Buddy's Books and Bait

A Quote to Ponder

2008-11-06T22:32:00.007-06:00

Thanks to the great bloggers at Hullabaloo for posting this quote. I think these words express what Progressives hope to achieve in the upcoming years.

"Politics is not left, right or center ... It's about improving people's lives."

-Paul Wellstone, Election Night 1990 acceptance speech

Dixville Notch

2008-11-04T00:26:00.003-06:00

Obama has scored his first victory. The Dixville Notch, New Hampshire votes have now been counted:

Obama-Biden 15
McCain-Palin 6

Let the landslide begin!

The Day Has Finally Arrived

2008-11-04T00:09:00.005-06:00

The following post was written this week by a fellow blogger named TBogg. I think much of what is written is what many of us are feeling now. More to follow if all goes well tomorrow--and it will.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but I have a confession to make. I'm in my fifties and I never thought that I would see an African-American elected President of the United States in my lifetime. I just didn't think we had it in us but it appears that we have most assuredly come a long way.

I remember when I was nine years old, sitting in the back of my parents car getting ready to leave Torrey Pines State Beach when they announced on the radio that the authorities had found the bodies of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner; I remember it as distinctly as I remember when JFK was shot. The announcer called them "civil rights workers" but I didn't know what a civil rights worker was. I thought he was calling them "civil service workers" which, to my nine year-old mind, was like a postman or the guys who picked up the trash. I couldn't understand why anyone would want to murder them. Later, when I understood who they were and what they were doing, I understood it even less. Murdering someone just because they were trying to help people register to vote? I couldn't comprehend the hatred of a people who could think that way. I just knew that they were vicious and they were stupid.

Later, when I was in the eighth grade, I read Les Miserables in class and I came across this: "There are souls that, crablike, crawl continually toward darkness, going backward in life rather than advancing, using their experience to increase their deformity, growing continually worse, and becoming steeped more and more thoroughly in the intensifying viciousness."

...and I realized that I knew exactly the type of people Victor Hugo was writing about.

Now, forty-four long years later, I will have the opportunity to vote for (and more importantly, so will my daughter who has already cast her vote in this, her first election) an African-American for President of the United States. The same type of "person" James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner lost their lives for; not so they could become president some day, but simply because it was their right to participate and have a voice within their own country.

I won't say 'what took us so long?'. I'll just say that I'm glad to be here to see this day come.

McCain Falls Flat Once Again

2008-10-07T22:28:00.004-05:00

Senator John McCain put in yet another dismal performance in this evening's debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama. McCain--shown at left responding to a question about health care--was supposed to do well in this "town hall" debate style. After the debate, a McCain spokesperson said that the Arizona senator is considering asking for a totally different format in the final contest.

In addition, the McCain camp has also suggested new rules for the November election. McCain, a novice Scrabble player, wants all states below the Ohio River to have "triple word scores" regarding their electoral college votes--except for Florida because it lies so close to that country controlled by the evil Castro brothers. So Georgia would now have 45 electoral votes; South Carolina 24; Alabama 27, Mississippi 18; and Texas would have over 100! The McCain campaign says this is only fair since Obama has the elite, liberal media on his side. "We simply want to level the playing field" said Senator McCain in a press release given to Fox News after tonight's debate.

The Obama campaign had no comment.

I Have To Meet My Professor

2008-09-21T13:35:00.008-05:00

This Tuesday, Sarah Palin will be meeting with Dr. Henry Kissinger. Palin is trying to prepare herself for the upcoming vice-presidential debate, while also attempting to learn something (anything!) about foreign policy and the world. Who better to talk to than Kissinger.

I would just love to be at this meeting. Quick, what words come to mind when you envision this duo: mismatch, asymmetrical, or maybe lopsided?

Here are just a few of the the things I would interested in knowing:

1. Does Sarah Palin even know who Henry Kissinger is?

2. Will their accents clash?

3. Did she have to email first to find out about Dr. Kissinger's office hours?

4. What the hell is Palin going to do when Kissinger starts pontificating about Metternich and the Congress of Vienna? Will she take notes like a good undergrad, nod off, or ask Henry if this will be on the test?

5. Will she bring an atlas or a small globe just in case Kissinger mentions a place she has never heard of?

6. Will she ask Henry if he has ever shot a moose? What will be his response?

7. Will she question his policies regarding Vietnam, Chile, Allende, or East Timor? Okay, maybe not.

8. How long will it take before Kissinger realizes that this teaching session is a lost cause?

Say What?

2008-09-18T21:26:00.008-05:00

Earlier this week, John McCain suggested that Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States." He added that "we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue."

Finally, we have that important foreign policy link we have been looking for. She can see Russia from somewhere in Alaska, but it's her energy knowledge that makes her national security ready.

I do have this question though, is there a person in the country....anyone at all, who actually thinks Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in the United States?" Should a presidential candidate be able to say crap like this? There should be some sort of law.

Is there any evidence at all that she knows anything about energy or energy policy? She lives in Alaska and there is oil in Alaska. So maybe, just maybe, she has some thoughts and opinions on energy. But the most knowledgeable person in the country?

Well, judge for yourself. Here is what she said in an interview this week about oil, energy, and drilling. If you can figure out this gibberish, let me know.

Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first,” Palin said. “So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.

What she said!

A Nation In Decline

2008-09-17T23:08:00.005-05:00

I think this country is in real trouble. We can't face our problems, and we refuse to even acknowledge the serious situation we are in. Instead, we flaunt our flag lapel pins, boast about what a great country we used to be, pray about everything, and try to divert attention by blaming people and groups who have nothing to do with these issues.

Case in point #1--John McCain has absolutely nothing to say about our serious economic problems. Instead of facing the truth, however, McCain has decided to spew some irrelevant crap about the soundness of the American worker. Yes, make sure to say something nice about an important segment of the population so they can feel good about themselves. In the meantime, offer the country no solutions. That's real leadership.

Case in point #2--Weren't we all so proud of the Republicans when they yelled "drill, drill, drill" in moronic unison at their convention? Let's not deal with the oil and energy problems in this country, that might make the public uncomfortable. A better idea is to have them believe there is a simple solution, drill! Now everyone is happy, no one is offended, and the public can sleep easy.

Obvious case in point #3 that has been going on for years--Instead of talking about our incoherent foreign policy, our inability to understand the world, and our immanent defeat in Iraq; let's just prattle on about those brave troops. The bigger questions surely aren't important, we need to make our people feel good about themselves.

My questions are these: first, are the American people so insecure and fearful that they can't even discuss social, political, and economic problems? And second, when are the people going to demand that these issues be considered?

I don't know who should shoulder more of the blame? But I think the public must ultimately force the politicians to debate these issues. What are we afraid of, that sacrifices will have to be made? Yes, that is going to happen, probably sooner rather than later.

This is truly a sad time to be an American. We have lost respect around the world, our economy is in shambles, a middle-class life is becoming impossible, and foreclosures, exorbitant health care costs, job losses, and poor education standards have become the norm. Yet, we still have not demanded that our current and future leaders address these issues.

Wave those flags, pray, support those troops, and talk to the kids about WWII: all our problems will surely go away!

I Need To Get A New Hobby

2008-06-25T23:01:00.009-05:00

I have often referred to myself as a political junkie—but things are getting out of hand. Let me explain. My friend Ratso Rizzo and I have been spending most of our waking hours debating and critically examining potential running mates for Barack Obama. I think the two of us have personally vetted about 40 candidates thus far. The fact is, we are spending way too much time on this topic. But both Ratso and I are political junkies. Sitting at a coffee shop discussing these sorts of topics is what we do.

If this was as far as it went, I would be happy admitting to just some minor social and personal problems. But the other night, I think my subconscious tried to warn me that I was in some deeper trouble. I had a very clear and vivid dream about George Smathers. That’s right, George Smathers. No one else in the entire fucking country is dreaming about George Smathers--just me. What happened to the days when I dreamed about big-breasted cheerleaders, or playing third base for the Mets? I guess that was back when I was sane. No, my imagination drums up George Smathers.

Most of you don’t know who he is so let me explain. George Smathers (picture below) was a United States senator from the state of Florida from 1951 to 1969. He wasn't a particular memorable statesman. He is probably best know for being a friend of President Kennedy--and the two of them might have spent some time chasing females. There is really no reason a sane individual would dream about Smathers—unless one did nothing else in his life except think about electoral votes in Florida and Ohio, running mates, and those sorts of political things.

I suppose Freud would say that since there are no current Obama running mate possibilities from Florida, my historian-subconscious reverted to past politicians—a nice trait to have I guess. And George Smathers is who my mind dredged up. I suppose he would help carry the state for our side. Maybe I need to get out more—or talk more about the weather, or the opera, or baseball.

If I have any additional dreamlike running mate ideas--I will let you know. Actually I was thinking that Winfield Scott Hancock would really help Obama. He is from the right state (Pennsylvania) and he was a war hero (fought at Gettysburg). Just thinking.....

My Trip to the Diner

2008-06-19T21:08:00.007-05:00

I went to my neighborhood diner today for lunch. You know the place, a family business that’s been around since the Taft administration....all-you-can eat fish on Fridays, and great milk shakes too.

Well, today's hostess looked like Flo from Mel’s Diner—maybe just a little heavier, but the same mannerisms—she might have even called me “hun” when I walked in the door.

I was sitting near the cash register so I could hear Flo talking to one of the regulars. This guy appeared to be about 65-70 and was probably drinking his 37^th free coffee refill of the day. Flo said to him, “I hear they’re trying to stop this off-shore oil drilling. We better do it; I need my gas prices to come down.”

The gentleman (we’ll call him Sam, he looked like a Sam), responded by saying, “Yes, we need the oil that’s out there. It might take 2-3 years to see the benefits though.” To which Flo responded, “That’s alright, we need to get it now.” (Clearly I wasn’t taking notes—but that’s close to what was said.)

Now I was totally intrigued by this conversation. These were two regular folks that are probably being hurt by the $4.00 gallon gas prices. Flo and Sam want gas back at $2.00 a gallon. And I am going to assume that these individuals believe there is a solution to this problem. Yes, off-shore drilling could be it. There is oil out there in the ocean—we need to get at it. Just let those oil companies drill and my gas prices will drop.

When I see and hear people like Flo and Sam I get worried—worried that they are prime targets for fear and political demagoguery. And when I hear the misinformation thrown around about off-shore drilling, I really get scared. Flo and Sam believe in this solution because they have to believe it. If they don’t, if they instead chose to see how complex and nuanced this energy crisis really is—it would be pretty damned depressing.

The Republicans play on these fears and I think this is an issue they will try and exploit in the next 5 months. John McCain is going to say he will lower the price of gas. Yes, he will be lying—but people like Flo and Sam need to imagine that this crisis might be short-term.

But we know it’s demagoguery. Today’s New York Times editorial said it best, “It’s was almost inevitable that a combination of $4-a-gallon gas, public anxiety and politicians eager to win votes or repair legacies would produce political pandering on an epic scale.” (Read the whole editorial if you have time, it's very informative).

The Times labels the Bush drilling proposal a “dumb idea” that is “cruelly misleading” and sites the Energy Information Organization as estimating that if the off-shore coasts were opened, “prices would not begin to drop until 2030.”

I hope Senator Obama and other Democrats are ready to take on this pandering. They need to be prepared because the public wants to believe there are ready solutions. We should be honest with them—but sometimes, that isn’t the best political solution is it?

Flo and Sam's conversation also made me think about my immediate response. Should I have said something, should I have given them a copy of the New York Times article which I had with me? Probably neither would have been a good idea. The St. Paul diner crowd don’t need a lecture from a liberal college professor.

But it does make me want to keep blogging, and talking to people when I have the chance, and educating students and the public on these knotty issues. Sometimes the solutions aren't what Flo and Sam want to hear, but I think they can accept the consequences if talked to honestly. At least I hope that's the case.

A Female Veep--But Not Hillary?

2008-06-11T15:07:00.004-05:00

It was reported last week in the national media that Hillary Clinton would simply not accept another woman on the ticket as Barack Obama’s running mate. If she wasn’t the choice, then Obama would have to select a man.

I am not sure of the accuracy of this report, but the political dilemma is worth discussing. If Senator Clinton still dreams of being the first female president of the United States, it would not be in her interest to have a competitor. And even if Obama loses in November, his running mate would become, along with Senator Clinton, a strong contender for the 2012 election. That would set up a pleasant situation—two women heading the list of possible Democratic presidential candidates. Nothing wrong with that.

If (or should I say when) Obama wins in November we will have a different situation. The nation's first female vice-president would immediately become the heir apparent to President Obama--although 2016 is a long way off. Clearly however, Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president would decline precipitously.

But what will the Clinton supporters think of a different women being named Obama’s running mate? In my opinion, they would be unable to criticize this choice even if disappointed. Would they deny another female a spot on the ticket? Even if Clinton is not the choice, wouldn’t it still be remarkable to have an African-American/female team? Much of Clinton’s campaign would be validated to a great degree and her supporters would have to feel some amount of satisfaction.

Finally, could Clinton stop Obama from selecting a female? I suppose she could put enough pressure to do just that. But what if the word got out? It would simply reinforce an image of Hillary Clinton as a selfish and ruthless politician who cared only about her own self-interest—not the party, and not the feminist movement. No, she simply cannot make this demand. If discovered, her future role as a party leader would be diminished severely. Even her chances of running for president in the future would be damaged.

The fact is, this is the perfect time to select a female running mate. Hillary Clinton has opened the door for a woman to be selected immediately. Obama needs to take advantage of that opening. Yes, it would probably end Clinton’s presidential hopes—but her chances are slim anyway. The Clinton 18-million would have to be supportive. And finally, it would give an opportunity for a number of Democratic women (and Republican women also) to run for president in the next few election cycles.

History will give Hillary Clinton credit for making this situation possible now. This might not be what she had in mind--but it isn't a bad legacy. Now Barack Obama must make the next move.

McCain Means Anti-Choice

2008-06-11T00:01:00.004-05:00

As a yellow-dog Democrat myself (that’s a party loyalist who would even vote for a yellow dog if it were running on the Democratic ticket), I sincerely hope that the Hillary Clinton supporters will ultimately decide that a vote for Barack Obama is their best choice in November. While I understand that emotions are running high, it still comes down to policies in the end. Will we be better off with Obama or McCain?

I anticipate arguments being made to Clinton supporters trying to convince them that Obama is a much better option--and I would like to do my small part in this post.

We need to all remember that the next president will probably appoint several Supreme Court justices. Who do we want making those critical selections? I made this same argument to Obama supporters back in February when it looked like Clinton might be the nominee. Even then, I believed all Democrats had to support the eventual nominee to advance our policy initiatives (even though both candidates were squishy centrists), and to take back the Supreme Court. At that time, some belligerent Obama supporters were threatening to leave the party if Clinton was the nominee—so our current problems might have been the same no matter who won the nomination.

So let’s look at a few articles regarding McCain’s views on abortion and a woman’s right to chose. This first selection is from McCain’s own website. It’s difficult to misinterpret these words. The bold highlights are mine.

Overturning Roe v. 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. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat. However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

This next short selection is a response to a Clinton supporter who plans to vote for McCain in November. Froma Harrop claims that McCain is really a moderate on the choice issue--buying into the maverick label that McCain is still attempting to utilize. Kevin Drum in the Washington Monthly utilizes a Steve Beren column and they both take Harrop to task.

McCAIN ON ABORTION....One of the inexplicable side effects of John McCain's maverick reputation is the number of people who believe — or, perhaps, desperately want to believe — that he's basically pretty moderate on abortion rights. Columnist Froma Harrop is one of them.

First, Harrop is willing to gamble, but pro-choice Democrats have to know better....[Harrop] concludes that McCain's voting record of complete and total opposition to reproductive rights for nearly a quarter century is insincere, and once in the White House, he'll suddenly transform into a moderate. This is sheer fantasy.

Second, McCain is going to great lengths to prove how completely wrong Harrop really is. Indeed, McCain is telling anyone who will listen that he'd be even further to the right than Bush on this issue, subtly criticizing Griswold, and by extension, the very notion of a right to privacy.

And third, it's utterly foolish to narrowly focus the inquiry to the Supreme Court. McCain is practically desperate to stack the court with more far-right justices — his active support for Bork wasn't an accident — but if we take a more general look at McCain and women's issues, we see that McCain will maintain the global gag order, supports the court's ruling on Ledbetter, has expressed no interest in civil rights protections for women, and has voted against everything from requiring health care plans to cover birth control to international family planning funding to public education for emergency contraception.

McCain tends to use soothing, nonconfrontational language when he talks about social issues, but his actual record on abortion is about as hardline conservative as you can get. A lot of moderates who like McCain seem to be averting their gaze from this and trying to persuade themselves that it's all just politics and the real McCain is a lot like them: not a big fan of abortion, maybe, but not really extreme about it either. Unfortunately, it ain't so. If McCain gets into office, his record is pretty clear: he'll do everything he can to reduce or eliminate access to abortion, starting with poor women and working his way up.

Finally, the Christian Science Monitor chimed in a few months ago on McCain’s possible judicial nominees. It is clear what kinds of judges McCain will appoint.

A particularly sore point has involved McCain's alleged liberal perspective on selecting federal judges, especially for the Supreme Court. But on this score, conservative fear is misplaced. A careful reading of his statements and his Senate record shows that McCain's "maverick" approach bodes quite well for those who cherish a conservative judiciary.

The senator has carefully repeated the conservative Republican Party mantras regarding federal judicial appointments demanded of all viable GOP candidates. For instance, McCain has praised President Bush for selecting justices "who strictly interpret the Constitution." And he observed that "one of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench."

He has pledged to appoint jurists who construe the Constitution and legislation, rather than make social policy or assume the role of judicial "activists." Indeed, one critical line of McCain's Super Tuesday speech was a clear, direct appeal to the GOP base: "I am a Republican because I believe the judges we appoint to the federal bench must understand that enforcing our laws, not making them, is their only responsibility."

McCain has also made the standard promise to name Supreme Court justices who share the perspectives of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as those of Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

When some conservatives attacked McCain for remarking that he was reportedly troubled because Justice Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve," he set the record straight: "I will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts."

McCain may be less ideological than certain conservative Republicans would like. Nevertheless, his record suggests that they should not be concerned. In fact, McCain might rectify or temper the accusations, recriminations, divisive partisanship, and paybacks that have plagued the selection process by cooperating with Democrats, who may enhance their Senate majority in November.

It's a No-Brainer

2008-05-19T09:00:00.003-05:00

This is a relatively easy call. Hillary Clinton would be a near perfect vice-presidential candidate for Barack Obama. Shall I formulate a list?

-a proven vote getter
-tough (would obliterate Iran at the wink of an eye)
-has already been vetted
-good campaigner
-will generate crowds, enthusiasm, and turnout
-can raise huge sums of money
-experienced (can and will answer any phone at 3:00 am)
-geographical balance
-gender and racial balance: a true revolutionary ticket, let's not forget that
-age balance
-the candidates agree on most issues
-will savage any Republican Veep candidate in a debate--I can't wait to see Hillary and Pawlenty go toe-to-toe, any guess on who will win that one?

But the most important consideration here goes to votes: simple arithmetic. Will Hillary bring Obama any voters? And the answer is a resounding yes! These two fit together like an electoral glove (whatever that is). We have seen Hillary taking the rural white votes in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. These are just the voters Obama needs to court. Granted, some of them might go to McCain, but Clinton will surely keep many of them for the ticket in November. She will also help with women and older voters.

What is the downside to this ticket? There are actually very few important things.
-Obama would win New York without Clinton on board
-there is the Bill problem, someone would need to watch over him.
-sick of the constant Clinton drama
-this would seem a politically calculated selection, which might initially hurt Obama with young, idealistic voters
-there are still skeletons in the Clinton closets
-might energize some Republican voters
-Clinton's Iraq vote
-both from the senate
-there have been some mud thrown during the campaign that would probably be used by the Republicans in an attempt to divide the ticket

The biggest problem in formulating this union would be egos. These two senators probably don't like each other very much. I doubt either one wants to do much to help the other. But I think this ticket could bring us a landslide win in November. If the political operatives can just show each of them the potential benefits of this ticket--we are in for a fun and frolicking fall campaign.

I would still vote for Obama if he selected Bayh, Nunn, Sebilius, Richardson, Clark, Webb, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, or Napolitano. But I don't see any of these choices really bringing much to the ticket. And indeed, Obama might still win in November. But an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a rock-star partnership. With Hillary on the ticket I doubt we would spend another long evening waiting for a few states to report--it would be over early.

Historical Interlude
After JFK selected Lyndon Johnson as his running mate at the 1960 Democratic convention in Los Angles, there was gloom and doom in the Kennedy camp. One key advisor told the future president that this was “the worst mistake you ever made” predicting that Kennedy would spend the entire campaign apologizing for adding Johnson to the ticket.

The following weekend, while sitting around the Kennedy compound still wondering if they had done the right thing—old Joe Kennedy entered the room and said, “Don’t worry Jack, in two weeks everyone will be saying that this was the smartest thing you ever did.” Papa Joe Kennedy was right. Say what you want about Johnson's future mistakes—the point was to win the 1960 election. And Johnson was a great help in putting together a narrow victory.

And when a few Obama supporters are angry that he has picked his main rival, some wise individual will go up to him and say, “Don’t worry Barack, in two weeks everyone will be saying that this was the smartest thing you ever did.”

And it will be: Obama-Clinton in 2008.

Appeasement

2008-05-16T20:20:00.007-05:00

Dear Right-Wingers, Republicans, and other assorted jingoists,

It would be nice if you actually knew something about history before bringing it up. It really makes you folks look like fools. I do realize that most of you think intellectuals are evil people who don't attend church on Sunday and refuse to wear flag lapel pins. But most of us honestly try to understand an issue before we engage in a debate.

Now let's talk about appeasement. Your President Bush mentioned the word during a speech in Israel this week--which immediately led all of you conservative screamers to label Barack Obama an appeaser since the Illinois senator has said he would talk to Iran and other so-called "enemy" nations.

Let's be honest, you folks have no idea what the word actually means, and you don't understand one thing about the historical context. It's just a word you throw around because you think it is supposed to frighten liberals. Here is how Paul Kennedy defined it: "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous."

Avoiding armed conflict--now there is a novel concept. But in reality we all know the word gained negative connotations when our friend Neville Chamberlain (pictured above) continually met Hitler's demands during the lead up to World War II. When Chamberlain basically gave away Czechoslovakia to get "peace in our time" the policy of appeasement was forever tarnished. How many times have we heard about this infamous 1938 Munich agreement?

The Bush administration has learned what from Munich?
1. Don't give up anything to evil dictators for they will always want more.
2. Build up your military to such tremendous might that the evil dictators won't even dare ask for anything.
3. If the evil dictator even thinks about making demands, blow the fuck out him.
4. Then spend more and more money on the military so appeasement will never be an option just in case some sissy liberal does get elected.
5. Take all money out of social programs and spend it on big, hard, stiff ~~penis~~ weapons.

My Republican friends, we all know these lessons are a crock of pure shit. This twisted logic has been served up in order to gut social programs and to scare the hell out of the public so they will vote for your side. Yet Munich has become part of American diplomatic terminology. I had a girlfriend once that basically demanded better and more expensive gifts every week. I didn't know what to do. Then I thought of Munich--I can't appease this ~~bitch~~ lovely young lady, if I do she'll keep asking for more and more. And she'll be in Poland before I know it. That's kind of how you guys think isn't it?

