Lives That Matter

     A few words about the recent events surrounding #blacklivesmatter and the controversy surrounding them – and if you possess a lighter skin tone, these words are especially for you:

>> By saying Black Lives Matter, nobody is saying that other lives don’t matter.    When people deface their signs by removing the “Black”, or by chanting “All Lives Matter”, the reaction I have is “DUH!”  These defacements and re-statements are dismissive, and miss the point of the message.   This is not a zero-sum game, with some lives mattering and some not – that’s part of the point of all of this. 

 

     Turn on the TV, or the radio.   Look at any number of the major supermarket “People” Magazine-inspired fish wrap rags, and check for the stories involving somebody’s murder, rape, or other tragedy.   If it’s a non-Black face, it will get far more coverage and fawning over than the same types of things happening to those with dark skin.   Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey?  Or Natalie Holloway? Or Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and the ensuing circus?  This isn’t to discount what happened to them – murder is murder is murder.    But when the same thing happens to an African American, the tendency in our white supremacist culture has been to dismiss it, as something that happened “over there”, “to those people”, and to write it off as an expected event in a “poor”, “high-crime” (both code words for BLACK) neighborhood.  

>> Why go after Bernie Sanders, especially with his extensive record of work on behalf of civil rights issues (to the point of arrest)?   From what I’ve seen in Slate and other internet postings, when the two BLM activists co-opted the stage in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, the target was not Bernie Sanders.   It was the thousands of people drawn to the event.    Most of these people were light-skinned, and considered themselves progressive in their politics.   The point of it?  You can’t be a “progressive” and ignore the issue of racial inequality, while at the same time trumpet to the moon the issue of economic inequality.  They are intertwined, especially in American society.     I’m sure that this was not Bernie’s intent – the lesson here, from a political standpoint, is to include the movement from the outset of the campaign.   From what I’ve seen so far, he’s learning this lesson well, which just might be his ticket to the White House.  

>> Take another look at Chris Hedges’ recent works, especially Death of the Liberal Class.    What you’re seeing in these BLM actions can virtually be taken straight from Hedges’ work: civil disobedience, especially of the asymmetrical kind like what happened in Seattle.    So far, they are proving effective at shifting the national dialog, even in the seemingly messy way they are occurring. 

 

>> Why the urgency, and now?   What would you do if it was your son or daughter killed or injured at the hands of a cop?   Especially if that son or daughter was unarmed and posing no threat to that cop?  What if you look around and see the same thing happening to your neighbors ON A DAILY BASIS?  What if the media completely ignores you and dismisses you when these tragedies happen?  What if you’re keenly aware of your history and the history of this country in relationship to the ethnic group in which you are a part?  You reach a breaking point.     We’ve reached breaking points like this before:  the Watts Riots come to mind, the fire hoses drawn on protesters in the 1960s in the Deep South, and other violent actions perpetrated against peaceful protesters.    We’re at yet another breaking point now, and if this is not addressed, then Watts and Ferguson will be comparable only to cake walks.  

I’ll have much more to say on this in coming posts.   Stay tuned.  

Quibbles and Bits, Over the Hills and With the Shills edition

More chewy bites...

>>T-Rump was on full display in all his in-glory in the Repub shoutfest earlier this week.    Misogyny, narcissism, classism, bullshit-ism, insert-your-ism here.    And judging from the polling, the Repub rubes are eating it up like candy!    He’s an “outsider”, after all.   No – he came out and said that as a businessman, he contributed to whoever so he got what he wanted in legislation.   At least he’s honest.

>>Where is the Dem pushback to all of this?   The speculation on parts of the left wing is that the DNC is trying to set the table all nice and neat for Hillary.   Fewer debates, less chances for gaffes, fewer opportunities for the Bernie train to pick up steam.    This should be a genuine worry for the Hillary camp:  Bernie gets thousands of people per event at his stops, and those people volunteer and are enthusiastic about his candidacy.   I don’t hear about nearly that type of enthusiasm over in the Hills.   Any enthusiasm in her camp is likely happening behind the guarded gates and in the garden parties of the 1%.   They express it in $$ - which is, after all, speech – just ask the SCOTUS.

