Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to vote for Rick Scott or Bill McCollum for Governor of Florida in the November election but there'a an obvious winner if I look at the contest as a test of who can put the biggest DUH in Flori-DUH.
In the last few gubernatorial elections, the very dominant theme here has been taxation. Florida has been known for low taxes yet there have been ads featuring a full minute of a voice chanting taxtaxtaxtax while showing the tap dancing feet of the opponent. If zip codes had their own flags, mine, which is always in the top three in wealth in the country, would have a banner showing a chisel and a pinched penny, but this year the carrot dangling from the GOP stick has been the Mexican Menace.
Scott has been spending large sums of money on a media blitz based on his support of Arizona's "show me your papers" law and features raw mockery of McCollum's attempt to cozy up to Miami Cubans with his speeches on the benefits of immigration. "We don't need it here" has been a McCollum theme. It's common sense to let police check for immigration status, says Greene. I could write a lengthy treatise on the use of common sense as a basis for argument, but I'll spare you.
I'm afraid the majority of hysterical, racist wankers here agree that no method is too dangerous in protecting us from illegal busboys and dishwashers, but on either side, there's little conversation about the license it gives to law enforcement to find some reason to stop anyone who looks Central American or Haitian and force them to prove citizenship or be arrested. There's no discussion touching in any way on the idea that a real problem does not justify a bad solution and of course there are no end of Republican scholars willing to twist the constitution into a mockery of itself in support of anything that will elect Republicans.
I'm not saying that more than a small minority of cops would misuse this travesty of Probable Cause, but enough will to be able to drive any minority they like out of their towns. Florida has an unbroken history of using the police for this purpose already. There's no discussion in Republican circles about instituting a government of men along with their intuitions, hunches and prejudices instead of a government of laws. There's no discussion of the constitution unless it's about our rights to bring guns to presidential speeches or our 'right' to tell lies that harm other people.
The most egregious ad yet, which ran last night, ended with " Bill McCollum: too liberal for Florida!" Face it - the Constitution is too liberal for Florida and it always has been.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Too much business
It's one of those things many Obama supporters hoped he would do, and do quickly. It's also one of those things nobody should have expected him to be able to do given any amount of time. I'm talking about the malignant, corrupting influence of unfettered, and unlimited lobbying.
Amidst the chorus singing about too much government influence in the oil industry being the culprit in the Gulf Oil Disaster (along with the president, of course) isn't it time to listen to the quiet voices trying to remind us that it's too much business involvement in Government that's corrupting both sectors? Of course they're quiet only in comparison, because the volume of noise is directly proportional to the volume of oil bucks and Gas bucks and the volume of Republican/Corporate money wells pumping away at the opportunity to make even more through more obfuscation and deregulation.
If The Washington Post has it right and 3 out of 4 oil and gas lobbyists were formerly part of the Federal Government, we have to believe that congress isn't going to find fault with a practice that can offer lucrative employment to the departing congressman or the promise of election support that opens the spigot of campaign financing from those industries. No, I don't see Obama doing much about it. In fact I don't see us or anyone else doing much about it. We just can't afford to compete.
Amidst the chorus singing about too much government influence in the oil industry being the culprit in the Gulf Oil Disaster (along with the president, of course) isn't it time to listen to the quiet voices trying to remind us that it's too much business involvement in Government that's corrupting both sectors? Of course they're quiet only in comparison, because the volume of noise is directly proportional to the volume of oil bucks and Gas bucks and the volume of Republican/Corporate money wells pumping away at the opportunity to make even more through more obfuscation and deregulation.
If The Washington Post has it right and 3 out of 4 oil and gas lobbyists were formerly part of the Federal Government, we have to believe that congress isn't going to find fault with a practice that can offer lucrative employment to the departing congressman or the promise of election support that opens the spigot of campaign financing from those industries. No, I don't see Obama doing much about it. In fact I don't see us or anyone else doing much about it. We just can't afford to compete.
Let it fail!
Limbaugh said it and the Republicans echo it. It's more important that the Democrats fail -- that even if successful, Little Black Obama must be seen to fail in any attempt to fix anything, much less to end the recession. To be the party of business they claim to be isn't important, because the public is illiterate and it's cheaper to buy belief than to generate it through doing what you say you'll do. Wave flags and buy pins - that's all the patriotism one needs - the real purpose of politics is winning.
Forget that supply side economics never has and never will work: anything that does work in helping small business survive and thrive and create new jobs must be sabotaged along with anything that helps families stay together long enough to benefit from those new jobs.
That's right, the Republicans who just finished up trying to extend unemployment benefits are trying to sink a bill to help: not Exxon or BP or Halliburton or Goldman Sachs, but to offer credit to small business. Why? because it might just work. The same party that offered apologies to BP for making them pay for their criminal negligence intends to block a small business relief bill because it offers 30 billion in credit. The same party that requested three trillion no questions asked with Secretary Paulson to have exclusive and secret stimulus spending discretion. The same party that would still rather have starvation and poverty and disease rather than give a nickel to anyone who lost their job. After all, non-Republicans are just lazy, illegal immigrant bums without the gumption to be white. No, if it creates the millions of jobs that only small business can do, it might help the Democrats in November. Better to let it all go down and blame it on Obama.
No, making loans to stable small businesses is wasteful government spending, you see -- not like waging useless and unnecessary wars and building useless weapons systems and giving tax breaks to BP.
No, it's the same old GOP, the same party that was willing and eager to let millions of Americans starve during the last Depression they brought on, rather than get a dime they hadn't worked for and couldn't have if they had wanted to. Let it fail - desperate workers are cheaper labor and slave labor is cheapest and just think how well they could live with no middle class and all the burden on the serfs.
Forget that supply side economics never has and never will work: anything that does work in helping small business survive and thrive and create new jobs must be sabotaged along with anything that helps families stay together long enough to benefit from those new jobs.
