Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Riots in Mostar
Here is a video of the riots in my hometown of Mostar that erupted following the Turkey-Croatia game. This is the West/Croat side of the city and shows the Croat hooligans trying to penetrate riot police lines to get to the East/Muslim side. The police, fortunately, prevented them in this. The only regret I have is that the police weren't given rubber bullets and ordered to fire at will at these idiots. A few broken ribs later, the situation would have been calm.
McCain's "Experience"
Everyone keeps praising McCain's "experience" that supposedly qualifies him to lead our country. This man was brutally tortured in the dungeons of Vietnam. During his captivity he spoke of the need to execute all of those American prisoners who dared co-operate with their captors or express anti-war views. Upon his return he blamed (and still continues to uphold this argument) the antiwar movement in the US with weakening the US resolve and eventually causing the country to cede Vietnam to the Communists. Do you really want someone with this kind of "experience" to lead our country?
He is certainly a man who should be given highest military honors for his suffering and should be shown respect, but his traumatic experience raises serious doubts about his fitness to be the commander-in-chief.
He is certainly a man who should be given highest military honors for his suffering and should be shown respect, but his traumatic experience raises serious doubts about his fitness to be the commander-in-chief.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Soccer and Nationalism
I spent most of the Croatia-Turkey game with an annoying monologue running through my mind. "Of course you should cheer for Croatia, the Croats are 'ours.' They speak 'our' language, they have our names, and they used to be a part of 'our' nation of Yugoslavia," one voice kept telling me. Every time the Turks rushed to the Croats' goal, this voice was squashed by another one who kept shouting in my ear: "Oh, but Turkey is so beautiful. Remember those Istanbul summers? The friends you made? You are studying their language, and have lots of friends in Turkey. And Croatia is no longer your homeland." Every time I would tell my co-watchers that I was tempted to root for Turkey, I would follow the comment by a long list of justifications and a caveat that this was by no means a political choice and that I would be just as pleased if the Croats won.
Surprisingly (even to myself), when the Croats scored the goal in the very last minutes of the last extra half time, I felt my hands wrap around my head in a moment of sadness and agony, not happiness. Only seconds later, the Turks rammed the ball into the Croat net, equalizing the game and causing me to literally jump off my couch and shout as loud as I have shouted in a while. That same shout came back when the Turks won the game on penalty kicks. I did feel terrible for the Croats who honestly played a better game. I also found myself wishing to have watched the game either in Split, Zagreb, Mostar, or Istanbul. It doesn't matter. I just wanted to be surrounded by a mass of people who were emotionally invested in the game.
The overwhelming power of sports to enable people to become emotionally invested in their nation lies in the fact that it allows you to personify the nation through the faces, names, and destinies of individual players and coaches. You become one of them by the simple act of watching the game. This is why the defeat is so crushing. As a friend of mine remarked to me after the game, "The Croats will be depressed for days after today."
Only moments after the game, riots erupted in my hometown of Mostar. The Muslims celebrated on the East side, honking their horns and waving Turkish flags. On the West side, Croat fans attempted to penetrate the riot police lines and come over to the East side, but they were (thank God!) prevented by the police. So, the story of the intimate relationship between soccer and nationalism goes on.
I am still trying to analyze my own feelings (yes I am a self-involved man). Why did I cheer for Turkey, despite my Yugo-nostalgia and my oft-repeated aloofness from nationalism? Feel free to psychoanalyze me in the comments section...
Surprisingly (even to myself), when the Croats scored the goal in the very last minutes of the last extra half time, I felt my hands wrap around my head in a moment of sadness and agony, not happiness. Only seconds later, the Turks rammed the ball into the Croat net, equalizing the game and causing me to literally jump off my couch and shout as loud as I have shouted in a while. That same shout came back when the Turks won the game on penalty kicks. I did feel terrible for the Croats who honestly played a better game. I also found myself wishing to have watched the game either in Split, Zagreb, Mostar, or Istanbul. It doesn't matter. I just wanted to be surrounded by a mass of people who were emotionally invested in the game.
The overwhelming power of sports to enable people to become emotionally invested in their nation lies in the fact that it allows you to personify the nation through the faces, names, and destinies of individual players and coaches. You become one of them by the simple act of watching the game. This is why the defeat is so crushing. As a friend of mine remarked to me after the game, "The Croats will be depressed for days after today."
Only moments after the game, riots erupted in my hometown of Mostar. The Muslims celebrated on the East side, honking their horns and waving Turkish flags. On the West side, Croat fans attempted to penetrate the riot police lines and come over to the East side, but they were (thank God!) prevented by the police. So, the story of the intimate relationship between soccer and nationalism goes on.
I am still trying to analyze my own feelings (yes I am a self-involved man). Why did I cheer for Turkey, despite my Yugo-nostalgia and my oft-repeated aloofness from nationalism? Feel free to psychoanalyze me in the comments section...
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A Call to the Liberal Base: Don't Abandon Him
As Obama moves into the mainstream campaign strategy it is extremely importantly that his liberal base does not waver in their support of him. His decision to abandon public funding was the shrewdest political move yet. If he had opted to use public funds he would have squandered an enormous money advantage he has over McCain and that allows him to compete in formerly traditional Republican states. If he had to decided to abandon the millions of dollars his supporters give him every month--with average donation not topping $100--would have been stupid! Not principled, but stupid!
It is important for the liberals to understand that if we want to change America, we have to win. That means moving to the mainstream and redefining the narrative in order to appeal to more people. It does not mean abandoning one's principles.
And on the so-called "incident" involving Obama volunteers banning headscarf-wearing Muslim women from attending one of his rallies: it was NOT Obama who did this. It was a couple of young, nervous volunteers and Obama has apologized and anyone who has followed his campaign knows that Obama vehemently disagrees with this kind of behavior.
The liberal left, of all people, should not pick over his campaign tactics and start debilitating his campaign even before he defeats the Republicans. I am sure we will have plenty of time to pressure him and criticize his policies once he is President. But please let's first make sure he does become President.
It is important for the liberals to understand that if we want to change America, we have to win. That means moving to the mainstream and redefining the narrative in order to appeal to more people. It does not mean abandoning one's principles.
And on the so-called "incident" involving Obama volunteers banning headscarf-wearing Muslim women from attending one of his rallies: it was NOT Obama who did this. It was a couple of young, nervous volunteers and Obama has apologized and anyone who has followed his campaign knows that Obama vehemently disagrees with this kind of behavior.
The liberal left, of all people, should not pick over his campaign tactics and start debilitating his campaign even before he defeats the Republicans. I am sure we will have plenty of time to pressure him and criticize his policies once he is President. But please let's first make sure he does become President.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
New Poll: Obama Leads McCain in the Battleground States
The new poll came out today which shows Obama has taken an early lead over McCain in all of the three states often described as the key battleground: Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Keep in mind, this is the first time Obama has lead McCain in all three states.
Quinnipiac University's Poll results:
Florida.
Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%
Ohio.
Obama: 48%
McCain: 42%
Pennsylvania.