But let me tell you what appeasement isn't--and I don't expect you to understand.
-it's NOT appeasement if we talk to another nations
-it's NOT appeasement if we talk to nations which we consider enemies

-it's NOT appeasement if we diplomatically recognize nations which we might disagree with
-it's NOT appeasement to attempt to live peacefully in the world with other nations
-it's NOT appeasement to cut our military budget (a lot)
-it's NOT appeasement to be part of a community of nations
-it's NOT appeasement to recognize the importance of the United Nations
-it's NOT appeasement to acknowledge other religions in the world
-it's NOT appeasement to criticize Israel
-it's NOT appeasement to talk with Hamas--or any other group for that matter
-it's NOT appeasement to dream of making this world a better place

-it's NOT appeasement to turn the other cheek once in a while
-it's NOT appeasement to be opposed to war

Please try to understand your history before you level your swift-boat charges. President Obama will not be giving anything away when he talks to Iran and other enemies of the United States. Talking is simply the first step in making the world a better place. But you wouldn't understand that whole better place concept would you

Hillary's Motivation and Pickett's Charge

2008-05-13T21:00:00.007-05:00

Many have been asking why Hillary Clinton remains in the Democratic presidential race. It's fairly clear that she has little chance of securing the nomination without destroying the party in the process. She is behind in ALL relevant statistical categories: pledged delegates, superdelegates, states won, and popular vote. How about a graceful exit?

There are those who see Machiavellian political motives in all of Clinton's actions: she is maneuvering for the Vice-Presidency, she needs Obama's help to pay her bills, she secretly wants to wreck his chances so she can run in 2012. There might be other sinister conspiratorial theories--but I don't accept this sort of reasoning.

Generally speaking, I think political motives are often much simpler than the talking-heads imagine. Why is Senator Clinton still in this race, I think her reasoning is actually easy to figure out. Everything that Hillary and Bill have done since 1992 has worked (except that blow-job incident). Events have always broken their way, and they have rarely had to pay a large political price for mistakes. One could even say they have been invincible. And when you think you are invincible, that is what determines your strategy. Hillary Clinton still believes she is going to win this nomination. She cannot envision defeat--even though a defeat appears inevitable. And in fact, the Clinton history of the past 16 years serves to reinforce her current strategy: fight hard, spin, hang around, act as if events are going your way, smile.....and things will work out.

(now for the historians in the crowd) After Robert E. Lee sent George Pickett on his famous charge at Gettysburg, many later wondered how Lee could have made such a foolish decision (that's Pickett's dashing picture at top of post). Some historians have cited overconfidence on Lee's part--he thought he and his troops were invincible. And as Shelby Foote has pointed out, the first few years of the war actually did show that he and his army was nearly invincible. But invincibility doesn't last forever and it invites the obvious overstretch. For Lee, it was Pickett's Charge in July of 1863.

This is the Pickett's Charge of the Clinton years. This will be the race that didn't work out, no miracles, no last-minute breaks, nothing will save her this time. But the reasoning is understandable. When everything has gone your way time and time again--you develop a mindset that it will continue.

That's why she is still in the race. It's as simple as that.

A Waste of a Good Governor

2008-03-11T00:07:00.004-05:00

I actually don't think hiring a prostitute is anyone's business. And I believe there are more insidious ways for a politician to betray the public trust. But New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer is a dumb-ass. Paying for sex might be a private matter, it probably doesn't influence public policy, and the FBI could be doing more important things--but Eliot Spitzer is a dumb-ass.

Why do this? Why wreck a promising political career over something so trivial. I don't quite understand. I have no real moral qualms with Spitzer's behavior--I have stupidity issues though. I hope if he does resign, he doesn't blame it all on a momentary moral lapse. He should hold a press conference and just admit that he is a dumb-ass.

Of course, we all know you don't have to be smart to hold high office. But Spitzer apparently earned a perfect score on his LSAT--he should have known better. President Bush, on the other hand, (a perfect example of a moron elected to a high of office) is simply not very smart. If I discovered that Bush hired a prostitute, I am not sure what my reaction would be. I guess it would at least keep him out of the Oval Office for a few minutes.

One more thing--Spitzer spent $5000.00 on this bimbo. What do you get for that price? Maybe I'm too old, but I can't imagine how one would get his money's worth from this tryst. Any ideas on this? Please let me know.

And maybe I shouldn't use the word bimbo for a $5000.00 prostitute. I should have more respect.

Show This Picture Every Day

2008-02-10T20:15:00.000-06:00

We need to show this pathetic and disgusting picture each and every day from now until the November election. We are not only running against John McCain, we will be running against McCain and Bush. We will be running against a third-term for George Bush.....or McBush or something like that (I will take suggestions on a name for this vile creature in the snapshot).

And if Democrats are afraid or hesitant to link these two clowns, we won't deserve to win in the fall. Forget this phoney bipartisanship crap--let's stick it to the Republicans.

Don't they look silly?

Mayor Daley Would be Proud

2008-02-10T15:37:00.000-06:00

Okay my friends (I sound like John McCain don't I?), today we will have a lesson in "practical" politics. It's not that I don't respect high idealism--it's just that I would like to believe that it's useful to understand how this system truly works. Practical politics is neither good nor bad, it's just the way it is.

John Edwards, hero to many of us on the left (two Americas, poverty, New Orleans), is holding "secret talks" with both Clinton and Obama concerning an endorsement. What do you suppose this means--what are secret talks? Wouldn't you think that Edwards would decide who is the best candidate, and then endorse that person?

NO! Edwards will endorse who gives him the best deal. What the hell do you think they are secretly talking about? He wants something: the vice-presidency, supreme court appointment, attorney general, secretary of labor, ambassador to Kazakhstan.....I don't know, but he is negotiating for something.

When he gets what he actually wants, he will announce that he is supporting Clinton/Obama because that candidate cares about ending poverty and helping the poor. That will be bullshit, but the public and the press will lap it up. Just like Mitt Romney withdrew from the Republican presidential race to protect us from terrorists--or some crap like that.

John Edwards will endorse whomever promises him the most. I suspect he wants to be attorney general in the new administration--which would really piss off the corporations wouldn't it?

This is the way of American politics and it always has been--I don't blame Edwards one bit. Yet the public seems uncomfortable with these backroom, negotiated deals. Keep this lesson in mind when the endorsement "spin" hits the news early this week.

Beware of High Expectations

2008-02-08T21:03:00.000-06:00

I am writing this the evening before a critical five primary/caucus weekend. We all know that currently, the Clinton-Obama race is practically tied. Now the pundits and pollsters are saying that this weekend’s contests, as well as those next Tuesday, all decidedly favor Senator Obama. He could win the lions’ share of these next eight races and take a slim lead in the delegate count.

But here is precisely one of the areas where the Clinton camp has out-maneuvered Obama--the important Expectations Game. The way these next few races have shaped up, Obama has to win. Clinton can lose most, if not all of these primaries and caucuses. If Obama stumbles just a bit, it will be a perceived setback. If Clinton wins one (Maine possibly), she will have exceeded expectations (a Comeback Kid sort of scenario).

The Obama people desperately need to deal with this problem soon. They are letting expectations form the campaign narrative--and this has already hurt them. Obama tacitly allowed the public to anticipate a New Hampshire knock-out win over Clinton. And then last week, he failed to damper very high Super Tuesday expectations.

In a race this close, where a few delegates (or super delegates) can be swayed by perceptions, the Obama campaign needs to stop letting Clinton and/or the media write the script.

Louisiana: February 9 (primary)
Nebraska: February 9 (caucus)
Virgin Islands: February 9 (caucus)
Washington: February 9 (caucus)
Maine: February 10 (caucus)

D.C.: February 12
Maryland: February 12
Virginia: February 12

Hawaii: February 19
Wisconsin: February 19

Texas: March 4
Ohio: March 4
Rhode Island: March 4
Vermont: March 4

Ronald Reagan: Still a Bad President

2008-02-02T23:08:00.000-06:00

I am reprinting an old post from 6 April 2007. This current Republican silliness suggesting Ronald Reagan was a great president needs to stop. They are either outright lying, delusional, or drugs are involved. This selection is one of my all-time favorites. Remember folks, Reagan was not a good president, and he never will be. The fact that McCain, Romney, Huckelberry, and those other sad-ass Republicans consider Reagan a hero really tells you something about their knowledge of history and their collective sanity levels.

The unpleasant side-effects of the abysmal and failed Bush presidency are many—too many to be analyzed here. But one that specifically intrigues me is the effort being made by conservatives to shift the historical focus from their current incompetent leader to their past inept leader…..Ronald Reagan.

Granted, conservatives do have an argument—compared to Bush, any past chief executives looks stellar. Hell, William Howard Taft seems like a veritable statesman compared to Bush. This is an opportune time to drag any pariah out of the historical ashes for rehabilitation.

But Ronald Reagan is the one that conservatives place on their political pedestal. While the right has always looked up to Reagan, Bush is now making him look much, much better to conservatives and even to moderate Republicans (if they actually exist).

Two things strike me as paradoxical here. First, if Reagan was a great president (and he wasn’t), conservatives wouldn’t need George W. Bush to draw that distinction. Reagan’s presidency should be able to stand on its own—which it can’t. And second, when Bush was riding high in the polls, the wing-nuts were calling him Reagan’s heir. What happened? It seems Bush is actually the one who has attempted to carry out the radical conservative agenda—why now separate him from their conservative hero when Bush has been doing what the wingers wanted all along?

Well, I won’t try to get into the mind of one of those right-wingers, that would be entirely too difficult and might give me some sort of brain damage. But what is going on is this—Bush’s dismal failures are forcing conservatives to find another champion by which to rally their supporters. I suppose it is a logical move for them—they need their idols and frankly, they don’t have many. Which brings up an interesting question—except for that fellow Jesus, who do the right-wingers look to for inspiration? DeLay….Cheney.....Scalia…..Newt……Mel Gibson????? It is sad isn’t it?

I digress. The point is this—Reagan was not a very good president in spite of the spin that you are going to hear from the GOP for the next few years. He was average at best, and probably a better fit in the below average category.

First, he spent the taxpayer's money like a drunken sailor and incurred huge debts that did not dissolve until Bill Clinton and those big-spending liberals took over. I know the AM talk-show crowd blames Congress for all this—but that just isn't accurate. Reagan showed no inclination to actually cut spending. All he did was talk about it.

Second, please don’t accept the simplistic crap about how Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. That is the kind of anti-intellectual drivel that conservatives like to propagate because their constituents need one-dimensional answers. The Cold War must be examined in its entirety, it was never simple. There were numerous factors that contributed to its demise. Americans should know that already—but unfortunately, in the “intelligent design” environment of today, they don’t.

Third—and conservatives should know this but they chose to overlook it—Reagan actually never tried to institute the radical right-wing agenda. He cared about taxes and big government, but seemed uncomfortable with some of the other hot button issues. Yes, he talked about abortion and prayer in school, but never attempted to legislate those issues. They were used basically to fire up the conservative base.

Fourth, and I think this is one of the most important issues…..Reagan made it accepted for conservatives--especially angry white males--to blame the poor and the disadvantaged for the nation's problems. He gave terribly unsophisticated speeches about a welfare queen (always a woman) driving a Cadillac and making $50,000.00 from illegal welfare checks. No one every located that “welfare mom” and it’s clear she was fabricated. But Reagan’s words and encouragement made it fashionable in the 1980s to blame the poor for everything.

Reagan also set race relation back for years. Remember that he launched his 1980 campaign with a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi—the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960s. He and his staff knew what they were doing—they didn’t just accidentally stop in that little town. They were sending a message to the racists on the right. Again, making it okay for conservatives to use race to divide the nation.

And his reaction to AIDS was criminal. Why worry about homosexuals—it’s their own fault anyway isn’t it? God is punishing them for their lifestyle. Besides, his constituents didn’t care. This issue alone should have shamed the administration. But once again, those blue-collar, working class “Reagan Democrats" didn’t much care for urban gays anyway—so why do anything? Disgusting.

Scandals like Iran-Contra, massive budget deficits, racism, tax cuts for the rich, blame-the-poor rhetoric, homophobic public policies…..this is what the Reagan administration was all about–and don’t forget it. Just because George Bush is worse doesn’t mean Reagan should climb in the eyes of history. He was who he was—and he was a mediocre president who did great damage to many people on the margins of society. And he didn’t seem to care.

But for the pathetic Republican party, he is about the only national figure they have had in the past 60 years that holds any historical legitimacy (Ike was really the last one!). Isn't it sad being a Republican? At times, I almost feel sorry for them.

Obama's Immediate Problem

2008-02-01T19:05:00.000-06:00

I don't know what is going to happen this Tuesday. My general prediction (if anyone cares) is that if Barack Obama survives--if Hillary Clinton does not pile up overwhelming delegate majorities in the big states--then Obama continues, and his campaign will find itself in a very good position. The whole early primary, front-loading strategy offered an advantage to the most organized, well-know, and wealthiest candidate, which was Senator Clinton. If she doesn't wrap the nomination up on Tuesday, or at least come very close, Obama gains a considerable advantage. I believe the chances are high (70-75%) that Obama will survive and he could be the actual front-runner in a few weeks.

But Obama has an immediate problem that could derail this entire scenario. If you have read anything about this campaign, you have viewed the exit polls and know how Democrats and Independents are voting. Obama appears to be getting the support of young voters, new voters, independents, African-Americans, and the wine-and-cheese liberal set (those Chardonnay drinkers that the Conservatives so despise). Senator Clinton, on the other hand, is polling better with women (especially those over 40), elderly voters, Hispanics, union voters, the traditional low and middle-income Democratic constituencies, and party regulars.

So what's my point? It's very simple--at this stage of the race, Clinton's constituencies are much more dependable. Her supporters are going to cast their ballots. Obama can depend on African Americans as well as those wine-drinking liberals. But his campaign needs to be extremely wary of these new, young voters and those so-called independents.

The media loves to tout the potential electoral power of young voters (the mainstream press actually want it to be 1968 again, things were fun). But that youth vote never materializes--they simply don't go to the polls. They disappoint time and time again. And I suppose an old coot like me can easily be called a cynic for even writing this, but it's true whether we like it or not. I hope I am proven wrong this time, but this is a recurring problem.

Barack Obama is placing a lot of faith in a group of voters who are consistently unreliable. I would be concerned. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's supporters will turn out in huge numbers, and she can count on that. Her committed and dedicated base might be the critical ingredient on Super Tuesday.

I'm A Divider, Not a Uniter

2008-01-30T23:58:00.000-06:00

I am still undecided on the Democratic presidential race--I would enthusiastically vote for Clinton or Obama in November. Either is preferable to a Republican.

But I am beginning to get annoyed at the Obama supporters suggesting that he has a better chance to "unite the country." What exactly does that mean? And a better question might be, do we really want to be united? I don't and I'll tell you why.

We have lived through 7+ years of total partisanship. The Republicans have never cared about uniting the country. They have ruined the economy, spent the surplus given to them by Clinton, taken money from the poor and given it to the rich, started an unnecessary war, ruined America's station in the world....and the list goes on and on. Have they ever cared about unity? Has Bush ever tried to "reach across then aisle" for support from the Democrats. Hell no he hasn't.

The Republicans do not give a damn about uniting the country. Yes, now that they are in danger of losing even more power, they are paying lip service to unity. But there is absolutley no evidence that they care about it--and we know when they are in power, they have no respect whatsoever for harmony or political compromise.

I don't want unity, I want to shove liberal and progressive programs down their fucking throats for the next decade or so. That's right--I am against cooperating with Republicans for 'the good of the country' because nonsense like that doesn't mean anything, and it isn't going to happen anyway. I want millions for the poor and homeless, steep tax hikes for the rich, troops immediately out of Iraq, single-payer health insurance, free and available contraception for teens, gay marriage.....and the list goes on and on. I want the Democrats to push for all of these issues and push hard. I don't want compromise.

Do you think Republicans are going to help us? I seriously doubt it--and I don't care. I want partisanship, I want to pay them back for the Bush years, I want some measure of revenge, and I want liberal and progressive measures passed and implemented.

Yes, I will vote for Obama, but here is what worries me about him. The first week in office, he will invite a group of Republicans to the White House for a cozy breakfast meeting. President Obama will say, "we need to find common ground, we need to unite the country." And they will proceed to pick his pocket clean: getting what they want and making a fool out of the new president. Because that's what the Republicans do--and if President Obama thinks he can negotiate or do business with these thugs, he will be making a serious mistake.

On Historical Names

2007-11-18T17:22:00.000-06:00

As a history professor, something that annoys the hell out of me is when students refer to individuals from the past by their first names. I read essays that mention Franklin’s New Deal, Woodrow’s 14 Points, and Abraham being assinated by John at Ford’s Theater (yes, that’s how the murder of a famous person is generally spelled by students).

Why do they do this? My first inclination is to blame their lack of reading—for current students read very little. Since they rarely open a history book, they never see the regular use of last names.

But I also think some of it is cultural. Am I the only one who is utterly sick of reading about these media-anointed athletic superheroes like A-Rod, and T-Mac, and D-Wade? They are not our close personal friends. I sense that the cute little sobriquets somehow allow the unwashed masses to feel that they are connected to these celebrity millionaires. It makes us want to spend money and go see them, right?

This awkward need for celebrity kinship has unfortunately seeped into our history. I am sure it is only a matter of time before students start telling me how AJax (pictured above) kicked some ass at the Battle of New Orleans in 1814 (he defeated some terrorists--I see that one coming soon). AJax later became president, outpolling the ClayMan in the 1832 election.

And how about that inevitable research paper on that critical Election of 1800? That’s when G-Wash’s former vice-president lost a close election to TJ. The presidency almost went to that scoundrel A-Burr but for the machinations of his political enemy A-Ham. A-Burr later got back at A-Ham by assinating him somewhere in NJ.

We need to stop this crap soon.

Sean Wilentz on Hillary Clinton

2007-11-18T15:41:00.000-06:00

What I really like about this post is that a respected historian is taking an unapologetic stand on presidential politics. When I was growing up, professors were not ashamed to comment and involve themselves in political affairs. But during the past few decades, the need to appear "neutral" has apparently driven academics from the public sphere. I assume the constant abuse by wingnut conservatives has something to do with that silliness.

It's about time historians and other academics reenter the civil realm. Neutrality is impossible anyway, and we desperately need to assert ourselves as citizens during these times of torture, empire, greed, and inequality.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything Wilentz has said, it's refreshing to see him get involved. Let's not allow the right-wingers to silence us.

It Isn't Free-Trade At All

2007-11-11T22:01:00.000-06:00

I admit that I can swing wildly back-and-forth concerning my faith and confidence in the American political system. There are days when I consider all the ways we can attempt to bring about change—and that list is extensive. Our freedoms allow us access to the process through an impressive variety of methods. And when my students ask me if one, solitary individual can make a difference in this country—I most often say yes.

But then there are my dark and pessimistic days—and they are becoming more frequent. These are the times when I am convinced, based upon logic and evidence, that money and power provide the only means to political influence. Yes, we can vote, blog, pass out campaign literature, and write to our representatives…..but on the major economic and social issues, those with money will always pervert the system and get what they want. Think health care, Iraq, and a variety of issues where we know that corporate interests are able to impede the will of the majority.

These two demons battle constantly in the political section of my consciousness. But then once-in-while the fight momentarily ceases as something sends me over the edge. This week it was the egregious and criminal Peru Free Trade Agreement. If it isn’t obvious to the American public that corporate and Wall Street interests bought the passage of this legislation—then nothing is obvious in this corrupt political system.

There are two broad issues that particularly bother me. First, the opponents of the Peru FTA are from groups or interests that lack clear and immediate political power in the United States. Many of these organizations work for global change--environmental groups, unions, small manufacturers, the progressive religious community, and the poor. Yes, if these groups coordinated their efforts, they might be more successful. But for the most part, none of them register high in the political polls. And few of these organizations are swimming in money.

And the supporters of this legislation—take a guess: Wall Street; the globalization crowd, the capitalist classes, and big, big money campaign contributors. These interests are seeking to basically commandeer the Peruvian economy, institute austerity and free-market solutions, and make millions off the suffering of others. And they will get their way. Just to show you the kinds of people we are dealing with—read about one of the following perks these modern day Robber Barons will gain when the Peru FTA passes:

In 2006, the Bush administration negotiated a NAFTA expansion pact with the Latin American country of Peru containing obscure provisions that would chill efforts to reverse the failed privatization of Peru’s social security system. These “free trade agreement” (FTA) terms would seem to only benefit one U.S. firm, Citibank, which is the largest shareholder in ProFuturo AFP, one of the private retirement account providers authorized to compete against the Peruvian government’s public social security system as part of the privatization. Other U.S. firms could also gain rights to service the privatized social security system under the Peru FTA terms, as noted by the Bush administration’s Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Services and Finance Industries, who hope to use the Peru FTA as a precedent for expanding the reach of privatized social security systems internationally: “Negotiators for the United States and Peru are to be commended for the substantive and meaningful provisions included on pensions and asset management… U.S. portfolio managers will be able to provide asset management services… including funds that manage Peru’s privatized social security accounts”

In simplest terms, the problem involves provisions of the Peru FTA that empower foreign investors to demand compensation in United Nations (UN) and World Bank tribunals for government actions that undermine their expected future profits as an investor in Peru. Under these terms, if Peru reversed its privatization, Citibank could use the FTA to seek Peruvian government compensation for its loss of future revenue caused by the “nationalization” of its investment in providing private retirement accounts. The FTA has an exception that would forbid the U.S. government from suing in an FTA tribunal for the loss of financial service market access in private retirement accounts if the privatization were reversed. Thus, while the FTA has safeguards for Peru’s legal right to reverse the privatization, the FTA undermines Peru’s practical ability to exercise those legal rights. This is the case because if Peru acted to exercise its rights to terminate market access in private retirement accounts, it could be confronted with foreign investor demands for major compensation.

The amount that Citibank could demand could be considerable, as the right to provide the private accounts is not time-limited and, under the statute establishing the privatization, licenses can only be removed for cause. Peruvian labor and other civil society figures say that the Peru FTA provisions would severely chill their ability to win reversal of the privatization, because the government could not afford to pay a huge fine for the right to restore a public service.

It is clear that these agreements are not about trade, they are about forcing global capitalism on weak economies and then leaving the “people/voters” with few options.

The second point that saddens me is that American politicians are cynical enough to understand that what happens to the people of Peru will gain them no votes. The hell with the Peruvians: the poor, small farmers and businesses—that isn’t something that registers on Washington's sophisticated polling data. But so-called free trade, cheap imports, and corporate contributions…….those terms awaken the senses of our politicians. Will we ever do the right thing and start considering ourselves citizens of the world? Will we ever care for the people of Peru, or Iraq? I am not hopeful.

This agreement clearly will benefit the rich and powerful in both countries. And because they stand to gain so much—they have “legally” worked the system and purchased enough votes to get their way. Poverty will be exacerbated in Peru, farmers will lose their land and be forced to move into crowded cities, and unions will cede power and influence. But of course the wonderful and enchanting hand of the “free-market” will engulf Peru and make it a better place!

In the United States—the few small farmers who remain will be forced out of business, and we might be able to purchase few cheaper goods. But at what price? The agreements that the Bush administration claims to have made on the environment and labor issues will not be followed, and few will try to force it because it will bring no political gains.

The Democrats in the House voted against this measure—barely! Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders were afraid (they are always afraid of something aren’t they?) they would be labeled as the anti-trade party? But this is no reason to screw the people who are supposed to be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. As the Nation wrote, the worry about being labeled anti-free trade is:

…the same simple-minded non sequitur the multinational establishment always invoke to scold Democrats. None of the Democratic dissenters are arguing for "no trade. They are trying to change the rules of trade so US workers are not the first victims of new agreements. Pelosi argued that the Peru agreement includes an important reform—stronger language in support of labor and environmental standards—and it does. But is there perhaps another reason why she pushed so hard against her own caucus?

Steven R.Weisman of the New York Times gently suggested one."Democrats from the prosperous areas of the East and West Coast have become especially responsive, many Democrats say, to the desire of Wall Street and the high technology, health, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries to expand their sales overseas," Weisman wrote. "These industries have also become major Democratic contributors."