That's right, the Republicans who just finished up trying to extend unemployment benefits are trying to sink a bill to help: not Exxon or BP or Halliburton or Goldman Sachs, but to offer credit to small business. Why? because it might just work. The same party that offered apologies to BP for making them pay for their criminal negligence intends to block a small business relief bill because it offers 30 billion in credit. The same party that requested three trillion no questions asked with Secretary Paulson to have exclusive and secret stimulus spending discretion. The same party that would still rather have starvation and poverty and disease rather than give a nickel to anyone who lost their job. After all, non-Republicans are just lazy, illegal immigrant bums without the gumption to be white. No, if it creates the millions of jobs that only small business can do, it might help the Democrats in November. Better to let it all go down and blame it on Obama.
No, making loans to stable small businesses is wasteful government spending, you see -- not like waging useless and unnecessary wars and building useless weapons systems and giving tax breaks to BP.
No, it's the same old GOP, the same party that was willing and eager to let millions of Americans starve during the last Depression they brought on, rather than get a dime they hadn't worked for and couldn't have if they had wanted to. Let it fail - desperate workers are cheaper labor and slave labor is cheapest and just think how well they could live with no middle class and all the burden on the serfs.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Proving the pudding.
Warren G. Harding; if you listen to the Cato Institute he may have been the greatest president ever, because he's responsible for the great prosperity bubble of the "Roaring Twenties." Of course he was corrupt; his fingers found in the Teapot Dome scandal (proving that government involvement is always bad) and was noted for taking the presidential yacht down to Stuart Florida to fill it up with illegal booze run in the inlet at night from West End in the Bahamas. ( you wonder why these people hate government "intrusiveness?")
Bubble or prosperity? I'll leave it to the guys with the degrees to fight it out, but Cato Institute writer Jim Powell's assertion that the Depression originated in "too much government involvement in Business" is too slippery -- too oily ( to tease you with a metaphor) to let pass without comment.
The weasel word here is "involvement" and to make my discomfort with it shorter and easier to read, let me ask whether referees corrupt the game simply by enforcing the rules -- and whether having rules is necessary to differentiate between Football and Assault and Battery. See what I'm getting at? I hope so, because if I agree with the non-Cato premise that having slashed taxes for the very rich and permitted unregulated markets, a bubble was created in the late 1920's and because Wall Street was more like the wild west than it's been until recently, the bubble inflated and blew up, then you'll understand my confusion. Banks failed, businesses failed lives were ruined and books like The Grapes of Wrath attempted to get the message through to Cato types that these "cycles" and the unwillingness of Americans to suffer any aid given to anyone, created unconscionable suffering for millions and millions and set back our country by more than a decade.
Then as now, that suffering was blamed on the intrinsic laziness of the "inferior classes:" black people, immigrants, people who willingly are ill or injured or incapacitated. It's a premise somehow supported even by those who have now lost their jobs and are collecting unemployment much to the angry chagrin of conservatives calling themselves Libertarians.
But I digress. Can we talk about government involvement in business as though there were only one kind and all kinds are bad? No, I don't think so, but that's what they do. I think Cato is simply indulging in the fallacies of simplification, albeit more articulately than the average T-Party bozo who thinks his taxes have gone up and his guns snatched and people who control hedge funds, brokerage houses, insurance companies and banks, caused the credit crunch only because of "too much government." The kind of bozo who thinks safety regulations and honest regulators cause oil spills. Can it be that too much business involvement in government starts that vicious circle of corruption? Can it be that too much business involvement in government is a core value of the GOP?
Cato libertarianism assumes, and I think maliciously, that a playing field will not only exist but be level and remain level all by itself and it expresses that with a studied pose of innocence. After all a car or an airplane will self correct and remain more or less on course without a pilot. Pilots are bad because most accidents are the result of pilot error.
It assumes incorrectly that large concentrations of wealth that tip that playing field in their favored direction will not occur because entrepreneurs will always be able to compete with huge multinationals and break up their monopolies. It assumes, worst of all, that companies like Enron will be persuaded by competition to act honestly, their books smelling like roses and that the crimes of Arthur Anderson simply won't happen unless, of course, someone demands an audit and thereby corrupts their moral altruism.
No, the Great Depression wasn't ended, wasn't eased, but was perpetuated by things like the TVA and WPA and CCC that built infrastructure and kept many people working. Despite the statistics that show GDP and employment rising and falling with FDR's spending, it was ended only by the draft, says the Cato Institute's Powell to great applause from conservatives. Yet, somehow, the Vietnam and Korean War draft didn't have a similar effect, but not to be distracted, didn't the economic expansion continue after the troops came home looking for jobs, taking advantage of government housing loans, going to school on the GI bill, starting businesses and taking advantage of all that government spending? Maybe I'm off base, but the Cato scenario is set on a very bare stage and seems to need a few more props to be convincing. Could it be that all that government borrowing and spending on huge plants to make trucks, tanks, cars, airplanes, ships had a positive effect? could it be that massive government involvement in the electronics business and aviation technology and nuclear science and rocketry extending through the Cold War made the US the world leader? Can we speculate that the GI bill created the middle class we'd never really had before? I think we can and with more factual support than the other side with its austere and simplistic assertions.
After all, the First World War was followed by recession and perhaps because the troops got no support from Warren G. Harding who vetoed the whole idea that we owed them a damned thing because after all, "government involvement" is a bad thing and really, what have they done for us recently? No work, no food -- no handouts you lazy bum! ( now shut up while I buy booze at your expense and sell your property to the oil men.)
Ok, so I don't have degrees in all this stuff and nobody pays me to write -- especially not the people who pump the Cato Institute's output with all those corporate bucks, but I do have a simple question nobody seems to want to answer in a serious manner. If, there will be no crime in the absence of law; no crime in the absence of oversight and enforcement, why do we have a government at all? Assertions that we don't need one are not an answer, but an evasion. To be more specific, if oil companies can drill on our common property without having any safety rules imposed on them and if we must automatically grant the rights to do so without regard to when and where and how without "government involvement" why then don't we stop requiring airlines to inspect and maintain their planes, stop requiring prescriptions for drugs, close the schools, disband the police and fire departments, open the jails and let freedom ring? I really want to know.