Obama: 52%
McCain: 40%
According to the poll, Obama holds convincing leads (between 10-23 points) among women in all three states and a double digit lead among young voters. While the Democrats are trailing among white men, the African-American support tops 90% and offsets the losses among this demographic group.
How should you read these results? An Obama landslide in November, barring any major scandals/revelations.
Quinnipiac University's Poll results:
Florida.
Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%
Ohio.
Obama: 48%
McCain: 42%
Pennsylvania.
Obama: 52%
McCain: 40%
According to the poll, Obama holds convincing leads (between 10-23 points) among women in all three states and a double digit lead among young voters. While the Democrats are trailing among white men, the African-American support tops 90% and offsets the losses among this demographic group.
How should you read these results? An Obama landslide in November, barring any major scandals/revelations.
Monday, June 16, 2008
John McBush
I thought I'd continue in the spirit of my last blog post and debunk another myth: that John McCain is a maverick in the Republican party, an independent Republican who has stood up for his principles even if it meant opposing the Republicans. For the sake of brevity (not my strongest suit I know), let's take 4 major issues and see where he stands in relation to President Bush and the Republican party.
1) Roe vs. Wade. As McCain is desperately and transparently trying to win over Hillary's women, it is important that the Democrats aggressively highlight McCain's official position on the right of women to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This is what McCain's website says about his position on Roe vs. Wade: "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench." (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) Read: John McCain will appoint conservative judges who will bend over backwards (just like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas and previously Renquist have done) to overturn the decision and limit women's human right to have full sovereignty over their bodies. This position in itself should disqualify McCain from ever claiming he is independent from the Right wing of the Republican party.
2) Iraq. From the very beginning, McCain wholeheartedly supported Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and has been an unswerving supporter. While he did criticize earlier Rumsfeld's approach to the country--in sending a minimal number of troops--he has continued to support American occupation of that country. In his interview with Larry King on February 14, 2008, McCain said: "It's not a matter of how long we are in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not." He was defending the statement he had made a few days earlier at a town hall meeting when he said that staying in Iraq for 100 years would have been "fine with me."
3) Torture. McCain endured years of horrible captivity in North Vietnamese concentration camps and was brutally tortured. This is why his position on the continuing CIA practice of torturing its suspects is baffling and disappointing. In February of this year, the Senate and the House passed a bill that would ban the CIA from using waterboarding as an interrogation tactic. The bill simply limited CIA tactics to the Army Field Manual, which among other things, prohibits beatings, using electric shocks, forced nudity, the use of dogs, etc. Completely ignoring (willfully) the damage Bush's policy of torture and Abu Ghraib have done to the US image abroad, McCain opposed the bill saying: "We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures." (Boston Globe, Feb. 16, 2008). I guess he supports Bush's arrogant foreign policy that the US, as the strongest kid on the playground, doesn't have to play by the rules and can bully other kids.
4) Tax cuts. In May 2001, McCain said the following about Bush's taxcuts: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Today, he not only supports extending Bush's tax cuts, but also cutting more taxes for the wealthy. On his campaign website, McCain says that he will "maintain the current income and investment tax rates." And what about the money that we need to revitalize New Orleans and bring those people home, to fix our crumbling infrustructure, make education affordable again, and help middle class Americans avoid foreclosures during the housing crisis?
The truth is there is no difference between George W. Bush and John McCain. None.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Death of Tim Russert
Today I was saddened and stunned by the truly tragic news that NBC's Washington Bureau chief Tim Russert died. As a political junkie, I followed almost every episode of "Meet the Press" and those Saturday nights when I went out late at night I would set my alarm clock to watch Sunday's Meet the Press at 10 (in Champaign) and 9 o'clock the next morning(when I was living in Kentucky). I would never ever get upset at his line of questioning--even while he was grilling Obama--and I would always turn off my set at the end of the show, feeling even more inspired by the gritty details of American politics. On the night Obama won the Democratic primary, Tim analyzed Obama's speech at St. Paul and he had tears in his eyes. He said his biggest wish at that moment was to teach American history in intercity schools. He had tears in his eyes when he said that this country finally had a clear choice and faced an exciting elections which he would cover. I remember thinking that night: "I can't wait to watch Tim Russert on the night of November 4." We have all been robbed of a wonderful man.
Tim, you will be greatly missed...
Tim, you will be greatly missed...
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Defending Obama Against Scurrilous Myths!
I thought that it would be useful for me to outline a list of responses to the most common myths about Obama which are being circulated on the internet and cable TV (most notably the Fox News Channel) and which portray him as un-American. For many of us these are just stupid racist lies, but since they have the power to grow into Obama's own Swift-boat problem (remember Kerry?), I think it is essential that we know how to respond to every single one of them with facts. So here there are:
1) Lie: Obama is a Muslim.
Fact: Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim. His father was an agnostic who flirted with all sorts of religions, including Islam, but then he gave that up as well. Barack saw his father only once when he was 10 years old, and never again after that. He was brought up in a Christian household by his white grandparents. He himself was an agnostic and never a Muslim, until he was 26 when he was BAPTIZED as a CHRISTIAN! The fact that he has African names should be celebrated not condemned, and for those who condemn him just for his names do not embrace American values. He NEVER attended a Muslim school in Jakarta, Indonesia. The school Dasar Negeri Besuki has always been a public school. Indonesian embassy confirmed this in a letter from Indonesian ambassador to Obama on 1/25/07), and CNN's own investigative team visited the school and proved that this has always been a multiconfenssional public school. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-kPCCog0BY)
2) Lie: Obama doesn't wear a flag-pin or swear pledge of allegiance to the flag and therefore he is unpatriotic.
Fact: Obama has led the United States Senate in pledge of allegiance and had his right hand firmly on his heart. You can watch the video here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/patriot. Also, questioning his patriotism by focusing on how he stands to observe the national anthem and how he doesn't wear a flag pin (he does now by the way) is really avoiding the substance of his proposals. In his speeches and policy proposals Barack wants to make America stronger by embracing its values of diversity, and improving its image in the world. Bush wears a flag pin so does Cheney and how have they contributed to America's strength and image? So, pure symbols don't mean much if they are not backed by actions.
3) Lie: Michelle Obama is unpatriotic.
Fact: Michelle's story could not be more American. She grew up in a poverty-stricken household on South Side Chicago and faced daily reminder that black people are less of human beings. But yet, she succeeded precisely because she embraced the American dream. She went to Princeton and got a law degree and was a top student in her class. So for her to say she has not been proud of her country is completely understandable in my mind. This is the country which condemned Martin Luther King as a traitor and un-American while he was alive. It was only years after his assassination that he was truly embraced. So she has every right to question America, and as such, would be a powerful first lady.
3) Lie: Obama agrees with Reverend Wright's anti-American statements.
