Chris Floyd on Empire Burlesque quotes Barack Obama’s promise to continue America’s foreign policy of continued dominance. In a late March AP story, Obama says:
"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan...."
The rest of Floyd’s article is a bill of criminal particulars against the three presidents Obama names as models.
After making a thorough case for foreign policy despair, Floyd says this:
…an Obama presidency, like a H. Clinton presidency, will mean some measure of genuine mitigation of some of the worst depredations of the Bush Regime.
…but no one who openly embraces the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, or John F. Kennedy for that matter, is going to change in any substantial way the militarist-corporate machine that has already destroyed our democracy.
… “Should [we vote] to mitigate some small measure of the mass suffering wrought by this machine; or does that action, that participation, merely legitimize the machine, and strengthen it?”
That is the only question at issue in this election.
Some psychologists assert that telling a successful lie is a key moment in childhood ego-development.
I believe that there are no grown-ups who have never told a lie.
Yet, it is considered serious business to call someone a liar. Like calling a man a fucker—how could that be an insult?
Lies are more or less evil depending on contexts and outcomes.
While everyone has told a lie, not everyone has, or would lie in every context regarding every outcome.
So, when then-Mayor Willie Brown defended his police chief’s newly revealed resume-fib by saying, “Everyone lies on their resume,” we have to apply a truth-test.
Brown’s statement is obviously false. There are actually some people on the face of the earth who have no need, and perceive no need, to lie on their resumes.
Telling oneself that everyone does it makes it easier to do wrong.
So, we shouldn’t be surprised that Willie Brown’s former mistress, and presumable mentoree, turns up defrauding the federal government of $5-10 Million of border protection money. [Sweet Melissa breaks it down beautifully.]
Did she put on his knowledge with his power Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?
Kamala Harris has “taken responsibility” for the false claims. I’m pretty sure this DOESN’T mean she’s repaying the money out of her own pocket.
Hopefully this puts an end to her political ambitions.
We hear that the year-old Baker’s Dozen gang-assault case has resulted in dismissal of all charges except one misdemeanor charge against one of the many assailants.
Insufficient evidence was turned up by an investigation delayed by City Powers for two weeks. We now know that D.A. Harris was too busy creating false claims to worry about mere felonious assaults.
Popular gay Ed Harrington was City Controller at the time of the fraud. He reportedly participated in, and has asserted “good intentions” in the matter.
The money returned to the Federal Government goes into the city’s books as a “defalcation.” It is a controller’s highest duty to prevent “defalcations.”
Harrington was moved from City Controller to an appointed commission just a few days before the Harris-Harrington-Hennessy Federal fraud case was revealed.
Mayor Newsom’s fiancée, Jennifer Siebel, is both beautiful and photogenic (independent qualities) and she looks great in couture.
Not many local trophy wives, at least per SFLuxe, who have all three talents and Jennifer Siebel is one of them.
Ms Siebel is a first-place trophy, at least in the looks department. [Click on picture for source.]
And she has guts.
Women with weaker stomachs might shy away from suitor whose past infidelity has been so public, and repugnant. Not Ms Siebel.
More “prudent” women would never have gone swimming in the snark tank of SFist’s comments section.
And only the bravest of San Francisco mayoral wives-to-be would register as a member of the American Independent Party (as reported this morning by Matier and Ross).
San Franciscans pretend to be liberal or progressive, and, on national issues this is sometimes true. Certainly most San Franciscans are registered Democrats. So people like Dianne Feinstein and Gavin Newsom, (who are Nelson Rockefeller Republicans at heart) have to work within the Democratic Party, or leave the city.
In San Francisco where the Republican party is déclassé, the American Independent Party is only slightly less anathema than the American Nazi Party, or, maybe, the KKK.
Republican is the party of Lincoln.
Democrat is the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
American Independent is the party of George Wallace and Curtis LeMay.
While we don’t share Ms Siebel’s extreme right-wing views, we salute her for standing up for her values as a proud white woman.
Of course, Jennifer is learning that such candor might hurt her future husband’s political career (as if) and so she has to go along with the “mistake” story, claiming she checked “American Independent” on the voter registration form when she meant to check “Decline to State.”