I really want to know why if the Reagan and Bush tax cuts stimulated revenue growth and created jobs, don't the statistics show it? Why there were no new private sector jobs created during Bush's eight years? I want to know why public and private debt soared while private capital pumped the markets up to the bursting point and corruption spread like cancer. I want to know why the biggest and fastest growth of government size, expense and intrusiveness have occurred by preachers of the "government is always bad" gospel. I want to know why this pie of prosperity a la laissez faire mode has remained in the sky for nearly a century now and as the proofs of failure pile up over and over and over again, it's obscured by excuses, by repetition of doctrine, by scapegoating, stereotyping and creative slander.
Bubble or prosperity? I'll leave it to the guys with the degrees to fight it out, but Cato Institute writer Jim Powell's assertion that the Depression originated in "too much government involvement in Business" is too slippery -- too oily ( to tease you with a metaphor) to let pass without comment.
The weasel word here is "involvement" and to make my discomfort with it shorter and easier to read, let me ask whether referees corrupt the game simply by enforcing the rules -- and whether having rules is necessary to differentiate between Football and Assault and Battery. See what I'm getting at? I hope so, because if I agree with the non-Cato premise that having slashed taxes for the very rich and permitted unregulated markets, a bubble was created in the late 1920's and because Wall Street was more like the wild west than it's been until recently, the bubble inflated and blew up, then you'll understand my confusion. Banks failed, businesses failed lives were ruined and books like The Grapes of Wrath attempted to get the message through to Cato types that these "cycles" and the unwillingness of Americans to suffer any aid given to anyone, created unconscionable suffering for millions and millions and set back our country by more than a decade.
Then as now, that suffering was blamed on the intrinsic laziness of the "inferior classes:" black people, immigrants, people who willingly are ill or injured or incapacitated. It's a premise somehow supported even by those who have now lost their jobs and are collecting unemployment much to the angry chagrin of conservatives calling themselves Libertarians.
But I digress. Can we talk about government involvement in business as though there were only one kind and all kinds are bad? No, I don't think so, but that's what they do. I think Cato is simply indulging in the fallacies of simplification, albeit more articulately than the average T-Party bozo who thinks his taxes have gone up and his guns snatched and people who control hedge funds, brokerage houses, insurance companies and banks, caused the credit crunch only because of "too much government." The kind of bozo who thinks safety regulations and honest regulators cause oil spills. Can it be that too much business involvement in government starts that vicious circle of corruption? Can it be that too much business involvement in government is a core value of the GOP?
Cato libertarianism assumes, and I think maliciously, that a playing field will not only exist but be level and remain level all by itself and it expresses that with a studied pose of innocence. After all a car or an airplane will self correct and remain more or less on course without a pilot. Pilots are bad because most accidents are the result of pilot error.
It assumes incorrectly that large concentrations of wealth that tip that playing field in their favored direction will not occur because entrepreneurs will always be able to compete with huge multinationals and break up their monopolies. It assumes, worst of all, that companies like Enron will be persuaded by competition to act honestly, their books smelling like roses and that the crimes of Arthur Anderson simply won't happen unless, of course, someone demands an audit and thereby corrupts their moral altruism.
No, the Great Depression wasn't ended, wasn't eased, but was perpetuated by things like the TVA and WPA and CCC that built infrastructure and kept many people working. Despite the statistics that show GDP and employment rising and falling with FDR's spending, it was ended only by the draft, says the Cato Institute's Powell to great applause from conservatives. Yet, somehow, the Vietnam and Korean War draft didn't have a similar effect, but not to be distracted, didn't the economic expansion continue after the troops came home looking for jobs, taking advantage of government housing loans, going to school on the GI bill, starting businesses and taking advantage of all that government spending? Maybe I'm off base, but the Cato scenario is set on a very bare stage and seems to need a few more props to be convincing. Could it be that all that government borrowing and spending on huge plants to make trucks, tanks, cars, airplanes, ships had a positive effect? could it be that massive government involvement in the electronics business and aviation technology and nuclear science and rocketry extending through the Cold War made the US the world leader? Can we speculate that the GI bill created the middle class we'd never really had before? I think we can and with more factual support than the other side with its austere and simplistic assertions.
After all, the First World War was followed by recession and perhaps because the troops got no support from Warren G. Harding who vetoed the whole idea that we owed them a damned thing because after all, "government involvement" is a bad thing and really, what have they done for us recently? No work, no food -- no handouts you lazy bum! ( now shut up while I buy booze at your expense and sell your property to the oil men.)
Ok, so I don't have degrees in all this stuff and nobody pays me to write -- especially not the people who pump the Cato Institute's output with all those corporate bucks, but I do have a simple question nobody seems to want to answer in a serious manner. If, there will be no crime in the absence of law; no crime in the absence of oversight and enforcement, why do we have a government at all? Assertions that we don't need one are not an answer, but an evasion. To be more specific, if oil companies can drill on our common property without having any safety rules imposed on them and if we must automatically grant the rights to do so without regard to when and where and how without "government involvement" why then don't we stop requiring airlines to inspect and maintain their planes, stop requiring prescriptions for drugs, close the schools, disband the police and fire departments, open the jails and let freedom ring? I really want to know.
I really want to know why if the Reagan and Bush tax cuts stimulated revenue growth and created jobs, don't the statistics show it? Why there were no new private sector jobs created during Bush's eight years? I want to know why public and private debt soared while private capital pumped the markets up to the bursting point and corruption spread like cancer. I want to know why the biggest and fastest growth of government size, expense and intrusiveness have occurred by preachers of the "government is always bad" gospel. I want to know why this pie of prosperity a la laissez faire mode has remained in the sky for nearly a century now and as the proofs of failure pile up over and over and over again, it's obscured by excuses, by repetition of doctrine, by scapegoating, stereotyping and creative slander.