Fact: Reverend Wright was NOT Obama's mentor, but his pastor. Despite Obama's close relationship to the Reverend he, by no means, shares all of his views. Reverend Wright leads the biggest black church on the South Side. The Church has been an enermous influence in the lives of millions and has led incredibly successful programs for improving the lives of the poor and those affected with AIDS. Reverend Wright is a marine who fought for the country. He was NOT Obama's mentor, but his pastor. Obama listened to his speeches, most of which focused on personal salvation through community work, and while he may have heard things he disagreed with, this does not mean he embraces these things. Also, if you want to make it as a black man in Chicago politics, you HAVE to work with powerful Reverends. Reverend Wright espouses black liberation theology, which was a powerful tool in Latin America for resiting the Catholic church and its opression of black majorities by white minorities (like in El Salvador). Barack never said he fully embraces this ideology but rather that this was one of many doctrines he has studied while a student. He also studied Marxism (like us), and does that make him a Marxist?
4) Lie: In his speech on race in Philadelphia he "sacrificed" his white grandmother in defending Reverend Wright.
Fact: This is the most scurrilous, cruelest and stupidest lie I have come across. Barack's grandmother Madelyn Dunham has been his best friend who raised him since he was 2! His white grandparents sacrificed much (including having a house) and lived in a small apartment in Hawaii in order to send him to Punhao school, which is an elite college prep school in Hawaii. Anyone who read his memoir knows the close and moving relationship he has always had with his grandma. In his victory speech in Minnesota he dedicated this night to his grandmother. And of course she harbored racial stereotypes in the 1960s and 1970s. She grew up in Kansas when interracial marriage was a crime. But she is still a part of Obama's genetic make up. This is exactly what he is about. Anyone who saw that speech and many others Obama gave knows this, but then again these myths are propagated by those who have never read or watched anything Obama has ever uttered and that did not neatly fit into their racist views of Obama as the Other.
5) Lie: Barack Obama is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
Fact: He has repeatedly said he would defend Israel and has called for immediate and unconditional diplomacy to bring that awful war to an end and to achieve a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side. He has never ever embraced the hateful ideology of Louis Farakhan. And the fact that his reverend Wright met with Mommar Gaddafi tells us nothing. It was not Obama who met with him! And even if he had, he would have been following the policy of Tony Blair (who invited Gaddafi to an EU summit), and many other European leaders as well as Americans who have met with him as US normalized its relations with Libya.
6) Lie: Obama would endanger the security of the US by meeting with leaders of rogue states. Fact: What Barack has proposed is simply to follow the great tradition of American foreign policy where we talk to our friends and enemies alike. Diplomacy is not about resolving issues between friends, but rather between enemies. Following this absurd "logic", Nixon can be classified as anti-American because he met with Mao Tsedung, Kennedy met with Khruschev (a meeting that later resulted in the ability of both leaders to pull away from the brink of a nuclear war). Even the US Secretary of Defense Gates has called for active engagement with Iran in negotiating a solution to the Iraqi civil war. Collin Powell has also been supportive of this. Talking to our enemies through tough principled diplomacy has a better shot of achieving peace and securing this country than Bush's "war on terror" which has enabled Iran to become the most powerful Mideast country, has put Hamas in power in Gaza (despite calls to Bush not to have elections, and then once they did elect Hamas, he isolated them pushing the region as far away from peace than ever before).
These are the 6 most oft-repeated lies I have encountered. If you encounter anymore, please email me or post them on my blog so I can research them and post a response.
1) Lie: Obama is a Muslim.
Fact: Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim. His father was an agnostic who flirted with all sorts of religions, including Islam, but then he gave that up as well. Barack saw his father only once when he was 10 years old, and never again after that. He was brought up in a Christian household by his white grandparents. He himself was an agnostic and never a Muslim, until he was 26 when he was BAPTIZED as a CHRISTIAN! The fact that he has African names should be celebrated not condemned, and for those who condemn him just for his names do not embrace American values. He NEVER attended a Muslim school in Jakarta, Indonesia. The school Dasar Negeri Besuki has always been a public school. Indonesian embassy confirmed this in a letter from Indonesian ambassador to Obama on 1/25/07), and CNN's own investigative team visited the school and proved that this has always been a multiconfenssional public school. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-kPCCog0BY)
2) Lie: Obama doesn't wear a flag-pin or swear pledge of allegiance to the flag and therefore he is unpatriotic.
Fact: Obama has led the United States Senate in pledge of allegiance and had his right hand firmly on his heart. You can watch the video here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/patriot. Also, questioning his patriotism by focusing on how he stands to observe the national anthem and how he doesn't wear a flag pin (he does now by the way) is really avoiding the substance of his proposals. In his speeches and policy proposals Barack wants to make America stronger by embracing its values of diversity, and improving its image in the world. Bush wears a flag pin so does Cheney and how have they contributed to America's strength and image? So, pure symbols don't mean much if they are not backed by actions.
3) Lie: Michelle Obama is unpatriotic.
Fact: Michelle's story could not be more American. She grew up in a poverty-stricken household on South Side Chicago and faced daily reminder that black people are less of human beings. But yet, she succeeded precisely because she embraced the American dream. She went to Princeton and got a law degree and was a top student in her class. So for her to say she has not been proud of her country is completely understandable in my mind. This is the country which condemned Martin Luther King as a traitor and un-American while he was alive. It was only years after his assassination that he was truly embraced. So she has every right to question America, and as such, would be a powerful first lady.
3) Lie: Obama agrees with Reverend Wright's anti-American statements.
Fact: Reverend Wright was NOT Obama's mentor, but his pastor. Despite Obama's close relationship to the Reverend he, by no means, shares all of his views. Reverend Wright leads the biggest black church on the South Side. The Church has been an enermous influence in the lives of millions and has led incredibly successful programs for improving the lives of the poor and those affected with AIDS. Reverend Wright is a marine who fought for the country. He was NOT Obama's mentor, but his pastor. Obama listened to his speeches, most of which focused on personal salvation through community work, and while he may have heard things he disagreed with, this does not mean he embraces these things. Also, if you want to make it as a black man in Chicago politics, you HAVE to work with powerful Reverends. Reverend Wright espouses black liberation theology, which was a powerful tool in Latin America for resiting the Catholic church and its opression of black majorities by white minorities (like in El Salvador). Barack never said he fully embraces this ideology but rather that this was one of many doctrines he has studied while a student. He also studied Marxism (like us), and does that make him a Marxist?
4) Lie: In his speech on race in Philadelphia he "sacrificed" his white grandmother in defending Reverend Wright.
Fact: This is the most scurrilous, cruelest and stupidest lie I have come across. Barack's grandmother Madelyn Dunham has been his best friend who raised him since he was 2! His white grandparents sacrificed much (including having a house) and lived in a small apartment in Hawaii in order to send him to Punhao school, which is an elite college prep school in Hawaii. Anyone who read his memoir knows the close and moving relationship he has always had with his grandma. In his victory speech in Minnesota he dedicated this night to his grandmother. And of course she harbored racial stereotypes in the 1960s and 1970s. She grew up in Kansas when interracial marriage was a crime. But she is still a part of Obama's genetic make up. This is exactly what he is about. Anyone who saw that speech and many others Obama gave knows this, but then again these myths are propagated by those who have never read or watched anything Obama has ever uttered and that did not neatly fit into their racist views of Obama as the Other.