She did it for the money. That is a more plausible explanation than insider arguments over the fine print in an inconsequential new trade bill. The big-money sectors are anxious to squelch the new critics of globalization in Democratic ranks before they can gain momentum in Congress. Looking toward financing the 2008 elections, Pelosi chose to stand with the money guys and dismiss the political backlash against globalization building across the country. She is probably betting people aren't paying attention to such trivial matters.

Many of us are paying attention, however. When the Peru FTA comes before the Senate this month, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be voting yes. John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have come out against the measure—Kucinich in especially strong terms.

I urge everyone to help renew my faith in the American political system by doing something to try and stop this from passing in the U.S. Senate—write, call, cajole your Senators—especially the Democrats. You can also write a letter to your local newspaper and explain to people who might not be following, what this is really about.

Call the U.S. Capitol at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your Senator; tell them you think these NAFTA-style "free trade" agreements are a bad idea--tell them to vote against this legislation. And I bet Minnesota Democratic U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar is "on the fence" on this issue--contact her soon!

Here are some additional websites with "talking points" and even a link to email Washington.

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12561 (send an email message)

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2535 (some talking points)

http://www.equalexchange.com/media/actionalerts/OxfamPeruFTALetterToCongress9-17-07.pdf (Oxfam letter opposing the agreement)

http://www.equalexchange.com/vote-no-to-expand-the-nafta-into-peru

The Bogus "Gender Card"

2007-11-03T21:13:00.000-05:00

Since at least 1980, the Republicans' primary constituency has been white males. To be more specific, it has been middle to lower income white men who have constantly complained and whined about losing power and influence to all those “diversity” groups.

And the Republicans have indeed pandered to these white males like there is no tomorrow--oh, how they have pandered. Think about it; nearly every Republican issue is heavily steeped in gender—guns, war and security, no taxes for social problems (women’s issues), gay marriage, environment/big-SUVs, immigration, and abortion (don’t give those uppity women control over any decisions). All of this extreme political demagoguery has helped the GOP gain electoral ground: in the South (a trend started by the racist Nixon campaign of 1968 and honed by the equally racist Reagan campaign of 1980); as well as inroads with Reagan Democrats—those traditional blue collar male voters that once voted with the liberals.

But, when is the last time you heard the lazy and irresponsible mainstream media in this country charge that the Republicans were playing the "gender card?” They have clearly been punching that infamous ticket for nearly 30 years now. But I never hear anyone make the charge, or even bring it up.

Yet this past week, Hillary Clinton gave a campaign speech at Wellesley College—her alma mater. She mentioned that her education at an all-women's college prepared her to "compete in the all-boy's club of presidential politics." Wow, really radial stuff! Immediately, the Republicans, the media, and even some Democrats insisted that she was utilizing the “Gender Card.”

Let me get this straight--white males can vote for their gender, Republicans can propose all sorts of so-called “manly” policy issues and insinuations to get that white male vote…..but that has never been labeled as gender pandering (although we all know it is).

What the hell is going on here? I suppose it is simply “accepted” behavior that men can pander to other men, and that men control the political system. But when women seek the votes of other women……holy shit we can’t have that. It’s unnatural of course. That’s different……blah, blah, blah.

This blatant hypocrisy really aggravates me. And as usual, only the liberal bloggers have even mentioned this problem. Digby (one of the absolute best writers of all the leftist bloggers) said it best:

Indeed, the entire Republican campaign strategy can be said to be one big gender card-- the only people they believe matter in this country are delicate, insecure creatures who are so sensitive that they have to be pampered and pandered to like a bunch of overfed princes who like to play cowboy and don't want to share their favorite binky.

Every presidential candidate, and most other politicians, since 1980, have been bowing and scraping before this constituency. But for some reason, the hunting trips and codpieces and brush clearing and all that metaphorical crotch measuring isn't considered playing "the gender card." It's just considered the normal political pander to an aggrieved minority vote: the poor white males who've been treated terribly by all those powerful women and minorities and gays. What could be wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but this is truly sexist crap. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are out there one upping each other on who will be the most macho sadists among the crowd of warring GOP thugs. Hillary goes to her alma mater and says that her education at the women's college prepared her to do battle with the political boys club and the gasbags' eyes roll back in their heads and they start drooling and whining that she's 'broken the rules'.

All these squirming little fools who talk about how they have to "cross their legs" whenever they hear her voice, or hallucinate that she's "acting like a little girl" or any of a dozen other ridiculous, sexist responses to Clinton are revealing far more about themselves than they are about her. If anyone's playing the gender card it's them--and it's a picture of a quivering little boy crying in the corner because he doesn't want to share his toys with a girl. Tough. Eat some pork rinds and shut the fuck up.

Thanks Digby-- things are indeed changing and the angry white boys need to deal with it.

A Bush-League History Lesson

2007-11-02T00:01:00.000-05:00

Mr. 25% in the polls attempted to give the Democrats a history lesson today. Why does he do this? He has proven time and time again that he knows little or nothing about history. Yes, he knows how to clean and carry brush at the ranch—but he doesn’t know dick about history.

I believe it was several months ago that he tried to analyze Graham Greene’s novel, The Quiet American. He might have seen the movie, but it was clear that he didn’t intellectually grasp the book or the film. You would think that after he made an ass of himself with that earlier historical/literary analogy, maybe he would stick to something he actually understands.

But no……today he decided to again leap into twentieth-century global history with some baffling comparisons between Iraq and past historical crisis.

Bush suggested that the current Iraq dissenters and naysayers reminded him of earlier appeasers, like those who allowed Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin to launch the communist revolution; those who didn't stop Hitler when he moved to establish an ``Aryan superstate'' in Germany; and the ~~liberals~~ individuals in the early days of the Cold War who advocated accommodation of the Soviet Union.

``Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East,'' Bush said. ``Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability.''

Bush said any denial of war is dangerous and added that "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake." The president added that "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

Oh my God…..what the fuck is this man talking about? He has dredged up the Nazi-appeasers argument. I thought that one was in mothballs. Using Bush’s logic, Iraq becomes a stand in for every disastrous event that has taken place in the entire course of human history. There were always people like him giving warnings, but ~~liberals~~ others just didn’t listen.

It’s not just Lenin, Hitler, and the Communists that made their "intentions clear"—hell Democrats and liberals have always been on the wrong side haven’t we? Indian attacks, Napoleon, slave rebellions, British troops burning the White House, union anarchists, uppity suffragettes, Castro, dirty naked hippies at Woodstock…….Bush and his ilk always knew the real motivations of these troublemakers and their allies. It’s us soft and pansy-ass liberals who have allowed this crap to flourish.

Let me respond to this moron with a more serious critique. He is absolutely wrong about the Cold War—wrong in so many ways. I cringe to think where we would be if Bush and his minions had been in charge during those critical years. I guess many of us would be small cinders or pieces of chard still smoldering in the nuclear fucking dust.

Even with all the hubris and the mistakes that were made during the Cold War, cooler heads generally prevailed and we averted a major meltdown. Isn’t that what we were aiming for? No, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe we should have let the nukes fly and showed the world what men we were.

Yes, both nations spent too much money and manufactured lots of unnecessary misery around the world……but we did avoid a nuclear catastrophe, we did end up with some stability (not a bad word in my lexicon), and a generation of diplomats steered this nation fairly well considering the circumstances.

As you nod off tonight, think about the following Cold War scenarios:
--Bush instead of JFK as president during the Cuban Missile Crisis (goodbye Cuba!)
--Not Eisenhower, but Bush negotiating with the Soviets during the U2 incident (nukes a flyin’)
--Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz dealing with the Berlin blockade instead of Truman, Marshall, and Acheson (Germany split into at least 15 sections)

Things could have always been worse my friends—Bush and his kind might have been in charge. His comments on the Cold War are an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment.

A New Steve Earle Fan

2007-10-27T00:01:00.000-05:00

While I don't plan to start writing music reviews, I do want to take this opportunity to mention the latest CD from Steve Earle, Washington Square Serenade.

Not only do I know little about music (aside from whether I like something or not), but there are several clear indications that my musical ignorance is actually profound. First, I don't even know what name to use when referring to an artists most recent release. Is it a CD, album, disk? I'm simply too old to know the terminology. Second, in the first paragraph of this post, I had no idea what kind of grammar to use when mentioning Earle's CD/disk/album. I guess the answer is buried somewhere in the Chicago Manual of Style, but I'm much too lazy to look it up.

Anyway, let me get on with this. I don't know much about Steve Earle. My Lovely Partner is a big fan--I think she has all of his albums (or whatever they are). I bought his latest several weeks ago when wondering around near the record-store. I listened.....and I do like some of the songs, especially "City of Immigrants" which is a tribute to the diversity of New York city where Earle now resides. It is refreshing to hear an artist sing about immigrants and what they have brought, and still bring, to this country.

But here is why I highly recommend the album. In the liner notes (yes they still exist, although hard to read), Earle includes a few paragraphs about the city which he loves. He even mentions Horace Greeley in those notes--a name probably familiar to few people. Then at the bottom of the liner notes comes this: P.S. Fuck Lou Dobbs

If I was indifferent to Steve Earle before, I don't have that same feeling now! Anybody who would write "Fuck Lou Dobbs" on his liner notes deserves respect as an artist and as a human-being. I now even plan to go back and listen to some of his earlier works. He has made a fan out of me.

Bill Clinton

2007-10-24T19:17:00.000-05:00

Last week during the SCHIP debate in Congress, a few Republicans took the opportunity to link that "socialistic" children's health care legislation with Hillary and Bill Clinton. One conservative gave a floor speech connecting SCHIP with what he called the "Hillary-Care" health care plan of the early 1990s. He went on to mention other evils like Bill Clinton, the Clinton presidency, and the big-government programs of those years.

I can understand the need to take shots at Senator Clinton--she is running for president. And the Republicans still view her as a lightning-rod and a polarizing figure. Just mention Hillary's name, they believe, and conservatives all over the country start foaming at the mouth.

comment: You know.....this Hillary as a polarizing figure theory is nothing but a myth. There appears to be no evidence to back it up--it is simply crap which is advanced by the right-wingnuts and then mindlessly repeated by the lazy mainstream media. But this is a subject for another blog entry. I am going somewhere else with today's post.

Anyway, Hillary can take care of herself, and I am sure she will. But what makes me snicker with amusement is that these stupid-ass conservatives think they will gain votes by trashing Bill Clinton and his presidency. Do we want to go back to the Clinton years, they ask? I know my answer.

Bill Clinton is popular, charismatic, intelligent, inspiring, and the absolute best campaigner of this generation. I don't remember anyone since Robert Kennedy who gets crowds fired-up like he does. And please, don't tell me how great a campaigner Ronald Reagan was--that doddering old fool wasn't in the same league with RFK and Clinton. If Republicans want to make Bill Clinton a campaign issue--one might say "bring 'em on."

The former president will do nothing but help the New York senator in her quest for the oval office. George Stephanopoulos once said Clinton was the most amazing campaigner he ever met--he would campaign nonstop for 20 hours straight and still be fresh and ready to keep going. The Republicans will get sick of seeing this guy. He is the energizer bunny.....he is the little engine that could.....and next to Hillary, he is their worst nightmare.

And one of these days, maybe soon--historians will begin judging the Clinton presidency. And I am sure conservatives will be incensed when those evaluations turn out to be positive. Historians will suggest that Clinton did a pretty good job (especially compared to what followed). Hell, I'm a historian and I have been saying this for several years now--so I guess we can conclude that the favorable pronouncements have already begun.

In the latest New York magazine (22 October), Joel Heilemann writes about the contrasting college experiences of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He focuses on Bill and Hillary's courtship at Yale where many of her friends "could never figure out what Hillary saw in him." So many of their classmates viewed Bill as shallow; a nice guy who would "just tell stories and try to entertain them." Even those people underestimated the man. They saw the folksy, story-telling Southern politician, but never grasped the intelligent person beneath that facade.

I know that many of my own friends on the far-left still have mixed feelings about Bill Clinton because he didn't do enough for liberals during his two terms. Yes, he did triangulate, and he also moved the party to the middle (a party that couldn't win otherwise). I respectfully disagree with them. Politics is about incremental change--and we do what we can with our mostly moderate officeholders. Tell me we are better off now. Tell me we wouldn't all welcome even a moderate Democrat who generally agrees with our views over the quasi-fascistic brownshirts that now occupy the White House and other high positions of our government.

I think that historians will also see that Bill Clinton understood the 21st century and what was in store for America. He knew that the United States couldn't go it alone. He also grasped the changes taking place in the global economy. It seems so long ago doesn't it. A president that understood the changing nature of the world.....a president that understood America's role in the community of nations....and a president that even read books. Then came the dark ages.

If the Republicans want to focus on the Clinton years--they should go right ahead. They can have the legacy of Mr. 25% in the polls, and we will take the Clinton presidency--or should I say the first Clinton presidency.

Eulogy for the Proprietor

2007-10-19T00:01:00.000-05:00

While DEW is the chief blogger, the actual proprietor of Buddy’s Books and Bait has been a 14-pound, stubby-tailed, wonderful, loving character of the feline persuasion named Buddy. Buddy passed away on August 8, 2007.

Buddy came to live with DEW and me, DEW’s Lovely Partner, when he was about 4 years old. We lived in Northeast Minneapolis at the time, and there were a number of cats that roamed our neighborhood. We referred to them by their distinguishing characteristics—Flop-Eared Kitty, Brown Kitty, etc. It was apparent from their colors or general health that they had homes. It became clear over time, however, that Blue-Eyed Kitty had been abandoned, so we began putting food out for him. When he came to eat, we would say “There’s our pal” or “There’s our little buddy.” Eventually, as these things usually go, we decided to take him in.

We hatched our plot. I would hold the “cat-cart” at the ready, DEW would pick him up and plop him in the cart, and off to the vet we would go for shots and a check-up. Blue-Eyed Kitty, however, was not amenable to plopping. DEW picked him up, but he fought out of DEW’s grasp. Blue-Eyed Kitty was young, wiry, and very fast. DEW is now, and was then, many wonderful things. He was not, however, young, wiry, or fast. So the reader will understand that when Blue-Eyed Kitty went streaking across the street, through the neighbors’ yard and into the bushes and DEW, in a momentary delusion of grandeur, went chugging after him, the sight was, well, quite a sight.

This episode was the first indication of the great humor that “our little buddy” would bring to our lives when he did eventually submit to adoption and officially become Buddy. “Funny like a Bud” became a catch-phrase in our household. Whether going from the table to the stove to the top of the refrigerator to sleep in the roasting pan, riding all the way to Nebraska upside-down in his cat-cart with his paw over his eyes, or trying to open doors (he knew how they worked and would try to reach up and turn the knob with both paws), it seemed like he was always making us laugh.

If he wasn’t doing something amusing, Buddy could usually be found snuggling with one of us. Snuggling may actually have competed with eating as his favorite pastime. He loved to have DEW cradle him in his arms like a baby; if DEW tried to put him down before he was ready, Buddy would grab him around the neck and hold on. He slept with us every night. Depending on his mood and how warm or cold it was, he might be draped across the top of a pillow (which was know as “sleeping on our heads”) or spooning with his head tucked under my chin, or under the covers, curled up in the crook of DEW’s legs. We always knew when he was particularly relaxed and content—at those times, he drooled.

At the end of July, we noticed some mild indications that he was not quite up to par. Nothing to be overly concerned about we thought, but given that he was 17 we decided to have him checked out. We were devastated to learn that he had lymphoma and that it was very aggressive. Equally aggressive interventions were possible, but would only prolong his life for a few months. We agreed to try one moderate intervention. It didn’t work. We watched as, over the course of one short week, he lost substantial weight and became rapidly weaker, to the point of staggering when he walked. He was barely eating, and spending almost all of his time hidden away at the very back of a closet. We knew that the kindest thing we could do was end his suffering. On August 8^th we had him put to sleep.

I would like to close this eulogy with words that I spoke to him many times during his life with us. These were also the last words that I said to him as I held him on my lap at the vet’s office while he received his final injection. “Mr. Buddy. We love you very much. You are the best boy in the history of boys."

WWJD (What Would Johnson Do?)

2007-10-18T00:09:00.000-05:00

Whenever I see the congressional Democrats once again pissing all over themselves and turning potential legislative victories into defeats, I think to myself, WWJD? That's right, what would Lyndon Baines Johnson have done when he ran the senate and the congressional Democrats from 1953 to 1961?

While I would like to forget most of his presidential years, I truly admire LBJ's legislative qualities. Outside of Henry Clay, Johnson has been the most masterful congressional strategist in American history.

So what would Johnson have done in this current Turkish-Armenian situation that the Democrats have once again fumbled? Not only can I guess how LBJ would have diffused the situation--but I sense he is laughing his Texas ass off every time he sees this current group of amateurs get thrashed by a president with a 24% approval rating. Senator Johnson would have been running all over this half-witted moron in the White House.

Here is what LBJ would have done. First, he would not have allowed a vote on genocide. Why risk defeat on something that offered few gains for the party? Instead, LBJ would have drawn up a resolution saying nothing about genocide, and nothing about Turkey. His vague proposal would have, however, contained glowing praise for the Armenians, their culture, their history, and all they have endured. It would have been a resolution that even the Republicans would have been forced to support--how could they vote against bill celebrating Armenia?

Granted, the Armenians would have been in LBJ's office complaining that his legislation didn't go far enough, that it didn't even mention what the Turks did to their ancestors. To pacify them, Johnson probably would have invited them all down to his Texas ranch. After treating them to a feast, he would have mentioned again what a great people they were and how in six months they would be receiving a $4-5 million check for a national project they desperately needed. That last perk would have come on a whisper--nothing guaranteed, but the Armenians could be sure that the money would show up in the not so distant future.

LBJ would then have sent one of his aids (Jack Valenti probably) to meet with the Turks. Valenti would have calmly informed the Turks that they owed Johnson for this one--he let them slide out of an uncomfortable international situation. They could expect to repay him soon on a defense bill, or a foreign aid appropriation.

Not only would the Democrats NOT have suffered a defeat--but they would have actually gained a victory. And LBJ would have been bragging to reporters the very next day about what great friends the Democrats had been to the Armenians. The Republicans, initially sensing a victory--had gained nothing. They had been co-opted by the Machiavellian Democrats. A sticky situation had been diffused and the party lost nothing.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem incapable of figuring out how to do this. They turn everything into a defeat. They do not appear to understand what is worth fighting for, and what is worth sacrificing. I suggest they stay up late some evening reading about LBJ or Henry Clay (or even Old Joe Cannon)--it might do them some good. Since I trust they read Books and Bait, I will even offer them the following suggestions:

Robert Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union
Merrill Peterson, The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun
Robert Caro, The Path to Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson
Robert Caro, Means of Ascent: The Years of Lyndon Johnson
Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson

Back in Business

2007-10-16T03:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings to Buddy's Books and Bait aficionados. Yes, I have been away for awhile--busy, lazy, uninspired, I have all sorts of excuses. But I realized after a few months of inactivity that I did truly enjoy voicing my political opinions. And even though my readership remains small, I think it is important to attempt to build progressive/liberal communities through blogs and other assorted media efforts.

As of now, I am still the solitary writer of this blog--which means that if any of my friends and supporters wish to contribute, I would be grateful (articles, book/movie/record reviews.....anything as long as it follows the obvious political leanings of the primary author).

Thanks for reading. Keep the comments coming and tell your friends about Books and Bait. Let's try to keep pissing off those conservatives.

A Vote Remembered

2007-10-16T02:05:00.000-05:00

No better way to reenter the blogosphere than by writing about Paul Wellstone.

I was reminded in a recent Wellstone Action! newsletter that it is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War vote. Wellstone was one of 23 senators who voted against that resolution (3 October 2002). But even more important--Wellstone was the only one of the 23 senators facing the voters in just a few weeks. As Jeff Blodgett writes in the newsletter, "The vote was considered by many political observers to be the death knell for his reelection."

Paul Wellstone was an inspiration on many levels. Not only did he vote against this bogus war, but he probably risked his political career. That whole "risked his political career" quip sounds dire--but maybe we would like to see some of our current progressive/liberal politicians inch just a little closer to that position. We aren't asking for outright political suicide, we just want to see some backbone.....a little courage.....show us that you fucking care!

Wellstone also voted against the 1991 Gulf War--the one started by Bush's daddy. And incidentally, he voted against the so-called Welfare Reform bill in 1996--another vote cast during a rough reelection campaign.

As you all know, Paul Wellstone died three weeks after his Iraq War vote. I think the consensus in Minnesota is that Wellstone would have been reelected in spite of his vote on the War. I trust that he would have been a strong voice for the antiwar left. And I get a sick feeling in my stomach each and every time I see Norm Coleman occupying the senate seat that Wellstone once held.

I miss Paul Wellstone. And I lament the fact that there so are few politicians today that are so resolute and fearless.

The other 22 senators who votes against the Iraq War resolution: Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Chaffee, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wyden.

Film Review: Joyeux Noel

2007-05-21T01:09:00.000-05:00

This past semester, I had the good fortune to teach a U.S. “History on Film class. In planning the course, I had every intention of devoting several periods to antiwar films. While I am aware of some quality antiwar movies—I had to confront a curious problem. I have found that a number of these films—especially those about the Vietnam War—are interpreted by today’s students as very much pro-war in nature. Yes, the messages from Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocalypse Now are often missed and/or ignored by many of my students. Instead, they see exciting battles, shiny weapons, and heroic soldiers and come away thinking that war is glamorous—or at least valiant and courageous.

So in teaching this class for the first time, I decided to skip the antiwar section, not wishing to make these young conservatives any more enamored with blood and guts than they already are. I still feel somewhat guilty about that, but I will continue to advance my subversive, leftist agenda in other ways.

After the class ended, however, I did discover an excellent antiwar movie. The 2005 French film Joyeux Noel (Merry Christmas) is an engrossing look at a 1914 holiday cease fire. I enjoyed it so much that I would have seriously considered showing this foreign film in my American history course.

The film chronicles a short but spontaneous Christmas Eve truce declared by French, German, and Scottish troops during WW I. There is a battle scene at the start of Joyeux Noel, but after that, this film concerns what might happen if soldiers could act like individuals instead of being forced to follow the orders of hypocritical and out-of-touch politicians.

The outbreak of temporary peace in the trenches starts when Christmas trees are shipped to German troops. The troops then begin decorating and displaying the trees—singing commences, and the soldiers lay down their weapons and come out of the trenches to celebrate the holidays. What takes place then is magical—troops begin showing each other pictures of their wives and children, they share food and drink, converse, and even play soccer. These young men act like you would expect them to—they aren’t angry with the enemy, they simply wish to live. They leave the obnoxious nationalism and patriotic fervor to others. And director Christian Carion also minimizes nationalistic stereotypes—the film does not depict these individuals as German, French, or Scottish; they are simply men who are afraid and want to return home. This war (like all wars) is not about heroism. It’s terribly violent and people are killed for absolutely no reason.

There are several plot lines and situations that some critics have called unrealistic. Stephen Holden of the New York Times says the film feels “as squishy and vague as a handsome greeting card declaring peace on earth.” There are critics who have questioned the historical accuracy of this particular event. While I will not vouch for or comment on the historical details, there was a book published in 2001 on this topic. Stanley Weintraub’s, Silent Night informs readers of the history and background of the Christmas Truce. After viewing the film, many of you will probably wish to read this extremely informative book.

I do believe the director takes some liberties with the exact details of the event—even though we know that this moment of sanity did take place. But what actually disturbs me is that it is too often deemed “unrealistic” to discuss or show peace. Why is it so hard to believe that soldiers might actually choose to drop their weapons and greet their so-called enemies with open arms? In too many films (especially in the United States) it has become natural to glamorize war and violence, but once a director attempts to illustrate pacifist behaviors—then it becomes time to scoff and use criticisms like naive and idealistic. I never hear these “unrealistic” arguments used in war films—both critics and the bloodthirsty public too often simply accept that type of history without question.

