Not so Subtle

The executive privileges that George Bush has claimed during his tenure in office are far more damaging than many people originally may have thought. I speculated a few years ago that whoever comes into office directly after Bush may be far more dangerous simply because of the situation that they inherit. George W. Bush may have had his own interests in mind when he consistently expanded the reach of Presidential powers, but he set the table for the next President as well. Whoever is elected in November will have the SAME powers that GWB has now, and those powers are far greater than the founders of our country ever intended.

Take, for example, FISA.

Some people will tell you that we need this bill in order to keep track of terrorist communications in and out of the US, and that voting against it is tantamount to treason. The fact is that very little information about terrorist cells has been gained through these ILLEGAL wiretapping operations, and meanwhile it has given the President cart blanche to spy on Americans without a warrant, and gives immunity to telecom companies for rolling over and allowing their customers’ lines to be tapped.

But never fear, when George Bush leaves office, everything will return to normal. Whoever the next President is will gracefully lay down those executive priviledges and restore the checks and balances in our government.

And giant, shroomed-out, purple-colored monkeys might fly out of my ass.

John Mccain has made no pretense about executive powers. He believes in taking the fight to the extremists, and using any methods necessary (including waterboarding) to get the job done.

Barack Obama has promised to restore the balance of power, until a few days ago, when he came out and supported the FISA bill. His argument? Essentially that he can be trusted not to abuse those same powers that Bush has for the last 8 years.

Hrmph. Where have I heard that one before?

“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. The powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated!”

Hint: it wasn’t Harry Truman.

Make no mistake about it. Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Palpatine, Hillary, Mccain, or Obama, they all want one thing:

“UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I hit Mccain for changing his position on offshore drilling, among other things. In the article, I proposed that we stop referring to politicians who change their minds as “flip-floppers,” and start using the more accurate term “liars.”

Barack Obama promised that he would change the way politics are waged in Washington. The basic premise of his campaign is that he will not do things the same old way, that change has come.

There is no greater obstacle to change in America than our campaign financing system. Yesterday, Barack Obama decided that it was better to take the money than to stay true to his promise of reforming the broken system.

If you plan to vote for another slick politician, then good for you. Just please stop telling me that this man is Jesus returned.

Barack Obama is a Senator. He is not the embodiment of fairness, equality, justice, change, and hope. He’s just an ordinary politician who’s far more eloquent than what we’ve come to expect.

If you really want change that isn’t a hollow campaign slogan, I suggest that you stop letting the celebrities tell you how to vote.

No, Barack Obama did not visit my church personally. *Insert thoughtless right wing pun about no bigot pastors being around here.* Obama visited my church in the discussion that is being held about race. That’s right. We had a discussion about race relations in this country in the middle of a church service.

This is one of the things I love about my church. (New Community Covenant Church) The forum on race generated so many questions that the segment ran longer. Our pastor decided to forgo communion this week in order to allow time for more discussion on the issue, even though we will be continuing the series for the next few weeks. How many churches do you know that will push communion back in order to have a lengthy discussion on racism in society that has been brought to the forefront by Barack Obama’s candidacy?

There were no politics discussed, only a frank and honest forum where people of different ethnicities sat down and told their history with racial relations. This is what this country needs. Badly. As recently as last week I wrote about the need for an open dialogue on race in politics. When more of us are willing to admit to our own shortcomings and prejudices, we will start the long, hard work of healing these divisions.

The forum consisted of a a Korean, an African-American, a Latino, an Indian who grew up in the Emirates, and a Caucasian. These people represented the core of our church, which is the most diverse that I have ever seen. I don’t have any numbers, but I’m going to guess that the congregation is about half Asian, a third white, and the rest equally divided up between African Americans and Hispanics.

One of the best points made was that the idea that we are living in a post-racial society is both untrue and unhealthy. We are NOT living in a post-racial utopia where race is not a factor. You can say that you don’t see Obama as black or Mccain as white until you’re bluish-pink in the face: the fact is that we do see them in the context of skin color, and it DOES effect the way that we think about them.

Like it or not, Barack Obama is now the focal point, the very epicenter of race relations in the United States, and he will be at least until this November. Now you know that I’m no big fan of Obama, but of course this weight isn’t fair to him: he is only a man and to shoulder the history of hundreds of years of racism is an incredible burden.

America, this issue is not going to go away even if Obama is elected. In fact it may get even more heated. It’s time that we start a real conversation about this. So, I’ll start with a question.

If Barack Obama is elected, will it change the way you think about racial tensions and relations in this country?