5) Lie: Barack Obama is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
Fact: He has repeatedly said he would defend Israel and has called for immediate and unconditional diplomacy to bring that awful war to an end and to achieve a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side. He has never ever embraced the hateful ideology of Louis Farakhan. And the fact that his reverend Wright met with Mommar Gaddafi tells us nothing. It was not Obama who met with him! And even if he had, he would have been following the policy of Tony Blair (who invited Gaddafi to an EU summit), and many other European leaders as well as Americans who have met with him as US normalized its relations with Libya.
6) Lie: Obama would endanger the security of the US by meeting with leaders of rogue states. Fact: What Barack has proposed is simply to follow the great tradition of American foreign policy where we talk to our friends and enemies alike. Diplomacy is not about resolving issues between friends, but rather between enemies. Following this absurd "logic", Nixon can be classified as anti-American because he met with Mao Tsedung, Kennedy met with Khruschev (a meeting that later resulted in the ability of both leaders to pull away from the brink of a nuclear war). Even the US Secretary of Defense Gates has called for active engagement with Iran in negotiating a solution to the Iraqi civil war. Collin Powell has also been supportive of this. Talking to our enemies through tough principled diplomacy has a better shot of achieving peace and securing this country than Bush's "war on terror" which has enabled Iran to become the most powerful Mideast country, has put Hamas in power in Gaza (despite calls to Bush not to have elections, and then once they did elect Hamas, he isolated them pushing the region as far away from peace than ever before).
These are the 6 most oft-repeated lies I have encountered. If you encounter anymore, please email me or post them on my blog so I can research them and post a response.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Right to Unionize
It is pretty obvious to every reasonable person living in this country that we need a dramatic change in labor laws. Take my parents for example. They have worked in a factory, which produces air-filters, for the past 13 years and have had a stellar record of performance and attendance. Despite having held long-term white collar jobs in Yugoslavia (my father worked as a mechanical engineer in an aluminum factory and my mother as a bank consultant at a Yugo-bank), the arduous process it takes for people at their age to reinvent themselves in the US and the need to provide for my brother and me, forced them to take the first job they were offered. And they have been there ever since. In their 13 years of employment at this factory they have never (ever!) been late nor have they ever missed a day of work without medical excuse. And what do they get for this? I will list a few benefits they get for working hard for the so-called American dream:
1) Their wages have been effectively frozen until further notice. Once the American economy started hitting the recession speed bump a few years ago, the management immediately fired all of their recent hires and froze all the wages for the senior employees.
2) They no longer have sick days--period! If they end up getting sick they have to call 24 hours ahead but they still get a minus written down next to their name. This includes emergency room visits. If they get 64 of these minuses in one year--regardless of the fact they are medically justified--they are automatically fired, no exceptions, and no right of appeal.
3) They are constantly harassed by their supervisors (there are a few notable exceptions here) who use their workers to work through their own inferiority complexes. Most of these supervisors are white, rural people with very little education who see their assembly line as their own little fiefdom. Just the other day, my father had to go see a specialist (an appointment for which he had been waiting for for over a month), and the supervisor refused to give him a leave arguing that they did not have enough people that day. My dad went to complain to the human resource person who, of course, stood by the supervisor. It was only after my dad's doctor sent them a personal plea that he be let out of work for few hours that day, that they agreed.
Most of my parents' coworkers that I met seem like truly nice people. But they are also bitterly divided among themselves by a myriad of prejudices not the least the racial line. They feud with one another and often work to get one another fired. There have been a number of instances when a coworker would report a joke from another coworker as an instance of sexual harassment (despite the fact that the two had previously both used the similar jokes with one another), a charge that will get you fired without any questions being asked and again, no right of appeal.
The root cause of this is the inability of these workers to unionize. There needs to be a federal law that severely punishes anyone who intimidates or prevents workers from unionizing. The story of unions in this country is truly a sad one. It is estimated that in recent years, the American union membership has fallen below 9% below the level in 1930s. If these workers were unionized and through grassroots organizing connected with their peers across the country, the supervisors would not only be much more hesitant in abusing their employees, but they would not want to since they would be imbued with a higher level of camaraderie.
A central piece of Barack Obama's economic plan is his support for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that he cosponsored and which mandates the right of every employee to choose whether or not to join the union without being intimated by their employer. He has also fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board's efforts to strip workers of their right to unionize. In this, he opposed the efforts of the Bush administration to classify hundreds of thousands of professional workers and nurses and other categories as "supervisors" and as such exempt from federal labor laws.
Socialist Yugoslavia was governed by the so-called "workers' self-management" principle. Firms were organized as collectivities of workers with workers councils who, after consulting with firms' directors, made all decisions for that particular firm. The initial attempt of Yugoslav self-management was to show how different Yugoslavia was from the "state capitalism" of Stalin's Soviet Union and in the beginning, it was just a formality. But starting in the late 1950s and especially through the 1960s, the Yugoslav regime genuinely attempted to make the law reality. Of course many firms were still ruled by corrupt state-appointed directors, but workers were truly empowered. The workers councils served as watchdogs which protected their fellow workers. Thus if an employee was to be fired, his case would immediately go in front of the council of his peers who would decide if the case was legitimate. It was very very rare that the council would uphold the decision to fire. In this case, the company had to retroactively pay all the wages and damages to the worker. Of course this system, a true dictatorship of the proleteriat, caused many problems not the least of which was the declining productivity. So I am not advocating a wholesale adoption of workers' self-management in this country.
But while hearing my parents' horror stories from their factory, which reminds me of Dickens' England, I am sure nostalgic for the days of Yugoslav workers' self-management.
1) Their wages have been effectively frozen until further notice. Once the American economy started hitting the recession speed bump a few years ago, the management immediately fired all of their recent hires and froze all the wages for the senior employees.
2) They no longer have sick days--period! If they end up getting sick they have to call 24 hours ahead but they still get a minus written down next to their name. This includes emergency room visits. If they get 64 of these minuses in one year--regardless of the fact they are medically justified--they are automatically fired, no exceptions, and no right of appeal.
3) They are constantly harassed by their supervisors (there are a few notable exceptions here) who use their workers to work through their own inferiority complexes. Most of these supervisors are white, rural people with very little education who see their assembly line as their own little fiefdom. Just the other day, my father had to go see a specialist (an appointment for which he had been waiting for for over a month), and the supervisor refused to give him a leave arguing that they did not have enough people that day. My dad went to complain to the human resource person who, of course, stood by the supervisor. It was only after my dad's doctor sent them a personal plea that he be let out of work for few hours that day, that they agreed.
Most of my parents' coworkers that I met seem like truly nice people. But they are also bitterly divided among themselves by a myriad of prejudices not the least the racial line. They feud with one another and often work to get one another fired. There have been a number of instances when a coworker would report a joke from another coworker as an instance of sexual harassment (despite the fact that the two had previously both used the similar jokes with one another), a charge that will get you fired without any questions being asked and again, no right of appeal.