I urge you to rent and watch Joyeux Noel. It is a quality film, as well as one of best antiwar movies ever made (it was nominated for Best Foreign Language film at the British and American Academy Awards as well as the Golden Globe Awards). The stellar cast includes Diane Kruger, Guillaume Canet, Daniel Bruhl, and Benno Furmann. You’ll get misty-eyed thinking about what is possible. And more importantly, this film will force you to reflect upon the futility of war itself and why we fight.

U.S. Violence Is Nothing New

2007-05-09T23:42:00.000-05:00

Whenever the lazy and historically oblivious mainstream media reports that an event is the best, worst, smallest, tallest, or biggest in American history, I become skeptical. For the most part, it probably doesn’t make a difference—but that's the point. If it doesn’t make a difference, why do the media always use those excessive superlatives? Ratings I guess.

I wondered about this after the Virginia Tech shootings. Was it really the worse massacre in U.S. history? It was one of those questions that float around in my mind and give me something to ponder when I am riding the city bus.

But even before I read anything to the contrary, I was concerned that this was just one of the media’s fabricated statistics. See the problem is this, even when the media prints something that might technically be accurate—they offer the reading public no historical context. They fail to mention or discuss other massacres in American history—and more importantly, they never take the time to even define what their terms mean.

Let me explain what I mean by historical context and definition—because it makes a great difference here. At VTU, one student shot and killed over 30 individuals. If you believe the mainstream media, a massacre of this proportion has never taken place before. But wait…..let’s think about that for just a minute. My thoughts immediately turned to several critical historical issues: race and Indian removal. Even without doing any research, I had a gut-feeling that there has been larger numbers of African Americans or Indians killed at some time in America's past. Wouldn't you agree?

But without any historical context, and without an explanation of what a massacre even means—the media is able to make up its own definition. In this case, what we really have is the worst massacre in U.S. history by a single gun-toting individual against other middle-class, mostly white individuals.

Lo and behold, I soon found out I wasn’t the only person concerned about these ambiguous distinctions. CommonDreams posted an article by Carla Blank entitled, “Worst U.S. Massacre?” Unlike yours truly, Ms Blank actually did some research and wrote a wonderful piece about this very subject.

I urge you to read her short expose and seriously think about America’s extremely violent past. In addition, it seemed hypocritical to me that the media harped about this recent violence while we continued to kill Iraqi citizens each and very day—but I guess that doesn’t really count now does it?

Let me just quote two of Blank’s examples, and then add one of my own.

-In 1913, during another nationally publicized action known as the Ludlow Massacre, more than 66 people were killed, including 11 children, and two women who were burned alive. Sparked by a strike against the Rockefeller family-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation by the mostly foreign born Serb, Greek and Italian coal miners after one of their union organizers was murdered, it eventually involved the Colorado National Guard, imported strikebreakers and sympathetic walkouts by union miners throughout the state. The union never was recognized by the company, and a U.S. congressional committee investigation failed to result in indictments of any militiaman or mine guard.

-In 1860, Bret Harte, a well-known California writer, had just begun his writing career, working as a newspaper reporter in Arcata (known then as Union). Harte was expelled from Humboldt County because he recorded the Gunther Island Massacre of Wiyot Indians, committed on Feb. 26, 1860, when a small group of white men murdered between 60 and 200 Wiyot men, women and children. The massacre was encouraged by a local newspaper. Extermination was once the official policy of the California government toward Native Americans, as Gov. Peter H. Burnett stated in 1851: “That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected…”

One more example—and I know there are many others. Here in my own home state of Minnesota, 38 Dakota Indians were killed in a mass hanging/execution in 1862. Many still see that as a massacre as these 38 were singled out (with little specific evidence) and blamed for violence that erupted in central Minnesota earlier that summer.

There are those who will say I am quibbling—that it doesn’t matter, Virginia Tech was a tragedy. It was. But why is the U.S. media so god-damned stupid when it comes America’s violent past? Could it be because most of that violence has been carried out against Africa Americans, Indians, immigrant laborers and other groups that have often been written out of the history books?

All American citizens should know about these other massacres and atrocities—starting with Columbus’ genocide, extending through slavery and Jim Crowism. We need students to know about this bloodshed and carnage—it’s an uncomfortable but critical part of this "great nation's" legacy.

On Student Debt

2007-05-03T15:59:00.000-05:00

I attended a small soiree last week at my University (I suppose the proper word is a picnic—but that sounds so Midwestern). At one point, there were 5-6 of us (faculty and students) talking, and the delicate subject of student debt was introduced. A very charming women, wife of a faculty member, mentioned several local organizations that teach and advise college kids how to live within their means. One student added that he visits several websites daily that offer advice on spending habits. The conversation soon turned to how students get into debt as well as the use and abuse of credit cards.

After listening to this interesting conversation, I immediately inhaled 4-5 hot dogs and pondered the discussion (no actual connection between the conversation and my gluttony though).

Anyway, here is my problem with the entire student debt issue. While it isn’t a bad idea to help young people with money management, maybe we need to inch a little closer to the real problem—the source. Maybe we should teach about capitalism first—about the absolute desire and need of the capitalist classes to exploit these kids, and why the American system works that way. Maybe if my naive students knew more about the system they are about to become part of, they would have a better understanding of why college costs are so high, why salaries are so low, why the job market looks so bleak, and why they are getting unsolicited credit cards in the mail every day!

But what we tend to do in this country is blame the "undisciplined spender" even though the entire structure is organized to get money from these students and saddle them with lifelong debts. Let's not fool ourselves, it's planned that way! Many of my students are spending $20-25,000 a year for their college degree. And that price rises each and every year. What kind of job should they expect? You all know the answer to that—the pay will not be very good. In fact, most of my students are going to be burdened with heavy debts for years and years.

And while they are building up these debts, they still get credit cards in the mail—what a great country this is! These kids are also bombarded with capitalist cues to buy…buy…and buy even more. They all have cars and all the electrical gadgets one can imagine. But I guess that is the point of capitalism, they keep making products we don’t need, and we keep buying those products—while slipping further and further into debt.

Yet our Puritanical society too often views debt as a personal flaw. And then when I say negative things about capitalism (which happens often), my students generally take offense. They have been taught by their conservative parents that the system is just fine—individuals screw up. But of course they can get help—they can learn how to control their spending at some seminar. We continually hide our heads in the sand and support this corrupt economic system that only benefits the rich.

Maybe we should start telling our young people about capitalism and how flawed it really is. Let’s go to source of the debt problem instead of expecting them to feel shame. American capitalism is putting these kids in a real bind—and they still refuse to acknowledge the culprit. They still blindly accept the system and spout ridiculous crap about our freedoms and what a great country we live in.

Teaching them about the evils of capitalism will do two important things—it will help them understand exploitation and how they are a necessary part of it. And second, maybe they will be able to understand the primary systemic problem—that capitalism needs to keep forcing people into debt, and it needs a blind obedience from a generation of young spenders to stay alive.

Maybe we can kill it someday—but we must get these young spenders to understand how they are aiding and abetting the monster.

Climate Change

2007-05-02T16:05:00.000-05:00

Mission Accomplished Day!

2007-05-01T01:40:00.000-05:00

Hey folks, it's "Mission Accomplished Day" in America. Yes, George W. Bush has given us a new holiday to celebrate, a day of commemoration.

As you probably all know, it was on 1 May 2003 that our fearless leader went on that aircraft carrier and declared victory in Iraq--or mission accomplished.

Since that wonderful declaration of victory, thousands of American and Iraqis have been killed, and the war itself has become a unmitigated disaster for the United States. Our "great" nation is hated abroad, the public has finally turned against the war, the Republican political majority has vanished, and Bush has proven himself to be a fucking idiot--something we all knew from the beginning.

But the Mission Accomplished faux pax needs to be "celebrated" each and every year. When that cocky bastard stood on that aircraft carrier he thought he had actually pulled it off. All the lies and falsehoods in order to take us into that illegal war--Bush thought a quick victory would stifle any dissent. The troops would be home before anyone had a chance to look into the lies.

Well, he was clearly mistaken and we need to make him pay this year......and every year thereafter. Mission Accomplished Day has two purposes. First, to remind us what an incompetent leader and prick that Bush really is. The picture with the thumb in the air says it all doesn't it?

But there can be a more practical and fun celebration for this day. It's the one day of the year when, thanks to our president, we can tell grandiose, bald-face lies and smile about the whole situation. That's right, on May 1, we now have the right.....no, the duty to simply make things up. We need to all find a bad situation in our life and declare that everything is okay!

How might this work--let's look at some examples.

-You have been working on that new deck for over a year, but it remains unfinished. There is lumber strewn all over the yard and the kids cannot even use the back door because the "new deck" project has been a disaster. You should never have promised your wife that you would build it; you are in over your head. But wait.....it's May 1st. That means the deck is actually finished. On Mission Accomplished Day you take the family out on the deck and declare the project completed! That's all it takes.....mission fucking accomplished.

-You are a professor and that stack of ungraded papers is now at least 5' high. There is no way you can finish--students are clamoring for their grades, they want their papers returned. What are you going to do? Its May 1st--those papers are done, they are all graded. Go to class and tell them mission accomplished you little shits!

-You've been working on a written project for the boss now for months, and your have made no progress. You know this report will never be finished but you don't know how to tell the boss. No need to--it's Mission Accomplished Day.....the god-damned report is done.

You get the point, what a great holiday! Now the negative side of all this is that the joy will not last long; sooner or later your family, your students, and your boss are all going to find out what a fuck-up you really are. But on this one day, on Mission Accomplished Day--you can hold your head up high and be proud of what you have done (although it's all a fucking lie).

Even when they find out and you are proven to be a worthless piece of crap, you can look back with pride on that one day when everyone chose to believe you were actually competent. They all know different now, but you will always have Mission Accomplished Day. The liberal media and the dirty hippies can never take that one away from you.

Nice Hair

2007-04-25T17:10:00.000-05:00

The long-haired, disheveled gentleman to the left is Nick Swisher, first-baseman/outfielder for the Oakland Athletics. Swisher is a very good baseball player who is too-often criticized by obnoxious fans because of his hair. Here are a few random comments from an AOL sports website (the quotes and grammer are exact):

"This guy like all the other so called hero's should all cut their hair so as to like a male."

"While watching the recent series oakland played against the Yankees, I couldn't help but notice the difference in how each team looked. Oakland looked like a bunch of bums."

"Still a dirty hippie."

I have always wondered why anyone gives a shit how a baseball player looks anyway. What business is it of the fans if a guy has long hair?

Anyway, here is the kicker to this story. It seems as though Swisher (whose hair currently looks even wilder than in the picture) is growing his hair out in order to donate it to help make wigs for women suffering from hair loss caused by cancer treatment.

That's right.....Swisher's cause, and tribute to his grandmother (who raised him and died of cancer in 2005) is to work with the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the Women's Cancer Research Fund. He is encouraging others to donate real hair to be made into wigs.

P.S. Just so you all know I do have a sense of humor, and am not serious about everything, I will add several pictures of other great baseball "hair-moments" of the past. If Books and Bait readers have other hair pictures to contribute, please send.

Oscar Gamble, circa 1976 (below)

(right) Mike Piazza goes bleached blond, summer of 2001.....Mets remain in last place.

David Halberstam, 1934-2007

2007-04-25T13:28:00.000-05:00

Journalist and prolific author David Halberstam died in a car accident on Monday. Halberstam may have been the greatest journalist of the last half-century. And that is not simply my opinion. Anthony Lewis made that determination--and Lewis has been a damned good journalist himself.

Halberstam had such an impact on many facets of American politics and intellectual life. Not only was he a superb journalist--but he was a gifted writer. You can pick up any of his books at random and quickly appreciate his knowledge, wit, and excellent storytelling skills.

You can read the obituaries that have been published during the past few days--but I would like to briefly mention three things about David Halberstam that I will always think about.

1. He set the standard in honest war reporting during Vietnam. Halberstam wasn't "embedded" with some military unit, he reported on what was actually happening in that country. And as you might expect, the politicians despised him--President Kennedy wanted the New York Times to remove him from Saigon. Along with other great, young reporters like Neil Sheehan and Malcolm Browne, Halberstam didn't accept the lies and coverups coming from official sources in Washington. As Dexter Filkins writes in the New York Times (26 April 2007), Halberstam was one of the first skeptics--one of the first reporters who questioned the government version of international events. We need more Halberstam's today. Since the Bush administration has clearly lied its way through the Iraq War, those skeptics are needed now more than ever.

2. David Halberstam wrote many excellent books--but his Vietnam masterpiece, The Best and the Brightest, is something everyone should read. While it is about America's tragic descent into the Vietnam quagmire, it's really about much more than that--our flawed system, American hubris, the lack of understand about the world and its people. You can learn about Vietnam, but you also learn about Iraq and other blunders. The book is as relevant today as it was when it was published in 1972. Please read it, you will not regret it.

3. Finally, a societal comment (and I might sound like an old coot here). We are inundated in this culture with news and information about politicians, sports and rock/rap star, media personalities (Imus, Stern, Springer, etc.). Have you ever stopped and reflected on how truly interesting those people are? The answer is easy--they are not very interesting at all! Generally, they are not very bright, or imaginative, or remarkable in any way. Yet we continue to worship Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, and the latest winner in the American Idol competition. It's low-culture at its worst.

David Halberstam was an tremendously interesting and fascinating individual.....as was Kurt Vonnegut who passed away last week.....as was historian Arthur Schlesinger who died in February....not to mention journalist Molly Ivins who died earlier this year. Yet the media continues to worship celebrities--and most Americans simply accept it.

Several weeks ago, someone did an clever experiment by placing a classical violinist near a subway entrance in Washington D.C. to see if anyone noticed, or even cared. Over 1000 people walked past Joshua Bell, and only seven paid any attention--or gave him any loose change. Granted, people were in a hurry and had to get to work; but I bet if Paris Hilton was standing there, people would have stopped. David Halberstam will be sorely missed.

Another Travel Destination Off My List

2007-04-20T20:16:00.000-05:00

I didn’t figure to discuss religion much on this blog. Religion doesn’t interest me—I don’t really understand what the fuss is all about, and I don’t care to learn. I wouldn’t pay attention to religion at all if it weren’t for the right-wing fundamentalists who are currently attempting to hijack the American political system. That does piss me off. So what interest I do have in religion concerns these machinations of the political-Jesus crowd.

Now I haven’t always been disinterested in religion…..well, actually yes I have. I recall my very first youthful thoughts about religion, it seemed to be a crock of shit. Lots of old white guys making threats—and even as a little kid of 8-9, I never did have lots of respect for authority. My mom always thought I was going to hell, and she told me that continually….. which actually makes me feel pretty good now because she was never right about a fucking thing in her life.

While I don’t buy into the whole heaven/hell dichotomy, I was a Catholic altar boy for a few years. I always wondered if that secured me any chits in case there actually is a heaven. I doubt it, because even when I was up at the altar ringing the bell and serving wine to the priest, I wasn’t paying any attention to the service. I’m still not a detail guy, but during mass then I was thinking about other important life questions: what was I going to do that particular day, lunch, and various baseball quandries. I went through the motions during the service—always wondering if God could actually tell what I was thinking about. But since I never received any signs that this so-called Creator cared about my thought-process, I figured I would continue to ponder the Mets pitching rotation (Jackson or Fischer tonight?) instead of reflecting upon the gospels. It worked fine for me.

Why I am babbling about my altar boy days? Because the Catholics just got rid of Limbo. I really never knew exactly what Limbo was, or where it was. I do know that my Mom and Grandma mentioned that I would be going to some of these places if I didn’t shape up. Obviously, Hell was the leading destination for me and other smart-asses like me. But there were other Catholic eternal travel destinations that were supposed to scare youngsters. Purgatory was somewhere above Hell on the pecking order. I never got a clear explanation for Purgatory either—even though I kept asking. And that really pissed my Grandma off because she didn’t believe you were supposed to ask about these religious matters. It seems Purgatory was a sort of dull way-station where you went if you weren’t quite evil enough for Hell, but really didn’t deserve Heaven on the first-ballot. I always figured I could live with that.

Limbo was something else—it had something to do with babies who weren’t baptized or confirmed or some kind of nonsense. And even though I was baptized, I still got threatened with Limbo on occasion. I was told that it was kind of like Purgatory—except you might have to hang around Limbo even longer. I never knew if the Limboites were actually going to Heaven; whereas the Purgatorians seemed assured of getting admitted at some point. Is it any wonder why I never took this shit seriously?

Anyway, that new German Pope and some other Catholic bureaucrats have now dropped Limbo—it doesn’t exist anymore I guess. Can they do that? Does this mean all the other Popes were mistaken? What happens to the people who were waiting in Limbo—where do they go? I have a few other questions about Limbo:

-If you have Limbo T-Shirt, is it now worth more money?
-Is Limbo near Oz?
-Is there rent control in Limbo?
-Does this mean Purgatory will now be overcrowded?

I will spend some time in the next few days thinking about these questions!

Oh, and speaking of Catholics—these five really deserve our attention. Yes, they are all Catholic, wealthy, and male--and all of them seem to think women are too fucking stupid to make their own medical and reproductive decisions.

Beware of a Phony Gun Debate

2007-04-17T16:57:00.000-05:00

There wasn't much that could have been done to stop the VTU shootings on Monday. So I don't think the massacre will open a new debate on gun control. What I do think will happen, however, is that conservatives will soon begin to accuse liberals of using the murders to initiate a gun control debate--even though that isn't the case. Let me demonstrate how this is done.

At this point, even with the Virginia tragedy, I don't believe liberals are ready to reopen the gun control fight. There are several reasons. First, liberals have a number of other domestic issues of higher priority, like health care, the wage gap, and other poverty-related, economic concerns that must be addressed. Second, liberals clearly need to deal with the wasted and worthless deaths and other disgusting events taking place in Iraq. Third, with possibility of gaining states in the West, liberals and Democrats must think about some tradeoffs to make that a reality. As Machiavellian as it might seem, if 3-4 Western states could be brought into the Democratic electoral vote column, we should think about what would be necessary to bring that about. And it seems as though gun control would not be helpful in that electoral quest. Overall, it doesn't appear to be the right time to push this issue.

Personally, I would like to see this debate reopened. I think every one of those rabid, NRA-types ought to have a handgun shoved up their ass (it doesn't have to be loaded, just shoved). But I still possess a slither of political realism, and I am willing to wait on this issue.

But here is what the conservatives are already doing--and they have the mainstream media helping them. They are going to use the VTU murders to fire up their base.....by warning their mindless minions that liberals are now out to take away their firearms. Liberals are not pressing this issue--but the right-wingers have made the charge anyway. And once the wingnuts have made the charge, the media picks it up (they need something to report) and begins reporting on this new gun control debate.

The conservatives then throw up their hands, act surprised, and then blame liberals for exploiting the situation. They have been doing this for years--liberals understand it, it's their own conservative voters who are too damned stupid to have figured it out yet.

In graduate school we used to call this a "straw-man" argument: when someone falsely manufactures a case just so they can shoot it down. There must be a better word for it. If anyone has a better term for what Rove and his right-wingers do on a consistent basis--please leave it in the comments section.

Let's not fall for this. Spread the word, write, blog--do whatever you have to do to let the public know that while liberals are concerned about gun violence, we aren't reopening this gun debate just now. It's simply conservatives trying to use fear (as usual) to scare their own terrified constituents and wrangle some additional money out of them.

To Those Defending Poor Don Imus

2007-04-16T17:37:00.000-05:00

Yesterday (Sunday) I received a email post from my friend and frequent Books and Bait contributor Chet Brinkley (see that full post below). Mr. Brinkley wrote that as a civil libertarian and strong advocate of the first amendment, he finds himself "torn" over what to think about the Imus firing. After mulling over Chet Brinkley's sentiments, I opened the Sunday New York Times to see that Frank Rich was at least partially defending Imus in his Sunday column. And then today in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, columnist Syl Jones added some incisive anti-Imus commentary--some of which I will quote in this post.

Since this issue hasn't dissipated yet, I thought I would offer my own perspectives here today. I can find absolutely no sympathy for Imus on any grounds whatsoever. Chet Brinkley was impressed that even after CBS fired Imus, "he and his wife still wanted to apologize to the Rutgers team." Here are my answers to some of the extremely lame Imus defending that has gone on during the past few days.

#1: on the general topic of free speech--Imus did not lose his free speech privileges! This is very important to remember. Don Imus is sitting in his fancy New York apartment right now, or walking the streets of Manhattan (and he's probably wearing that dumbass cowboy hat too). He is not in jail, he is in no legal trouble, and his employment opportunities are, frankly, pretty good. Don Imus is not Eugene Debs, or Emma Goldman, or Margaret Sanger (all paid the price for their speech and actions). He got fired from his job because he's a fucking racist idiot. After cleaning out his desk, and picking up his inflated paycheck, Imus can still say anything he wants. He can go on TV, write an editorial, give a speech, publish a blog.....he remains totally free to be the bigoted and chauvinistic bastard that he was on the radio. He hasn't lost his free-speech rights at all.

#2: it's about the government--The critical part of the free speech issue is when it is imposed by the government. It's the government that can take away free speech rights--not CBS news. What we need to be concerned about is government censorship--the right to speak out against the Bush war-machine, the right to protest, online freedoms, and absolute music, art, and literature freedoms.

#3: Jackson and Sharpton--Bringing up these guys is nothing but a red-herring. Mr. Brinkley quotes Kansas City Star sportswriter Jason Whitlock who manages to get in a short quip against Jackson and Sharpton. The fact that the national media marches out Jackson and Sharpton every time there is race issues really tells us more about the national media than anything else. These two gentlemen don't speak for all African Americans. And if I was one of those conspiracy buffs (like my good friend Ratso Rizzo), I would say that the national media only uses Jackson and Sharpton to turn public opinion against African American issues. But I won't say that. In fact, it doesn't matter what Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say--if you dislike these gentleman, it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

#4: the weak-ass rap argument--Mr. Brinkley writes in his post, "As a white guy, I'm out of touch with the black experience. But I don't think it serves anyone well to condemn whites for using hateful and bigoted language while "rewarding" artists in the black community for using it with impunity." I think this is simply silly! There are many black organizations and individuals trying to deal with these rap/hip-hop race and gender issues. In the meantime, what should white America do? Are we allowed to all perform our best Strom Thurmond impersonations just because black rap artists use racial slurs in their music. The connection makes no sense. As Syl Jones writes in his editorial, " If you can't understand what's wrong with a white man piggybacking on the problems of an African American subculture of disrespect and blithely importing it into a nationally syndicated radio and television broadcast, what do you understand?"

#5: the even weaker-ass "chilling effect" argument--Frank Rich wrote in the Sunday Times that firing Imus will have a "chilling effect on comics who push the line" as well as on political talking-heads like Bill Maher and Ann Colter. Again, this is simply silly. Chilling is such a severe word when Imus didn't lose his free speech rights. Furthermore, Frank Rich is demonstrating his insider status here. Maybe there will be a slight effect on some of the inside-the-beltway types, but who else will be influenced......my guess is no one.

#6: this is also about women and gender--Some have forgotten during the past week that Imus not only made a racial slur, but he also showed his true chauvinistic colors. At the same time he made his now infamous statement on the Rutgers women's team, he said something about the Tennessee players being "cute." I think his clear disrespect for women should have earned him the ax.

#7: and don't use the term PC around here-- What does "politically correct" really mean? Let me tell you using a wonderful quote from Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, "PC is a term that is used to declare insults aimed at the less powerful groups protected, while doubling up the social punishments for even legitimate (if humorous) criticisms of the powerful." PC is an excuse for the white, male frat-boy types to criticize anyone they please and laugh about it--it also "allows" them to label themselves the victims of an oversensitive society. What assholes!

