Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Invisible Hayseeds


There is something about reading this story in this time.  I mean, Invisible Man.  Ralph Ellison.  The wunderkind of letters who penned only the one novel, prolific as it is. 

A moment comes in Ellison’s story when our main character, the nameless Brother, eulogizes the dead Tod Clifton.  He advises the mourners to go home and mourn no more as their mourning is impotent.  He chides them their inaction, their inability to organize and do anything, their complacency and willingness to be subjugated. 

Our nameless Brother, the Invisible Man, is a hayseed, too.  His every circumstance is a product of innocence, which underscores the fact the world has always suffered a dearth of real teachers. 
I prefer the classics and Invisible Man is just one I never happened onto previously.  However, my reading it coincided with the fact I have been in Chicago recently; the city of brotherhood.  The city of unions.  The city of high values and organized corruption.  The people are angry.  Every political discussion I was privy to, on the ‘L,’ on the tv, in the office, at the barbecue with so many Eastern Europeans, was derailed, derided, divisive, dehumanizing. 

My friend said all the violence is happening in six square blocks.  Someone else referred to it as black on black crime.  The morning after the President made a speech as part of the procession of speeches nominating Hillary Clinton for President I told my classroom I was back in a bromance with this President.  I had endured a season of disillusionment but now I was back.  I believed he was honorable.  80% of my classroom was black women and they practically cooed at me.  After all I was in the land of Obama. 

Dee, in the front row, smiled slyly at me and confirmed she would have been nowhere else but in front of her tv the night before. (That she said that felt like an unexpected surprise, like someone coming up to me standing in a long line and offering me a chair on wheels and a cool drink.  I needed to hear that from the people and Dee was the people.)  Dee being short for Deahjahnay, which is of course a pretty name, French sounding and unique and in no way obnoxious.  Other black women in the room nodded approval and I mentioned to Dee directly that President Obama had somehow regained my respect through no fault of his own but as my knowledge and insight grew and shrunk and changed and morphed. 

I am pissed about drones.  I don’t like that he appointed Federal Reserve Insider Timothy Geithner. He was the product of a corrupt campaign finance reform system, too.  He negotiated with unreasonable cavemen who were themselves products of a corrupt campaign finance system and who acted from every interest other than altruism. 

In this speech however he reminded me why I voted for him twice.  He is after all, an honorable man.  He operated within a corrupt system and ultimately succeeded beyond his rivals from the other side of the aisle, they the purveyors of a cruel sense of justice and morality.  He found a Xanadu of middle ground that seemingly did not exist between the establishment of corporate America and the moral right.  He pulled socially to the left.  He followed through on some truly noble ideas slam dunking gays in the military and re-opening relations with Cuba.  There is a real litany of good things this President’s legacy will include. 

On this night he spoke to me and a million other Bernie Sanders supporters of campaign finance reform.  His words?  He said, “Don’t Boo.  Vote.”  Three fucking words and he overwhelmed my ideas on this subject. 

Like many I am so indignant at our system.  How unjust.  How unrepresentative.  Like so many of the falsehoods I was given as an American born child here was another case that might cause so many to throw their hands in the air and choose to just fly off the rails or join the parade of soiled, silly, suckers of greed.  “Don’t Boo.  Vote,” he said.

He is right.  In the end it does come down to more than voting.  We have to work at voting.  We have to get others to vote.  We have to work fiercely.  We have to educate the electorate.  We have to invigorate the masses and create a social responsibility that becomes a cultural sea change. 
The people are mad now at Hillary Clinton for being yet another product of a corrupt campaign finance system.  They don’t know how to direct their anger.  They’re so pissed about how powerless they feel with their one vote-they are mad at the one person who has been fighting for the values they espouse, (discounting a few errors in judgment,) and who wins against the truly corrupt fascist pigs of and on the right.  It is as if they are mad at Hillary Clinton for being good at what she does.  They’re mad at her for playing their game and winning as if they want Donald Trump, or John Boehner, or Mitch McConnell, or Lindsay Graham, or any of these other creeps who hate fags, detest welfare, love war, want to sell America for their own personal gain, cheat to win, gerrymander, play to the lowest common denominator, use fear, race bait, bible thump, parade around in sheep’s clothing seeking whom they may next devour. 