The root cause of this is the inability of these workers to unionize. There needs to be a federal law that severely punishes anyone who intimidates or prevents workers from unionizing. The story of unions in this country is truly a sad one. It is estimated that in recent years, the American union membership has fallen below 9% below the level in 1930s. If these workers were unionized and through grassroots organizing connected with their peers across the country, the supervisors would not only be much more hesitant in abusing their employees, but they would not want to since they would be imbued with a higher level of camaraderie.
A central piece of Barack Obama's economic plan is his support for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that he cosponsored and which mandates the right of every employee to choose whether or not to join the union without being intimated by their employer. He has also fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board's efforts to strip workers of their right to unionize. In this, he opposed the efforts of the Bush administration to classify hundreds of thousands of professional workers and nurses and other categories as "supervisors" and as such exempt from federal labor laws.
Socialist Yugoslavia was governed by the so-called "workers' self-management" principle. Firms were organized as collectivities of workers with workers councils who, after consulting with firms' directors, made all decisions for that particular firm. The initial attempt of Yugoslav self-management was to show how different Yugoslavia was from the "state capitalism" of Stalin's Soviet Union and in the beginning, it was just a formality. But starting in the late 1950s and especially through the 1960s, the Yugoslav regime genuinely attempted to make the law reality. Of course many firms were still ruled by corrupt state-appointed directors, but workers were truly empowered. The workers councils served as watchdogs which protected their fellow workers. Thus if an employee was to be fired, his case would immediately go in front of the council of his peers who would decide if the case was legitimate. It was very very rare that the council would uphold the decision to fire. In this case, the company had to retroactively pay all the wages and damages to the worker. Of course this system, a true dictatorship of the proleteriat, caused many problems not the least of which was the declining productivity. So I am not advocating a wholesale adoption of workers' self-management in this country.
But while hearing my parents' horror stories from their factory, which reminds me of Dickens' England, I am sure nostalgic for the days of Yugoslav workers' self-management.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Obama reaches out to the Evangelicals
As many of the readers of this blog know, I do not give much credence to organized religion. I turned away from ritualized spirituality as soon as I left the refugee camp in Turkey, after having practiced Islam for almost 2 full years. The conservative right's hijacking of religion in the mid 1990s, on the heels of the Republican "contract with America," coupled with my experience in the Bosnian war which, in my mind, was to large extent stoked by the institutions of organized religion, transformed me from a cynical agnostic to a more militant atheist.
Having said this as a caveat, I believe that Barack Obama's attempt to reach out to the Evangelicals today, meeting them in a secret location and launching a full scale campaign to bring them into the Democratic tent, was a good start to his promise to remap the electoral landscape. Despite being utterly disgusted with most Evangelical leaders, I do believe that this country will never move forward if we do not try to reach at least a modus vivendi with some of these folks. Barack has to set some things straight before inviting them to roll up their sleeves and be a part of our movement. He has to reaffirm the basic principle on which we will NEVER compromise: the secular nature of our government. This means the unconditional sovereignty of women over their own bodies; the rights of gays to enjoy full constitutional protection; and some others. Having set these principles right at the start, we can reach a consensus on a number of other issues. 1) Environment. Many of the Evangelicals have become passionately involved in the global attempts to stop and reverse the horrible consequences of the Global Warming. 2) social issues. It can be argued that Jesus was the archetypal socialist. Creating a fair and a generous social system in which we take care of those who cannot afford to take care of themselves can be also seen through the lens of the Christian doctrine. 3) America's image in the world. It think that many Evangelicals are sick and tired of being chastised as shallow war-mongers who want to conquer the world in the name of Christianity. Joining Barack's movement in reshaping America's foreign policy is in their interest.
While many of Barack's supporters might be a bit uncomfortable with his reach out to the Evangelicals, this shows, once again, the honesty behind his mantra of change. He truly does believe that the destructive blue-red/secular-religious division in this country can be healed through a modus vivendi, which in turn can help us focus on the everyday problems facing this country (and the world), and move away from the polarizing and unproductive debates.
Having said this as a caveat, I believe that Barack Obama's attempt to reach out to the Evangelicals today, meeting them in a secret location and launching a full scale campaign to bring them into the Democratic tent, was a good start to his promise to remap the electoral landscape. Despite being utterly disgusted with most Evangelical leaders, I do believe that this country will never move forward if we do not try to reach at least a modus vivendi with some of these folks. Barack has to set some things straight before inviting them to roll up their sleeves and be a part of our movement. He has to reaffirm the basic principle on which we will NEVER compromise: the secular nature of our government. This means the unconditional sovereignty of women over their own bodies; the rights of gays to enjoy full constitutional protection; and some others. Having set these principles right at the start, we can reach a consensus on a number of other issues. 1) Environment. Many of the Evangelicals have become passionately involved in the global attempts to stop and reverse the horrible consequences of the Global Warming. 2) social issues. It can be argued that Jesus was the archetypal socialist. Creating a fair and a generous social system in which we take care of those who cannot afford to take care of themselves can be also seen through the lens of the Christian doctrine. 3) America's image in the world. It think that many Evangelicals are sick and tired of being chastised as shallow war-mongers who want to conquer the world in the name of Christianity. Joining Barack's movement in reshaping America's foreign policy is in their interest.
While many of Barack's supporters might be a bit uncomfortable with his reach out to the Evangelicals, this shows, once again, the honesty behind his mantra of change. He truly does believe that the destructive blue-red/secular-religious division in this country can be healed through a modus vivendi, which in turn can help us focus on the everyday problems facing this country (and the world), and move away from the polarizing and unproductive debates.
Monday, June 9, 2008
To Hillary's supporters: embrace Obama!
Hillary's gracious speech this Saturday in which she unequivocally endorsed Barack Obama (despite occasional boos from her most hardcore supporters) should be praised. This was the most gracious she has been in a while despite the fact that she did it because she was facing a political suicide otherwise. Her speech was also important because it emphasized what her campaign has meant for women. I think that many Obama supporters (including myself) have at times overlooked the inspirational thrust of her campaign for millions of women in this country.
In reflecting on the remarkable change this country has gone through in the years since Bob Kennedy's assassination 1968 Bob Herbert usefully reminded us in his op-ed piece of June 7: "Women in 1968 were mired in depths of misogyny that were as soul destroying as racism. Discrimination on the basis of gender was so pervasive as to barely attract notice. Many retail stores refused to issue credit cards to married women in their own names. Employers could fire women with virtual impunity if they got married or pregnant or weren't attractive enough or turned 30. According to the National Organization for Women, in a statement of purpose issued in 1966, fewer than 1 percent of all federal judges were women, fewer than 4 percent of all lawyers, and fewer than 7 percent doctors."