#8: Imus only apologized because he finally went too far/he got caught--Did I even have to mention this one? Isn't it obvious?

#9: finally....and most importantly--free speech is here so "we the people" can criticize the government--I agree with Brinkley, Rich, and others that absolute free speech is important. But we need to reflect upon what it is for--free speech was not originally intended to allow the majority (white males) to say anything they want against minorities. They can do that already--and they have always had the political power to do that. Imus is just piling it on. Let's not forget that black female college athletes aren't the enemy; and rap singers aren't the enemy. No hip-hop artist is going to take away my habeas corpus rights.....but I know someone else who will. The enemies, the people we need to fear, are in the government (specifically the Bush administration). They can take away our rights.

I understand that even though Imus is a small-fish, we still don't want to go down that first amendment slippery slope. But Imus didn't lose any rights and he's not worth defending.

On That Imus Moron, Part II

2007-04-16T17:25:00.000-05:00

post submitted by Chet Brinkley

In the wake of CBS’ firing of that moron Don Imus, I find myself torn. I’m an advocate of the first amendment as well as affirmative action and other efforts to uphold the civil rights of all people. I’ve never listened to Imus or Howard Stern or any other of the so-called “shock jocks,” though I have a pretty good idea of the kind of verbal swill they spew.

Imus’ comments about the Rutgers team were disgusting, to be sure. And in targeting young women who came one game away from the national championship rather than some politician or celebrity whose job description in the 21^st century (unfortunately) includes being maligned or “satirized,” Imus clearly crossed a line that should not have been crossed. But then again, he and his ilk make a living stomping all over that line on a regular basis. So why now? Why this? Part of it is that African Americans enjoy far more economic clout than sixty years ago when Jackie Robinson broke through the color barrier in Major League Baseball. Their collective outrage hits advertisers where they live, so networks have to respond differently. In addition, tens of millions of parents with daughters took his comment very personally.

Kansas City Star sportswriter Jason Whitlock offered another perspective:

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem…While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant…shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had…

We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

I’m in no position to make the kind of statement Mr. Whitlock did, but the civil libertarian in me has a problem with Imus being fired for saying some stupid and offensive thing, no matter how stupid and offensive. When University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill compared World Trade Center victims to Nazis, colleagues came to his defense—not because they agreed with him, but because they didn’t want to make any concessions to the right of free speech. Churchill resigned as chair of the university’s ethnic studies department, but remained a professor.

While Imus is not an academic and his audience doesn’t exactly break the brain bank, this country has created a market for (and the Supreme Court has defended as free speech) this kind of scurrilous, scatological, crap (and I’m talking about hip-hop as well as shock jocks). And the outrage that follows in the wake of a particularly offensive salvo can indeed come off as opportunistic. Are we truly so weak and so fragile that we cannot defend ourselves or simply ridicule weak-ass comments such as those drooled by Don Imus?

As a white guy, clearly I’m out of touch with the black experience. But I don’t think it serves anyone well to condemn whites for using hateful and bigoted language while rewarding “artists” in the black community for using it with impunity. I’m not saying that black athletes today should suffer in silence the way Jackie Robinson was forced to 60 years ago. But I think all of us could seek to emulate some of the dignity and class he displayed. We at least got a glimpse of that when, after CBS fired Imus, he and his wife still wanted to apologize to the Rutgers team, and they still wanted to meet him, and chose to forgive him. That forgiveness doesn’t give Imus his job back, but just might give him a chance to earn some self-respect—or at least some self-restraint.

Who Would Have Guessed?

2007-04-14T01:57:00.000-05:00

The Bush war-criminals quietly released a 164-page report today evaluating the administration's abstinence-only education initiative of the past few years. These morons have spent over $87 million per year and about $1.5 billion overall for this abstinence wet-dream of theirs.

What do you think this report concluded? How about a few choice quotes? And if you are a visual-learner, go here for some charts.

Findings: indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.

Sexual Abstinence: Program and control group youth were equally likely to have remained abstinent.

Unprotected Sex: Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months. Over the last 12 months, 23 percent of both groups reported having had sex and always using a condom; 17 percent of both groups reported having had sex and only sometimes using a condom; and 4 percent of both groups reported having had sex and never using a condom.

Age at First Intercourse: For both the program and control group youth, the reported mean age at first intercourse was identical, 14.9 years.

Sexual Partners: Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number of partners with whom they had sex. Comparing the program and control groups overall, the distributions on the number of reported sex partners are nearly identical. About one-quarter of all youth in both groups had sex with three or more partners, and about one in six had sex with four or more partners.

Wow, what a fucking surprise! No differences at all between the program participants and the control group. That would be $87 million dollars a year, and over $1.5 billion to prove what we already knew.

Here is what we really know--the Bush war-criminals simply wanted to give millions and millions of dollars to their religious fanatic friends. And even though this report proves their idiocy, they kept that money away from American who really needed it. They could have actually used it to help curb teen pregnancy. What a novel idea.

On That Imus Moron

2007-04-11T01:10:00.000-05:00

Please take a look at this link concerning the Imus controversy. I have read some excellent writing on what a fucked-up bigot he is. But I think this post is particularily worth viewing.....and thinking about.

Throw Out the Tofu Ma....It's Making Us Queer

2007-04-09T10:44:00.000-05:00

Sometimes these right-wingnuts publish articles that are so bizarre and outrageous that I start to think maybe they are all just comedians. Yes, maybe instead of being obnoxious religious zealots, they are trying to be funny......and we just don't get it. Their humor is so sophisticated that the bandwidth in our liberal brains hasn't been able to process it all. Right!

So I just had to make this "humor" available to all of you. I first saw it on Pandagon and then Pam's House Blend did fine work describing it as "today's batshittery article of the day."

This is from some guy named Jim Rutz at the World Net Daily. And as you will read for yourself, his article(s) are entitled, "Soy Is Making Kids Gay." Yes, that's right, soy--as in tofu and all that other stuff they sell at Whole Foods and Mississippi Market--it's making our kids gay (as in homosexual).

Here is a quote from Jim Rutz that I'm sure will make you want to read all of his "scientific" information about soy products.

"Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion, and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say they can't remember a time when excess estrogen (in the soy products) wasn't influencing them."

Wow! I didn't know all this--especially those facts about penis size and sexual confusion. I don't want to start carrying a purse like this guy! I'm going back to being a serious meat-eater. My heart and arteries might not like it, but my penis will undoubtedly "stand up" and say thanks!

Another Tragic Wisconsin Hunting Incident

2007-04-09T01:32:00.000-05:00

An important and sad story submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley.

On Saturday 6 January 2007, Green Bay, Wisconsin resident Cha Vang (left), a 40-year-old man who had been living in the United States for less than two years, was hunting, separated from the rest of his friends, when he encountered Peshtigo, Wisconsin resident James Nichols, 28. According to Nichols, arrested after showing up at a local hospital with a single, non-life-threatening gunshot wound, the two began arguing after Nichols complained Vang was interfering with his hunting. Vang shot him, he claimed, without provocation, so Nichols defended himself. In the process of questioning, he told several contradictory versions of this tale.

The facts bring the story together in stark, disturbing detail. Convicted felon Nichols, rather than reporting the incident to the police, tried to camouflage Vang’s body under leaves and debris. During questioning Nichols said Hmong people were mean and "kill everything, and that they go for anything that moves…[the] Hmong group are bad." Finally, the attorney general reported that Vang was shot from a much closer distance than Nichols claimed—and while walking AWAY from his killer. Vang was also stabbed six times, including a wound that severed his jugular vein, and was found with a 3-4 inch wooden stick protruding from his clenched teeth. Nichols claimed Vang screamed, “I'm going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!’ but Vang knew no English. Dacia James, Nichols’ fiancée who helped him hide the murder weapon, said she had never heard Nichols say anything negative about Hmong people. “He has never been racist or derogatory against someone who didn't deserve it."

Reports in January set Nichols’ first court date for 14 February but no public reports regarding this case have been seen since then. As the Washington Post reported, prejudice is not hard to find in this region (this article is no longer available online):

Bob Kovar, a retired cranberry grower, left his job to head his own initiative to talk with middle and high school students in the Minocqua (Wisconsin) area about their racial views. "At first, I didn't think my community was racist -- then I saw when I had kids in the schools that this community is pretty open about its prejudiced views and has had generations of violence over that," Kovar said. His program focuses on introducing tribal and white students to each other's cultures -- many characteristics of which they find are similar -- and educating them on diversity. On Tuesday, Kovar plans to hold a town hall meeting with students and families from the area schools to discuss racial tensions. But he has heard from many white parents that they will not attend because the meeting will be held on the reservation that feeds Indian students to Lakeland Union, the one high school in the region.

Where the hell do any of us get off acting like we own a bigger share or have a greater right to this country just because our ancestors showed up here before somebody else’s—or because those ancestors may have killed or robbed or bullied or enslaved those who were here before them? Cha Vang, his wife of 13 years Pang Vue, and their five children, and all Hmong people are in the United States because our government selected, trained, equipped, and mobilized their people to fight against Lao and Vietnamese communists. They lost 10% of their population in that conflict. It is because of America's pull-out from Southeast Asia that the communists overran Vietnam and Laos, and that the Hmong people who sided with us were compelled to flee the country.

In coming to the United States, the Hmong people's biggest obstacle is not the language, the strange, sometimes intimidating culture and technology, the pain of watching their children abandoning ages-old customs and traditions so they can be more acceptable to their classmates, or anything else as much as it is people like James Nichols—or any ignoramus who looks at one man like Chai Soua Vang and confers his misdeeds on all Hmong people—or is so stupid as to think that Chai Soua Vang (another tragic Wisconsin Hmong-white hunting incident) and Cha Vang must be related. (There are only 18 last names in Hmong culture.) Chai Soua Vang’s actions cannot be defended, but it’s quite clear that the story told by the survivors of that horrible incident omitted a few details that might have cast the dead in a less complimentary light. They weren’t as interested in telling the truth as they were putting him away. An all-white jury sentenced him without batting an eye. Chai Soua Vang got the right sentence, but it’s hard to argue that he got justice. What will a likely all-white jury decide in the case of Cha Vang’s murderer? And how closely will the non-Hmong community be watching? (Nichols has recently pleaded not guilty).

He Wasn't Very Good Either

2007-04-06T17:19:00.000-05:00

The unpleasant side-effects of the abysmal and failed Bush presidency are many—too many to be analyzed here. But one that specifically intrigues me is the effort being made by conservatives to shift the historical focus from their current incompetent leader to their past inept leader…..Ronald Reagan.

Granted, conservatives do have an argument—compared to Bush, any past chief executives looks stellar. Hell, William Howard Taft seems like a veritable statesman compared to Bush. This is an opportune time to drag any pariah out of the historical ashes for rehabilitation.

But Ronald Reagan is the one that conservatives place on their political pedestal. While the right has always looked up to Reagan, Bush is now making him look much, much better to conservatives and even to moderate Republicans (if they actually exist).

Two things strike me as paradoxical here. First, if Reagan was a great president (and he wasn’t), conservatives wouldn’t need George W. Bush to draw that distinction. Reagan’s presidency should be able to stand on its own—which it can’t. And second, when Bush was riding high in the polls, the wing-nuts were calling him Reagan’s heir. What happened? It seems Bush is actually the one who has attempted to carry out the radical conservative agenda—why now separate him from their conservative hero when Bush has been doing what the wingers wanted all along?

Well, I won’t try to get into the mind of one of those right-wingers, that would be entirely too difficult and might give me some sort of brain damage. But what is going on is this—Bush’s dismal failures are forcing conservatives to find another champion by which to rally their supporters. I suppose it is a logical move for them—they need their idols and frankly, they don’t have many. Which brings up an interesting question—except for that fellow Jesus, who do the right-wingers look to for inspiration? DeLay……Cheney.....Scalia…..Newt……Mel Gibson????? It is sad isn’t it?

I digress. The point is this—Reagan was not a very good president in spite of the spin that you are going to hear from the GOP for the next few years. He was average at best, and probably a better fit in the below average category.

First, he spent the taxpayer's money like a drunken sailor and incurred huge debts that did not dissolve until Bill Clinton and those big-spending liberals took over. I know the AM talk-show crowd blames Congress for all this—but that just isn't accurate. Reagan showed no inclination to actually cut spending. All he did was talk about it.

Second, please don’t accept the simplistic crap about how Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. That is the kind of anti-intellectual drivel that conservatives like to propagate because their constituents need one-dimensional answers. The Cold War must be examined in its entirety, it was never simple. There were numerous factors that contributed to its demise. Americans should know that already—but unfortunately, in the “intelligent design” environment of today, they don’t.

Third—and conservatives should know this but they chose to overlook it—Reagan actually never tried to institute the radical right-wing agenda. He cared about taxes and big government, but seemed uncomfortable with some of the other hot button issues. Yes, he talked about abortion and prayer in school, but never attempted to legislate those issues. They were used basically to fire up the conservative base.

Fourth, and I think this is one of the most important issues…..Reagan made it accepted for conservatives--especially angry white males--to blame the poor and the disadvantaged for the nation's problems. He gave terribly unsophisticated speeches about a welfare queen (always a woman) driving a Cadillac and making $50,000.00 from illegal welfare checks. No one every located that “welfare mom” and it’s clear she was fabricated. But Reagan’s words and encouragement made it fashionable in the 1980s to blame the poor for everything.

Reagan also set race relation back for years. Remember that he launched his 1980 campaign with a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi—the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960s. He and his staff knew what they were doing—they didn’t just accidentally stop in that little town. They were sending a message to the racists on the right. Again, making it okay for conservatives to use race to divide the nation.

And his reaction to AIDS was criminal. Why worry about homosexuals—it’s their own fault anyway isn’t it? God is punishing them for their lifestyle. Besides, his constituents didn’t care. This issue alone should have shamed the administration. But once again, those blue-collar, working class “Reagan Democrats" didn’t much care for urban gays anyway—so why do anything? Disgusting.

Scandals (Iran-Contra, that's the criminal Oliver North at below right), massive budget deficits, racism, tax cuts for the rich, blame-the-poor rhetoric, homophobic public policies…..this is what the Reagan administration was all about–and don’t forget it. Just because George Bush is worse doesn’t mean Reagan should climb in the eyes of history. He was who he was—and he was a mediocre president who did great damage to many people on the margins of society. And he didn’t seem to care.

But for the pathetic Republican party, he is about the only national figure they have had in the past 60 years that holds any historical legitimacy (Ike was really the last one!). Isn't it sad being a Republican--at times, I almost feel sorry for them.

What the Hell is This?

2007-04-04T14:39:00.000-05:00

Have you folks seen this picture? The village idiot Bush is saying something inane about Iraq--but what the hell is Cheney doing lurking around in the weeds? This guy is scary isn't he? You think Bush knows he's there? I don't see his hands, maybe he's taking a piss.

In Praise of Dogs

2007-04-04T01:40:00.000-05:00

submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley--and we all sincerely hope Danny gets well very soon!

Meaning no disrespect to Buddy, Queen Lexie, and their generous hosts, but in the interest of pet bipartisanship I think it’s about time we gave a little glory to our canine friends.

I grew up in a household with no pets other than occasional goldfish. My parents—good-hearted, practical people—had no intention of taking over the feeding and care of a pet after their children’s two days of excitement and dedication wore off. My lovely partner, however, grew up with a menagerie of cats, dogs, and horses, and so it was clear that if we were ever to wed, I was going to have to pass the “sniff test” with her pets—which fortunately I did.

When we changed domiciles eleven years ago, our cat freaked out and began turning our entire basement into a litterbox, so alas, we had to bid her a sad farewell, and haven’t had one since. So dogs rule the roost in our home.

Some of our biggest laughs and most serene moments have been brought to us by our dogs. And the amount of comfort a dog can provide in times of sorrow in many ways outstrips any human feat of word or deed—mostly because dogs know how to shut up and just be there for you.

Unfortunately, getting pets (unless you make the dubious choice of buying a bird that will live a hundred years) is a devil’s bargain. You know they’ll worm their way into your heart, you know they’ll become a part of the family, and you know the chances are extremely good that they’ll depart this mortal coil well before you do, leaving you in a crumpled, weeping mass with vet bills resembling a payment on a Mercedes Benz.

Our pal Danny (pictured above) is 12 years old. The vet says he has the constitution of a seven-year-old, but out of the blue he started having seizures. We haven’t given up just yet. We’re not going to take out a second mortgage, and we certainly don’t want our friend to suffer unnecessarily, but we hope we get some more quality time with him before that wordless communication and those soulful eyes finally make it clear to us that the devil must be given his due. And after tears are shed and precious memories are tucked away for safekeeping, we’ll enter into that bargain again, and see some of the grief assuaged by a new introduction and courtship that turns into another enchanting though all-too brief love affair with another best friend.

And I Thought We Were Winning!

2007-04-03T01:01:00.000-05:00

Okay folks, it’s now official…..the Iraq War is lost….it’s over. How do we know, because Henry Kissinger said so. But before I talk about Kissinger and Iraq, get a load of this opening paragraph from the AP article in the International Herald Tribune:

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.”

Does anyone else see some irony in this sentence? Henry Kissinger “who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam” Withdrawal? Withdrawal? What the hell are they talking about? It took Kissinger and Nixon five fucking years to withdraw from that quagmire. And we know that not one god-damned thing was gained from 1969 to the war's official end in 1975. Just more and more deaths—lives wasted to be exact. Nixon and Kissinger could have ended that war in 1969, but I guess they were too busy “engineering a withdrawal.”

Anyway, Kissinger is now telling us what we already know. The former Secretary of State said that:

"A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible,” adding that the, “faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex."

"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."

But Dr. Kissinger couldn’t be content with a simple analysis of the dire situation in Iraq. You see, Kissinger very much likes to cavort with people in power. He fears no further calls from the White House. What if policymakers stopped seeking him out for his opinions on global affairs? What if they stopped inviting him to parties? What if Charlie Rose quit having on his talk show?

So even though Kissinger flatly stated that the war in Iraq was lost—he had to mitigate those negative sentiments with something nice for the incompetent Bush administration. Kissinger claimed that he sympathized with the troubles that Bush is facing and “warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.”

Tell me, how much more chaos can we have in Iraq? If we leave, there will be chaos????? What the fuck is happening now?

And then, in words that his hero Metternich would have enjoyed, Kissinger suggested an international conference to get the United States off the hook. Yes, that will surely work!

“Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors — including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region.”

Then, in one final shot at those dirty fucking hippies that have been dogging him for nearly 40 years—Kissinger called for an end to the partisan bickering.

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

No way asshole. The partisan bickering will continue as long as the partisan pricks in the Bush administration stay in Iraq.....As long as Bush and his war criminal pals keep wasting American lives.....And as long as the administration continues spending money in Iraq instead of spending it on health care, education, poverty, or New Orleans

Thanks for telling us what we already knew Henry--we are losing in Iraq and have no chance. We appreciate your honesty. But I for one will remain a partisan bickerer, just like I was in 1972 when you were managing your own immoral war.

I Shall Not Seek, and I Will Not Accept......

2007-04-02T01:58:00.000-05:00

This past weekend (March 31 to be exact) marked the anniversary of an extremely important political event. Thirty-nine years ago, on a normal Sunday evening, millions of American sat in front of their grainy black-and-white TV screens to hear what President Lyndon B. Johnson would say about Vietnam War. The president did talk about Vietnam, but he dropped a bombshell at the end of the speech:

"I have concluded that I shall not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year."

"I do not believe I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country."

"Therefore, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

This ambitious and powerful man, who had won a tremendous landslide just four years earlier, had become so troubled by an unpopular war—that he was ostensibly ending his long and brilliant political career.

So many things happened in 1968 that it’s difficult to select any one as critical. Many younger political junkies might not see Johnson’s decision as all that important. But if you go back and look at the political situation, this was tremendously significant event that has ramification not only in 1968—but actually sent shock-waves throughout the system for years. Let me explain.

By January 1968, Lyndon Johnson was embattled, but he remained a dominant figure. Had he sought the nomination, it would have been his. He still could have made policy adjustments in Vietnam. And while major changes were not forthcoming, short cease-fires and more peace talks were still possible.

Granted, things had been getting worse in Vietnam. In January came the Tet offensive--North Vietnamese troops attacked numerous provincial capitals and major cities in the south, including an attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon and the presidential palace. Tet showed that the U.S. was not winning the war. And remember, this war was not censored by the government. Americans saw the body bags every evening on TV.

But even with these extreme difficulties, the Democratic Party and its leaders would have lined up behind LBJ. In 1968, the party structure was not as decentralized as it is today. The Democratic hierarchy was ruled by the president and it would have been nearly impossible to defeat him. Yes, an insurgent candidate could embarrass LBJ, or damage him for the November run…..but the way the convention votes were gathered and tallied, Johnson would have had few problems taking the nomination.

But what we were starting to see by 1968 was the deterioration of that old system. At the time, many still did not see its imminent downfall. Maybe Johnson saw it crumbling…..maybe Eugene McCarthy did too. But things were taking place that would have ramification for the future of American politics—Johnson served to exacerbate those changes when he gave that March 31 speech.

By the start of the year, most assumed the Johnson-Humphrey ticket would stand for reelection. But some of the antiwar left went looking for a challenger. At the time, this seemed more symbolic that substantive. Most saw New York senator Robert Kennedy as the clear first-choice—but he was not willing to challenge Johnson or the war….yet. Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy finally agreed to face the president. No one gave him a chance.

Then in the March 12 New Hampshire primary, Johnson beat McCarthy 49% to 42%. This shook the political world. How could this soft-spoken, antiwar senator get such support? People started to wonder a little more about the war, maybe it was time to question the politicians on this.

But the old political “machines” were also starting to collapse. If McCarthy could do it......maybe these primaries would allow the “people” to select the candidates. At the time, the primaries weren’t worth much at the convention (pols like mayor Daley still ruled), but if the grass-roots spoke, the leaders would have to listen wouldn’t they?

McCarthy had opened some eyes and people were just wondering what all of this meant. Then two days later, Robert Kennedy entered the race. RFK was the star of the party and the realistic hope of the left. He is still be criticized for waiting too long—for not being as courageous as McCarthy—but when he entered, the dynamics of the campaign changed even more.

So by the end of March, President Johnson was being challenged by two Democrats, and he still seemed flustered by the war—which was going badly. And while he controlled the party and could have garnered the nomination, he called it quits.

What were the implications here? By abandoning the race, I think that Johnson set in motion tremendous political changes. Yes, these changes would have taken place sooner or later, but without the 1968 political turmoil—probably later. By dropping out of the race, the antiwar left and the student movement saw that they could possibly change the system. If they could do this, maybe they could end the war…..maybe they could change the corrupt system itself.

LBJ had opened the door and the activist took advantage. While the 1968 election didn’t turn out the way the left wanted (Nixon v. Humphrey; Kennedy dead; the party in ruins), there was hope that manifested itself during the next 4 years.

I still believe Johnson hoped the party might still draft him at the summer convention. He was an ambitious man—and he still might have won the election. But there are times when I also think maybe Johnson knew something—maybe he had begun to understand that he was on the wrong side of history. Maybe he saw that the nation and its institutions were changing rather quickly.

Lyndon Johnson shocked the nation that Sunday evening and set in motion some important electoral changes in this nation. It now seems like it couldn't have been any other way--for 1968 turned out to be a great social, cultural, and political divide. Johnson was on the other side of that divide, he was a man of the past.

A Sad and Pathetic Figure

2007-03-28T01:18:00.000-05:00

“One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.”

I found this quote on a blog several weeks ago and have been thinking about it since. I totally agree with the opinions of the author. The more interesting question, in my mind, concerns patterns. Have most presidents grown and/or matured while in office? Or have others acted more like Bush and regressed during their White House stay?