>>I have dubbed the DNC chair Debbie Weasleman-Shiltz.   She’s a classic DINO, and perhaps one of the most corrupt congress critters in Washington – which is saying a LOT.   She owes a lot to a lot of people.   She’s clearly in the Hillary camp, and judging from her clueless responses to Tweety regarding the Sanders campaign last week, shows as little understanding of Bernie’s appeal as Tweety does.    Or perhaps, she’s trying to plead ignorance in the same way a child puts his/her fingers in the ears whenever the pressure gets too much.   Either way, she’s a symptom and not a solution.   

Mas later.   

Being Frank about Clinton and Sanders

     Former New York representative Barney Frank had some choice words for those of us progressives who are supporting Bernie Sanders for President.    We’re hurting Clinton’s campaign.   We’re playing into the hands of the GOP.    Yadda.   Yadda.   Yadda.   

     On Facebook, where I initially saw this post, I stated that if Bernie really wanted to hurt the Democrats, he would have run as a 3^rd party or independent candidate.    He would do precisely what Donald T-Rump is threatening to do (and considering the ego on the T-Rump, I would not put it past him.)  But he ran as a Democrat, exactly so that he does not play the role of spoiler.  

     Let’s look at Frank’s  sentiments a bit deeper, however.    Since Bernie is running as a Dem for the reason I state above, why would he make such a statement?   For one, Sanders' increasing popularity, in large part because of his populist message and his reputation for backing up his words with deeds, is considered a threat to those that actually own and operate this country – people for whom Hillary shills for.    Thus, in order to maintain her admittedly sizable lead in the polls, she has to pivot to the left, stretching her triangulation skills to their breaking point.   Perhaps she is being forced to write rhetorical checks for which her actions, record, and personal philosophy will not be able to cash – she knows it, the Democratic corporate establishment knows it, and Barney Frank certainly knows it. 

     This episode is but one byproduct of the country creaking back toward the left side of the cultural pendulum.  We begin to see more and more of these outsider vs. insider battles.   The concern I have is whether or not the progressives have enough of a political backstop in order to sufficiently support their candidates on a national level.    Progressives are the outsiders in this equation, and have been throughout much of our nation’s history.   The money does not flow to progressives as it does with the establishment, being backed by businesses who crave stability as opposed to change.   Also, the institutions who formed the progressive base have largely been destroyed or rendered irrelevant – public education, labor unions, etc.  For these reasons, while I’ll continue to support Bernie, I honestly think that he will wind up serving as little more than a delivery person who supplies progressive votes to Hillary.  

     In order to create a more favorable environment for progressives to run and win on a national scale, we need to rebuild the progressive base on the local and state levels.   Seattle knew this – the $15 per hour minimum wage movement picked up quite a bit of steam after they passed their ordinance, led in large part by a new, openly Socialist city council member.   There are other localities who have extensive Progressive traditions, such as Santa Cruz and much of the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, TX, and others.   But they are comparatively few and far between, largely because the Republicans figured this lesson out decades ago.   Ever since Barry Goldwater was destroyed in the 1964 Presidential Election, there has been a concerted effort to load up city councils, school boards, county commissioner boards, and other local governmental bodies with loyal conservatives – a tactic that lead ultimately to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  

So what to do?

1.      Run progressive candidates on the state and local levels;

2.      Don’t depend on traditional media outlets to get the message out – rely on independent media, the Web, and good ol’ word of mouth;

3.      Think long term – the Repubs did this, the Progressives will need to do the same;

4.     Accept the fact that some of the changes that Progressives seek may not be realized in our individual lifetimes.   Remember that this isn’t about US as much as it is about OUR KIDS and future generations.   It’s a natural inclination for us to want our kids to have a better shot than we did – it’s only right that we continue holding that mindset.  