“Don’t Boo, Vote,” he said.

Guilty.  I am guilty as charged by the President of the United States.  He got me.  I’m so indignant and yet, he is so right.  (And she is too.)  What a buffoon I am.

Not really.  My error is one of altruism and of not being satisfied with the slow pace of progress.  (I forgive myself.  I’m so big like that.) 

And so in a way we’re all hayseeds, we supporters of Bernie Sanders.  We are noble hayseeds.  Everyone should be a hayseed but still, we are hayseeds. 

This voting President Obama refers to will happen.  Campaign finance will change like Citizen’s United will be overturned like a woman’s right to choose will be safeguarded like our military budget will decline.  Eventually.  Change is slow, however in spite of corrections, moments of retrograde activity, things are getting better and history shows us this is true. 

Ellison’s great novel is as relevant today as ever. Similarly, it is as colorful and engaging and modern as ever.  The enmity between law enforcement and the people they are meant to protect and serve remains a constant in our society.  The hayseed is invisible.  Who listens?  Who knows?  What’s the quote from Baudelaire?  “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”  (Okay, so I looked.  It’s WB Yeats’ poem, The Second Coming.) I always took that to mean the pure of heart have nothing to feel convicted about or for, while the liars, cheaters, connivers, the unjust and unkind, the wicked and inglorious, petty,  dishonest mother fuckers of the world tend to yell and scream because they're trying to convince you of something beyond fantastic.  They are trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Brother is treated with indignity after indignity in The Invisible Man.  His best nature, his altruism, his earnestness, they’re all fodder for those who would devour.  His intentions are golden at every turn but he is seen, in the South and in Harlem, as breaking from cherished norms or wanting to place himself above others. 

Obama chided us in the same way Ralph Ellison chided us.  Ellison understood what it meant to be invisibly black in America, to be absorbed into a socio-cultural belief system.  Obama understood what it took to ascend to high office in America.  He knew of what he spoke.  “Don’t Boo.  Vote,” he said rightly.  He was telling the hayseeds in the room and across America watching on their televisions, stop talking and go do.  He must have had this awakening at one time too, right?  The day he decided if he wanted to do something altruistic, if he wanted to help the under-served and underrepresented black communities on the south side of Chicago he had best go there and try to put some of his Harvard education into practice in the real world for the purpose of helping people better their lives. 

On a night that underscored the ultimate failure of the Bernie Sanders campaign and feeling like an insignificant hayseed I understand Obama’s message, (and Ellison’s too.)  I have to find ways to go do.  We all have to do that.  Ours is a utilitarian society and in so many ways the pressures of life, of economy, will pin us to a station, but the true hayseed must find ways. 

And so, Brother is a hero.  I admire him his gift of altruism.  I absolve him of whatever he has been accused of or blamed for.  Moreover, I am so thankful for reading this book now and not because some professor forced me to read it when I was 20-something and a different sort of hayseed altogether. 

Obama too, is a hero.  His dignity in the face of so much racism and ignorance is an example I hold up to my kids when I speak of emotional intelligence.  He is and has been for my family the Commander of Emotional Intelligence in Chief.  His ability for candor, his grace under attack, his empathy, they all were and are downright Presidential.  Hence why I adore him anew, in spite of the frustration I felt almost from Day 1 of his Presidency. 