Now that Barack Obama is the (not just presumptive) nominee, we move into the home stretch of election 2008.

Today all the buzz is about history being made, about how incredible it is how far we’ve come to have a man of color as a presidential nominee. If you thought race was a major issue in the primaries, you have no idea what’s coming. We now have, for the first time, the choice to pick a black man to be President of the United States of America. Not to make light of Obama’s accomplishment, but I don’t see it as anything all that amazing. This is long, long, long, long overdue, and if you’re really all that surprised then you’ve had your head in the sand for the last 40 years.

It would not shock me to see a black President. I grew up after the civil rights movement, in a very integrated urban environment, and some of my closest friends are African Americans.

But.

But. But. But.

As much as I hate to admit it, I have felt a sliver of racism creeping into my subconscious as Obama has drawn closer to the presidency, and I’ve been trying to figure out why.

I’m currently reading the book Emotionomics- a marketing guide that puts forth the idea that customer emotions are by far the most important factor in effective advertising. One of the key principles in the book is that people have two reasons for any single decision: the rational reason, and the REAL reason.

My rational reasons for not voting for Obama are plentiful: he’s part of a stagnant, corrupt 2 party system. He only has a few years of experience in the Senate, he supports free trade, which hurts the middle class as much as anything, and he makes no promise to scale back our imperial forces.

But what are the real reasons? I have claimed that I have gone negative on Obama because the media is so enamored that the only voices of dissent you hear are from the far right wing. But is that just an excuse? Why am I really opposed to voting for Obama?

Is it because somewhere deep down I am afraid of the prospect of a black President? I would be lying if I told you that race never has entered my mind when considering who and who not to vote for.

America has some soul searching to do from now until November, and I am no exception. I sincerely hope that my reasons for not supporting Barack Obama aren’t rooted in some ass-backwards, cleverly hidden, cross-burning prejudices, but I have to consider the possibility that I’m full of shit and I really just won’t support an African American, and if it’s true I’ll have to rise above it.

I am going to take an intense look inward. We all need to. If you’re white, are you voting for Mccain because of Obama’s race? Are you voting for Obama because you feel guilty? If you’re black, are you voting for him primarily because he’s black? We need to ask ourselves these questions, and if we do, no matter what happens in the Election, our country will be making steps forward in racial relations.

We are far more primitive than we pretend to be. But I promise that I’m going to try my best to rise above our country’s shameful legacy of racism and make a decision based on the content of my candidate’s character, and nothing else.

It appears that tonight, finally, the Democratic primaries are going to end, with Hillary Clinton admitting that Obama has won enough delegates to secure the nomination, while stopping short of actually conceding the race, whatever in the blue hell that means.

Now that the race is over, alot of people (mainly Hillary supporters) are very, very PO’d.

They have every right to be. People were calling for their candidate to exit the race months ago, and the media has trashed Hillary at every turn. (She has certainly deserved some of it, but the extremes to which the MSM has gone to degrade her are absurd.) What the DNC chose to do with the delegates from Michigan was undemocratic, unfair, and unreasonable. While there may have been no clean way to sort that mess out, the fact is that now the Democratic Party has a huge problem on its hands. Hillary’s people are ready to jump ship and vote for Mccain.

Folks, I have supported Hillary’s right to stay in the race until the very end, I have tried to defend her from personal attacks, and I am one of the last people who would vote for Obama, but voting for John Mccain in November is not the answer.

The only way to solve this may be to force Barack Obama to take Hillary Clinton on his ticket for vice-president. That may go a long way to bringing back her supporters into the fold, but it shouldn’t be necessary.

I am not a supporter of party politics. But just because you’re completely, completely disappointed with the Democrats doesn’t mean that the grass is greener on the other side. In fact, that grass is brown, dried out, rather disgusting, and the country is tired of eating it.

If they don’t put Hillary in as VP, why don’t you come up with a better response than just voting for the other guy? If you’re a true Clinton supporter, there’s no way that you can believe John Mccain represents your interests more than Obama does.

Or, even better yet, vote Third party and teach BOTH the Dems and the Reps a lesson.

Today comes the latest batch of All-Star votes for the American League, and it is completely dominated by Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees.

First Base: Kevin Youkilis is leading

2nd base: Dustin Pedroia, followed by Robinson Canoe

3rd: Alex Rodriguez, followed by Mike Lowell

Short: Derek Jeter

Catcher: Jason Varitek

DH: David Ortiz, followed by Hideki Matsui

Outfield: Manny Ramirez

What does this tell us about the voting process? For one thing, the media shows just how powerful it is in selecting candidates for baseball and for the President of the United States. See, the choices for the people on the ballot are made even before the season begins, much like our primary campaigns. Before a single vote has been cast, before our voice has been heard, someone has already chosen who is electable and who is not for us. This means that only big names will be on the ballot and candidates who are just as qualified, if not even more-so, will be left out in the dark, and the people who choose to vote for them will have their needs ignored.