Shirley Sherrod and the Myth of Reverse Racism
As shameful as the firing of Shirley Sherrod based on false allegations was, it is also shameful how quick folks are to blame the Obama administration. Black folks who play in the white arena have always had to bend over backwards to combat accusations of reverse racism. The NAACP and the Obama administration acted quickly to refute any support of what appeared to be blatantly discriminatory statements by a federal employee; if it had turned out to be an accurate assessment and the NAACP and the administration had not swiftly condemned what much of white America is quick to call "reverse racism," then the condemnation of Obama and the NAACP would have been loudly proclaimed. Like it or not, it boils down to race. Being black in this society is a constant balancing act.
The Obama administration and the NAACP have publicly apologized to Ms. Sherrod. The Agricultural Department has offered Sherrod a new job. However, Andrew Breitbart, the imitation Glenn Beck, and the poster of the heavily edited video that made it appear that Sherrod was a supporter of racial discrimination, hasn't apolgized. In his appearance on Nightline Wednesday night, Breitbart relished the tempest that he stirred up with the selective clip of Sherrod's speech, a speech that rather than promoting racism was about racial reconciliation. Sherrod used her initial reaction to a white farmer's request for assistance 24 years ago when she worked for a nonprofit that assisted farmers to make her point that race should not be the issue and that the significant divide was haves and have nots, regardless of race. The white farmer and his wife, Roger and Eloise Spooner, were among the first to speak in defense of Sherrod, crediting her efforts 24 years ago with saving their farm.
However, Andrew Breitbart is not interested in truth but sensationalism and controversey. Appearing on Good Morning America after the entire video speech had been widely released, Breitbart appeared delighted with the hornet's nest that he intentionally stirred up, particularly the discomfort that it caused the Obama administration and the NAACP. Of course, he may have cause for delight. Instead of widely condemning Breitbart and later Fox News for choosing to release the highly edited clip, the attention has been on chastising the Obama administration for reacting too quickly to the video clip.
I wish that the administration had waited and gathered more facts. I wish that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had given Sherrod the opportunity to explain. It appears that CNN the Atlanta-Journal Constitution used good old fashioned journalism and interviewed Sherrod and the Spooners. Evidently, Breitbart knows about as much about real journalism as I do about building a space shuttle.
I don't believe that the Obama administration is above reproach in all of this. I want this administration to stop letting Beck, Breitbart, and the Tea Party play the tune and call the steps and I think that it is important that we send a clear message that we actively support soundly kicking purveyors of lies and half-truths in their yellow journalism keyboards. However, at the same time, we must stop allowing these rabid, lying, rabble rousing wingnut lunatics to perpetrate their faux news, then sit back and laugh while progressives eat their young.
The Obama administration acted rashly based on intentionally misleading information and the apology offered to Ms. Sherrod was absolutely necessary. However, progressives need to turn our attention to the real culprits, Andrew Breitbart and Fox News. Divide and conquer is an old adage but it still applies unless we refuse to be distracted by lies and distortions from the real issues.
The Obama administration and the NAACP have publicly apologized to Ms. Sherrod. The Agricultural Department has offered Sherrod a new job. However, Andrew Breitbart, the imitation Glenn Beck, and the poster of the heavily edited video that made it appear that Sherrod was a supporter of racial discrimination, hasn't apolgized. In his appearance on Nightline Wednesday night, Breitbart relished the tempest that he stirred up with the selective clip of Sherrod's speech, a speech that rather than promoting racism was about racial reconciliation. Sherrod used her initial reaction to a white farmer's request for assistance 24 years ago when she worked for a nonprofit that assisted farmers to make her point that race should not be the issue and that the significant divide was haves and have nots, regardless of race. The white farmer and his wife, Roger and Eloise Spooner, were among the first to speak in defense of Sherrod, crediting her efforts 24 years ago with saving their farm.
However, Andrew Breitbart is not interested in truth but sensationalism and controversey. Appearing on Good Morning America after the entire video speech had been widely released, Breitbart appeared delighted with the hornet's nest that he intentionally stirred up, particularly the discomfort that it caused the Obama administration and the NAACP. Of course, he may have cause for delight. Instead of widely condemning Breitbart and later Fox News for choosing to release the highly edited clip, the attention has been on chastising the Obama administration for reacting too quickly to the video clip.
I wish that the administration had waited and gathered more facts. I wish that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had given Sherrod the opportunity to explain. It appears that CNN the Atlanta-Journal Constitution used good old fashioned journalism and interviewed Sherrod and the Spooners. Evidently, Breitbart knows about as much about real journalism as I do about building a space shuttle.
I don't believe that the Obama administration is above reproach in all of this. I want this administration to stop letting Beck, Breitbart, and the Tea Party play the tune and call the steps and I think that it is important that we send a clear message that we actively support soundly kicking purveyors of lies and half-truths in their yellow journalism keyboards. However, at the same time, we must stop allowing these rabid, lying, rabble rousing wingnut lunatics to perpetrate their faux news, then sit back and laugh while progressives eat their young.
The Obama administration acted rashly based on intentionally misleading information and the apology offered to Ms. Sherrod was absolutely necessary. However, progressives need to turn our attention to the real culprits, Andrew Breitbart and Fox News. Divide and conquer is an old adage but it still applies unless we refuse to be distracted by lies and distortions from the real issues.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
HOW ANDREW BREITBART AND FOX NEWS RAILROADED SHIRLEY SHERROD
(Please note an update at the bottom of this post)
I am speechless. Outraged beyond words. And I hope one of my levelheaded colleagues will give this story the justice it deserves in a followup post. Since the election of our first Black President, the right wing slime machine has targeted the administration with false accusations of reverse racism. First Van Jones, followed by Acorn, and now Shirley Sherrod … all hatchet jobs accomplished with ugly innuendo, malicious video editing, and errors of omission so egregious ... these atrocities of journalism are in themselves projected acts of racism.