We have to keep in mind this atmosphere as we try to understand the depth of inspiration and commitment many pre-baby boomer women feel towards Hillary Clinton (regardless of what you may think of her). And while it is possible that another woman might come by soon and claim another strong campaign for the White House, we have to acknowledge that Hillary and Bill are both generational leaders whose power and political prowess may come just once per generation.
Having said this, it is also important that Clinton does more than just pay lip service to helping make Barack our president. Hillary has to be dispatched to Florida and many other battleground areas where pre-baby boomer women make up the most important electorate and has to remind them what a third Bush term would mean for women's right to choose (it is possible that the next President will appoint two or even three Supreme Court justices); what it would mean for their pocketbook and for their sons (who have their sons serving in the military which would stay in Iraq for 100 more years if McCbush had his way). On the other hand, Bill Clinton can be very useful being dispatched into the rural areas of the country where his presence among rural white people can inspire them to back his choice for president, Barack Obama. Obama can even dispatch him to Arkansas and at least make McCain spend money and time in this previously safely Republican state.
It is important that the feminist movement realizes, soon, that Barack Obama is their best shot at continuing to push this country in the right direction. There are disturbing signs that this might take a long time. Just today many of Hillary's supporters were supposedly outraged when they realized that the website was still boasting that Barack has not taken a single dime from lobbyists "unlike Hillary Clinton." Upon realizing they had not updated the website since Hillary's concession, Obama's camp moved quickly and deleted the remark but some pundits have said "it might have been too late." I mean come on! Are we going to argue over a stupid sentence (written at the height of the bloody primary battle), or are we going to expose the utter lack of any message or unifying vision from the McBush camp. People have to reminded that this country cannot afford 4 more years of Bush, meaning: 1) continuing attempts to crush Roe v. Wade and re-insert government control over woman's body; 2) continuing attempts to derail further progress on Civil Rights; 3) continuing abuse of government powers, including the expansion of NSA's warantless wiretapping of communications within the country (something that McBush supports); 4) the cementing of status-quo within the abhorrent labor laws; 5) continuing lack of a unified, universal healthcare; 5) and a continuing imperalistic foreign policy that will send more of our young men and women to die and to kill others and that will further diminish America's image.
Finally, Hillary's supporters have to be reminded that if Barack is the president, Hillary will almost definitely play a prominent role (there are rumors that Barack has already promised to nominate her to the Supreme Court, which in my mind would be a great idea).
I still think that they will unequivocally rally around him, but they have to do it now!
In reflecting on the remarkable change this country has gone through in the years since Bob Kennedy's assassination 1968 Bob Herbert usefully reminded us in his op-ed piece of June 7: "Women in 1968 were mired in depths of misogyny that were as soul destroying as racism. Discrimination on the basis of gender was so pervasive as to barely attract notice. Many retail stores refused to issue credit cards to married women in their own names. Employers could fire women with virtual impunity if they got married or pregnant or weren't attractive enough or turned 30. According to the National Organization for Women, in a statement of purpose issued in 1966, fewer than 1 percent of all federal judges were women, fewer than 4 percent of all lawyers, and fewer than 7 percent doctors."
We have to keep in mind this atmosphere as we try to understand the depth of inspiration and commitment many pre-baby boomer women feel towards Hillary Clinton (regardless of what you may think of her). And while it is possible that another woman might come by soon and claim another strong campaign for the White House, we have to acknowledge that Hillary and Bill are both generational leaders whose power and political prowess may come just once per generation.
Having said this, it is also important that Clinton does more than just pay lip service to helping make Barack our president. Hillary has to be dispatched to Florida and many other battleground areas where pre-baby boomer women make up the most important electorate and has to remind them what a third Bush term would mean for women's right to choose (it is possible that the next President will appoint two or even three Supreme Court justices); what it would mean for their pocketbook and for their sons (who have their sons serving in the military which would stay in Iraq for 100 more years if McCbush had his way). On the other hand, Bill Clinton can be very useful being dispatched into the rural areas of the country where his presence among rural white people can inspire them to back his choice for president, Barack Obama. Obama can even dispatch him to Arkansas and at least make McCain spend money and time in this previously safely Republican state.
It is important that the feminist movement realizes, soon, that Barack Obama is their best shot at continuing to push this country in the right direction. There are disturbing signs that this might take a long time. Just today many of Hillary's supporters were supposedly outraged when they realized that the website was still boasting that Barack has not taken a single dime from lobbyists "unlike Hillary Clinton." Upon realizing they had not updated the website since Hillary's concession, Obama's camp moved quickly and deleted the remark but some pundits have said "it might have been too late." I mean come on! Are we going to argue over a stupid sentence (written at the height of the bloody primary battle), or are we going to expose the utter lack of any message or unifying vision from the McBush camp. People have to reminded that this country cannot afford 4 more years of Bush, meaning: 1) continuing attempts to crush Roe v. Wade and re-insert government control over woman's body; 2) continuing attempts to derail further progress on Civil Rights; 3) continuing abuse of government powers, including the expansion of NSA's warantless wiretapping of communications within the country (something that McBush supports); 4) the cementing of status-quo within the abhorrent labor laws; 5) continuing lack of a unified, universal healthcare; 5) and a continuing imperalistic foreign policy that will send more of our young men and women to die and to kill others and that will further diminish America's image.
Finally, Hillary's supporters have to be reminded that if Barack is the president, Hillary will almost definitely play a prominent role (there are rumors that Barack has already promised to nominate her to the Supreme Court, which in my mind would be a great idea).
I still think that they will unequivocally rally around him, but they have to do it now!
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Disgrace of the Clintons
Last night was probably the happiest I have felt (politically) in a while. Watching Obama make his victory speech made me feel as if the 8 years of agony of George Bush was worth it if it enables someone like Barack to become President of the U.S. However, just before he made his speech, Hillary descended once again to the abysmal depths of disgrace. As I was watching her make what it was supposed to be a concession speech, I almost tossed my glass of wine at the TV.
Instead of participating in the collective celebration of America's historic night--when an African-American candidate of superb qualifications was chosen as the nominee of a major party--and congratulating Obama and the country on this achievement, she went on a rant, listing her accomplishments and demanding that her supporters be respected. Considering a significant amount of anger among Hillary's ardent supporters, this was a callous and disgraceful move, which could be taken as a call to her supporters not to rally behind Obama until she says it's over. Her speech signaled her inability to concede her loss even at the expense of a Democratic loss in November. Her sense of entitlement came through loud and clear.
It is also telling that just before she took up the podium in New York, Obama had tried to reach her twice and was forced to leave a message on her voice mail. Even after his victory speech when he finally did reach her and offered to meet with her "when it makes sense" for her, she was equivocal. In the meantime, her supporters--including the increasingly shrill and insane Terry McCaulife (who still keeps promising she would win the White House)--went on a rampage in trying to blackmail Obama into picking her as a V.P. It has been the great American tradition for presidential nominees to take their time and pick their V.P.'s. This is probably the first time in history that a candidate is being blackmailed from within his own party into choosing his running mate who could arguably cost him the election.