Quibbles and Bits, Heads and Fireworks Exploding Edition...

The last week has seen so many morsels, it's like manna from the Almighty.   Here's just a sampling...

>> Marriage equality: Persistence is always a necessity when it comes to issues related to civil rights.  But when one thinks about it, this issue has taken a comparably short time, from a historical perspective, to resolve.   The time span between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts was 100 years - a span that included the specter of Jim Crow.    It took almost 150 years for women to achieve full suffrage, between the passage of the American Constitution in the 1780s and 1920.   The period between the Stonewall Riots and last Friday was 46 years.   This is not in any way to minimize the progress made - indeed, like those other struggles, a heavy price was paid by those who fought, in terms of blood, sweat, tears, spit, epithets, discrimination, and other forms of treating those different as "others".   

What the SCOTUS did last Friday was merely to recognize a right that always should have been considered inalienable in the first place - something that Justice Kennedy alluded to in his majority opinion.     I won't even go into "Justice" Scalia's screed of a dissent - if you have the time to read through his quasi-legalistic BS on this issue, be my guest.    As for me, well - life is getting too short to feed bigotry like that.   I'm moving on.

>>Obamacare:  I haven't read through the opinions on this one.   But I think it's disingenuous to say that politics played absolutely no role whatsoever in the SCOTUS ruling.   The justices were going to be damned by whatever side they sided against, so for them, it was "pick your poison".    That they chose to side with the insurance policy holders - you and me - was a relief, and a victory.    This does not, however, completely resolve the issue.   What will resolve it, once and for all, is SINGLE PAYER.   A baseline level of care guaranteed to all purely by virtue of being a citizen, with the "extras" being picked up by the private insurers.    No one should have to go bankrupt in this country over something they have no control over, such as a catastrophic illness or injury.   That's the next step.  

>>The TPP/TPA/TAA:   What more proof that the Congress doesn't listen to you?   All of the phone calls and lobbying against these sordid bills seemed to have no effect, whatsoever.   This is why we get disillusioned with the political process, which in turn, depresses turnout on Election Day.   This, of course, inspires happy dances on the part of Repub Fat Cats.   

But now is not the time to sit at home.    It's time to PRIMARY some of these turncoat turkeys, such as McCaskill, Feinstein, Wyden on the Senate side, and Bera and others in the House.   Get people in there that will listen to YOU, and not Big Money.  

 

Not Down With TPP…Now You Know Me

     Last week, the House of Representatives gave President Obama the half-loaf that he and Third Wayers alike always advocate you and I fight for.   It came in the form of "NO" votes on the TAA (the displacement assistance portion of the Transpacific Partnership debacle), but "YES" on the TPA (the “fast track” negotiation authorization portion). 

     Just what was President Obama thinking?   The TPP agreement, while made available to the Congress but only under very strict security (no discussion of details under penalty of criminal indictment, no notes taken into the room, no recording devices, nothing), and is being kept secret from the public – save for our transparency savior Wikileaks!  Did he actually think that he would be able to get TPP/TPA/TAA passed without a hitch just by saying “trust me”?    I’ve fought for the workingman every day for my entire presidency, he says.   But don’t they all say that?  This is the most “progressive” trade deal negotiated yet, he also says.   So HOW is it that way?  Where are the specifics?   And why the big, hard sell (harder than for the Public Option, that’s for DAMNED sure!), and why the secrecy surrounding it, and why NOW?

More after the break…

Two Freaks in a Pod

Oh, Brother.  

Perhaps this video will dispel, once and for all, any pretensions that Judith Miller had at being a serious journalist/reporter.    Yep, the person doing the interviewing is none other than the Keefey O'Freak himself.   

"Talking Truth".    Right. 

Well, perhaps they're two peas in a pod.   Explains everything.