Sunday, January 10, 2010

should obama be a one-term president?

it is certainly worth considering forcing timothy geithner to step down as treasury secretary but it would also be reasonable right now to call for the resignation of barack obama.

democrats, (and probably republicans too, for that matter,) tend to think in terms of eight year blocks once they get a president elected. that has been a sound strategy too, considering the effectiveness of incumbent candidates. however it is time for change.


the democratic party, (and by that i do mean democrats,) could unseat barack obama after one term and elect another democrat president, perhaps even a more progressive, less corporatist candidate than barack obama. perhaps dennis kucinich could win, as the populist real deal. (or how old is ralph nader these days?)

please click on the header and read the
bloomberg news story. the secretary of treasury of the united states, then in the capacity of head of the new york federal reserve, advised aig to hide information from the american public in order to get away with paying full price on credit default swaps, which in turn cost american taxpayers $62.1 billion. indeed, it was a back door bailout brokered by the new york federal reserve, geithner's organization. $62.1 billion taxpayer dollars?

i'll be honest, i am not sure i am advocating for unseating obama at this point, but i certainly respect the idea. not only did he appoint geithner to this vastly important cabinet position of tremendous power, but he had the best tools of investigation, to understand geithner's experience and ethos, money could buy. moreover, it is important for obama to be responsible for his decisions as president, and geithner's crime is egregious to such a degree, canning the guy who rewarded him and took advice from him, which suggests incompetence or worse, would be a revolutionary act of forsaking partisan politics in favor of simply exercising the collective power of the masses to act righteously as it concerns a matter of the utmost importance.

the
federal reserve bank issues american currency and houses gold owned by some americans but also some saudis and kuwaitis and everyone else, but it is not a part of our government and it is ultimately beholden to its owners. as head of the new york federal reserve timothy geithner wielded a great amount of power, essentially on behalf of the investment bankers who own the new york fed.

$62.1 billion. i have to say that number over and over because it is hard to imagine that amount of money. it's huge. in response to the
bloomberg news story, the white house has commented to say the advice the ny fed gave aig to not report the credit default swaps happened at a level lower than geithner and he was unaware of this advice and therefore not responsible. (where have we heard that before?) geithner's bank told aig to lie so that aig could use the money it received from taxpayers to pay off gamblers. that is unforgivable and geithner's bank facilitated the heist and his head should certainly roll. $62.1 billion. the fact obama prefers to dismiss this as if the "geithner was unaware," defense is legitimate is abhorrent and oddly in contrast to obama's m.o. otherwise. typically he accepts responsibility for everything and talks about how the buck stops with him.

former new york governor eliot spitzer has been doing his best to call for the release of aig's emails, of which there are plenty. since the american people own aig, we certainly have a right to see those emails, which will likely reveal more info about who swindled the american people and how. we should all stay aware of this story and push for release of those emails.


as for obama, his behavior is distressing. we voted him in because we believed he would be different in so much as he would not play typical politics by advocating cover ups and kowtowing to the corporations. lately his behavior has been disappointing. if i believed democrats could be of one mind in refusing to nominate him for a second term and if i had faith we would take the high road is defending the decision and nominate someone like dennis kucinich to replace him from a position of strength, i could easily go along with that plan.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

conyers vs. obama

i get it that a lot of people do not want to criticize barack obama. i think it is yet another byproduct of the bush administration. (bush was so bad, so abhorrent really, such an affront to common decency and the values of most americans and our founding fathers, that the ascendancy of obama brought hope in messianic proportions.) that said, the president's actions deserve serious scrutiny and john conyers has been delivering.

for those who may not be familiar with john conyers, he is one of the longest tenured members of the house of representatives. (22 terms. democrat, 4th district-michigan.) more importantly, he was in selma, alabama on freedom day. conyers was on nixon's enemies list. rosa parks served on his staff. he voted on the articles of impeachment against nixon. he appealed to the bush administration to answer to the accusations of the downing street memo. he authored 'what went wrong in ohio: the conyers report on the 2004 presidential election.' the list goes on and on and the point is, john conyers is a patriot, a friend of the common man and a national treasure, and if he is critical of the president, his accusations deserve real consideration.

the article, (which is linked in the header,) appeared on thehill.com two days ago and details obama's call to conyers to ask him to stop publicly demeaning him. based not only on the details of an article and a disagreement between political heavyweights but on the political facts and circumstances of late, obama is appearing more and more to be a politician. (perhaps a very good politician but a politician all the same.) conyers, for his part, seems principled.