I think it's fair to say that George W. Bush has morphed into nothing but a sad and pathetic figure. He will always have that 20-25% of the electorate who, it seems, would remain loyal even if he murdered someone on national TV. But it’s clear that most of the nation is embarrassed by our current chief executive.

The simple answer to presidents “growing” in office is that most actually do. History demonstrates that two things tend to happen to presidents. First, at some point in their term, event(s) humble them—driving them to rethink much of their boisterous, and ideologically rigid campaign rhetoric. This is when many mature and transform themselves from politician to statesman. Second, most also find that maturity and growth force them into seeking a historical legacy; which means leaving something substantive (not partisan) to the nation and its citizens.

There are some examples in the past half-century of presidents who have grown in office—examples from both parties.

When the boyish John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, some saw him as an inexperienced playboy whose daddy had bought him the election. While I will not compare Bush with JFK (W is no Jack Kennedy, shall we say), Kennedy did have a certain detached manner that made many think that he didn’t take issues seriously enough.

Yes, JFK had been a war hero and had plenty of medical problems, but he did come from a wealthy family that had greased the political wheels for him when he had nothing else to do in after WW II.

But Kennedy’s on-the-job training changed him immensely. The Bay of Pigs fiasco forced him to restructure his internal decision-making aparatus—and it caused him to question military/CIA advice. And then the Cuban Missile Crisis brought Kennnedy face-to-face with nuclear war. After October 1962, his speeches became more measured, his tone much more peaceful and conciliatory—if nothing else, Cuba taught Kennedy that he had the power to destroy the world—and it had almost happened.

What did we get from this 45 year-old man after Cuba? Not smirks and snide comments, not frat-boy giggles and statements from an ideologue. During his next twelve months in office, President Kennedy uttered some of his most memorable and lasting words— marvelous speeches about peace, disarmament, the arts, poetry, and his vision for a safer world.

Maybe JFK had this in him from the start—but like most politicians, he came to office a little cocky and too sure of himself. But by November 1963, he was a different person—he had clearly grown as a person and as a president.

Ronald Reagan also proved that one could develop while in office. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan, I have always been intrigued by his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons when he met with Gorbachev in 1986. Some say Reagan didn’t know what he was doing—but I disagree. Reagan was trying to use the office to do something grand, and that’s what the presidency is all about.

Reagan, by 1986, knew that legacy was important—and legacy is leaving something to history. It’s acting in the best interests of future generations—it’s doing those things that you couldn’t do when political interests dominated. Reagan knew this, and tried something big.

Finally, while Lyndon Johnson’s last year in office was tragic—he even matured. LBJ abandoning the office that he so loved and actually wrecked his legacy--but it might have been the apex of his maturation. Johnson was a schemer and still hoped the Democrats would turn to him in the fall. But even LBJ had learned there was something bigger and more important than his ambition.

I think that two of the three individuals I mentioned in this post were mediocre presidents at best (I will let you guess which ones), but all three were much more impressive than the current occupant of the White House. All three left office with some gravitas, and all three knew that was an important part of the presidency.

As we all know, Bush had his opportunity didn’t he? And what did he tell the American people to do after 9/11….to go shopping. What a fucking moron. He has done nothing domestically—except appoint fascists to the court system. And his foreign policy, to say the least, has been a disaster.

George Bush, in my view, has been the worst president in American history. Overturning his mistakes will take years. He has become a small figure—immature and clearly not suited or qualified for the job. Luckily, we have had presidents in the past that did grow in the office, but not this adolescent clown.

Novel Ideas

2007-03-26T01:42:00.000-05:00

Mark Twain remarked that “A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” I don’t know if that is still the case—but I think Twain has been generally correct about this.

Personally, I have had a terribly schizophrenic relationship with the classics (and novels in general for that matter) for the past 20-25 years. The primary reason, I believe, has been my study of History. You see, after reading traditional nonfiction History: textbooks, journals, short articles, and primary source materials—it becomes difficult to read word-for-word books. When you read academic nonfiction, you can often skim—searching for main ideas and key points, while quickly glancing over the language and style.

I do enjoy nonfiction very much—but I grew up reading classics and lament the fact that I continue to have trouble reading the great works. I can zip through a 500 page biography in a few days—but when I try to pick up one of the classics, I stick with it for awhile, and then…….my thoughts wander to some American history topic.

I could simply give up. I read enough good nonfiction…..I need not be so hard on myself, right?

But I still believe that fiction in general, and these classics specifically, are well worth the effort. I want to take my time and read each and every word, meet interesting characters, and understand their human emotions and dilemmas. The beautiful sentence structures, the perfect word choice, and the unfolding plots. I do get some of that in good history book—but I want more. Besides, the classics are so civilizing.

I grew up reading Dickens—Oliver Twist was the first real, adult novel I remember reading. Then I read David Copperfield and was “hooked on the classics.” But once I went to graduate school, the nonfiction took over.

I was assigned The Sun Also Rises in a graduate school History class once—and I loved that novel. I still read it several times a year. After reading it in Dr. Allen’s U.S. History seminar at Southern Illinois University—several of my classmates and I got drunk for about 4-5 days straight! We each bought one of those wine skins that Jake and the others drink from in the novel . Those were the days!

Well, I am here to say that I haven’t given up yet…..I am trying once again. I have a stack of classics that I keep on hand so when I get the urge, I have something to grab. A few days ago, I spotted the fat little Bantam Classic edition of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (Tolstoy pictured above). Thus far…..wonderful. I don’t want to say too much, I have completed 191 of 868 pages. But I sense that this might be the start of something.

I will keep you posted on my progress! Wish me luck.

Friday Cat Blogging

2007-03-23T01:55:00.000-05:00

I give you Buddy--master of, and the inspiration behind this blog. Buddy was a scruffy neighborhood stray who showed up at our apartment in the early 1990s. We were hesitant to feed him but he was persistent. I tried catching him several times, but he always got away.

My lovely domestic partner finally trapped him one day, took him to the vet for a checkup, and even had him fixed (I don't know if he was too thrilled about that). Buddy has been part of the family ever since. The vet wasn't sure how old he was, so currently Buddy might be anywhere from 14 to 17 years old. He is a wonderful cat!

On a Few of the Evils of Capitalism

2007-03-21T01:14:00.000-05:00

Twice during the past week, I have been at academic discussions where a “radical” market capitalist has been the primary speaker. The frustrating thing about these market missionaries is they realize there is no real political opposition to their ideology. So what you hear from these self-righteous zealots are “lectures” about how free markets must be expanded; how people worldwide are doing so well under globalization; and how there are no economic options anyway.

As Andrew Murray wrote in the Guardian, these market advocates continually utilize the argument that “there is no alternative” to the uber-capitalism that we now see running rampant in America and throughout the world. And it is true in the United States at least, that the majority of the left has eschewed any efforts to seriously confront the market system.

But shouldn’t we be more vocal in critiquing capitalism? Should I accept the crap that was given to me at the meetings I attended? From my perspectives the clear answer is no.

Let’s look at just a few of the problems and ask some basic questions about market capitalism. Now I’m sure the conservative right-wingers have “answers” to all of these issues—I doubt however, that the answers are at all valid.

-The rich-poor gap has widened in the United States and appears to be continuing on that course. This is happening in most of the western nations.

-Women’s wages remain well below the wages of men—and the free market has yet to alleviate any of the work/family issues that women are constantly dealing with.

-The health care crisis in the United States is not being solved by the marvelous free market. In fact, it’s clear that the market isn’t working at all regarding this issue.

-Business can move whenever they want, devastating communities and workers—while employees have had trouble even unionizing in their own country.

-Business get huge subsidies from the government—even though the market is supported to be an invisible hand. But governments only retreat when the poor ask for something.

-Globalization was supposed to at least help end wars (remember, capitalist nations don’t fight each other), but we know that the military-industrial complex is now getting more money than ever. The military will always find some way to hog the budget.

-People are working longer and longer hours for less and less money.

-Corporations are canceling or not offering benefits.

-This hyper-capitalism has no moral compass and has done nothing for social justice in this country or around the world.

And in one of the best current critiques of capitalism, Satish Kumar wrote the following in the online journal Resurgence:

"Even where money and material goods are plentiful, selfishness, greed, competition, crime, violence and frustration prevail. Capitalist societies are left with increasing rates of cancer, obesity, depression and stress. Capitalism has failed in human terms. But even more drastically capitalism has failed in terms of the natural environment. Capitalism is rapidly destroying soil fertility, biodiversity and the atmosphere. Capitalism founded on the ideology of unlimited economic growth and industrialised mass production is not only unsustainable – it is blatantly harmful."

Let’s face it, globalization/rabid market capitalism is good…..for a small group of people. The multinational corporations, the weapons and arms-manufacturers, and the global bankers are all doing very well. For the majority—the masses, the poor, the underprivileged……I don’t see this economic system as a panacea at all. It is destroying the earth, its beauty, and its people!

Will we be able to alter the system? Probably not in my lifetime—but why can’t we at least begin to fight back? Why can’t we make sure to critique this system when we have the opportunity?

Capitalism wasn’t handed down by god (and even if it was, that would just give me another excuse to dislike it). Capitalism was set up to benefit certain people, and keep them in power—and that is exactly what it does.

And we must remember, there are socialist alternatives, Marxist theories that explain how capitalism works, and other critiques that are valid and useful. Let’s not give up on this issue—let’s not cede this to the market folks so easily.

And to once again quote Satish Kumar: "We need . . . a system for the age of ecology, a system which is embedded in the care of people, all people and also in the care of the earth and all life upon it, human life as well as animal life, plant life, earth life, air life and water life. We need a system which replaces our capitalist world view with a naturalist world view, and shifts our society from capitalism to “naturalism”.

Feminism 101

2007-03-20T01:35:00.000-05:00

There is a new blog that I urge all of you to view. It's called Finally, a Feminism 101 blog. What is it? Well, feminist bloggers have found themselves spending an inordinate amount of discussion time answering some of the same old questions about women's rights, gender roles, and feminism. Many of those questions, no doubt, are obnoxious queries from men who may never understand these concepts.

In order to spend more time on serious discussions, and less time answering the same old questions--this blog was started to answer some of those questions like:
-What do feminists want?
-Why do feminists hate men?
-What is male privilege?
-What's wrong with the suggestion that women take precautions to prevent being raped? Short answer to this one: Because it puts the onus on women not to get themselves raped, rather than on men not to do the raping; in short, it blames the victim.

There is more to that last answer, and some great discussion threads and links. Please check it out!

Winter in Minnesota: From "E Pluribus Unum" to "It's All About Me"

2007-03-20T01:27:00.000-05:00

posted by Chet Brinkley.....

We were out to supper with friends not that long ago. Bill, who drives a snow plow in the winter, was commenting on his latest misadventures. As usual, getting buried recently under several inches of heavy, wet snow did not bring out the best in our fellow citizens. One shrieking harpy called up Bill's station and screamed, “I don’t care about anyone else! You get a plow over to my house right now and get me out of here.” Bill’s boss, of course, laughed uproariously before hanging up on the hysterical wench.

When the storms are as bad as they got a couple of weeks ago, Bill drives twelve hours at a shot. As anyone who’s lived in Minnesota for any period of time knows, snow plow drivers are some of the most despised people in the state this time of year. Cleaning the streets also means clogging people’s driveways with massive piles of back-breaking, compacted snow. The force of the propelled precipitation can smash or at least deform mailboxes. In order to accomplish the greater good, all of us who own homes have to pay a little extra for our privilege and dig ourselves out. It’s the only way all of us can get to our jobs and pay our bills. But this doesn’t stop morons from trying to pass these behemoths on the road, and from flipping them off for having the temerity to slow them down. Of course, a lot of these bozos end up in a ditch or slammed into a light pole a little further down the road.

Bill was doing what had to be done, driving a truck that, fully loaded, weighs about 15 tons, when a crazed citizen jumped in front of him, forcing him to slam desperately on the brakes. The man screamed, ‘You left a big pile of snow in my driveway! You come back and clean that up!” He demanded that Bill come around a second time, drive on the wrong side of the road so that the snow would pile up in the middle of the street, and then come through a third time and push it all into the yards and driveways of his neighbors across the way. In other words, screw everybody else, just take care of me. As this fractious discussion continued, the rabid fellow jumped up onto Bill’s truck, so Bill grabbed for his hammer and put it on the dash, just to make sure it was there if he needed it. As the tensions escalated and Bill remained resolute in his sanity, the fellow finally adopted a thin veneer of sanity, read my friend’s name tag, and intoned, “Well Bill, I guess I’m going to be calling your manager.” Bill laughed uproariously and said, “You go right ahead.” No doubt this fellow became the story/psycho of the week back at the shop.

It’s easy to think of Bill’s experiences as silly stories about a couple of wack jobs who freaked out during a recent snowstorm, but I’m not sure any of us can let ourselves off the hook that easily. Maybe Barack Obama is doing more than establishing a niche issue for himself when he speaks of an “empathy gap”. All of us have raced down the interstate—or even a small local road—and cursed at anyone who impeded our progress in the slightest way. More and more of us stare transfixed into our computer or television or cell phone screen or plug ourselves into our MP3 players and eschew meaningful interactions with the world around us. We shop on line, we drive through the bank and the fast food place—we probably have more fondness for our cars than for our neighbors or even members of our extended family. Where does it end? How long is it going to be before we’re all so myopic and unjustifiably self-righteous that we’re lying in wait for the newspaper deliverer because he left the paper lying in the middle of the driveway—where it was buried by the snow plow?

Who You Gonna Call?

2007-03-17T01:47:00.000-05:00

Here’s something that might finally put you over the edge. Presidential hopeful John McCain reported at a recent fundraising event that "When I have a question about something that's going on in the world, I call Dr. Henry Kissinger and he is able to connect the dots for me."

Let’s just hope McCain’s poll numbers continues to plummet. All we need is that fucking war-criminal Kissinger back in charge of foreign policy. McCain went on to say that Kissinger is “one of the only people I've ever known who can connect the entire scenario for you in a way that you understand the completeness of the challenge."

McCain said that he also consults with Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleberger, Robert Kagan, and Bill Kristol. (That list was only “slightly to somewhat fucked-up” until we got to Kristol.)

Now seriously, what does it mean when a 2008 presidential candidate admits that Henry Kissinger is his primary foreign policy advisor? I think it means we (the people, the country) need to worry.

Why? Let’s start a list detailing the major liabilities of Dr. Kissinger:

1. He is probably wanted in several countries for war crimes--something that often hinders one’s travel plans.

2. He helped keep the Vietnam War going on for 4-5 years for no logical reason. The morality of that has always escaped me.

3. East Timor….again, very serious ethical and moral questions.

4. Kissinger spends most of his time stammering and babbling to Charlie Rose—who seems to be the only other person, besides McCain, who will listen to him. .

5. He knows more about the Congress of Vienna than he knows about the 2008 world. And this my friends, is a serious problem. Let me clarify.

Doesn’t the choice of Kissinger really show that the 72 year-old McCain is past his time? I think it does. Maybe McCain ought to be talking to some foreign policy experts who better understand Islam, globalization, markets, international gender issues, and human rights (something Kissinger has had problems with).

Henry Kissinger is 83 years old. Even if one is willing to grant him some credit for his diplomacy during the Nixon administration (China, Middle East), I truly don’t believe he has a lucid grasp of the contemporary world.

The United States needs a modern, enlightened foreign policy. Instead, Kissinger’s manta would probably be, “What Would Metternich Do?”

George Bush talks to God, McCain talks to Kissinger……you figure that one out!

It's Really a Simple Question Folks

2007-03-16T15:22:00.000-05:00

As many of you have probably already read, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace (shown at left), denounced gays this week as "immoral." He compared gay acts to adultery and said the army should rid itself of these terrible individuals. In order to drive gays from the armed services, he seeks to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell policy,"

Pace was immediately criticized by many groups and individuals. The Human Rights Campaign was quick to condemn his statements as was Republican Senator John Warner. The Virginia senator said specifically, "I respectfully disagree. . . that homosexuality is immoral."

Nice job Senator Warner....a clear and concise answer to a simple question--are gays immoral?

Now....do you want to know why those of us on the left are so concerned about our current crop of presidential contenders? Here is the reason. After Pace's moronic statements, the leading Democratic candidates have all been asked to comment. Here are some of their answers--please read carefully:

Senator Clinton, when asked if gays were immoral responded with the following statement:

"Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want make sure they can."

Wow, that's really a strong pro-gay statement isn't it--"I'm going to leave that to others." The Clinton spinmeisters immediately realized there might be a problem. Later in the day, the New York senator--or her staff--made some amends by stating:

"I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world."

In the meantime, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, when asked about Pace's comments on whether gays were immoral gave this quasi-definitive statement:

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

What the hell does that mean? When asked later, Obama maintained that the main issue should be who was willing to sacrifice their life for their country. Which again, seems like it doesn't really deal with the question of gay morality.

Okay, now behind Door #3 we have John Edwards. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, the former senator was asked the same question.

BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy. First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view. And I would go -- go further than that, Wolf. I think the don't ask, don't tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.

BLITZER: Is the don't ask, don't tell policy immoral?

EDWARDS: I think the don't ask, don't tell policy is wrong. It's not working. I think what it's done, effectively, is kept us from having some of the most talented people we could have in our military. It's caused -- caused more problems than it's solved. And it ought to be changed.

By today (Friday) both Clinton and Obama were till trying to spin their weak responses. While both candidates finally agreed that that being gay was not immoral, it seemed to take a while.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who spent most of yesterday on the phone with both camps, was relieved and a little mystified that he had to fight to elicit the statements."I hope that we have learned moving forward that, at the end of the day, all that American voters expect, whether they are gay or straight, is clarity from the candidates," he said.

So by the end of the week, all appears to be well. But several things concern me.

1. The answer should have been clear, obvious, and easy--NO, gays and/or the gay lifestyle is NOT immoral. It shouldn't have just rolled off the tongue--no thinking involved. Pandagon reported that:

"Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace’s views."

2. Both Clinton and Obama are still trying to out-triangulate each other. When will this end--and when will either, or both of them, start talking straight.

3. Finally, John Edwards looks better and better each week.

News Items of Interest

2007-03-13T20:31:00.000-05:00

SDS is Back Again!
In New York City on Monday, about 100 students, all members of SDS New York, occupied an Armed Forces Recruiting Center for two hours. The occupation ended when 20 students were arrested by the NYPD. The students were charged with criminal trespassing.

At approximately 11:15 am, a large contingent of New School SDS members left the New School Graduate Center (65 Fifth Avenue) heading south. The column weaved its way through lower Manhattan, arriving at Chambers and West Broadway--where they connected with another march, this one originating from Pace University. The two columns streamed west on Chambers and entered the recruiting center which 25 students occupied for about two hours. Recruiters in the facility slammed and locked the doors to their offices, apparently to avoid interaction with the students--effectively closing the center for the duration of the occupation. Outside, dozens of additional protesters stood with signs chanting: “Troops out now,” “No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East,” and “Stop the war, yes we can. SDS is back again.”

comment: This is wonderful! What more can I say. These sorts of protests should be taking place all over the country. And we really need to do something about these military recruiters.

American Historical Association Opposes Iraq War
Members of the American Historical Association have ratified the “Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession.” The vote was 1550 (75.61%) in favor and 498 (24.29%) opposed. Two persons submitted incomplete ballots. The number of voting members represented 14.67% of the AHA membership.

A major role was played by a relatively new group, Historians Against the War (of which I am a member). For the past few decades, academic groups have felt they should not get involved in these sort of partisan political activities. I guess some still believe students are not supposed to know that we have political views!

comment: Yes, I actually WANT my students to know that I am a passionate political creature with strong opinions. They don't have to agree with me--and most of them don't. But I will not become an ideological eunuch just because some spineless administrators are afraid some student might be offended by my views!

Now It's NORTH Dakota!
Here we go again. The North Dakota Senate is poised to hear a bill, HB 1466, which would ban all abortions in the state. And this proposed ban is even more extreme than the beaten-down South Dakota ban! There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the woman AND the ban would impose criminal penalties on women and their doctors.

The bill would also allow the Attorney General to implement a ban on abortion regardless of the status of Roe v. Wade. Performing an abortion would become a Class C felony in the state. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota is monitoring the situation. Go to their website for news and other information.

comment: I don't know what else can be said about these assholes. They clearly will not accept the fact that the public opinion tide appears to be running against them. Oh, I almost forgot though, God is on their fucking side isn't she? We just need to keep working.

Kroger Does the Right Thing
The supermarket giant Kroger said last week that "medication is a private patient matter" and that it will fill all requests for emergency contraceptives. The controversy began when a customer in Atlanta was apparently denied the "morning after pill" at one Kroger store.

Several other pharmacy chains have made the same pledges, including CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens.

As we should have expected, there was a statement from the "critics" who said that this contraception "encourages promiscuity and unprotected sex...." blah, blah, blah, blah.

comment: Good for Kroger. This shouldn't even be an issue should it? If these bastards are allowed to pick and choose whom they serve--aren't we really back to the days of Jim Crowism? If they don't have to serve women, maybe they can refuse service to African Americans.....or overweight people....or the handicapped. Where does it end?

This Is Sick
This isn't really news, but it seems creepy enough to report. I first read about this on Feministing--and it's weird. Purity Balls are where teenage girls are escorted on "dates" by their fathers! During the balls themselves, vows are exchanged, cake is served, and the elaborate ceremony leads to some sort of abstinence-until-marriage pledge by these young ladies. The fathers, in turn, promise to protect the chastity of their daughters.

comment: This seems really sick to me. I can't even write about it anymore. What the fuck is going on in this country? Here in Minnesota, Planned Parenthood has a wonderful program called Teen Council. These are groups of hard-working, dedicated, and passionate high-schoolers who go into schools and talk to their fellow students about sex education. It is a fabulous program (I will blog more about them in a future post). Now, wouldn't you rather discuss healthy sexual relationships with your peers--instead of making some kind of sick "pledge" with your dad?

On the Sexualization of Girls

2007-03-13T02:23:00.000-05:00

A psychology professor friend emailed me a recently published copy of the American Psychological Association’s Task Force Report on the Sexualization of Girls. While the findings may not be startling news to many, the report makes for fascinating reading. Let me offer a few quotes/conclusions:

"Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women.”

"In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed (in the media) in a sexual manner (dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (used as decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.”

Specific examples are even presented:

-Skechers “naughty and nice” ads that features Christina Aguilera dressed in schoolgirl pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop.

-Bratz dolls (see picture above) dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas.

-Thongs sized for 7-10 year olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink-wink”.

And the report’s “Consequences” section was what we might expect. The research linked sexualization with “three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed moods.” In addition, frequent exposure to these media images that sexualize girls and women also affects how girls conceptualize femininity and sexuality.” The study finds that girls and women heavily exposed to these stereotypes are the ones that place an emphasis on “appearance and physical beauty” and tend to make those traits the focal point of their value system.

Other societal problems stemming from sexualization include:
-fewer women entering science, technology, engineering, and math
-increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence
-increased demands for child pornography

Now here is the one that really concerned me…and the one I want to rant about for a few minutes: “Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attraction may make it more difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner.

Yes, men and boys are also deeply affected by the sexual objectification of girls and women. How many American dads take the time to teach their young boys about the sexual problems that women face day-to-day? Isn’t it about time that men start doing their part to change the way society objectifies women? This is not just a women’s issue—it’s a societal issue.

I see college-aged men (boys actually) each and every day, and they appear unwilling to even consider this an important issue. They rationalize their fraternity-like behavior with a variety of excuses:

-Advertisers and/or the ubiquitous “market” can do whatever it pleases.
-It’s just those feminists complaining again, why do they hate men anyway?
-Girls aren’t really affected by that sexual objectification stuff. And this is a fascinating one because the guys generally get one of the young ladies in the class to agree. The interesting thing is that the female who they use as their spokesperson is, more often than not, a young lady with low self-esteem that says whatever the boys want.

