assault on education, health, jobs programs. His refusal to do what other presidents routinely did and that's speak at or send a congratulatory message to the NAACP annual convention until the last year of his second White House term was the ultimate snub and insult, and final proof to black voters that the GOP was a party of closet race baiters, bigots, and race panderers. (emphasis mine) 

ME:  Just a small quibble here, Earl.  I agree Shrub escalated the afore-mentioned assault, but - "final proof?"  Really?  Tell me, how can a five-and-a-half year refusal be characterized as the straw that broke the camel's back for Black folk knowing "the GOP was a party of race baiters, bigots, and race panderers?"  I've been Black my whole life and I hate to break it to you but, Shrub's Snub notwithstanding,  for my whole life, there's been PLENTY proof of the GOP's racism - nothing closeted about it (and plenty from Democrats too!).  Just thought I'd throw that last in there for the clean, articulate, well-spoken, light-skinned, no-Negro-dialect-havin' of us who think the GOP has a lock on racism and bigotry.

Maybe it's just me, but you make it sound like Black folk weren't really sure it existed until that moment (and please, don't tell me you think Black folk believed a word he said when he finally did show up!).

EOH:  Despite the shots they take at the Democrats for taking them and their vote for granted, black Democrats and civil rights leaders are still highly respected. Most blacks still look to them to fight the tough battles for health care, greater funding for education and jobs, voting rights protections, affirmative action, and against racial discrimination. (emphasis mine)

ME:  Still highly respected for what they did before forking over their cultural consciousness for "the price of the ticket" - maybe; cuz I sure don't see them "fighting the tough battles" for any of the issues you mentioned.

EOH:  Even when black Democratic politicians stumble and engage in borderline corrupt and self-serving feather their own nest antics, they are still regarded as better bets than Republican candidates to be more responsive to black needs. (emphasis mine)

ME:  Oh-h-h, I see - they're "antics."  Earl, Earl, Earl - I'll just not touch the stumbling , nor the engaging in - it'd take too long.  But let me just say, that whole, "better bets to be more responsive" thing is pretty instructive.  Seems you're saying Black folk are just comfy settling for the lesser of two evils, just hoping a little something will shake out for them when it's all said and done.  If you are - I happen to agree with you.  It wasn't always that way though.

EOH:  ...deepened black suspicions that the GOP is chock full of bigots.

ME:  You really should  stop acting like this is something new to us.

EOH:  But most black voters do fit that template. And since they do black Republicans talk of ousting Democrats in November is a fantasy.

ME:  Again, let's not join the ranks of the revisionists here, Earl.  Even if every Black person, in every district, in every state actually voted for them - talk of ousting Democrats in November is hardly a "fantasy" - for all the many reasons you listed in the two paragraphs in the piece, above your statement here.  It ain't just about the Changeling, it's about their totally unfounded fear about losing their inherent privilege and supremacy under his presidency, which IS a "fantasy."  Because really, he's right there with them - if they could just get past the color of his skin...

Democrats or Republicans - same thing, people!!

I got this email from MoveOn.org today and thought it was hi-larious - let me just count the ways (all emphasis mine):

###

Dear MoveOn member,

Election Day is less than two months away, and we need to decide today whether we'll have enough resources for a major campaign to help stop the Republicans and their corporate allies from taking over Congress.  (1. Guess we can all agree on one thing - democracy is always for sale)

In a survey over the weekend, 92% of MoveOn members said that we should work broadly to help Democratic candidates—especially now that corporate front groups are spending $400 million to boost Republicans' chances.  (2. Now? So we should forget the millions for which the Dems and their front man prostituted themselves up to now? - UPDATE:  This is interesting, no?)

So here's our plan to do it:

• We'll launch a giant recruitment drive to turn out thousands of volunteers for dozens and dozens of vulnerable Democrats across the country. (3.  Please!  If they were doing what the people sent them to Congress to do, their asses wouldn't BE "vulnerable!  To the Changeling and his cohorts, I say: 

Nate Beeler/Washington Examiner

• We'll use the media and creative tactics to show that corporate front groups are pouring money into these races and helping elect Republicans to carry out their agenda.  (4.  Yeah, you of all people ought to know the media will shill for anybody with deep pockets - look how it worked in getting the Changling "selected."  And I won't even touch that whole "creative tactics" thing, except to say - Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee - May 31, 2008!!)

• We'll especially focus on top progressive heroes like Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Alan Grayson who are facing the fights of their lives.  (5. She, of the land of economic meltdown and he, the man who spoke so loudly about health care, but didn't carry a big enough stick to get a public option included?  Heroes??  Really??)

• And because nearly 80% of MoveOn members said not to use our scarce resources to help Democrats who've sided repeatedly with corporate lobbyists on key votes like health care, we'll stay out of those races.  (6. Hell, they've ALL sided with corporate lobbyists on key votes like health care - on one side of it, or the other (need I remind you - again - about that pesky little "public option" disappearing?!)

This is a hugely ambitious plan that will involve serious work in 30-60 critical races.

All told, it'll cost at least $1.1 million and require at least 100,000 volunteer hours. To move forward, we need commitments for that much time and money—otherwise, we'll have to scale back the plan.

(7. C'mon people!  Don't you think that $1.1 million could be used for way more important shit?)

So we need to know today how much each MoveOn member is willing to chip in. We'll need at least 108 pledges from people in Washington. You don't have to donate right now—we just need to know how much support we can count on over the next two months.

Click to let us know how much you can pledge to stop the Republican takeover of Congress: 

(8.  Not one-red-cent!  Quiet as it's kept, both parties need to get the hell out of Congress!)

$15

$30

$75

$100

Another amount

I can't pledge any money right now, but I'll volunteer my time.

Thanks for all you do.



#####

  

Democrats have had the majority in Congress for quite some time now.  They've done nothing but either, allowed themselves to be bullied by Shrub & Co. OR, worked really hard at that which has been most politically expedient - for themselves.  Why MoveOn would even ask anybody to throw good money after bad is just beyond me -- and quite amusing!

True Health Care Reform loses as HR 676 withdrawn - and Pelosi wins with HR 3962

Well, well, well!  Weiner folds - Democrat Gives Up Single-Payer Measure to Back Party Leaders...

...and so do Kucinich and Conyers.  Here's what they had to say at commondreams.org (emphasis and link mine)

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers

Dear Friends,

We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.

Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman (D) from Ohio. John Conyers is a Congressman (D) from Michigan.

Seems strategy trumps everything and the "urgency of now" is only for selecting empty suits.  Where are those Nextel Firemen when you need 'em???

And this is pretty interesting Ladies:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONDEMNS PASSAGE OF STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT

“Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977..." (emphasis and link mine)

 Make sure you thank Miss Ann Madam Speaker and all those Dems for looking out for the rights of women, mkay?

Pre-conditions?? Really??

Since we appear to be in kindergarten... Later, on The Hill...

(Pics courtesy of my sister-in-law Jan, not sure where she got them!)

"Okay, we'll seat you, but only for two years. You have to promise not to run in 2010." What the hell?? Does the Constitution say that??

Will Princess Caroline have those same conditions thrust upon her? How about Michael F. Bennet, appointed to fill the seat being vacated by Ken Salazar? Just because Edward "Ted" Kaufman, is comfortable with stepping down in 2010 after completing Biden's term, does that mean Burris should be "comfortable" with that too? He didn't sound like he was good with that idea today on CNN. I would hope he doesn't cave, but then again, man does have a way of crumbling in the face of 15 minutes (in his case - 2 years) of fame. We'll see.