Just like that—she goes from “proud white woman” to “ignorant beyond belief.”
Being a political wifey is almost like a job. What a team Jen and Gav will make!
One of the great scenes of the old Mary Tyler Moore show is when Mary invites her boss, Lou Grant (Ed Asner) to her apartment for dinner. Mary, of course, is nervous and wants everything to go right.
She offers Lou a drink, he says “bourbon on the rocks,” and follows Mary into her little kitchen. Mary puts ice in a large glass, then pours some bourbon into a shot glass slow and careful because her hands are shaking.
Lou grabs the whiskey bottle out of May’s hand, saying “That’s not how you make a drink… here’s how you make a drink.”
Lou pours directly from the bottle until the large glass is about half full, and exclaims, “THAT’s how you make a drink.”
Mary is non-plussed. She looks at the nearly-full shotglass in her hand and asks Lou, “What about this?”
Lou looks at the shotglass, grabs it from her hand, and knocks it back.
And Mary does a comic take.
Because it’s more visually complex, movies tend to portray boilermakers (shot and a beer) as depth-charges (shotglass in the beer). But, as I learned as a kid, and as Wikipedia points out:
Classically, the liquor is drunk in one gulp and chased immediately by the beer.
Then after a brief discussion of delivery methods, (sidecars, depth charges etc) Wikipedia states clearly:
Guides differ on the preferred technique, but all agree that speed is the essence of this drink: one generally aims to drink a boilermaker quickly.
This is fairly common knowledge among American working-class drinkers.
Because it’s a working class drink, and a heavy-drinker’s drink, boilermakers usually include well whiskey and draught beer (the cheapest).
So yesterday we see Hillary, full Deerhunter mode, doing a barroom photo-op attempting to drink a boilermaker.
We see Hillary sipping at the shotglass, reportedly filled with Crown Royal, a Canadian whiskey, which costs a lot more than the bar’s well-whiskey.
Then we see her sipping at a beer mug (full pint).
It’s wrong in so many ways.
This shows that Hillary isn’t just elitist, her entire staff is elitist—not one of them could tell her how to drink a boilermaker.
When it comes to booze, an American presidential candidate need remember only four words:
Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey.
As jazz is to the world of music, so Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey is to the world of booze--a uniquely American contribution.
Maybe there’s some local Penn. custom of drinking Crown Royal, that imported Canadian is superior to American stuff, with the crown and all, but this would be self-loathing and shouldn’t be encouraged.
And the beer should be served in a straight-sided glass that holds maybe eight ounces, not in a big old sixteen-ounce pub-style mug. The whole idea is down-the-hatch, and, after a hard day in the coal mines, who has the energy (or breath) to chug sixteen ounces?
Also, what kind of a working-class bar would allow a woman her age to drink standing up? Working class men would have offered their seats to her and refused to sit while Hillary remained standing.
The cameras would have enjoyed Hillary’s thigh-flesh draping over the sides of a barstool, like a real working-class woman.
When Barack Obama discusses ultra-sensitive topics he challenges the accepted wisdom that such issues are “off-limits.”
We can’t talk about the historical crimes against democracy committed by the US government.
We can’t suggest that black people in America tend to get a raw deal.
And we can’t talk about the working class because we don’t have a working class.
To raise these issues indicts corporate big media and their overpaid stooges who recite their corporate version the news.
Eighty percent of Americans including congressional panels and even members of the Warren Commission are convinced that if he shot at Kennedy at all that day, Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and therefore there was a conspiracy.
But 99.9% of corporate media talking heads deride such an idea. Anyone who suggests that Oswald didn’t fire the “magic bullet” is labeled by them as a conspiracy nut.
Why does the media respond this way? Because they can’t stand to admit that they muffed the biggest story of post-war America.
Why are they horrified by talk about race and class? Because they have staked their careers on the notion that you can’t talk about those things—that those problems are intractable. They are wrong, just as they were wrong about the Kennedy assassination.
The wave of criticism on MSNBC against Obama’s recent comments on poor-whites is led by new show-host David Gregory, and by Joe Scarborough who seems to be working the angle day and night.
Remember, Scarborough was a Republican congressman from the Florida panhandle with a business constituency and an ignorant, racist, poor-white votership. Why are we not surprised that he doesn’t like Obama?
David Gregory now hosts “Race for the White House” weekday afternoons on MSNBC.
You remember David Gregory, Karl Rove’s back-up dancer. They may as well have been fellating.
In my view, journalists shouldn’t socialize with the people they cover. A journalist is less free if the choice to report something, or not, might affect his or her social calendar.
The major TV journalists are paid enough that they can afford to socialize with the ruling class—at least enough to make themselves presentable at events.
“Off the record” means the journalist agrees not to share valuable information with his or her readership.
After her swearing-in yesterday, California Congressional District 12 term filler-outer Jackie Speier made a few comments which a sycophantic SFGate reported as a “fiery speech,” supposedly against the war, that caused “some” Republicans to “boo and walk out of the house chamber.”
Some interpret this as a hopeful sign. I have to admit it’s preferable that my congressperson receive Republicans’ boos rather than their cheers.
Is it time for me to soften my skepticism? I looked at the Congressional Record.
The war-related parts of Speier’s comments were quoted in the SFGate article in their entirety. It wasn’t a long speech against the war: here’s all she said about the war, per the Congressional Record:
While holding over 60 community meetings across my district this year, the most common question was, ``When will we get out of Iraq?'' It was asked by voters across the spectrum: veterans, students, parents, the prosperous, middle class, those still working towards their piece of the American Dream.
The process to bring the troops home must begin immediately. The President wants to stay the course, and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for a hundred years.
But, Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one.
Here is a summary of Speier’s points following by my comments in italics:
1. Her constituents position: “When will we get out…?” This is a weak representation. I bet her constituents position is closer to “immediate, complete, unconditional withdrawal,” not some wimpy quizzicalness.
2. The process of withdrawing troops must begin now. It already has begun. The only question is, “When will it be completed?” Hillary and Barack are talking about 2010. My suggestion—all troops out by April ’09.
3. Bush has the wrong position. Cheap shot, not appropriate for a non-partisan swearing-in ceremony.
4. McCain wants a 100-year war. See #3.
5. We must get out of Iraq in less than 100 years. Duh!
The congressional Democrats’ position on the war is essentially that of Pontius Pilate: innocence for the evil that happens on their watch. Speier’s gonna be a good, loyal democrat.
As a long suffering resident of California’s Twelfth Congressional District, I get to vote tomorrow to replace dead Democratic hack, Tom Lantos. Mr Lantos had a compelling concentration camp story and a reliable party-line vote.
Jackie Speier, famous for getting shot in the jungle and for being a good looking woman, is assumed to be Lantos’ replacement-for-life.
She is so confident that she hasn’t even asked for my vote. No mailer. No tv ads. Nothing.
Being a reliable Democratic Party hack is not qualification enough for me. I assume she's Pelosi-lite: pro war, pro torture, anti-impeachment.
I’m voting for the Green Party candidate, Barry Hermanson. At least he sent me a mailer asking for my vote.
White guy, about my age. Actually we look sort of alike.
The Voter Information Pamphlet for this election has all the boilerplate of a major election, but content specific to this race consists of a Letter from the John Arntz, Director of SF Board of Elections, and a barebones sample ballot.
Arntz explains the open primary: Candidates from all parties appear on one ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of votes cast (50%+1), he or she wins. If not, there will be a runoff election between the top vote-getters from each party. This runoff will be part of the June 3, 2008 primary ballot.
Note: Tomorrow’s vote is to fill the remainder of Lantos’ term, ending January, 2009 (next January).
To make things complicated, the June 3 ballot will also contain a primary election for the term beginning Jan. ’09 ending Jan’11.
Both could appear on the same ballot.
The voter pamphlet contains no information on the candidates, other than what appears on the sample ballot (below).
I expect at least “Candidate Statements” and lists of endorsers. This seems strange, kind of makeitupaswegoalong.
As you see, there are three parties on the ballot. If there is a runoff, Barry Hermanson will automatically be on it, as the top vote getter in the Green Party. I wonder if Barry would be on the runoff ballot even if he had received zero votes in this election.