What can men do—plenty? Here are some of the things that I think important, and I would appreciate comments from other men (and women) about we (especially white men) can do to help stop the sexualization of young girls and women.

1. Question your buying choices. Don’t buy products that advertise using female sexual images and stereotypes. And don’t shop at establishments that use this form of cohesion.

2. Question the media--especially the ultra-sexist sports media. Just because you like football doesn’t mean you need to accept the objectification of women in beer ads and other marketing ploys.

3. Listen to women—they live with this crap every day. And when they try to help…listen. Try to understand by shutting up, not getting defensive, and not being so egotistical as to think their concerns are about us.

4. Call out other men on their sexist behavior, jokes, and other crude antics. Speak up against the locker room mentality that seems to dictate American male actions. This one is difficult….”they might not like me anymore.” But what’s really more important? Think about it.

5. Encourage every young girl that you know to study math and science. And convince as many as you can to NOT try out for cheerleading; and to QUIT using makeup.

6. Understand white male privilege. If we fail to own and accept that privilege, we will never understand these sexualizing issues. Just because white males SAY they don’t feel privileged, doesn’t mean they aren’t!

7. And once and for all…..there is no fucking reverse sexism. This is the biggest crock of shit that the fratboy-types attempt to impose on a compliant male public. As one writer so persuasively argues, “The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system.”

8. Stop whistling, gawking, drooling, and staring at women. Leave them the fuck alone.

9. Act like an adult with some class.

10. Start becoming part of the solution.

Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny

2007-03-12T12:23:00.000-05:00

Gentlemen.....Confederate jewelry. Doesn't it just give you a warm and fuzzy feeling? Mother's Day is coming up--and how about a gift for that significant other!

Buddy's Book's and Bait is pleased to present a new contributor. Our friend Chet Brinkley will hopefully be writing many more columns in the future. Today, Chet comments on a topic we started several weeks ago....the South and the Confederate flag.

My lovely partner and I recently visited our dearest friends, who in late 2005 decided to leave Minnesota for the warmer climes of Virginia. This might seem like a perfectly sane decision, but here’s the deal: he is black and she is white. And while Virginia may not be Mississippi, make no mistake: it’s still THE SOUTH. More than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education we may have made significant strides toward addressing segregation, disenfranchisement, and unequal opportunity, but we still have a long way to go. If you need to be reminded, just go visit an interracial couple in Virginia, where every joint departure from your home necessitates a strategic defense plan.

I accompanied my friend to the lumber yard the first morning of our visit. He is retired, well-educated, dignified, and a peaceable, affable fellow who just wanted to order some building materials. Yet we no sooner made our appearance than the fellow behind the counter looked up and his demeanor changed immediately. His two associates down the way who had been engaging in spirited banter stopped talking and glared at us for the first full five minutes of our transaction. I started wondering if my shower hadn’t taken. Later that night I was talking with my friend and asked him if I’d been imagining things. He replied, ‘I’m so glad you noticed.’ Am I just an overprotective liberal with an overdeveloped imagination enabling an African American friend who’s been forced to live his entire life on the defensive? Absolutely not.

The next morning we went to the supermarket, and while the woman behind the bakery counter cheerily fetched loaves of bread and pastries for all the other white customers in the store, she had my friend get his own. That night, in an effort to get something nice for my NASCAR-loving, salt-of-the-earth neighbor back home who was plowing the snow off my driveway while I walked around in shirt sleeves, I visited one of the omnipresent “NASCAR” shops in town. One can’t really quite make a living selling only toy cars, racing caps, key chains and bumper stickers, so the store had to diversify its stock with NFL merchandise and “Southern” paraphernalia. My “favorite” was a bumper sticker that read, “I Have a Dream” and featured the White House with a rebel flag flying overhead. Another depicted a mosquito with stars and bars wings quipping, “Send more Yankees. They are delicious.”

All the arguments about “heritage” and “culture” are a big, stinking pile of shit. The Confederate flag wasn't around long enough to embody much of anything except secession. But since the so-called federal government allowed Southern whites to terrorize their black neighbors after 1877 and didn’t start taking white supremacy seriously until two Jewish boys got killed with James Chaney in 1964, Southerners are used to speaking or hearing unapologetic defenses of racism. And it’s not like the North has much room to feel superior.

So what kind of life do my friends expect to have in small-town Virginia? I’m proud of their resolve to live there. They are a wonderful addition to any community. I know any local citizen who can, after seeing a black man with a white woman, calm down long enough to actually engage his/her brain will see they are wonderful, charming, warm-hearted people. And there are actually more black professionals in their current zip code than my friends ever met here in the Twin Cities. So perhaps I shouldn’t be so concerned. The guy behind the counter at the lumber yard eventually thawed and treated my friend like an actual human being. Another supermarket employee came over and engaged us in neighborly conversation after his coworker’s snub. But I’d feel better if I hadn’t seen that tattered rebel flag hanging from a house about half a mile down the road from where my friends live.

Friday Cat Blogging

2007-03-09T00:01:00.000-06:00

This is Lexie. She is Buddy's sister and basically Queen of the Household. We adopted Lexie when she was about 9 months old. The people moving out of a next-door apartment just left her--and she came to our place. So I guess you can say that she actually adopted us. That was around 1991 (I think), and we have had her ever since. She is a sweet cat! Lexie is friendly, well-mannered, and she puts up with Buddy's roughneck and sometimes rude behavior.

She does look a little stoned in the first picture below.

Pink Stop Signs

2007-03-08T16:41:00.000-06:00

In the past few months, I have had several serious conversations about using the word partner or domestic partner instead of wife. I am an advocate of using partner, but it doesn't flow naturally in my conversations--I have been trying, however.

But, if there is anything to make me work harder and harder at using the term, it's the right-wingers--and thanks to Pandagon for first posting this. Yes, read the following comments (the bold emphasis' are mine) from a fundamentalist group in Maine. Now I plan to use domestic partner every chance I get. And I will plead and beg all my friends to also use the term.

-What are "domestic partnerships?": The more accurate phrase is homosexual partnerships. The phrase "domestic partner" is a legal fiction created by homosexuals and non-married people who think they are entitled to the same benefits and recognition from society that marriage receives.

comment: Wow, legal fiction! Here are some of their other ideas!

-While it MAY BE legitimate for government and business to honor an employee's spouse and children with this benefit, it is not right for our institutions to honor sodomy in this way. The practice of unhealthy lifestyles should not qualify anyone for societal benefits.

-Anytime a law like this fails to distinguish between civilization-forming sexual practices and civilization-destroying sexual perversions, then "special rights" are being created.

-It (a domestic partners bill) is designed to create a successful court case in the future for homosexuality. Same-sex marriage is the pot full of gold at the end of their rainbow. This bill will continue to lay the foundation for equality of sexual practices if it becomes law. Moral sex must be equal to immoral sex for the public to accept same-sex marriage. That is what this bill is about: giving immoral sex the same support as moral sex in the law. If this were not the case, then a prohibition of immoral sexual practices would be included in the definition of "domestic partner." It is not. Therefore, this bill is unjust ... and certainly not Christian.

This bill allows elderly sisters to get benefits, therefore it will be a proper law if passed, correct?: A square stop sign painted pink instead of red is still a stop sign. It is not, however, a lawful stop sign simply because the sign features the word "Stop." A lawful stop sign is a red hexagon, by law. If businesses and the state want to honor elderly celibate sisters with 10 weeks of unpaid leave then they should say that this is what they want to do. That isn't what they are saying. They are saying that immoral and unhealthy sexual practices are irrelevant to the definition of "partner" and couple.

The goal here is same-sex marriage. Make no mistake. This is like the state saying that the color and shape of a stop sign are irrelevant to the effectiveness of a stop sign. It is like allowing the road department to put up square pink stop signs as well as normal stop signs. This is redefining and making a wreck out of family and marriage in Maine.

comment: What a fucking great idea--pink stop signs. I love it! I am going to write to my national and state leaders and propose just that!

I thought I elected a representative who would think for himself. Why is the media so powerful? Many politicians often think about the next election. Many are hoping to be elected to higher office. As America has moved away from common sense on matters related to family, marriage and human sexuality -- and as we have decided to create a much more permissive culture -- those among us who wish to be powerful learn quickly that they must accept drinking, drugging, gambling and pansexuality.

comment: I am also for pansexuality--whatever it is. Would someone please let me and my domestic partner know? Can you have moral or immoral pansex next to a pink stop sign? And would that be civilization-forming or civilization-destroying sex? Just wondering.

Celebrate Women's History Month

2007-03-07T11:40:00.000-06:00

Emma Goldman, (1869-1940)
anarchist, feminist

Emma Goldman was a legend in her own lifetime. She was an opponent of established authority, war, and totalitarian government. In short, she was the most famous rebel of her day. A passionate activist and charismatic speaker, Goldman committed her life to radical causes in Europe and the United States. Goldman was one of the most notable and influential women in modern American history, consistently promoted a wide range of controversial movements and principles including freedom of thought and expression, radical education, sexual freedom and birth control, and an eight-hour day. Goldman's advocacy of these causes, which many deemed subversive at the time, helped set the historical context for some of today's most important political and social debates.

Born in a Jewish ghetto in Lithuania, Goldman immigrated to the United States when she was sixteen. She quickly realized that for a Jewish immigrant, America was not the land of opportunity that had been promised. America, for Goldman meant slums and sweatshops where she earned her living as a seamstress. She became attracted to anarchism not only because it promised to replace capitalism with worker cooperatives, but because anarchism espoused atheism, free speech, and freedom from sexual inhibition.

Emma Goldman became a formidable public speaker and a prolific writer. Her whole life was devoted to struggle and she was controversial even within the radical and anarchist movement itself. She was one of the first radicals to address the issue of homosexuality, she was a fighter for women's rights, and she advocated the virtues of free love. These ideas were viewed with suspicion by those who placed their faith in the cure-all solution of economic class warfare and they were denounced by many of her contemporaries as "bourgeois inspired" at best. Goldman believed that birth control would alleviate human misery by reducing the burden of large families on the poor and giving women of all classes sexual freedom. And she was a pioneer lecturer on the subject. Having actually practiced as a midwife and a nurse, and attended a conference in Paris where birth control methods were discussed frankly, Goldman was familiar with modern methods. In 1916 she was arrested for violating a law that forbade giving out information about contraceptives. To many Goldman embodied the "New Woman"—independent, unmarried, and sexually emancipated.

In the early days Goldman also supported the idea of propaganda by deed. In 1892, together with Alexander Berkman she planned the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, who has suppressed strikes in his Homestead Pennsylvania factory with armed guards. They believed that by killing a tyrant, a representative of a cruel system, the consciousness of the people would be aroused. This didn't happen. Berkman only managed to injure Frick and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Her defense and aid of Berkman made Goldman a marked woman and her lectures were regularly disrupted by the authorities. In 1893 she was arrested for allegedly urging the unemployed to steal bread and was given a year in prison She was also implicated in President William McKinley's assassination.

From 1908 to 1917 Goldman spoke throughout the United States on behalf of the anarchist cause and edited the anarchist journal Mother Earth until 1916. Through her lectures and writing, she helped introduce American audiences to Henrik Ibsen, Bernard Shaw, August Strindberg, and other European playwrights, whom she admired for their advanced social ideas and spirit of rebellion. To mainstream Americans, however, Goldman was known as a demonic "dynamite eating anarchist". She toured the States, agitating and lecturing everywhere she went. She was hounded for much of her life by FBI agents and was imprisoned in 1893, 1901, 1916, 1918, 1919, and 1921 on charges ranging from incitement to riot to advocating the use of birth control to opposition to WWI.

During World War I, Goldman was arrested and sent to prison for having organized an anti-conscription campaign. Afterward, along with other anarchists, she was deported to Russia in 1919. J. Edgar Hoover, who directed her deportation hearing called her one of the most dangerous women in America. Although an early supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, Goldman became disillusioned with party rule and the suppression of free speech she encountered there. Her book, My Disillusionment with Russia (1923), was one of the first serious critiques of the Soviet system. She left Russia and spent the rest of her life in Europe and Canada. In the 1930s she made three trips to Catalonia during the Spanish civil war and enlisted support in England on behalf of the Spanish Republic.

The plus side to deportation meant that Goldman got a free ticket to Russia where she was able to witness the Russian Revolution at first hand. Goldman had been prepared to bury the hatchet of mans conflict with anarchism in the 1st international and support the Bolsheviks . However, in 1919 as Goldman and Berkman travelled throughout the country they were horrified by the increased bureaucracy, political persecution and forced labour they found. The breaking point came in 1921 when the Kronstadt sailors and soldiers rebelled against the Bolsheviks and sided with the workers on strike. They were attacked and crushed by Trotsky and the Red Army. On leaving Russia in December 1921, Goldman set down her findings on Russia in two works - 'My Disillusionment in Russia' and 'My Further Disillusionment in Russia'. She argued that 'never before in all history has authority , government, the state, proved so inherently static, reactionary, and even counter-revolutionary. In short, the very antithesis of revolution.

Her time in Russia led her to reassess her earlier belief that the end justifies the means. Goldman accepted that violence as a necessary evil in the process of social transformation. These views were unpopular among radicals as most still wanted to believe that the Russian Revolution was a success. When Goldman moved to Britain in 1921 she was virtually alone on the left in condemning the Bolsheviks and her lectures were poorly attended. On hearing that she might be deported in 1925, a Welsh miner offered to marry her in order to give her British Nationality. With a British passport, she was the able to travel to France and Canada. In 1934, she was even allowed to give a lecture tour in the States.

In 1936 Berkman committed suicide, months before the outbreak of the Spanish Revolution. At the age of 67, Goldman went to Spain to join in the struggle. She told a rally of libertarian youth Your Revolution will destroy forever [the notion] that anarchism stands for chaos. She disagreed with the participation of the CNT-FAI in the coalition government of 1937 and the concessions they made to the increasingly powerful communist for the sake of the war effort. However she refused to condemn the anarchists for joining the government and accepting militarisation as she felt the alternative at the time was communist dictatorship.

Goldman died in 1940 and was buried in Chicago not far from the Haymarket Martyrs whose fate had changed the course of her life. Emma Goldman has left behind her a number of important contributions to anarchist thought. In particular she is remembered for incorporating the area of sexual politics into anarchism which had only been hinted at by earlier anarchists. Goldman campaigned and went to prison for the right of women to practice birth control. She argued that a political solution was not enough to get rid of the unequal and repressive relations between the sexes. There had to be massive transformation of values--only that transformation would change society and the lives of women.

Emma Goldman Quotes
-If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal

-The most violent element in society is ignorance.

-It is safe to say that no other superstition is so detrimental to growth, so enervating and paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people, as the superstition of Morality.

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

2007-03-07T00:31:00.000-06:00

A critical piece of Minnesota legislation will be the topic of the day—and frankly, I have been looking to write more on Minnesota-Twin Cities news and events.

House bill 537 (now in committee) is the “Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.” Actually, a similar statute was adopted last year—but wasn’t funded…..go figure! But this biennium, the bill would be funded for $8 million. And it would be money well-spent. This Act would finance a number of needed programs for homeless and runaway youth:
--street and community outreach
--drop-in centers
--emergency shelters
--supportive and transitional housing programs

I reiterate.....this is extremely important legislation! According to the 2003 "Homeless in Minnesota" survey conducted by the Wilder Research Center, there are over 22,000 runaway and homeless youth in the state. And figures from The Bridge shows that every night, there are more than 500 homeless youth in the state—most of them in the Twin Cities. Yet, there are only about 70 shelter beds in the metro area.

Just who are these young people who find themselves on the street? They are not losers, troublemakers, or misfits. They are kids with problems, and most of the time they simply don’t know what to do or where to turn. A supervisor at one emergency shelter said that they, “see youth and families from all backgrounds and walks of life, dealing with everything from common parent-teen conflicts, to abuse or neglect, to mental health issues or substance abuse.”

And many are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. A Wilder survey of youth served by District 202 found that over half had experienced discrimination or verbal abuse due to their sexual orientation—mostly at school or in another public place. Some even at home. In addition, 25% of all homeless youth report that they have engaged in survival sex to meet their basic needs.

To make this just a little more personal, here are several examples of youth who utilized the services of The Bridge:

--Bill and some of his friends get picked up by the police after curfew and taken down to the curfew center. One by one, each of his friend’s parents arrive to collect them, but his mom isn’t answering the phone. When she finally does, she’s drunk and announces that he can stay just where he is as far as she’s concerned. But he can’t. The curfew center’s not set up for that. The police bring him to The Bridge, where he arrives tired, angry, and afraid.

--Referred to The Bridge by a school counselor when he learns of her plan to commit suicide, Mary won’t let us contact her parents. “Please don’t call,” she says. “I can’t ever face them again.” From a deeply religious family, she’s an athlete, a straight-A student, with college and career all mapped out. But yesterday she discovered she was pregnant. She feels her life is over.

--A young man shows up at the door. He’s about 16, speaks only a few words of English, and looks like he’s been on the street for long time. He has no money, belongings, or identification. Unable to get a job or a place to live, he wants to find a way back to Mexico to return to his family.

--Grades just came out and Robert knows there’s going to be trouble at home. Sure enough, he and his father nearly come to blows. He’s been trying to do better in school, but he just can’t seem to concentrate. Now he’s grounded. “Forget this,” he thinks, as he heads out the door. “You go out that door, don’t even think of coming back!” his father shouts. A few days later, Robert shows up at The Bridge, wondering what to do next.

--A young woman arrives. Born as a boy and christened “Robert,” Margaret has always felt herself to be a girl. Now a teen, her parents have disowned her and she has fled the ridicule of her small town. She doesn’t want to live on the streets, but it seems like the only option.

We can do much better here in Minnesota—we must fully fund this bill. As the Star-Tribune wrote in a February editorial, “surely this bill will pass, for the alternative is ominous. It involves leaving runaway and homeless youth in the cold….” Actually, it will leave them both cold and on the streets and make them perfect candidates for long-term homelessness. Let's rescue them now while we can. Call, write, or email your state representative now!

Did We Miss An Opportunity?

2007-03-06T00:39:00.000-06:00

As most of you have read by now, at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot."

Most of us on the left pay little attention to the harpy Coulter. As Atrios wrote yesterday, she is very predictable, and not worth getting excited over. Atrios did point out one problem, however. While she is clearly an unapologetic homophobe and racist--Coulter continues to secure media appearances!

After her comment, the Edwards camp issued a standard response about hateful language and diversity. Edwards said all the right things and even took the opportunity to beg for some much-needed campaign money, or Coulter Cash as it is being called. Howard Dean also issued a statement saying there is "no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comment."

But I am feeling that we on the left missed an opportunity here. Trouble is, I'm not exactly sure what should have taken place--but I still sensed an underlying hesitation to actually defend/support/endorse gays and lesbians.

Yes, all the correct positions came from official liberal voices--and I know there is a campaign going on. But there was no effort to make this a moment when the left would speak out on homosexuality, on inclusion, on gay marriage, on America becoming a better society. This might have been one of those instances when we could have advanced those issues--educated the public. Coulter handed us something and I think we fumbled it just a bit.

My worry is that the Democratic powers-that-be, and even many of the leftist blogging community, remain afraid of this issue.....or maybe somewhat homophobic themselves. As one blogger wrote--and I wholeheartedly agree with her--"calling someone a faggot is still considered the worst insult ever." Is that true?

Again, I apologize for not offering some clever solution. But it is about time we on the left treat this as a unambiguous human rights problem. And in order to do that, we need to stop running from the issue.....we need to stop believing that being called gay is an insult.

Ann Coulter helped us out this weekend, but the Democrats/left didn't do enough with it. The blogging community offered comment-after-comment castigating Coulter and calling her everything from a bitch to a skank--and worse. But while we laughed and congratulated ourselves for receiving a gift.....we might have missed a chance to teach some people that being homosexual is normal and nothing to be ashamed of. When will we start advancing those positions?

It's NOT Education....It's Insanity

2007-03-05T00:20:00.000-06:00

Kudos to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. He recently turned down $600,000 in federal abstinence-education money “because new rules would limit how much recipients could talk about contraception or sexually transmitted diseases this year. “

Bill Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S., a group that promotes comprehensive sex education said that: “It seems to me there is some sanity returning to the notion that sexuality education is about public health and not about hyper-moralism and ideology,” he said.

Sanity is the key word here—and it is something that the Bush administration lacks. We know there are few (if any) scientific data to support abstinence-only sex miseducation. But of course many of Bush’s primary supporters don’t think too highly of science anyway, right?

We also know that abstinence-only miseducation must depend on lies and misinformation to even convince those few neanderthals to actually continue their support. A federally funded program in 2004 found that over 80% of abstinence only curricula "contained false, misleading or distorted information."

The ironic thing about Bush and the anti-science crowd is this--it isn't enough that they are trying foist this crap on Americans.....but they are also attempting to export this nonsense abroad. Conservatives have been trying to "force its anti-condom agenda" on the rest of the world.

Yet, evidence/data shows (there's those nasty "scientific" words: evidence and data)--that by age 18, 70% of young people in the United States have had sexual intercourse. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth--a nonprofit organization devoted to sex education, suggests that "less than 10% of Americans are virgins on their wedding night."

So who are these abstinence-only until marriage programs aimed at? We all know the answer don't we:
--These puritan moralists want us to stop having sex (ain't going to happen).
--They dislike the fact that women are now making their own decision and choices on sexual issues and birth control (deal with it).
--They dream of a return to "real men" days when young males could act like cavemen (or fraternity pledges), drag imaginary virgins to the alter, and then keep them at home cooking and cleaning while they play golf and screw their secretaries (keep dreaming).

If and when I run for office, I have the perfect plan to rid the country of abstinence-only programs. I would propose that ONLY AMERICAN MALES be required to take the abstinence-only miseducation instructions. That's right, females need not enroll, they could be as sexually active as they want.

Can you imagine what our male-dominated Congress and statehouses would say about this? How about all those NASCAR dads out there--they don't really want abstinence for Johnny and Biff.....only for their daughters. The abstinence money would be cut in no time!

That's my plan--sounds like it would work doesn't it?

Celebrate Women's History Month

2007-03-05T00:01:00.000-06:00

Several years ago, in order to commemorate Women's History Month, I compiled some short biographies on a number of notable and extraordinary American women. I posted those bios on my class webpage where I teach. While I feel a little guilty republishing materials that I wrote two years ago--I think these brief narratives are still extremely relevant (besides, my students didn't read them anyway). These are all women that I find inspiring--and I hope my own young nieces (and nephew) will read about these remarkable women instead of wasting time on presidents, generals, and other stale defenders of the capitalist status quo.
dew

Alice Paul (1885–1977)
suffragist, feminist leader, founder of the Congressional Union

Alice Paul (pictured above) was an ardent fighter for women’s rights. She organized one of the first major marches in Washington, D.C. in 1917 on the eve of Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration. Paul used more radical means for her crusades, such as staging hunger strikes and picketing the White House, and she was arrested numerous times. After women won suffrage, she turned her attention to other rights. She founded the National Woman’s Party and drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923. She worked for its passage into the 1970s, although it never became a law.

Alice Paul was born into a Quaker family in Moorestown, New Jersey. Raised in an intellectual and religious environment, she graduated from Swarthmore in 1905 and then attended the New York School of Philanthropy (later Columbia University School of Social Work), the University of Pennsylvania, and a training school for Quakers in Woodbridge, England. While in England she served as a case worker for a London settlement house. It was there were she was enlisted by England's militant suffragists Emmeline and Christobel Pankhurst. Her education as an activist was solidified through a series of arrests, imprisonments, and hunger strikes. She quickly and adeptly learned how to generate publicity for the cause and how to capitalize on that publicity.