it is worth mentioning that conyers played a key role in getting barack obama elected. for that obama expects loyalty. for that, conyers expects justice. he expects obama to be the president of "yes we can," and all the rhetoric of his campaign.

don't get me wrong. in 2012 i fully expect to vote for obama. but he is who he is and while i have had an idea for some time about who and what he is, it is time for all of those who fell in love with him in 2007 and 2008 to wake up, (and get back to work if they want "real change we can believe in.")

this is barack obama. he made a number of campaign promises on health care most notably that all of the debates and negotiations on reform would be televised so the american people could see the process. obama clearly broke that promise. (it was a good idea too. seeing it would have been educational and it would have created accountability.)

on health care, obama, like all of the democrats who have chosen to compromise, are simply wrong. (either that or they are in cahoots with the health insurance industry.) so many of these democrats are running around these days singing the praises of this new, public option-less plan because they see how many people, primarily between 55-65, will now have coverage and they think it is a boon. they are, however, missing the point. the idea behind single payer and the public option was to create a public, accountable entity to compete against the health insurance corporations of today. it is a simple fact that this new option would effectively kill health insurance as we know it today. instead of paying a ceo $700 million for five years of work, (as united healthcare did,) they would have to compete or die and competing would mean an epic paradigm shift.

including those who will be included by this new expansion of medicare is not a bad thing but it does nothing to address the real problem and obama as well as all those democrats should know that. i think they must think that by actually getting affordable coverage to more people than would have likely been affected by a public option they are doing the better good but that is just not the case. the better good would be to get a public option in place that could and would operate so efficiently the masses would clamor for inclusion. instead, by merely creating a larger welfare program they are playing into the hands of the same people who will call this plan a horrible mistake a few years hence. the calls to trim this new plan will be loud and shrill.

instead of showing government at its most efficient, this program will merely be a tax burden. the health care industry will have made millions upon millions of dollars in the time it takes us to figure this out and then, when we do figure it out, they will blame government for trying to interfere in the marketplace. they will paint the health care companies as efficient, and medicare with its couple of million new includees as a burdensome bureaucracy and yet another example of welfare incentivizing people to freeload on the backs of the hard-working americans. it’s the same old story.

this pbs frontline special on health care in five major democracies around the world, by showing how these other countries handle health care and some of their motives for arriving at their current systems, is the most damning thing i have witnessed as it concerns our system here in the united states. at one point in this program an official in taiwan talks about how as that emerging economy faced the decision of how to set up their health care they decided to study some of the best systems from around the world. the american reporter asks him if our system was one of the ones they studied to which he responded, no-we considered that the model of everything we did not want. (taiwan has great health care, by the way.)

so, obama and so many democrats are now selling us all short, allowing the healthcare conglomerates to go on gouging us for who knows how much longer because of a belief that getting health care to a number of people who do not currently have it somehow makes losing to the millions upon millions of dollars healthcare companies have thrown into this battle all worth it. american below the age of 55 are screwed. we will have things in this new system just as they are today. there will be no difference for this large class of people whatsoever.

this is barack obama. he seemed to believe at one point that the aclu lawsuit demanding the release of photos of guantanamo detainees was important but he changed his mind. (it bugs the hell out of me when government officials suggest that i cannot handle truth.)

this is barack obama, (accepting the nobel peace prize.) i was in favor of him receiving it even if i recognized that this too was a reaction to the departure of the previous administration from the world stage. did obama deserve the award? no. was it nice the nobel committee chose him to receive it? absolutely. the sad irony is that receipt came just about a week after he announced a military buildup in afghanistan. perhaps in an attempt to justify the united states' war effort in afghanistan, obama said:


the concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when
it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self
defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians
are spared from violence.