Anyway, that won’t happen, because I’m voting for Barry Hermanson, even if he forgets.
As the media does its gee-whizzing on this fortieth anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, let us remember that the “lone nut” theory is the invention of “conspiracy deniers.”
My firm conviction is that J. Edgar Hoover was criminally liable in the murder of Martin Luther King.
J. Edgar Hoover was also criminally liable in the murders of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X., Robert Kennedy, and in the attempted murder of George Wallace.
Hoover was a hit man for the ruling class.
In terms of harm done, J. Edgar Hoover is the most evil American in our history, so far.
Yet, he is remembered, and vilified, as a cross dresser. It’s like, go ahead and kill presidents and opposition leaders, but goddammit, wear men's undergarments when you do it.
This is similar to recent reports of an overly cozy relationship between John McCain and an attractive female lobbyist. The media doesn’t care about possible corrupt transactions between McCain and the lady as long as they didn’t have sex.
Why did Hoover get away with his crimes? Why was he the longest surviving department head in the history of western government?
Because he knew all the sex-secrets (and booze and drug secrets) of all the powerful people in Washington. That was his modus operandi.
Our founding fathers created “checks and balances” because they knew that unchecked, powerful people tend to be greedy assholes.
In his SFGate column this morning, converted sports writer C.W. Nevius tsk-tsks the Board of Supes torch-inspired condemnation of China’s ongoing rape of Tibet.
Nevius’ dull comments are like those of the old white ladies I used to overhear on the L-Car.
The only reason I read his column is because it google-alerted on Carmen Chu, the Mayor-appointed Supervisor representing my district.
In the months since her appointment, Chu has followed Newsompolicy to the letter. In the torch matter, because she’s Chinese-American, Chu has been Newsom’s point-person against any criticism of the current Beijing regime.
Despite efforts by Newsom and Chu to kill the resolution condemning China, Daly's anti-China resolution was finally approved by the Board of Supervisors. Nevius is confused:
“That it passed Tuesday at the full board meeting 8-3 seems to indicate that this wasn't exactly a ticking time bomb of controversy. After all, who doesn't want to vote against human rights violations?”
Answer: Well, if the vote was 8-3, that means three supervisors didn’t “want to vote against human rights violations.” Their names are Chu, Elsbernd (Jesuit educated), and Alioto-Pier. They are the Newsom appointees on the board.
Later, Nevius again expresses puzzlement:
“God only knows why San Francisco was picked as the only North American city for an Olympic torch run.”
Answer: The greedy people who run this town (City Powers) actually wanted the torch run to come here. They lobbied for it. It must have smelled like money to them, it probably still does. They probably gave assurances.
To end the column, Nevius takes a jab at Chris Daly, sponsor of the anti-China pro-Tibet resolution, for not commenting (yet) on some proposed liquor sales restriction sponsored by outgoing dud Gerardo Sandoval.
Quite an unexpected juxtaposition!
Per Nevius, this is one little scene in the epic contest between Daly and Newsom, two local boy-heroes about whom the rest of the world remains blissfully ignorant.
To sum up Nevius’ column:
Screw Tibet, let’s hassle winos!
Such is C.W., conventional wisdom, in San Francisco.
After much consultation Mayor Newsom has come out in favor of the First Amendment. This decision required careful consideration because the US Constitution is silent on the issue of sucking Chinese Communist ass.
The Mayor has released the route of the San Francisco leg of the Torch Relay, in plenty of time for protest groups to incorporate specific geography in their planning. [Map from SFGate.]
This is all good, I guess.
Speaking of geography, the SF leg of the Torch Relay will be the only time the torch is in the United States, actually it’s the only stop in North America, something San Franciscans can be proud or ashamed of.
Those ashamed can take heart that the Torch, while invading our soil, doesn’t make it very far inland.
I looked at the route on googlemaps with my plastic ruler, and found that at no point is the torch route much farther than 1000 feet from the shore (bay). Not a substantial beachhead.
It’ll sort of blend in with those annoying seals at Pier 39.
While we accept the torch with fear and loathing, we've managed to keep it at bay. SF should be proud.
The last time I actually showed up for jury duty it was a civil asbestos trial, and the defendant was Union Carbide.
I didn’t know much about Union Carbide, except the nagging thought, Weren’t those the folks who gassed thousands in Bhopal, India?
Union Carbide doesn’t exist anymore, it was purchased by some larger corporate entity. It’s India division had already been sold off.
You can argue about Rev. Wright’s rhetoric. But if you read the story of the Bhopal Disaster, you will agree that there at least some people in the world who can say with some justice, “God damn America.”
BTW: The lawyers for Dow (which bought Union Carbide) were the slickest litigators I’ve ever seen in action, including at least five trials and five more voir-dires as a juror, and one trial, lasting seven weeks, as a defendant. The Dow lawyers were world-class.
The plaintiff’s lawyer was fine—he could beat the pants off any Dep DA I’ve ever seen, but he was nowhere near as perfect as Dow’s guys (all guys). The mismatch in lawyers was probably to compensate for a similar mismatch in facts that tilted toward the defendants.
On a lighter note, Aloha Airlines has been in the news—it’s going out of business. I was kind of surprised that it was still in business.
Similar to the Union Carbide deal, my first association with the words, “Aloha Airlines,” is this:
Talk about fresh air exchange!
Aloha is such a nice word! According to Wikipedia:
Aloha in the Hawaiian language means affection, love, peace, compassion, mercy, goodbye, and hello, among other sentiments of a similar nature. It is used especially in Hawaii as a greeting meaning hello and goodbye. Variations occur based on circumstances when used as a salutation. "Aloha kakahiaka" is the phrase for "good morning". "Aloha auinalā" is the phrase for "good afternoon". "Aloha ahiahi" is the phrase for "good evening". "Aloha kākou" is a common form of "welcome to all".
In a recent blog post, The Age of the Anti-Cassandra, Paul Krugman bemoans the inclusion on Hillary Clinton’s proposed panel to solve the sub-prime crisis those who, like Alan Greenspan, architected the fucked-up mess in the first place.
Same dynamic regarding Iraq.
In his little rant, Krugman provides a 1931 utterance of John Maynard Keynes:
A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him.
I’m so glad Professor Krugman is again available on the New York Times website for free!
Which presidential candidate said the following about education?
[We] Spend so much time teaching students to use computers but we don't teach kids how to shop for their maximum health, safety, and economic well-being... what's the point of earning money if you're just going to lose it to corporate scams?
Colleagues of mine in Rudy’s Group, (365/yr, 9:00am, tennis, GGP), include a very sophisticated, and low-profile (redundant?) couple, Nick and Betty Maffei.
We were chatting one morning and blogging came up and we finally exchanged addresses and I looked at Nick Maffei’s San Francisco Photo Blog. I highly recommend it.
As a native blahblah, I think I know plenty about the geography of San Francisco, so it’s a pleasure to discover how ignorant I really am.
Alice Marble Tennis Courts? Never heard of them. I’ve heard of Alice Marble, one of greats in the history of SF sports.
As Nicks latest post shows, Alice Marble courts are at the top of Russian Hill.
All his photos are clickable for hi-res, and they are mostly of things, or from perspectives I wouldn’t expect.
All pleasure.
BTW: If you click around Nick and Betty’s other sites you’ll see how much fun they’ve had since the mid 1990s or so (e.g., teaching computing on cruise ships). The only mention of anything before then has to do with the Army Security Agency. Oh, oh!
Coincidentally, Alice Marble served as a spy in Europe for US intelligence during World War II, even sustaining a gunshot wound at the hands of a Nazi agent. At least according to Wikipedia.
The issue of bicycling in San Francisco always rouses negative emotions in me.
The rude, illegal behavior of many cyclists contributes to this, but there is more.
Bicycle advocates seem to think that their agenda is pro-environment (show me the numbers) and therefore “progressive.”
In general, “progressive” refers to collective, shared solutions to social needs.
A bicycle is a personal transportation device. An automobile is a personal transportation device.
While reasonable people can compare and contrast the benefits and drawbacks of these two types of personal transportation devices, neither has anything to do with “public transit.”
As a political effort, bicycling is reactionary.
Public transit (Muni) is progressive.
So that explains the bicyclists’ fuck-you attitude—they’re basically right-wing survivalists. Look at their physical fitness, and derring-do.
Recently Fog City Journal covered a City-Hall-steps rally (all one word in German) advocating implementation of the City’s Bicycle Plan, which has been stalled by inadequate Environmental Impact Studies. (Just like right-wingers, bicyclists don't much appreciate EIRs.)
I gush over Luke Thomas’ photography, but this story had photos by Adam Aufdencamp which are also very impressive. Taken together I think of the photos as “The Faces of Cycling.”
Above pictures are details from Mr Aufdencamp’s photos of some of the cycling advocates at the rally.
You know, the Magi brought baby Jesus three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. I’m guessing gram-for-gram, the myrhh was most precious.
I’m not saying I’m the baby Jesus, but like the humble stable of His birth, my digs, after some recent archeology, needed purification.
So I’ve been burning Nag, Champa that is, in my bedroom. It smells like a Hari Krishna parade, or a Head Shop. Such sweetness!
I’m using joss sticks from Bangalore, mfrd by Shrivinas Sugandhalaya. They named it after the religious leader Satya Sai Baba. [This might be like giving a great player’s name to a particular model of baseball glove—my first was a “Marty Marion.”]
I’m not religious, but the smell seduced me and I actually looked the guy up.
There’s lots of mumbo jumbo and the usual pedophilia claims, but Wikipedia distills Satya Sai Baba’s doctrine for us:
Sathya Sai Baba's teachings are said to be realized by observing the following four principles:
There is only one Caste, the Caste of Humanity; There is only one Religion, the Religion of Love; There is only one Language, the Language of the Heart; There is only One God and He is Omnipresent
One can study these words, or, one can light an excellent stick of Nag Champa.
They call it a relay, as if the entire route was covered by runners handing the torch from one to the next.
However, looking at the official schedule of the Olympic Torch Relay, it seems that much of the route is not covered on land or sea.
April 7, 2008 the torch will be in Paris;
April 9, the torch is due here in San Francisco;
April 11, Buenos Aires; and, get this,
April 13, Dar es Salaam!
They must be using airplanes to fly the torch between cities on the off-days. Do you think they really keep the flame lit? It seems easier and safer to simply strike a match in each new city.
It's a torch-tour, like a rock band tour, except instead of a music performance there's a short relay through the city along a circular route.
Anyway, I’m proud as a San Franciscan to see the grassroots resistance to the Beijing Olympic torch’s movement through our city.
I don’t advocate any violence, but for some people non-violent civil disobedience could be an appropriate response to China’s behavior in Tibet and Sudan.
China’s behavior is so awful that Mayor Newsom won’t even announce the route of the San Francisco leg of the torch run. It’s like he’s ashamed of it.
There’s already been a firebomb thrown at the Chinese consulate.
Hopefully, the hassle will loom so large that all the fun-ness will go out of the SF leg, at least for the Chinese government and its craven SF toadies. They could do the run at some private venue with heavy press restrictions—sort of how the games themselves will be reported.
Hopefully, some Olympic committee or other will foot the bill for police overtime. Do you think?
In future, City Powers should resist the urge to promote authoritarian regimes.
Judging from reports and soundbites it seems that Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race today could be a turning point for America’s quality of life.
There are some people who enjoy, approve, even benefit from the downtrodden status of so many African Americans. At the other end are moralists who cast shame on the US for its treatment of Black people.
For people in the middle, racial divisions are an annoying, troublesome aspect of our society that diminishes their overall quality of life. Wouldn’t it be great if our huge racial tensions could simply recede!
Barack Obama is qualified to promise the American people that no other candidate can promise—racial reconciliation. At least a process.
He’s both black and white, as he sort of said in his speech. He understands both sides, is intimately familiar with both sides. In fact, he is both sides.
Anyone can promise foreign policy stuff and economic stuff.
Only Obama can promise racial reconciliation. He has to come up with some sort of program and surrounding rhetoric, but he can own the issue.
Then, Hillary and McCain will be asked, "What is your program for racial reconciliation?"
Peace and prosperity, plus increasing racial harmony.
Dumb crackers played a race card. Obama holds the ace. I hope he plays it.
One seeming miracle in my lifetime is Bishop Desmond Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which attempted to deal with the classic question of how do we end the cycle of retaliation spawned by historic wrongs.
Tutu and Mandela understood that the task of rooting out and punishing all of the wrongdoers from the apartheid era would consume the new government and drown the country in blood.
Somehow former perps and former victims have to live side by side. Whatever the success of Tutu’s commission, the mere attempt is occasion for some deep hope.
Simply ignoring historic wrongs disses the most recently oppressed, like, someone has to eat it, and that someone is you.
[Click on the picture of Tempie Cummins to read some of her testimony.]
That’s the situation we have in the United States regarding slavery and its social aftermath.
It’s awkward.
There’s been some truth, but there’s been very little reconciliation in the United States, so it’s considered rude to talk about it.
Barack’s pastor talks about it, apparently, all the time.
An early question about Obama was, “Is he black enough.” [Not my question, I’m just reporting this shit.]
Now, with the preacher video clips the insinuation is that Obama is way too black.
Which raises an interesting question: can an African American national candidate these days be both black enough and not too black?
I’m thinking that “black enough for black voters” might still be a little “too black for white voters.”
BTW: Watching the clips of Barack’s pastor, I find myself agreeing with almost everything he says. Hold the 9-11 crap. Hold the goddamn America crap.
Parts of this clip have appeared on TV, with white commentators, and some new African American commentators clucking their disapproval. In this clip, at least, I think Reverend Wright it right-on.
Reverend Wright is definitely too black for white folk.
Obama’s response so far is that of a kid who’s been caught. “Not me,” he pleads. Poor baby!
With so much time before the national election Obama seems to be in a rope-a-dope mode. Barack should remember that toward the end of each rope-a-dope round Ali threw a flurry of punches that kept the scoring close.
It’s the sort of play that demands a neutral palette. It’s serious not colorful.
When it goes to the big screen it will be in black and white.
Like Twelve Angry Men, On the Waterfront, To Kill a Mockingbird, In Cold Blood, it definitely demands black and white. I already see the stark, hard-edged trailer exploding off the screen.
In the used-to-be-rural hamlet of Omelet, named after an historic egg joint which remains to this day the major source of “foreign exchange,” local politics is mostly a no-sweat, low-cost endeavor.
The neighboring hamlet, called Sally Sue, is named after its own main commercial endeavor, a bordello.
Because of their proximity, Omelet became a euphemism for Sallie Sue, which allowed “Omelet” to serve as an intransitive verb. Thus, if a man tells his wife he’s “going to Omelet” it could mean he’s gonna eat, or maybe he’s gonna have sex.
Locals enjoy the ambiguity and love to discuss what goes into a really good omelet.
Yep, folks in these parts have an easy going sense of humor.
Except, once every five years, they have to paint what they’ve come to call sarcastically, “the courthouse,” which, for all its shack-shambletude, is the only improvement on Omelet’s only publicly-owned property.
Besides painting, the effort usually includes minor landscaping (weed removal) and miscellaneous repairs. It’s Omelet’s biggest expenditure, and coming only every five years is paid for by a special tax, which kind of gets the residents’ attention.
The process of creating the contract, appropriating the funds, and choosing contractors has been so contentious in the past that old timers have pet names for it.
They used to call it The Lottery, after the short story.
Then, in the 1950s they started calling it To Serve Man.
In the 1970’s they called it Woodstock, which evolved into Woodburn, until these days it’s simply The Burn.
You’ll find omelets with these names on the menu at the hamlet’s famous diner, also called Omelet.
So, it’s 2008, and it’s time to paint the courthouse.
The factions and issues are lined up.
-Employ illegal aliens/undocumented workers? -Contractor provides domestic partner benefits? -Use higher priced, experimental, eco-friendly paint? -Bike racks! -Sell the property to Starbucks and lease-back meeting room space. -Let “Old Henry” do it. He needs the money. -Female contractors! -Union workers! -Non-union workers! -What about birds? -Let’s get a defibrillator. -Feng shui!
Anyway, the exact issues don’t matter, they merely serve as scalpels to reveal the human interior, from funny to ugly.
However, looking at the official schedule of the 