Omission Accomplished is the title of Rachel Maddow’s report on how baghead assassin Andrew Breitbart in partnership with Crock News smeared and railroaded a good person out of her job at the US Department of Agriculture. Rachel Maddow’s video report is not available on the Internet, but her pre-program notes are available here. Late this afternoon, the NAACP released this statement:
BTW, just in case you feel motivated, here are some White House telephone numbers (hint):
Update (July 21, 2010 @ 1:16 PM): Shaw has a new angle on this story, link here. It appears Breitbart is now trying to defame the elderly farming couple who defended Shirley Sherrod. Have a look.
I am speechless. Outraged beyond words. And I hope one of my levelheaded colleagues will give this story the justice it deserves in a followup post. Since the election of our first Black President, the right wing slime machine has targeted the administration with false accusations of reverse racism. First Van Jones, followed by Acorn, and now Shirley Sherrod … all hatchet jobs accomplished with ugly innuendo, malicious video editing, and errors of omission so egregious ... these atrocities of journalism are in themselves projected acts of racism.
Omission Accomplished is the title of Rachel Maddow’s report on how baghead assassin Andrew Breitbart in partnership with Crock News smeared and railroaded a good person out of her job at the US Department of Agriculture. Rachel Maddow’s video report is not available on the Internet, but her pre-program notes are available here. Late this afternoon, the NAACP released this statement:
(BALTIMORE, MD) NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued the following statement today after a careful investigation into the presentation of former USDA Official, Shirley Sherrod.Most worrisome of all, the Administration has allowed itself to be intimidated, browbeaten, suckered, and led by capitulating to the stinking rabble of Fox News - Beck, Breitbart, Carlson, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Van Jones got a raw deal. Acorn got a raw deal. And now Shirley Sherrod - dismissed from her job before all facts were fully known. Even more damnable, the slime machine is now accusing the Administration of allowing Shirley Sherrod to be railroaded. How ironic!
The NAACP has a zero tolerance policy against racial discrimination, whether practiced by blacks, whites, or any other group.
The NAACP also has long championed and embraced transformation by people who have move beyond racial bias. Most notably, we have done so for late Alabama Governor George Wallace and late US Senator Robert Byrd–each a man who had associated with and supported white supremacists and their cause before embracing civil rights for all. With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.
Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans. The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech. They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm.
Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more that 20 years before she went to work for USDA.
Finally, she was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption. In the full video, Ms.Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about “haves and have nots.” “It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people,” says Sherrod in the speech. “We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn’t matter.”
This is a teachable moment, for activists and for journalists.
Most Americans agree that racism has no place in American Society. We also believe that civil and human rights have to be measured by a single yardstick.
The NAACP has demonstrated its commitment to live by that standard.
The Tea Party Federation took a step in that direction when it expelled the Tea Party Express over the weekend. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear from other leaders in the Tea Party movement like Dick Armey and Sarah Palin, who have been virtually silent on the “internal bigotry” issue.
Next time we are confronted by a racial controversy broken by Fox News or their allies in the Tea Party like Mr. Breitbart, we will consider the source and be more deliberate in responding. The tape of Ms. Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed. This just shows the lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition.
According to the USDA, Sherrod’s statements prompted her dismissal. While we understand why Secretary Vilsack believes this false controversy will impede her ability to function in the role, we urge him to reconsider and give everyday Americans a chance to surprise him.
Finally, we hope this incident will heighten Congress’s urgency in dealing with the well documented findings of discrimination toward black, Latino, Asian American and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races.
BTW, just in case you feel motivated, here are some White House telephone numbers (hint):
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Update (July 21, 2010 @ 1:16 PM): Shaw has a new angle on this story, link here. It appears Breitbart is now trying to defame the elderly farming couple who defended Shirley Sherrod. Have a look.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Drill it, spill it - we don't care.
The subject of off shore oil and gas drilling has been a frequent discussion topic since I've lived in Florida. My particular part of the state has a large proportion of people who have environmental concerns, at least as far as clean water and the health of fish stocks are concerned. Most oppose rapid growth, virtually all of my local friends are extremely concerned about the ongoing discharge of polluted fresh water from Lake Okeechobee into our estuary and are likely to show anger at the sugar industry and even the cattle industry that are sources of much of it and who benefit greatly from the government guaranteed status quo. But when it comes to oil, it's been Drill Baby Drill even despite former Republican Governor Jeb Bush's opposition to it.
Before the BP disaster, one couldn't bring up the subject without becoming an audience for vituperation against "the Enviros" who were the root of the problem: the problem of course being high oil prices. The Environmental bogey men, they insist, are the reason we don't have more and cheaper nuclear power and why our bottomless oil reserves aren't being tapped as cleanly and risk free as turning on the bathroom faucet. It's the Liberals -- it's always the Liberals. They're all Republicans and conservationists without being in favor of conservation and environmentally concerned without being environmentalists. It's doublethink at it's finest.
One would expect that to have changed, and indeed it is changing, but not by as much as you might think. The illusion persists that there are huge amounts of oil off our coasts than can be easily accessed by sticking a straw into the mud and that the sooner we give the right to do that to foreign oil companies who sell into a competitive worldwide market, the sooner we'll be back to 26 cents per gallon. Efforts -- my efforts at least -- to dispel the mythology haven't been worthwhile. There's always some secret reserve or hidden oil field kept under wraps by a malicious government and their familiars: the Enviros.
They're not chanting Drill Baby Drill any more; not out loud at any rate, but Floridians aren't yet solidly behind a Constitutional amendment preventing these operations in Florida waters. The Republican-led Legislature seems firmly against it and abruptly adjourned a special legislative session after 49 minutes Tuesday, squelching Governor Charlie Crist's proposal to put the amendment on the ballot. Florida legislators, of course, get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry and before the false equivalence parade float is pulled out of the shed, the lion's share goes to Republicans.
The House Republican leader, Adam Hasner claims that Crist is making it "all about politics" but of course opposition to environmental responsibility has little else but politics to offer as a basis.