by these standards our war in afghanistan is certainly not just. it is not a last resort nor is it self defense. our stated mission is to root out a terrorist organization that has been known to seek refuge in parts of afghanistan. in fact we are not at war with afghanistan. al qaeda, as some number of terrorist individuals, may or may not be in afghanistan but it is not as if there is a front line in this war from which we can see footage of the firefight on television. the mission is actually kind of a joke, as if every malcontent in the arab world can be rooted out. the question of proportion will be compared to 9/11 but in terms of firepower and training, (to say nothing of the idea of uniformed soldiers aligned and amassed against an enemy hiding out in homes at dinner tables amidst family or in caves in remote mountains.) i think our soldiers do their best to spare civilian casualties but i also know that it doesn't always work out that way. more than 1,000 civilian deaths occurred in afghanistan just in the first six months of 2009.

while obama's rhetoric was typically moving and succinct, the fact this war he inherited and has since escalated does not meet any of the criteria he mentioned above, seems lost on him.

so why would i expect to vote for him? i guess it is because i am a realist. i know that no democratic challenger is actually going to win the nomination over him and so, supporting one of those candidates merely serves to weaken obama's candidacy when he faces a republican challenger in the general election. am i opposed to even considering a republican candidate? mostly. i mean, the republican party is made up of a wealthy class who sees government as the enemy and the people as so many ne'er do wells like ayn rand's masses in 'atlas shrugged.' the policies this group brings to the party are harmful to the masses. there is also a large, fundamentalist religious element in that party. they believe jesus is about to return to rapture his adherents into the clouds and damn everyone else to hell. why would i trust someone like that to run my government? no, the republican party is a bad, ugly joke.

and those are my choices. that is the american two-party system. it is that bleak. my candidates: ralph nader, dennis kucinich, bernie sanders, hell, john conyers, these men are unelectable. they could not raise the amount of corporate money to actually compete in an american presidential election. it is a simple as that.

so be reasonable, fall out of love with barack obama as john conyers has. agitate against his bad decisions and laud his good ones but recognize that barack obama represents a great deal of good but that at the same time, he is compromised. he is beholden to the corporations who lined the pockets of his campaign. if you think that does not drive at least some of his decisions, you are foolish.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

the lion has left

i just heard that "senator ted kennedy lost his battle with cancer," four times on msnbc. i take exception to this person on the television news program depicting his last act in life as defeat. can't we be past that?

everybody dies. everyone. so how can death be considered "losing," if it is as natural as birth? it should be verboten to refer to the end of life as a lost battle whether the perceived battle is with cancer or addiction or heart failure or any illness.

life is not a battle. it is a series of struggles with varying degrees of success.

ted kennedy was a human life lesson. he had great ambition that reached as high as the presidency. he had a frail quality in how human he was, which is to say how public and how tragic a figure he was.

he was known to be a drinker, which is probably something that had diminished recently and should also be outside of any consideration of the measure of the man. he lived the role of the public servant for nearly 50 years and without discussion of how healthy a thing that is for a democracy, the tone of his work is admirable. he senator'd quite well.

he probably got drunk, may have been getting a blow job for all we know, then he drove his car off a little bridge with a woman in the car. ted kennedy got out of the car and made it to safety. his friend, mary jo kopechne, did not get free of the car and she died. ted kennedy did not report the accident until nine hours later. he was already in congress and a drunken driving incident resulting in a death was certainly political death for him and he likely realized that. he probably panicked. there were probably a bunch of phone calls from influential family members and friends to those who could help. ted kennedy probably slept it off.

it is horrible and as kennedy's life bears witness to, it is not unforgiveable. it was a mistake. these things happen. they are random. they hurt. they hurt people. she deserved to have him report the crash immediately. she deserved to have him swim down and try to rescue her. (maybe he did try.)