At the same time, Bill has been going off on his tirades against journalists, media, Obama and anyone else who dared put themselves between Hillary and the Oval Office. On the day when the Vanity Fair came out with a scathing article about his post-presidential behavior (including his frequent trips on a private jet of a bachelor billionaire whose promiscuous life style has earned his jet the nickname of "Air Fuck One"), Bill Clinton once again showed a complete lack of self-control. I have never been bothered by his lack of self-control when it comes to women since it really does not concern me, but this undisciplined behavior has seeped into his political life and has arguably cost his wife the nomination. (the article is at: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807).
United in their limitless ambition, poised for revenge against anyone who dared stand against them and for Obama, the Clintons seem intent to form a coalition sub-government within an Obama administration even months before Obama wins the White House.
This is why I think it is of urgent importance that the Democratic Party take both Hillary and Bill into a room and tell them to go away. Otherwise, they need to be pushed out of the party. I have to say I have been disappointed with Howard Dean's lackluster behavior during this primary and he needs to come out TODAY and call on Hillary to admit defeat and support Obama (unconditionally!) in his bid for the White House.
My happiness at seeing Obama become the nominee was a little bit tempered by the sadness of realizing that I have lost a lot of respect for Bill Clinton whom I used to admire (I did read every page of his autobiography). But now, I just want them both to go away! Please...
Instead of participating in the collective celebration of America's historic night--when an African-American candidate of superb qualifications was chosen as the nominee of a major party--and congratulating Obama and the country on this achievement, she went on a rant, listing her accomplishments and demanding that her supporters be respected. Considering a significant amount of anger among Hillary's ardent supporters, this was a callous and disgraceful move, which could be taken as a call to her supporters not to rally behind Obama until she says it's over. Her speech signaled her inability to concede her loss even at the expense of a Democratic loss in November. Her sense of entitlement came through loud and clear.
It is also telling that just before she took up the podium in New York, Obama had tried to reach her twice and was forced to leave a message on her voice mail. Even after his victory speech when he finally did reach her and offered to meet with her "when it makes sense" for her, she was equivocal. In the meantime, her supporters--including the increasingly shrill and insane Terry McCaulife (who still keeps promising she would win the White House)--went on a rampage in trying to blackmail Obama into picking her as a V.P. It has been the great American tradition for presidential nominees to take their time and pick their V.P.'s. This is probably the first time in history that a candidate is being blackmailed from within his own party into choosing his running mate who could arguably cost him the election.
At the same time, Bill has been going off on his tirades against journalists, media, Obama and anyone else who dared put themselves between Hillary and the Oval Office. On the day when the Vanity Fair came out with a scathing article about his post-presidential behavior (including his frequent trips on a private jet of a bachelor billionaire whose promiscuous life style has earned his jet the nickname of "Air Fuck One"), Bill Clinton once again showed a complete lack of self-control. I have never been bothered by his lack of self-control when it comes to women since it really does not concern me, but this undisciplined behavior has seeped into his political life and has arguably cost his wife the nomination. (the article is at: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807).
United in their limitless ambition, poised for revenge against anyone who dared stand against them and for Obama, the Clintons seem intent to form a coalition sub-government within an Obama administration even months before Obama wins the White House.
This is why I think it is of urgent importance that the Democratic Party take both Hillary and Bill into a room and tell them to go away. Otherwise, they need to be pushed out of the party. I have to say I have been disappointed with Howard Dean's lackluster behavior during this primary and he needs to come out TODAY and call on Hillary to admit defeat and support Obama (unconditionally!) in his bid for the White House.
My happiness at seeing Obama become the nominee was a little bit tempered by the sadness of realizing that I have lost a lot of respect for Bill Clinton whom I used to admire (I did read every page of his autobiography). But now, I just want them both to go away! Please...
Monday, June 2, 2008
Obama-Clinton Ticket? A Nightmare
The Democrats are on the verge of nominating the first African-American for the President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is probably going to make a major concession speech tomorrow and following Obama's victories in South Dakota and Montana, the remaining superdelegates will quickly coalesce around him. As the primaries are finally over (and if a political junkie like myself has gotten bored with them, I can imagine how other people feel), the pundits and the Clinton people have increased the pressure on Obama to choose Hillary as his running mate. The so-called "dream-ticket" scenario is probably the worst idea I have heard in a long time, and here are just a few reasons why. Let me preface this by saying that I hold no grudges against the Clintons, despite being terribly disappointed in their behavior during the primaries, and that my only concern here is seeing Obama win the White House.
1) Hillary would undermine the very core of Obama's message: change. Bringing the Clintons back to the White House hardly spells change. The magic and charisma behind Obama's dizzyingly fast rise to power is due to his ability to personify the country's hunger for change in the way politics function. Of course, every candidate runs on this (remember Bush's promise to bring "honor and integrity back to the White House"), but Obama's background and his campaign so far has truly exemplified the kind of politics his supporters want. His behavior shows a genuine lack of meanness that has exemplified Republican-dominated politics in this country since the mid 1990s. While he is certainly no saint, but rather a shrewd politician, I deeply believe he is sincere about trying to unite the country in solving everyday problems and changing America's image in the world. If he brings on Hillary, he will certainly alienate independents and some Republicans who might vote for him and make McCain's job easier. At the same time, I truly doubt that having Hillary as a running mate can help him with those white voters who will not vote for him simply because of the color of his skin (they may mask this by pointing to his supposed "radical roots," or his "Muslim background" but these are just euphemisms for describing him as the Other). Some of these voters (a minority, I hope) may be unreachable. Not having reached these voters and alienating independents and leftist Democrats at once would spell disaster for Obama in November. In short, he would lose.
2) An Obama-Clinton administration would be a mess. Hillary would spend her days eying the Oval Office and she would form her own camp within the White House with the potential of undermining Obama's policies just so that she could run in 2012. Most importantly, having Bill Clinton around would be a constant headache for Obama. Can you imagine what his role would be in this administration? The man's hunger for politics, his genuine intellectual curiosity and his vanity would make it impossible for him to stay in the shadow. The Vanity Fair magazine is coming out with an article that talks about his continuing propensity to see many women on the road while campaigning (I was so naive to think that he might have "cured" himself of this habit). Finally, his inability to keep his mouth shut and to go on politically embarrassing rants would have the potential of paralyzing the administration.
While Obama is sounding very conciliatory towards the Clintons, I believe he will not bow to the pressure of the very same pundits whose almost every prediction about his chances has, fortunately, been proven wrong. He should pick someone with strong national security credentials (a military person?), and a fairly conservative political background. I think Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been a consistent critic of the war and has also been heaping praise on Obama lately, is definitely on his short list, as is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts. By the way, Jim Webb's popularity among the Appalachia can do a lot to convince some of these voters to go for Obama.
So, I think it would be best for Hillary to grow deeper roots in the Senate where she has been effective and maybe even serve as a successor to the wonderful work of Senator Ted Kennedy and Bill should continue doing work for his Foundation.