It's all about continued profits for the oil industry, continued support for their party (which Crist has recently left) and continued disregard for public safety, health and the common resources of our country.
I don't expect my local friends to put it all together and realize that we' can't preserve our local environment while letting the unholy alliance between oil and government rape the land and water and food sources, but according to the Miami Herald today, support is indeed growing for a permanent ban on at least near-shore drilling. That means at least a few more people are willing to see the picture beyond what is framed by their job, their backyard and their circle of idiocy. It's far too soon -- enormously far too soon to sound like an optimist and in fact I'm convinced that slogans and dogmas, slanders and stupidity will remain the song of the South until the Gulf looks like the LaBrea tar pits and we have to resort to eating termites and grasshoppers while the crops die -- and even then, I'm not sure many minds will be changed in the direction of responsible oversight and regulation by a government agency.
What the hell, might as well just drill!
Before the BP disaster, one couldn't bring up the subject without becoming an audience for vituperation against "the Enviros" who were the root of the problem: the problem of course being high oil prices. The Environmental bogey men, they insist, are the reason we don't have more and cheaper nuclear power and why our bottomless oil reserves aren't being tapped as cleanly and risk free as turning on the bathroom faucet. It's the Liberals -- it's always the Liberals. They're all Republicans and conservationists without being in favor of conservation and environmentally concerned without being environmentalists. It's doublethink at it's finest.
One would expect that to have changed, and indeed it is changing, but not by as much as you might think. The illusion persists that there are huge amounts of oil off our coasts than can be easily accessed by sticking a straw into the mud and that the sooner we give the right to do that to foreign oil companies who sell into a competitive worldwide market, the sooner we'll be back to 26 cents per gallon. Efforts -- my efforts at least -- to dispel the mythology haven't been worthwhile. There's always some secret reserve or hidden oil field kept under wraps by a malicious government and their familiars: the Enviros.
They're not chanting Drill Baby Drill any more; not out loud at any rate, but Floridians aren't yet solidly behind a Constitutional amendment preventing these operations in Florida waters. The Republican-led Legislature seems firmly against it and abruptly adjourned a special legislative session after 49 minutes Tuesday, squelching Governor Charlie Crist's proposal to put the amendment on the ballot. Florida legislators, of course, get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry and before the false equivalence parade float is pulled out of the shed, the lion's share goes to Republicans.
The House Republican leader, Adam Hasner claims that Crist is making it "all about politics" but of course opposition to environmental responsibility has little else but politics to offer as a basis.
It's all about continued profits for the oil industry, continued support for their party (which Crist has recently left) and continued disregard for public safety, health and the common resources of our country.
I don't expect my local friends to put it all together and realize that we' can't preserve our local environment while letting the unholy alliance between oil and government rape the land and water and food sources, but according to the Miami Herald today, support is indeed growing for a permanent ban on at least near-shore drilling. That means at least a few more people are willing to see the picture beyond what is framed by their job, their backyard and their circle of idiocy. It's far too soon -- enormously far too soon to sound like an optimist and in fact I'm convinced that slogans and dogmas, slanders and stupidity will remain the song of the South until the Gulf looks like the LaBrea tar pits and we have to resort to eating termites and grasshoppers while the crops die -- and even then, I'm not sure many minds will be changed in the direction of responsible oversight and regulation by a government agency.
What the hell, might as well just drill!
ENERGY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE INDIGNANT DESERT BIRDS OF WILLFUL SELF-DESTRUCTION
(This article originally appeared on Blog Action Day, October 15, 2009, as part of a global initiative to promote climate change awareness. Of the 33,000 articles posted – which included submissions by PM Gordon Brown of the UK, the PM of Spain, The White House, The Economist, and Greenpeace, as examples – this article was named ‘best’ by the event sponsors. Although news of the Gulf oil spill has dominated prime time, let us not forget the larger issue of clean and sustainable energy.)
It takes a special humility to understand our place in the natural world. Yet our mythology places us on a pedestal and speaks of human beings as having dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, over cattle and every creature that creeps upon the earth, even over earth itself.
In our American history texts, we read of Manifest Destiny and the relentless expansion from sea to shining sea in search of territory, resources, and prosperity ... where our sense of freedom is predicated on abundance.
Notions of freedom and abundance turned the gears of the Industrial Revolution, which relied upon the labor of immigrants who arrived in waves to partake of the American Dream. For them, dreams of freedom and abundance outweighed all deprivations including bigotry by race, religion, ethnicity, and class.
World War II turned America into an economic superpower. After the war, America possessed almost two-thirds of the world's gold reserves, more than half of the world’s manufacturing capacity, and exported two-thirds of the world’s goods. The relationship between freedom and abundance was no longer the privilege of the few but had become the birthright of the many.
It is ironic to note how rapidly fortunes change ... and how the sudden scarcity of a once abundant resource leads to economic decline. By 1970, as the demand for oil outpaced domestic production, America turned into a net importer and, within a generation, the largest creditor nation in the world turned into the largest debtor nation. Today, our nation has 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of the world's oil and emits 40% of the world's pollutants. With proven petroleum reserves of 21,317 million barrels, the Unites States has a 3 to 5 year supply beyond which our nation will be totally dependant on imports (source).
Of course, there are critics, pundits, and politicians who rally around the flag with chants of 'drill, baby, drill!' Drill off the coasts, they say. Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. More opinionated than informed, what they do not know is that ANWR contains less than a year's supply of oil at current consumption rates … and production is more than a decade away. There are others who want to strip mine the Bekken oil sands of North Dakota and the oil shale slopes of our Rocky Mountain States. At least 30 or more years of oil, they claim, but what they do not know is that less than 3% is recoverable … resulting in colossal environmental damage for negligible gain.
Grow our way out of the energy crisis, still others say. Distill ethanol from corn and switchgrass; but what these advocates have not considered is the enormous spike in food prices as agricultural land is diverted from food to energy production ... and the BTU deficit that requires far more energy to be invested than can be taken out. Furthermore, a 70% increase in food production will be needed just to keep pace with projected worldwide population growth. Ethanol offers no solution beyond a good stiff drink.
Even our friends at Google have joined the ranks of Internet punditry with this expression:
What it means is 'renewable energy for less than the cost of coal.' It is a statement about energy economics but little else. It tells us that any hypothetical alternative energy source must compete with coal - the cheapest commodity available - to be economically viable. It says nothing about why non-combustible sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and geo-thermal) must be considered within the context of global climate change.
We cannot separate the energy crisis from the climate change crisis. In economic and environmental terms, these are two sides of the same coin. From the Industrial Revolution to the present, energy consumption has lead to a substantial rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Levels of carbon dioxide, which account for 62% of all greenhouses gases, have nearly doubled since 1750. Methane, which accounts for 20% all greenhouse gases, has risen 155% during the same period. Most disturbing of all, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a 52% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 - a mere 20 years away (source).
We approach global climate change as just another problem to be solved with good old American ingenuity. We cite the Manhattan project, the national highway system, and the space race as shining examples of past glory. However, global climate change is more than merely a technical or structural problem. It has deep historical and cultural roots and a system of unspoken values instilled from the beginning of civilization and passed from generation to generation.
“America is addicted to oil,” declared former President George Bush in his State of the Union address on January 31, 2006. Was the President signaling a dramatic shift in American energy policy, or were these merely pious words meant for the history books? Scarcely a day after the speech, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman issued this disclaimer: Don’t take the President literally. In other words, there will be no rehab for America's addiction under this president.
The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 was the first of several warning shots. Almost 40 years later, we are still dithering as if our energy policy paralysis is the sum total of our mythology, our culture, our national heritage, and a cowboy lifestyle that refuses to face reality. More than these, our energy debate mirrors our healthcare debate: There are entrenched interests hell-bent on protecting their hordes of filthy lucre.
ExxonMobil gave $1.6 million to the American Enterprise Institute in an attempt to undercut the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a report widely regarded as the most comprehensive review of climate change science. The Bush administration sought to further undermine public awareness by censoring the key findings of climate scientists. Thus, our government, under pressure from the oil lobby, suppressed meaningful data to skew public debate.
Manipulating public opinion is easy when you are the CEO of Big Oil with money and lobbyists and politicians in your pocket. In the weeks and months ahead, Big Oil will be staging Astroturf events to protest new climate change legislation … groups such as Energy Citizens organized by the American Petroleum Institute whose members include Anadarko Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, among others (source).
Let me digress for a moment to tell another Genesis story. It begins 400 million years ago, between the Devonian and Carboniferous Periods, when the earth was still hot and humid and long before the polar ice regions formed. As newly evolved forests drew carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fell where they stood - their carbon buried and sequestered under layers of sedimentary rock - the climate cooled and glaciers formed.
Hundreds of millions of years later, a peculiar Pleistocene creature walked the earth and learned in short order how to dig up and burn those fossil fuels to cook food, warm homes, build cities, drive Hummers, make microchips and Barbie dolls and a myriad of trinkets to delight the fancy ... all far removed from basic survival needs. In less than 25 generations, these peculiar Pleistocene creatures released into the atmosphere as much carbon as earth had sequestered over hundreds of millions of years. This is what is known as the anthropogenic cause of global climate change.
Meanwhile, the National Defense Institute explored the potential impact of global climate change as a threat to national security. Its conclusion: Vulnerable regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the island nations of the Pacific will face food and water shortages, catastrophic flooding, unprecedented refugee crises, religious conflict, and the spread of contagious diseases. These will demand massive humanitarian aid efforts and/or a military response (source).
There will always be voices in the crowd who keep hearing messages the dead have stopped sending. There will always be voices arguing, not for the common good, but from pure self-interest. Implementing public policy changes are always difficult at best, and we can understand these quirks and follies of human nature with some sympathy, but the climate bomb is ticking and time is running out. Our worst nightmares have yet to unfold.
The enemy of realism is hubris.
- Reinhold Niebuhr -
It takes a special humility to understand our place in the natural world. Yet our mythology places us on a pedestal and speaks of human beings as having dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, over cattle and every creature that creeps upon the earth, even over earth itself.
In our American history texts, we read of Manifest Destiny and the relentless expansion from sea to shining sea in search of territory, resources, and prosperity ... where our sense of freedom is predicated on abundance.
Notions of freedom and abundance turned the gears of the Industrial Revolution, which relied upon the labor of immigrants who arrived in waves to partake of the American Dream. For them, dreams of freedom and abundance outweighed all deprivations including bigotry by race, religion, ethnicity, and class.
World War II turned America into an economic superpower. After the war, America possessed almost two-thirds of the world's gold reserves, more than half of the world’s manufacturing capacity, and exported two-thirds of the world’s goods. The relationship between freedom and abundance was no longer the privilege of the few but had become the birthright of the many.
It is ironic to note how rapidly fortunes change ... and how the sudden scarcity of a once abundant resource leads to economic decline. By 1970, as the demand for oil outpaced domestic production, America turned into a net importer and, within a generation, the largest creditor nation in the world turned into the largest debtor nation. Today, our nation has 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of the world's oil and emits 40% of the world's pollutants. With proven petroleum reserves of 21,317 million barrels, the Unites States has a 3 to 5 year supply beyond which our nation will be totally dependant on imports (source).Of course, there are critics, pundits, and politicians who rally around the flag with chants of 'drill, baby, drill!' Drill off the coasts, they say. Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. More opinionated than informed, what they do not know is that ANWR contains less than a year's supply of oil at current consumption rates … and production is more than a decade away. There are others who want to strip mine the Bekken oil sands of North Dakota and the oil shale slopes of our Rocky Mountain States. At least 30 or more years of oil, they claim, but what they do not know is that less than 3% is recoverable … resulting in colossal environmental damage for negligible gain.
Grow our way out of the energy crisis, still others say. Distill ethanol from corn and switchgrass; but what these advocates have not considered is the enormous spike in food prices as agricultural land is diverted from food to energy production ... and the BTU deficit that requires far more energy to be invested than can be taken out. Furthermore, a 70% increase in food production will be needed just to keep pace with projected worldwide population growth. Ethanol offers no solution beyond a good stiff drink.
Even our friends at Google have joined the ranks of Internet punditry with this expression:
What it means is 'renewable energy for less than the cost of coal.' It is a statement about energy economics but little else. It tells us that any hypothetical alternative energy source must compete with coal - the cheapest commodity available - to be economically viable. It says nothing about why non-combustible sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and geo-thermal) must be considered within the context of global climate change.
We cannot separate the energy crisis from the climate change crisis. In economic and environmental terms, these are two sides of the same coin. From the Industrial Revolution to the present, energy consumption has lead to a substantial rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Levels of carbon dioxide, which account for 62% of all greenhouses gases, have nearly doubled since 1750. Methane, which accounts for 20% all greenhouse gases, has risen 155% during the same period. Most disturbing of all, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a 52% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 - a mere 20 years away (source).
We approach global climate change as just another problem to be solved with good old American ingenuity. We cite the Manhattan project, the national highway system, and the space race as shining examples of past glory. However, global climate change is more than merely a technical or structural problem. It has deep historical and cultural roots and a system of unspoken values instilled from the beginning of civilization and passed from generation to generation.
“America is addicted to oil,” declared former President George Bush in his State of the Union address on January 31, 2006. Was the President signaling a dramatic shift in American energy policy, or were these merely pious words meant for the history books? Scarcely a day after the speech, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman issued this disclaimer: Don’t take the President literally. In other words, there will be no rehab for America's addiction under this president.
The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 was the first of several warning shots. Almost 40 years later, we are still dithering as if our energy policy paralysis is the sum total of our mythology, our culture, our national heritage, and a cowboy lifestyle that refuses to face reality. More than these, our energy debate mirrors our healthcare debate: There are entrenched interests hell-bent on protecting their hordes of filthy lucre.
ExxonMobil gave $1.6 million to the American Enterprise Institute in an attempt to undercut the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a report widely regarded as the most comprehensive review of climate change science. The Bush administration sought to further undermine public awareness by censoring the key findings of climate scientists. Thus, our government, under pressure from the oil lobby, suppressed meaningful data to skew public debate.
Manipulating public opinion is easy when you are the CEO of Big Oil with money and lobbyists and politicians in your pocket. In the weeks and months ahead, Big Oil will be staging Astroturf events to protest new climate change legislation … groups such as Energy Citizens organized by the American Petroleum Institute whose members include Anadarko Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, among others (source).
Let me digress for a moment to tell another Genesis story. It begins 400 million years ago, between the Devonian and Carboniferous Periods, when the earth was still hot and humid and long before the polar ice regions formed. As newly evolved forests drew carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fell where they stood - their carbon buried and sequestered under layers of sedimentary rock - the climate cooled and glaciers formed.
Hundreds of millions of years later, a peculiar Pleistocene creature walked the earth and learned in short order how to dig up and burn those fossil fuels to cook food, warm homes, build cities, drive Hummers, make microchips and Barbie dolls and a myriad of trinkets to delight the fancy ... all far removed from basic survival needs. In less than 25 generations, these peculiar Pleistocene creatures released into the atmosphere as much carbon as earth had sequestered over hundreds of millions of years. This is what is known as the anthropogenic cause of global climate change.
Meanwhile, the National Defense Institute explored the potential impact of global climate change as a threat to national security. Its conclusion: Vulnerable regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the island nations of the Pacific will face food and water shortages, catastrophic flooding, unprecedented refugee crises, religious conflict, and the spread of contagious diseases. These will demand massive humanitarian aid efforts and/or a military response (source).
There will always be voices in the crowd who keep hearing messages the dead have stopped sending. There will always be voices arguing, not for the common good, but from pure self-interest. Implementing public policy changes are always difficult at best, and we can understand these quirks and follies of human nature with some sympathy, but the climate bomb is ticking and time is running out. Our worst nightmares have yet to unfold.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Crack in the floor
You didn't think the monster on the sea bed was going to stay muzzled, did you? I was on a ship headed for Palm Beach when I saw the news report that the well had been capped and the pressure was rising. That rising pressure was a good sign seemed to confuse my fellow passengers, being young Americans and thus not quite up to seeing the analogy between this and trying to pump up a tire with a hole in it, but the early good sign didn't stay very good as pressure failed to reach what it should be if there were no other leaks and now it seems there are. Oil is seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.
A young woman sitting next to me was confused by the word seep and wanted to know whether it was spelled 'sepe' or 'seap', but to those who are at least as smart as a fifth grader, it spells bad news. The cap either has to come off or the relief wells have to be completed before the cracks widen and proliferate and we lose control completely.
Of course what may be a disaster for the world may be a boon for Halliburton and perhaps for Darth Cheney himself. The Dubai based corporation posted second quarter earnings substantially higher than expected; an 83% increase in point of fact. Can we understand now why the power behind the Bush kept his energy policy meetings with the oil men a secret we'll never have access to in our lifetime? Can we begin to suspect that it really wasn't about 'principle' but about power and money?
A young woman sitting next to me was confused by the word seep and wanted to know whether it was spelled 'sepe' or 'seap', but to those who are at least as smart as a fifth grader, it spells bad news. The cap either has to come off or the relief wells have to be completed before the cracks widen and proliferate and we lose control completely.
Of course what may be a disaster for the world may be a boon for Halliburton and perhaps for Darth Cheney himself. The Dubai based corporation posted second quarter earnings substantially higher than expected; an 83% increase in point of fact. Can we understand now why the power behind the Bush kept his energy policy meetings with the oil men a secret we'll never have access to in our lifetime? Can we begin to suspect that it really wasn't about 'principle' but about power and money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)