i wonder if maybe he pulled on her and she was dead weight, knocked unconscious maybe by the impact. i wonder if he got his door opened and sensed growing concern over his held breath. i wonder if he kicked into the free water, completely submerged, or if he worked the door open as the car was half-submerged, and felt the car slipping away and pushing into the depth, and climbed around the swinging door and went for air, went for the shore. i wonder if he arrived at the shore and upon realizing he would survive, went back into the water if only half-heartedly, wanting so badly to see his friend paddle to the surface, a nightmare averted. i wonder if he plodded home swaying back and forth along the road in a haze of intoxication and shock or if he screamed and cried out into the frosty night. i wonder if he sat on the shore waiting for her to come out from behind him, from behind a bush or something, whimpering and holding on to hope like a knave at a magic show wanting so much for the magic to be real. i wonder if he called a friend, a wealthy or powerful friend who woul help and who would give advice such as, "nine hours is about as long as you can wait. "go get some sleep. "you got six hours until you get up, take a shower and make the phone call. "your story is you were in shock, you were delirious, and you took a sedative to calm you and you fell asleep, after which you awoke and called." i wonder if he executed a plan the way we would expect it to occur today, (kind of like how dick cheney reacted and controlled the situation when he fired buckshot into his friend while hunting, probably drunk.) i wonder if momentarily or longer, he thought he might get away with telling a story that he was not in the car with kopechne.

i admire wealthy people so much who take on the values of the other class. this is the kennedys. they fought for moral causes and used their wealth to gain influence and to pursue change in the name of virtue. i do not mean to beatify ted kennedy-i merely think it should be agreed that this man made choices which tended to help the lowly, which is in and of itself virtuous.

he should not be vilified for chappaquiddick nor for being a man who drank alcoholic beverages. he should be remembered primarily for what he did, his legislation and his inspiring speeches, his kindness and his example.
this is the legacy of the man.

edward moore "ted" kennedy was a noble man and certainly a noble american.

Friday, January 30, 2009

the photo that got to me

i watched the inauguration of barack obama last week with some family friends and my two children. (yes, i kept terra out of school so i could have her with me.) it was a special day and i do recall one moment when i felt a bubble of emotion rise within me. i was proud of my country and my countrymen. i felt good about this president who i voted for, even though i did not vote for him in the primary. it felt like a new day in america.

i was working in a book store when clinton was inaugurated in early '93 and i will never forget this woman who came in and bought a book from me in that season. she was the intellectual sort, (and the book store was in claremont so she fit right in,) and she seemed a bit disheveled but in a good way. we chatted and she explained to me that she had just moved back here after living in southeast asia for eight years. she said she had become so dismayed during reagan's presidency that she felt like she did not recognize america as her home any more and so she left. she was back however as clinton ascended and she had an especially bright outlook. she was optimistic-plus and she said it felt so good to be back, teaching in claremont at one of the schools and among her people.

i think i borrowed her feelings on january 20th. i remembered her and her story so clearly that i could not help but just feel that way, the way i always imagined she felt when she described it to me in a quiet book store 16 years ago. so, it was a nice day for me though terra (4,) and mark (2,) kept me grounded.

today however, i opened an email from my dad that i had actually received earlier in the day from a friend of mine, (though i had not the time to open it.) it was a series of photographs from inauguration day from the boston globe from around the world. there are photos from nairobi and mexico city. there is a photo of the national mall from a satellite overhead. there are photos of barack and michelle obama dancing and there is one of sasha obama peeking from behind the thick glass of the presidential limousine.

but the photo from above, (#33 I think,) caught me off guard. it is tommie smith and john carlos and their wives having a group hug as they watched the day's events unfold on television. (i wish i did not know there was a cameraman there to record the moment.) i saw that photo as i scrolled through this collection of great pictures and i gasped as if i was choking. emotion welled up in me so quickly and unexpectedly. i imagined carlos and smith and how they must have felt on this day. it seemed beyond pride. it is amazing to me that these two guys who stood up for something some 40 years earlier would be together on this day. i was choking on joy.

that's right. i was choking on joy. it was joy that came over me like a dizzying cloud. these two guys raised their fists in solidarity in mexico city and suffered severe consequences for their actions. the beauty of their athleticism was lost in the turmoil of their convictions and the reaction to their act of defiance. recently as a generation of americans who hated based on skin color has eroded and their children have turned from the ways of their fathers, the legacy of carlos and smith has come into a fairer light. and this touched me. i am so glad these guys lived to see this day. i am so glad their relationship has improved and they were able to share the day.

it is a shame their faces cannot be seen in the photograph but it seems appropriate they have this small amount of privacy so naturally provided by the circle of love they shared.