But, an Obama-Hillary ticket would be a nightmare.
1) Hillary would undermine the very core of Obama's message: change. Bringing the Clintons back to the White House hardly spells change. The magic and charisma behind Obama's dizzyingly fast rise to power is due to his ability to personify the country's hunger for change in the way politics function. Of course, every candidate runs on this (remember Bush's promise to bring "honor and integrity back to the White House"), but Obama's background and his campaign so far has truly exemplified the kind of politics his supporters want. His behavior shows a genuine lack of meanness that has exemplified Republican-dominated politics in this country since the mid 1990s. While he is certainly no saint, but rather a shrewd politician, I deeply believe he is sincere about trying to unite the country in solving everyday problems and changing America's image in the world. If he brings on Hillary, he will certainly alienate independents and some Republicans who might vote for him and make McCain's job easier. At the same time, I truly doubt that having Hillary as a running mate can help him with those white voters who will not vote for him simply because of the color of his skin (they may mask this by pointing to his supposed "radical roots," or his "Muslim background" but these are just euphemisms for describing him as the Other). Some of these voters (a minority, I hope) may be unreachable. Not having reached these voters and alienating independents and leftist Democrats at once would spell disaster for Obama in November. In short, he would lose.
2) An Obama-Clinton administration would be a mess. Hillary would spend her days eying the Oval Office and she would form her own camp within the White House with the potential of undermining Obama's policies just so that she could run in 2012. Most importantly, having Bill Clinton around would be a constant headache for Obama. Can you imagine what his role would be in this administration? The man's hunger for politics, his genuine intellectual curiosity and his vanity would make it impossible for him to stay in the shadow. The Vanity Fair magazine is coming out with an article that talks about his continuing propensity to see many women on the road while campaigning (I was so naive to think that he might have "cured" himself of this habit). Finally, his inability to keep his mouth shut and to go on politically embarrassing rants would have the potential of paralyzing the administration.
While Obama is sounding very conciliatory towards the Clintons, I believe he will not bow to the pressure of the very same pundits whose almost every prediction about his chances has, fortunately, been proven wrong. He should pick someone with strong national security credentials (a military person?), and a fairly conservative political background. I think Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been a consistent critic of the war and has also been heaping praise on Obama lately, is definitely on his short list, as is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts. By the way, Jim Webb's popularity among the Appalachia can do a lot to convince some of these voters to go for Obama.
So, I think it would be best for Hillary to grow deeper roots in the Senate where she has been effective and maybe even serve as a successor to the wonderful work of Senator Ted Kennedy and Bill should continue doing work for his Foundation.
But, an Obama-Hillary ticket would be a nightmare.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Fox News Commits a Felony
Just when I thought that I could no longer be shocked by the repugnant Fox News channel their shameless and in this case, criminal, partisanship proved me wrong. After Hillary Clinton made the now-infamous justification for staying in the race by invoking the memory of Robert Kennedy's assassination in California, Fox News brought on one of its many "experts" to discuss what this means for the Clinton campaign. This expert was Liz Trotta, one of the regular contributors who also worked for the Washington Times, and was the first woman to cover a war for a television station. In commenting on Clinton's gaffe (which in my mind was way over-covered by the media), she said:
"...and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama. Um, uh, Obama. Well both, if we could. (laughter)" To which the idiotic host of the show replied, laughingly again: "Tell us how you really feel."
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0e_SH4IFg8
This is borderline criminal behavior where a major television channel's contributors joke about assassinating the first African-American who is favored to win the White House. And for those who excuse the Fox channel by arguing that this was just a poorly worded joke by a bitter old woman, I say that this is utter nonsense! Fox News knowingly hires these nut-jobs in order to stir up the atmosphere of fear and hate in this country. Jeffrey Feldman of the Huffington Post described Trotta's remarks as continuing "the trend in violent rhetoric about Sen. Obama" and rightly called it "assassination humor." This story should be shown on the loop on every cable channel and warps anything that Reverend Jeremiah Wright has ever said about racial relations. Also compare Reverend Wright's remarkable record on helping the poor of South side Chicago as well as his church's well-respected social programs (such as the ones that help AIDS patients), to the continuing damage that the Fox News is inflicting on the social fabric.
I wonder if all of us should not write to the Federal Communications Commission to urge them to investigate the matter and see if a felony has been committed here. Fox News' behavior explains why many African-Americans, as well as whites, in this country are so fearful for Obama's safety. Many African-Americans who work with my parents have said they would not vote for him in the primary for fear of provoking a violent attack on him. And I don't have to remind anyone that this country has a troubled history of violence at times when it seems that it is on the verge of major transformations (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, RFK). And for the "fair and balanced" network to tap into this fear is deliberate and criminal in my mind.
During the height of the war in Bosnia, the media was overtaken by the respective nationalist thugs who used the airwaves to talk about the "impossibility of co-existence between our divided communities," and who would go as far as calling for the enemies within their camp to be cleansed. Even though it was the height of the war, many people were outraged by these channels.
Then, what does it say about this country, a supposed beacon of democracy, that Fox News' behavior is accepted as normal and is tolerated on a daily basis?
"...and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama. Um, uh, Obama. Well both, if we could. (laughter)" To which the idiotic host of the show replied, laughingly again: "Tell us how you really feel."
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0e_SH4IFg8
This is borderline criminal behavior where a major television channel's contributors joke about assassinating the first African-American who is favored to win the White House. And for those who excuse the Fox channel by arguing that this was just a poorly worded joke by a bitter old woman, I say that this is utter nonsense! Fox News knowingly hires these nut-jobs in order to stir up the atmosphere of fear and hate in this country. Jeffrey Feldman of the Huffington Post described Trotta's remarks as continuing "the trend in violent rhetoric about Sen. Obama" and rightly called it "assassination humor." This story should be shown on the loop on every cable channel and warps anything that Reverend Jeremiah Wright has ever said about racial relations. Also compare Reverend Wright's remarkable record on helping the poor of South side Chicago as well as his church's well-respected social programs (such as the ones that help AIDS patients), to the continuing damage that the Fox News is inflicting on the social fabric.
I wonder if all of us should not write to the Federal Communications Commission to urge them to investigate the matter and see if a felony has been committed here. Fox News' behavior explains why many African-Americans, as well as whites, in this country are so fearful for Obama's safety. Many African-Americans who work with my parents have said they would not vote for him in the primary for fear of provoking a violent attack on him. And I don't have to remind anyone that this country has a troubled history of violence at times when it seems that it is on the verge of major transformations (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, RFK). And for the "fair and balanced" network to tap into this fear is deliberate and criminal in my mind.
During the height of the war in Bosnia, the media was overtaken by the respective nationalist thugs who used the airwaves to talk about the "impossibility of co-existence between our divided communities," and who would go as far as calling for the enemies within their camp to be cleansed. Even though it was the height of the war, many people were outraged by these channels.
Then, what does it say about this country, a supposed beacon of democracy, that Fox News' behavior is accepted as normal and is tolerated on a daily basis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)