Case in point: Carlos Quentin of the Chicago White Sox is not even in the top 15 vote-getters for the outfield position, despite leading the AL in home runs, and being 2nd in RBI. Why? Because when the ballots were put together, baseball decided there was no way Carlos Quentin could put together an All-Star year. So despite having the best credentials, Quentin will not be voted in by the fans.

Who does make it? The two party system. Baseball coverage is dominated by Red Sox and Yankees highlights, just like media coverage is monopolized by Democrats and Republicans. Because we have been told that the Red Sox and Yankees are the only teams that really matter by the main-stream media, those are the ones that get the votes. So even though they might not perform, *As of today, the Yankees are in last place in their division* they will still be selected to represent baseball’s best.

This is the same phenomenon that has pushed out legitimate candidates who have agendas that do not match the powers’ that be on both sides, and from 3rd parties. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Ralph Nader have all been repeatedly shut out by the media and have been effectively forced out of the race.

Hillary Clinton, John Mccain and Barack Obama are ALL the establishment’s candidates. If you want a President who can really change things, and if you want to see your team’s best represent your town in the All-Star game, it’s time to start ignoring what the media tells you and start making choices on your own.

I read the New Yorker less frequently than I used to. I had to admit at a certain point that I didn’t understand half of what they write about, and their fiction section is as thrilling as moon pie on a paper plate. Occasionally they still write something that grabs my attention and today yielded this article on the so-called paradox of free trade:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/05/26/080526ta_talk_surowiecki

The author plays into an age old fallacy of believing that political candidates (in this case, Clinton and Obama,) actually plan to follow through on the promises they make during the campaign. They compare the primary contest to a “who hates free trade more” competition and then chastise the Democratic candidates for not understanding the “paradox” that free trade represents.

That paradox: raising tarriffs on China to help middle Americans will eventually hurt middle and lower class Americans because it will effect their buying power. Buying power that is used to by cheap clothes and shoes made by Chinese children who earn less than a dollar an hour in a sweatshop.

The logic is the same that has brought us the (Still waiting for my) economic stimulus package. Ordinary Americans will quickly spend the money that is being sent to them, and thus will help the economy. If you read between the lines, the administration is saying that poor people are stupid and will give the money right back to us by purchasing useless shit.

I may benefit from cheap goods made in China. In fact, I’m wearing a pretty cheap button-up shirt right now that was made there. But you know what I would benefit from EVEN MORE? A real job that pays well, is protected from outsourcing, and has the backing of a union. Then maybe, just maybe, I could afford to stop buying cheap goods that don’t last very long, and enjoy the luxuries of travel and education like the wealthy.

The anusless masses who subscribe to the New Yorker and the National Review should be smart enough (because of all that expensive education) to understand that lower and middle class Americans wouldn’t make such supposedly stupid buying decisions if they could actually afford to make good ones.

Obama has played the populist card as well as anyone, while nobody (except the middle class people who refuse to vote for him) seems to notice that he thinks free trade is the greatest thing since the wheel. It says so on his website.

Meanwhile, nobody was more responsible for the unleashing of free trade than Bill Clinton. Is it not painfully obvious to anyone that the Democratic party doesn’t give a fourth of a flying fig about average Americans’ interests? (Which is still twice as much as the Republicans.)

Don’t buy the hype. The benefits of free trade for average Americans (and Chinese) are far outweighed by the costs.

While I’m still a little disappointed that the other half of my graduating class gets to have Earth, Wind, and Fire perform at their commencement, I was honored yesterday to hear Dan Rather speak at my graduation ceremony.

Rather spoke, as he often does, of courage. He was speaking not only to those of us who had chosen journalism as their field, but to any of us who used writing. He encouraged us to challenge those who are in power, to not be intimidated by its instruments. Rather did not indulge the simple cliche of saying we are the future; instead, he told us that we are the now; he warned us not to wait to follow our dreams and to change the world and make it in the image that we want it.

These are words that I try to take to heart whenever I sit down to write, whether it be political commentary, diary, or fictional stories. Courage and the willingness to challenge the conventions of society are important. Rather reminded us that democracy is not the sole responsibility of people in Washington or the state legislature: it is on all of us to preserve it.

Journalists are not the only people who must hold those in power accountable. With the growth of the internet, it is now possible for people to understand the world in a limitless number of ways: the barriers to information and freedom are being torn down as we speak, but we must not forget to exercise that right and keep the powers that be in check.

I ask that if you’re voting for John Mccain, you question his policies, and you hold him accountable to the Constitution. I ask that if you’re voting for Obama, you force him to uphold the oath of office. No matter who you choose to elect, I ask that you never stop questioning them. Had we maintained our courage and been more willing to challenge our current President, we would not be in the shape we are in now.

In America, we the people are in charge.

P.S. Congratulations to everyone from the class of 2008

It is an unbearably hot and humid day in West Virginia in 1998. We are building a small flight of stairs for a family living in a mobile home; for hours we have been pounding nails, sawing, measuring, and sweating in the heat. “We” is a group of kids from Chicago on a mission trip to this impoverished state. The family is a single mother and her son, who have lived together her for several years. The stairs need to be built because recently the mother tripped on the makeshift staircase: a pair of cement blocks.

Every hour she comes out and gives us a new container of lemonade, which we accept gratefully and greedily. This lemonade is sweeter, cooler, better than the granulated stuff that we buy at Jewel back home.

We continue to toil in the sun into the afternoon, only being interrupted to shew away a snake which has strayed into the family’s garden. We don’t have snakes where I’m from. But here it’s not uncommon to be bitten when strolling through your yard. Here everything is a little bit different than back home. Us city kids are worn out easily by the labor, and the older youth group leaders take over the majority of the work soon. Inside, the mother is working just as hard, preparing a feast of chicken and dumplings for our entire group. It will be ready by sundown, she says in her friendly drawl.

Finally we finish the project. Four sturdy wooden stairs now lead up from the muddy ground to the door of their trailer. The son, Ben comes out when we are finished and he marvels at them after skipping down the steps in his bare feet. His mother comes out to see, and he nearly shouts:

“We got stairs, mama!”

I feel a slightly embarassing wave of warmth come over me when he says this. Maybe it’s satisfaction at having helped this family in need, maybe guilt over living in a two-story, middle classed mansion compared to their home. What strikes me is how excited Ben is over having stairs. The family has been living on food stamps for years and simple pleasures like a working staircase bring them the kind of joy that only Christmas usually carries along.

The poverty in West Virginia is real, and it is still as much a problem today as it was then. Today they vote for who they’d like to represent the Democratic party, and more than likely, they will choose Hillary Clinton, even though she has no chance of winning the nomination. There are alot of reasons why they will do this, and I don’t know them all. A great number of people will claim that they are stuck in a racist ideology, bred by time, ignorance, imbreeding, and poverty. On the road back to the school where we stayed for the week, there was a broken down stone wall that was spraypainted with an all-too-common message: “The only good Nigger is a dead Nigger.” We held our breath passing by it every day.

Racism is a fact of life in America today, especially in poorer southern states such as West Virginia. But I hope that Barack Obama’s supporters do not think that just because the people of the state chose to vote for Hillary over him means that they are racist. It’s certainly going to be one reason, but it is not the only one. To lump all of West Virginia together as a pack of ignorant redneck racist hicks is no more constructive than the claim that everyone who votes for Obama or Mccain is a sexist pig who loathes her and could never vote for any woman.

West Virginia is a real state with real problems, and no matter what happens with the voting today, I hope that we keep in mind that these are not stereotypes: the people I met in there were among the kindest, most generous, most genuine that I’ve ever met. The legacy is there, but do not belittle the people of this state by labeling them as anything.

While I don’t vote based on a candidate’s personal character, I know alot of you out there do. So let’s take a moment and examine the “character” of our 3 presidential hopefuls.

1. John Mccain called his wife a cunt in public. While I’m the last person who can call someone out for having a dirty mouth, I think that’s a bit extreme. He was a sailor, so you have to expect that, but still.

2. Hillary Clinton lies about anything she can.

3. Barack Obama is the most popular because you don’t know him. He’s a new face and we have yet to see his personal flaws, beyond the obligatory arrogance. If knowing that he’s Dick Cheney’s cousin doesn’t bother you, perhaps this will: it turns out that Obama has roots to the British Royal family. If you really want to get creeped out, look up the heraldic symbolism of the British coat of arms.

So there you have it. The establishment presents us with 3 options for the President:

1. The sexist sailor with a temper worse than Albert Belle’s.

2. The woman who is incapable of telling the truth.

3. The guy who has ties to the monarchy.

Awesome.