On her return to the United States in 1910, she earned a Ph.D. in sociology and then began her rise in the American suffrage movement. In 1914 she co-founded the Congressional Union, an organization dedicated to seeking a federal constitutional amendment for woman suffrage. In 1916, she founded the National Woman's party. She led pickets at the White House and Congress and despite America's entry into World War I she refused to abandon her radical tactics. She and her colleagues were arrested and imprisoned; they engaged in hunger strikes and endured forced feedings at the hands of authorities. Ultimately, President Wilson made a federal suffrage amendment a war measures priority, a stand he had previously refused to take. Paul was a pivotal force in the passage and ratification in 1920 of the Nineteenth Amendment.

In 1923, Paul proposed an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. It took some time, but by 1944 Paul had secured acceptance of an era plank in the platforms of both major political parties. She continued to provide inspiration to new generations of women's rights activists until her death in 1977.

Throughout her life, Alice Paul remained personally conservative and professionally demanding of both herself and her colleagues. She did not relinquish power readily nor could she be easily persuaded to depart from the methods and tactics she had learned from the Pankhursts in England. But her vision for women always transcended her conservatism and rigidity. "I think if we get freedom for women, then they are probably going to do a lot of things that I wish they wouldn't do," she said shortly before her death. "But it seems to me that it isn’t our business to say what they should do with it. It is our business to see that they get it."

Poverty

2007-03-02T19:15:00.000-06:00

Some disturbing news from the national poverty front......the “percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high.” And closely connected is another statistic which we have become accustomed to hearing—the differences between the haves and the have-nots continues to rise.

This current report, based on 2005 census figures, shows that the number of “severely poor Americans” has grown by 26% since 2000. And while we continue to hear about the strong national economy; "wages and job growth have lagged behind, and the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries."

Is this really a surprise? Economists and other writers on the left have been saying this for the past decade--but few listen.

Something else the good old USA can be proud of….."over the past two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries." This data comes from the ongoing Luxembourg Income Study. Timothy Smeeding, who worked on that study and now heads the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University said of the United States, “It’s shameful…we’ve been the worst performer every year since we’ve been doing this study.”

A recent UNICEF/United Nations survey found some of the same trends. In fact, according to the UNICEF data, children in Great Britain and the United States have a lower quality of life than children in the 21 wealthiest countries of the world. The numbers showed that the United States ranked at the bottom because “of its higher infant mortality, lower immunization rates, higher number of deaths from accidents and injuries before age 19, and more children reported fighting in the past year or being bullied in the previous two months.”

How do you suppose the conservative, free market zealots are going to respond to these reports--if indeed, they respond at all? Some distinct possibilities:
1. It’s the kid's own fault--bad life choices.
2. More tax cuts for the rich might help.
3. These kids should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
4. The parents screwed up.
5. Gay marriage….yes, that’s the problem.

I suppose if I say anything more, I will hurt the troops. But as my friend Peter says, the problem with these poor and poverty-stricken children is that they aren’t fetuses. If they were, the people in power would help them! That's right, the current morons are really only interested if you are a fetus or of military age—anything in-between and you are on your own.

Heath Care Embarrassment

2007-03-02T18:35:00.000-06:00

Related to the poverty story above, most of you have probably already read about the 12 year-old Maryland boy who died this week from toothache complications. The Washington Post ran the story on Wednesday.

The fact is, the young man didn't die really from the toothache--he died because this fucking country doesn't provide the most basic health care services to its most vulnerable citizens.

Deamonte Driver had a toothache that led to an infection. That infection spread to his brain. The original problem could have been remedied with an $80.00 tooth extraction. But it seems that Deamonte's mother works a low-wage job that doesn't provide her with health insurance (big surprise). Ms. Driver's children were eligible for Medicaid benefits, but dental care under that program is extremely difficult to secure--most dentists in Maryland do not accept Medicaid because of "low reimbursement rates."

A study done several years ago suggested that uninsured adults were more likely to die prematurely than those with health coverage. Wow, who would have guessed? Sorry to be so cynical--but read the study's press release and you will begin to understand the tremendous disadvantages that the poor and uninsured must endure.

And yet, all Congress can do is talk about why big government shouldn't get involved.....how universal coverage will not work....how the welfare state will make us all weak and dependent....how Canadians have to wait five years to get a doctor's appointment....and how taxes will go up if we give everyone health insurance coverage.

And while our elected representatives argue--a young man died because he and his poor family couldn't get a simple, cheap, medical procedure.

In the meantime, the cost of the illegal occupation of Iraq keeps adding up--right now it is somewhere in the vicinity of $405 billion. Yes, that's billion dollars.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. 1917-2007

2007-03-01T00:12:00.000-06:00

I think I was about 23 years old at the time. Just out of college and still trying to decide what to do with my life. Actually, I knew what I wanted to do—I wanted to be a historian…..yes, a historian. But I still lacked both the self-confidence and desire that one needs to make that long-term PhD commitment.

Anyway, Arthur Schlesinger had just published a new biography on Robert Kennedy—and I was excited. Even though I had little money (I don’t think I had a job at the time), I immediately went out and bought a hardcover copy—1066 pages in all.

While Robert Kennedy was my primary interest, I was also captivated by Arthur Schlesinger, the historian. While becoming a real historian remained a fantasy for me, at least I had a role model. Schlesinger was not only a historian, but he was a certified, unabashed liberal who had worked in the Kennedy White House. I could pattern my life after this guy. Hell, he might have even been a New York Mets fan!

One day, while absorbing parts of those 1066 pages, I decided it would be nice to get Schlesinger to autograph the book. I knew I couldn’t go to his office in New York City—so I wrote him a letter. I said I admired his work (especially this book), and I would really appreciate an autograph. I wasn’t expecting a reply.

Then, about three weeks later, I received a small envelope from “The City University of New York.” Inside was neatly folded, small piece of stationary addressed to me with the following quote and signature:

”I have no expectation that any man will read history aright who thinks that what was done in a remote age, by men whose names have resounded far, has any deeper sense that what he is doing to-day.” --Emerson

With best wishes

Arthur M. Schlesinger

I was stunned….happy…ecstatic. That piece of paper remains one of my most cherished possessions. A few years later I had it laminated and it still graces the pages of that RFK biography. I won’t be so dramatic as to say Schlesinger’s response inspired me to become a historian—but I think it might have helped just a little.

I actually met him about fifteen years later at a history conference. He was just as I had expected—wearing his little bowtie and gleefully talking about FDR’s foreign policy. I swear, when Schlesinger talked about his hero FDR--the room got brighter, the sun came out, and smiles appeared on people’s faces. I think history was fun for Arthur Schlesinger. I think he enjoyed it and relished the opportunity to teach it to others.

Dr. Schlesinger passed away last evening. He will be missed.

Happy Birthday Major Taliaferro!

2007-02-28T15:10:00.000-06:00

I would like to thank my good friend Taber Akin for this submission. During the summer months, Taber is a site guide at Historic Fort Snelling. His portrayal of Major Lawrence Taliaferro is supreme....and his knowledge of the subject matter is absolute. And I am so pleased that Taber remembered this historic Minnesota birthday.

Born on 28 February 1794, Lawrence Taliaferro (pronounced Tolliver) can truly be regarded as one of Minnesota’s founding fathers. Taliaferro was here before Minnesota became a state and served the area and country for 19 years as a United States Indian Agent. Taliaferro is rarely mentioned in Minnesota history books, but he did extremely important work and should be remembered as one of the state’s leading historical figures.

Major Taliaferro was appointed as the United States Indian Agent for the St. Peter’s area in 1819 (this would soon be the site of Fort Snelling). He had been serving as an ensign in the 1^st Infantry and resigned to accept the Indian Agency post. Taliaferro assumed his duties shortly after the arrival of the 5^th Regiment of the U.S.Infantry under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Leavenworth. The Taliaferro--Leavenworth relationship was strained from the start as each had different ideas on how to deal with frontier issues. But that relationship was short-lived as Colonel Josiah Snelling soon replaced Leavenworth. Snelling and Taliaferro—who may have served together on the Niagara frontier during the War of 1812—interacted famously. Their amicable military/civilian bond during the next decade helped to make Fort Snelling one of the most successful and efficient posts on the western frontier.

Under the direction of Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, Taliaferro was ordered to establish an Indian Agency among the local Dakota and Ojibwe nations. In fact, Calhoun’s instructions serve to illustrate Washington’s goals at the time. He stressed three objectives:
1. Enlargement and protection of the fur trade;
2. Permanent peace on the frontier by securing control of the tribes;
3. Keep foreign nations out of the area.

Major Taliaferro’s primary responsibility was to serve as the government representative on the frontier while building and maintaining positive relationships with the Dakota and Ojibwe Indians. Then there was the other task--regulating the fur traders. That is where Taliaferro’s job became frustrating, to say the least. The American Fur Company was a powerful presence in the area and Alexis Bailly operated the local factory. Taliaferro tried to enforce federal laws as required, but ran into problems with Bailly and the American Fur Company on a regular basis. Most of the difficulties centered on the smuggling of illegal liquor into Indian trading posts.

Unlike many other federal Indian Agents, however, Taliaferro was never employed by a fur company, never succumbed to the economic pressures and bribes from the fur traders, and surprisingly remained loyal to both the government and the American Indians he represented. The constant conflicts between the AFC and Taliaferro lasted until he resigned.

Records show that Taliaferro had a very positive relationship with the Dakota and Ojibwe Indians whom he worked with. Little Crow called Taliaferro "No-Sugar-in-Your-Mouth" for his skills in dealing candidly with the tribesmen, and his ability of not making promises which he couldn't keep. Taliaferro even built a council house just west of Ft. Snelling in 1823 where he received Indian visitors and mediated in local affairs. Both the Dakota and the Ojibwe would travel along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers to the fort to seek advice and to ask for charity and favors. The Ojibwe continued to visit Taliaferro even after they were assigned a different agent—that’s how much he was respected.

Taliaferro was also able to exert his influence by carefully distributing supplies like food, gunpowder, tobacco, and whiskey. The Indian Agency employed a blacksmith and armorer, John Treaty, who would repair Indian guns and traps. Since the Indians relied heavily on these supplies and services, and since those services could be stopped at any time, this helped promote peaceful relations between all involved parties. In addition to employing an armorer, Taliaferro also had a translator, Mr. Scott Campbell, who was essential to conducting the day-to-day business of the agency—as Taliaferro didn’t speak Dakota, Ojibwe, or French. Having a translator on site demonstrated Taliaferro’s respect for the Indians which he served.

In 1828 Taliaferro married Elizabeth Dillon. But like many whites on the frontier, he also fathered a child with a Dakota woman. That child, Mary, was born in the summer of 1828. Records indicate that she was raised in Minnesota, attended the Lake Harriet Mission School, and was represented by Taliaferro himself when asserting for “Half-Breed” rights. Mary held claims in an 1837 treaty, and was married in 1863 to a soldier from Fort Snelling.

Taliaferro was also, notably, the owner of a slave named Harriet Robinson, who would later marry famed freedom suit plaintiff Dred Scott. It is unknown exactly how Taliaferro came into ownership of Harriet, but what is known is that she worked as a servant in his home. As Justice of the Peace in the territories, Taliferro would have officiated at the marriage ceremony of Dred and Harriet—a marriage which many historians believe gave additional credence to the Scott's claim to freedom.

Major Lawrence Taliaferro faithfully represented the American government to the Indian tribes in the region—working tirelessly on behalf of the Dakota and Ojibwe. After being reappointed six times and working through four presidential administrations, Taliaferro finally resigned in 1839. His reasons for leaving included his continuing strained relationship with the fur traders, ineffective Federal Indian policy, and recurring illness. After leaving the area, Taliaferro and Elizabeth returned to her home in Bedford, Pennsylvania. He served in the Quartermaster Corps from 1857 to 1863 and died in 1871.

Renoir

2007-02-27T15:00:00.000-06:00

I’m sure everyone has at least briefly considered what they would do if they won the lottery. Aren’t you just amazed at those folks who say they would still go to work every day? After winning millions of dollars, they would continue getting up at dawn, going to some crappy job, and coming home exhausted and miserable.

Well I sure as hell wouldn’t—and I don’t even have a crappy job. What would I do though? I think my post-lottery life would be a simple one. I would travel….and wherever I found myself, I would do the following:
--spend long hours in cafes reading and viewing the local people/culture
--sip coffee and drink Kir Royals
--eat expensive and exotic food
--go to art museums

* I would not wish to embark on these journeys without my lovely partner, who is a perfect travel companion
* I would also need some sort of radio to listen to New York Met games

Sounds decadent--and that is just what I would be seeking. Helping my fellow man......well, I might get around to that at some point; but I think "self-indulgent" and/or "hedonistic" would serve me well for a while at least. The cafes, food, and coffee are self-explanatory. And if you are unfamiliar with a Kir Royal, you should really try it sometime.

But the art museums—yes, I simply adore art museums. This weekend, my lovely partner and I traveled to Chicago for a few days of rest and relaxation. While in the Windy City, we went to its wonderful art museum—and we were not disappointed.

I think the reason I love art is that I know little about it. I don’t have to understand or interpret it. I don’t have to take notes on what I see, nor do I have to give a lecture or explain it to someone. I can simply gaze at a painting and enjoy it. I could sit for hours looking at one work of art—which is something everyone should try (especially some of my students--many of whom cannot sit for five minutes without checking their cell phone, or laptop for instant messages. These caffeinated collegians ought to forced to sit before a Renoir for at least two hours, it would do them good).

And because I became interested in art later in life—I have lots to see.....lots of catching up to do. Currently, I am most enamored with 19^th century art. In the U.S.—the Hudson River School and some later Gilded Age artists like John Singer Sargent. And in Europe, the Impressionists. So as a tribute to art--here are a few of my favorites from the Art Institute of Chicago.

It is this Renoir (Two Sisters) that I could gaze at for hours. Again, I am not sure what it is about this work--maybe the vibrant colors, or the brushstrokes....but I love the painting. Several other Renoir's also made their way onto my "favorite" list this weekend. Women at the Piano, and Young Woman Sewing both caught my attention. And as I mentioned earlier, I will not even attempt to explain these paintings--that would force me into some sort of teaching-mode. Suffice it to say, I like Renoir....I enjoy looking at his works....I am not sure why....and I don't care to figure it out.

There were several other Chicago prints that were memorable. Husking Bee by Eastman Johnson is a exquisite depiction of 19th century farm/rural life in New England.

And we were also lucky to catch this van Gogh, Starry Night over the Rhone River, which was included in a special exhibit.

News Flash....South Dakota's Abortion Bill Rejected

2007-02-21T15:13:00.000-06:00

This just in from the Coat-Hanger state.....a South Dakota senate committee killed the latest abortion bill in a lopsided 8-1 vote. So the most recent anti-choice legislation in the state didn't even make it out of committee.

The right-wing nuts in South Dakota had somehow convinced themselves that their crushing November 2006 defeat was because their ballot measure contained no provisions for rape, incest, and the heath of the mother. But even with those provisions added, the results have been the same for the anti-choice radicals.

After this humiliating defeat for the zealots, regional Planned Parenthood President and CEO Sarah Stoesz still offered a bit of olive-branch saying today that:

"Planned Parenthood is committed to providing women with practical tools that truly reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy. We call on all those interested in preventing abortion to join with us in working to secure practical tools that prevent unintended pregnancies, such as comprehensive family planning services and education for South Dakotans."

This makes it clear that the abortion debate might be waning--at least I hope say. And as Stoesz also mentions in her statement,
"criminalizing abortion will not eliminate it." Maybe people are finally starting to figure that out.

Whistlin' Dixie in South Carolina

2007-02-21T00:09:00.000-06:00

In a South Carolina campaign stop this week, Senator Hillary Clinton said that the Confederate flag should be removed from the statehouse grounds in Columbia because, "the nation should unite under one banner while at war."

I have some problems with her statement--it sounds like it was written by a committee of political advisers. And I believe that Clinton is swiftly gaining the reputation of being a major triangulator. She really needs a Sister Souldjah Moment soon.

But.....solidifying her African-American base, even with a weak and watered-down comment on the CSA flag is not so difficult to understand. I will give her a pass on this one. I would like to know, however, what happens when the Iraq War ends (if ever)? Does the old rebel flag go right back up the pole?

By the way--most of the left has actually criticized the NAACP for overemphasizing the Confederate flag matter. Mother Jones wrote in 2000 that the this was a “side-show” and was accentuated at the “expense of meaningful activism on issues that really matter to African-Americans.” Z-Net agreed in 2002 arguing that the flag issue was a “near textbook example of the NAACP’s strategy of elevating peripheral issues…and taking minimal action on the piles of crisis that devastate poor and working class black communities.”

Here is my complaint--it's not with Clinton, it's with our nation's inability to adequately examine this issue. I understand politics as well as the next person. I know that Senator Clinton cannot say what needs to be said about that flag. But when is someone going to be honest? Here is what needs to be told to the the pro-Confederate flag crowd:

"We are truly sorry that your Uncle Cletus died in the Civil War--we understand that he fought gallantly at Bull Run and Gettysburg. But here are the facts—the Confederate flag stands for hatred and racism—it does now; and it always has. It is a symbol of white supremacy and white power. It is a symbol of bigotry and anti-Semitism. The Confederate flag stands as a powerful statement against racial diversity, against communities of color, and against religious minorities. And while not everyone who raises that flag is a racist—that is what that the stars and bars represents. Your ancestors started that war, not for states rights, but to keep humans in bondage. And that fact can never be denied. This is why the Confederate flag should be taken down….and it should be taken down forever.”

McCain and Roe v. Wade

2007-02-20T00:10:00.000-06:00

I thoroughly enjoy blogging--it has allowed me to rediscover the joys of writing. Buddy's Books and Bait has forced me to meticulously frame my political ideas in a thoughtful and coherent fashion—and that has been extremely satisfying for me intellectually. That’s why I plan to keep blogging even if I have few readers.

But the frustrating part of researching and writing about politics is that one has to actually read all the half-baked ideas that are floating around. I know that many of my political rants are not original—and the topics are often warmed-over debates that should have been put to rest years ago. But if politicians want to raise these tired subjects, I suppose I will respond.

Which brings me to John McCain. Yesterday, McCain made his strongest statement to date on his opposition to Roe v. Wade. In order to ingratiate himself even further with conservative voters, the Arizona senator said Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Now this is not big news, right? We know McCain is positioning himself for the 2008 Republican primaries. And while I strongly disagree with him regarding Roe, I’m not voting for him anyway.

But here is what I find maddening about McCain and the anti-abortion nuts. During the 2000 campaign, McCain was much more measured on the abortion issue. Remember, he was the self-appointed moderate back then. He declared at that time that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave that decision up to her. Clearly there was some political posturing in that statement—but there is also something very slimy. So John McCain will not have the state force his daughter to carry her pregnancy to full term—but he has no trouble forcing millions of other women to do so.

This is where I return to my earlier statement—we shouldn't have to still point out these glaring inconsistencies. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, upper class white women will still be able to afford abortions; will still be able to travel to out-of-state clinics, will still continue to procure birth control and understand how to use it—it’s all the others, the millions of poor women, teens, and others in situations very different from John McCain’s daughter……these are the people that WILL be adversely affected if McCain and his ilk are allowed to keep appointing Fascists to the courts.

Isn’t this obvious? Does McCain see the inconsistency—or not? Isn’t it so damned clear that abortion laws are written to keep poor and minority women from having sex and producing babies that, according to conservatives at least, the taxpayers will then have to support? These restrictive laws were never intended for nice, white Republican girls—we trust them of course. If they get pregnant, it was probably due to special circumstance. McCain’s daughter will never have to deal with these life-changing reproductive issues—the rules will never apply to her.

Do you think McCain knows this? Should I/we email his office and point it out? I really don’t get it. Maybe this is just an example of white privilege. A case where a white politician doesn't even fathom how different people are affected by his decisions. Am I missing something?

George W. and George W.

2007-02-20T00:01:00.000-06:00

Thank you President Bush for making such dumbass statements that I have something to write about.

Yesterday (President's Day), our illustrious leader compared himself favorably to George Washington. We all know that George Washington is still considered one of America's greatest leaders. Bush on the other hand (and I will quote Wonkette on this one), "is a jackass who actually lost one election to Al Gore and nearly lost another to John Kerry. He lost both wars he started." Well-said.

Bush drew parallels between what Washington faced and the troubles that he now confronts with the War on Terror. The president stated that Washington and his "ragged Continental Army" faced disaster, but in the end, "General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable." An obvious reference to his unbreakable will against all odds in the current Iraq mess--which he started.

Yes, these two men have so much in common. Sometimes you just can't believe what this guy says. I don't think any additional comments are necessary.

Drew Gilpin Faust

2007-02-19T00:11:00.000-06:00

While this might be relatively old news, I still want to offer my heartfelt delight and glee for Drew Gilpin Faust, recently named the first female president of Harvard University. The obvious reasons have been discussed in the media for the past week—I want to simply make a few personal comments.

Primarily, let’s not forget what an esteemed and respected historian she is. Dr. Faust has written two seminal books: Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding South in the American Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 1996); and James Henry Hammond and the Old South: A Design for Mastery (LSU, 1982).

The media has mentioned Mothers of Invention , but only briefly (but what should we expect from the American media). In that book, Faust challenges some of the common stereotypes of the "helpless" Southern white women—and then shows how the War changed her plight completely. Southern white women (and Faust writes primarily about upper and middle class women), were compelled to take charge of their own lives during the War when most of the Southern men were away. That independence led to significant changes in gender relationships after the conflict. Mothers of Invention is an important work on a variety of historical topics: the Civil War, the old and new South, as well as women and gender roles.

I first picked up James Henry Hammond and the Old South nearly twenty years ago as I searched for dissertation information. This remains one of the absolute best sources on the Old South—the worldview of the large plantation owners, the master-slave relationship, and how the antebellum Southern ideology was crumbling as the Civil War approached.

Both of these books are worth reading. And I almost forgot, I actually assigned another of her works in a Civil War class I taught several years ago. Faust’s The Creation of Confederate Nationalism (LSU, 1990) is short book/long essay on the intellectual roots of Confederate identity. It’s a difficult read, but a concise and well-written introduction to a difficult intellectual topic.

Maybe soon, it will cease to be national news when a women becomes a university president. And I do think we are swiftly reaching that point. But this is Harvard, and Larry Summers—as much as I liked him as a Clinton economic advisor—seemed to be more of a divider than a uniter (not to mention his unfortunate comments regarding women in the sciences).

But we can’t let this milestone pass without some joy and celebration. It’s another step in remaking the society and workplace--and both of those institutions need alterations. And yes, it also enrages those right-wingers. As I have mentioned before in Books and Bait—I get giddy when something disturbs their cultural sensibilities--and we all know what they think of feminists.

When the announcement was initially reported by the Harvard Crimson, I immediately emailed my friend Katie, who took history classes with Dr. Faust at Penn. Katie is currently a local political activist, consultant, writer (she is hard at work on a novel), and radical feminist. I asked Katie if she had any comments about Faust and whether she thought her former professor would be tough enough to conquer the old boy’s network at Harvard. Katie, always good for a colorful quote, immediately responded with:

"SHE FUCKING ROCKS! She should do her lecture on Civil War weaponry if they doubt her toughness. I love her, I have a big crush on her.”

I trust Katie's judgement--and I think Harvard is in good hands. Let's keep tearing down those ceilings.

"Bad" President's Day

2007-02-19T00:10:00.000-06:00

In order to properly celebrate President's Day 2007--I thought I would publish a list of the 5 worst.....and also the 5 best presidents. I know these lists are purely personal and don't mean much; but they are fun to make and they often start some fruitful discussions. So here are my choices:

5 Worst American Presidents

Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)--he did take a nice picture though.

George W. Bush (2001-2009)--and sinking fast.
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
others considered: Millard Fillmore, Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge, William H. Taft

5 Best Presidents

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)--my favorite Lincoln picture.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
George Washington (1789-1797)
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)--close call between TR and Jefferson
others considered: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower