Really, New York Post? You really want to suggest that a chimp wrote the stimulus bill? The stimulus bill that is widely viewed as President Obama's. Is there really no-one working for you that saw a problem with this cartoon?
Really?
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Some American racism this time...
Courtesy of many blogs [Feministing, The Questionable Authority, Feministe, Enemy Combatant Trailmix Appreciation Club, Shakesville] comes this delightful cartoon from the New York Post:
Really, New York Post? You really want to suggest that a chimp wrote the stimulus bill? The stimulus bill that is widely viewed as President Obama's. Is there really no-one working for you that saw a problem with this cartoon?
Really?
Really, New York Post? You really want to suggest that a chimp wrote the stimulus bill? The stimulus bill that is widely viewed as President Obama's. Is there really no-one working for you that saw a problem with this cartoon?
Really?
Sunday, 25 January 2009
The Value of Money - the dangers of empty rhetoric and why the right is wrong on crime
While studying for English at standard grade I somehow ended up memorising the final words of the Great Gatsby, in the vague hope that if it was of no use in the exam, it would at least be of service to me at some point in the future. So understand that in the next seven words or so, when I start to quote F. Scott Fitzgerald, it is not only because it fits well with what I want to say, but also because I want to fulfil what has become a lifelong ambition.
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgasmic future that year by year recedes us. It eluded us then, but that is no matter, for tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further, and one fine day -
And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. "
For once comfortably setting aside the possibility that once again an English teacher may have read too far into a story centric around champagne and the forerunner of ferrero rocher, it can safely be said that these closing lines seem to neatly sum up the vastly flawed concept of the American Dream. The romantic idea that the land is rich with opportunities waiting to be seized by the resourceful and youthful at heart. Even in situations where their efforts yield few rewards, young entrepreneurs should not give up, for ahead lies a destiny shared with Frank C. Ball, the young upstart come "fruit jar king of America". Even as it becomes apparent that a free market society is no place for an upstart business, maintains the publication Nation's Business, the fruits of labour lie only a few floors above, where the industrious and innovative worker will soon join J. L. Bevan, president of the Illinois Central Rain Board, who rather than starting his own business joined the ranks of a large corporation and used skill and poise to climb to the dizzying heights of the board room. The American right wing knows no end of feel good, anecdotal evidence of the rewards that lie in store for all of the hard hearted and the industrious. Throughout Western culture there is a plentiful supply of the kind of rags to riches stories that the right wing of America thrives on. Television programmes such as the X-Factor churn out a constant supply of young and talented individuals who have used their unique abilities as a spring board to success. The pedestals of American history are adorned with the busts of those who have walked the revered road between the log cabin and the big white house with a lawn and occasionally a situation room. In America, say the rich, it is the destiny of every intelligent and ambitious entrepreneur to join them at their table. Yet perhaps "destiny" is a word any willing proponent of the American Dream would do well to avoid. No higher reverence is accorded to any goal or value as that which is reserved for monetary wealth.
For those situated well on the right side of the tracks, this approach would seem to work perfectly. For the last eight years there has presided a government elected not only by the elite whose interests it serves, but also by millions who have come to share in this belief of a land of equal opportunity, so much so that they are prepared to vote for measures beneficial only to the wealthy in the hope that they will one day join them. In the recent presidential elections, the extent to which people seemed to believe in this ideal was revealed in what I expect will one day in a less than startling display of unoriginality be referred to as Plumbergate. People are led to strive for monetary again above all else, so much so that currency has become something of a measure of character. In a meritocracy a person can expect to be judged by the extent of his or her achievements, and when the enlargement of the bank balance has become the greatest ambition anyone would hope to achieve, it is the bank balance against which they will be judged.
Yet what happens when a culture lampoons fast food workers while canonising pimps and gangsters? When a society reaches a stage where such heavy emphasis as in America is placed on social objectives, at the cost and neglect of respectable means of achieving them, society enters what sociologist Robert Merton, from whom I am borrowing heavily, calls anomie. The institutionally acceptable means of achievement are as important as the goals themselves, and in a healthy society strong emphasis will be placed on adherence to both. More often than not, these acceptable means will be based less on efficiency and more heavily on the values of a particular society. An interesting example may be found in a recent study of events aboard the Titanic as the life boats were loaded. According to eye witness reports, while many of the American passengers scrambled for places, those from Britain were content to help their wives and children into life boats before returning bellow deck to don their dinner jackets and join their friends for a last drink. Putting aside the slightly surreal image of an English gentleman dropping his monocle into the sea as he reaches over to chip off some ice for his gin and tonic, an interesting illustration can be seen of how a person might react when they no longer have an acceptable means of attaining their goal, in this case survival. Rather than drawing the swords from their canes and maiming their way to the front of the queue, they were sufficiently adherent to their values to stay within the limits they had been taught.
Does this render the concept of the American dream nothing more than a harmful fantasy? If the American Dream were at present a reality, the inconvenience of punishment would make the lack of acceptable methods of attainment unproblematic, because on balance, there would be no reason to run the risk of imprisonment when there were other, lawful and so convenient avenues open. But, as a wealth of statistics show, this is simply not the case, and the dangers of empty rhetoric promoting ideas to the contrary are there to be seen. There has developed in much of the Western world a culture in such reverence of financial success that little heed is paid to the steps taken to accumulate that wealth, the result being that there is little incentive to stay within the limits of the law, and in fact some amount of pressure to deviate, in pursuit of material gain. The effects of this can be seen particularly in times of economic hardship when, even when faced with economic turmoil on a global scale, there remains in commerce an expectation on directors to deliver profits. Such is the enormous pressure to do this, combined with what as we have recently seen to be a clear lack of corporate ethics, will take unacceptable and at times deviant steps to secure the figures that investors want to see, often at the cost of those working beneath them. In such a situation, it is of little use to suggest that the situation could be remedied by giving directors the means to attain these figures. These are the people who would benefit from a clear moral code similar at times perhaps to the respectable chivalry witnessed aboard the Titanic, where the needs of those less fortunate or less able were placed above their own survival.
Of course, the effects of social anomie are witnessed much more vividly amongst the deprived sections of society. Among the unemployed and low income families, there can be found a much more realistic sense of exactly how removed from truth the American dream really is. If you call anomie the divergence of aspirations and expectations, it is among these classes that it will be the most prevalent. Such is the pressure to succeed when compared to the relatively meagre attempts to promote a lawful and moralistic lifestyle from those whose voices are largely drowned out by the culture of mass media that there is a huge pressure to live up to what society has come to expected. For people who find themselves in such a position, the levelling of the playing field could not be more vital. Poverty, and particularly social exclusion, have to be tackled if these people are to be given access to the incredible opportunities the righteous on the right never tire of talking about. Criminal policy may in the past have been an area the right wing considered to be home turf, however it is blatant that only through pursuing the policies traditionally associated with the left, such as social justice and the obliteration of social exclusion, can a market society be made to work. Particularly in coming years, education will come to be seen as each nation's greatest benefactor. The advent of mass communications has enabled a global market for jobs which means that more and more those jobs which can be done cheaper elsewhere are moving across borders. As countries realign to find their own niches in the global market, it is critical that education and retraining is made available to those in every sector of society, so that they are equipped to take on those jobs either which will not move abroad, or else those which were previously unavailable but which will come to settle in their own country, in order to ensure a strong and fair labour market with equal opportunities for good jobs.
Combined with this crusade for social justice, which countries such as the United Kingdom already pursue with vigour, there must be a wide scale refocusing of ideals away from the concept of money and material wealth as the holy grail, and towards a more open, diverse value driven society. Emphasis on the importance of family life, currently neglected, particularly in the over-worked and under paid areas of society, must be met with an equal strengthening of the institution in order to lessen the effects of the economy that currently impact on it. The importance of open and equal access to education must be highlighted as critical to the pursuit of social justice and a level playing field, however the value of education not as a means to and end but as an end in itself equally must not be underplayed. A greater respect for public service must be built to match the existing respect held for those who have (or had until recently) found great success in the city. All in all, what is required is a vast restructuring of society so as to lessen the importance assigned to monetary gain and emphasis the importance of other areas of life such as the family.
America is not the sort of country to give up on its dream. But in many ways, that is what those on the right have done, because rather than continuing to push for a levelling of the playing field, they are attempting to dupe themselves, or more likely everyone else, into believing that this has already been done. It is clear, from what has been written about how economic circumstances influence crime by the likes of Robert Merton, Messner and Rosenfeld and Elliot Currie, that there is a real danger to promoting such an image of an equal society of such singular aims as accomplished, when this vision is so far removed from the status quo. These theories were crafted to explain why America, as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, still had one of the highest crime rates. The answer is that when a country is so singular in its visions of success and so unaccommodating to the needs of its citizens in getting there, it creates a culture driven to meet its goals by any means necessary, even those society would consider illegal or immoral. This lesson does not just apply to the United States and can be extended to the likes of Britain where, over the past ten years, enormous steps have been taken to ensure a more level playing field on which every person can achieve their full potential. It remains however the case that Britain is not so different from the United States in the values that have become ingrained in our culture, for example with the glaring spotlight that tabloids focus on certain celebrities, combined with the morbid obsession it seems to have for their inappropriate and deviant behaviour. In this example the problems of social justice can be seen to go travel far beyond the economic realm as, such is the enormity of the coverage received by ill-behaving celebrities, a new instance of anomie can seemingly be created almost entirely by the media as. With such a huge emphasis placed on the status of particular celebrities with little thought given to the cause of their infamy, a new goal, fame, can be set with little regard for the means by which the more pathetic celebrities garner headlines. Likewise, over the last decades both the United Kingdom and the United States have entered into a state where politicians with legitimate policies, aims and objectives are afforded little more credibility than those who have tried to put polish on air.
Whether it is a lack of positive role models for young people in the media or simply the disproportionate respect that people hold for those with vast wealth met with a lack of focus on how it was accumulated, there remains a clear problem in this country and in America, that will take more than just government policy to change.
I have borrowed heavily from the works of Robert Merton, Messner and Rosenfeld, Box, Jock Young and Elliot Currie. For a more in depth explanation of social anomie or economic causes of crime in general look them up.
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgasmic future that year by year recedes us. It eluded us then, but that is no matter, for tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further, and one fine day -
And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. "
For once comfortably setting aside the possibility that once again an English teacher may have read too far into a story centric around champagne and the forerunner of ferrero rocher, it can safely be said that these closing lines seem to neatly sum up the vastly flawed concept of the American Dream. The romantic idea that the land is rich with opportunities waiting to be seized by the resourceful and youthful at heart. Even in situations where their efforts yield few rewards, young entrepreneurs should not give up, for ahead lies a destiny shared with Frank C. Ball, the young upstart come "fruit jar king of America". Even as it becomes apparent that a free market society is no place for an upstart business, maintains the publication Nation's Business, the fruits of labour lie only a few floors above, where the industrious and innovative worker will soon join J. L. Bevan, president of the Illinois Central Rain Board, who rather than starting his own business joined the ranks of a large corporation and used skill and poise to climb to the dizzying heights of the board room. The American right wing knows no end of feel good, anecdotal evidence of the rewards that lie in store for all of the hard hearted and the industrious. Throughout Western culture there is a plentiful supply of the kind of rags to riches stories that the right wing of America thrives on. Television programmes such as the X-Factor churn out a constant supply of young and talented individuals who have used their unique abilities as a spring board to success. The pedestals of American history are adorned with the busts of those who have walked the revered road between the log cabin and the big white house with a lawn and occasionally a situation room. In America, say the rich, it is the destiny of every intelligent and ambitious entrepreneur to join them at their table. Yet perhaps "destiny" is a word any willing proponent of the American Dream would do well to avoid. No higher reverence is accorded to any goal or value as that which is reserved for monetary wealth.
For those situated well on the right side of the tracks, this approach would seem to work perfectly. For the last eight years there has presided a government elected not only by the elite whose interests it serves, but also by millions who have come to share in this belief of a land of equal opportunity, so much so that they are prepared to vote for measures beneficial only to the wealthy in the hope that they will one day join them. In the recent presidential elections, the extent to which people seemed to believe in this ideal was revealed in what I expect will one day in a less than startling display of unoriginality be referred to as Plumbergate. People are led to strive for monetary again above all else, so much so that currency has become something of a measure of character. In a meritocracy a person can expect to be judged by the extent of his or her achievements, and when the enlargement of the bank balance has become the greatest ambition anyone would hope to achieve, it is the bank balance against which they will be judged.
Yet what happens when a culture lampoons fast food workers while canonising pimps and gangsters? When a society reaches a stage where such heavy emphasis as in America is placed on social objectives, at the cost and neglect of respectable means of achieving them, society enters what sociologist Robert Merton, from whom I am borrowing heavily, calls anomie. The institutionally acceptable means of achievement are as important as the goals themselves, and in a healthy society strong emphasis will be placed on adherence to both. More often than not, these acceptable means will be based less on efficiency and more heavily on the values of a particular society. An interesting example may be found in a recent study of events aboard the Titanic as the life boats were loaded. According to eye witness reports, while many of the American passengers scrambled for places, those from Britain were content to help their wives and children into life boats before returning bellow deck to don their dinner jackets and join their friends for a last drink. Putting aside the slightly surreal image of an English gentleman dropping his monocle into the sea as he reaches over to chip off some ice for his gin and tonic, an interesting illustration can be seen of how a person might react when they no longer have an acceptable means of attaining their goal, in this case survival. Rather than drawing the swords from their canes and maiming their way to the front of the queue, they were sufficiently adherent to their values to stay within the limits they had been taught.
Does this render the concept of the American dream nothing more than a harmful fantasy? If the American Dream were at present a reality, the inconvenience of punishment would make the lack of acceptable methods of attainment unproblematic, because on balance, there would be no reason to run the risk of imprisonment when there were other, lawful and so convenient avenues open. But, as a wealth of statistics show, this is simply not the case, and the dangers of empty rhetoric promoting ideas to the contrary are there to be seen. There has developed in much of the Western world a culture in such reverence of financial success that little heed is paid to the steps taken to accumulate that wealth, the result being that there is little incentive to stay within the limits of the law, and in fact some amount of pressure to deviate, in pursuit of material gain. The effects of this can be seen particularly in times of economic hardship when, even when faced with economic turmoil on a global scale, there remains in commerce an expectation on directors to deliver profits. Such is the enormous pressure to do this, combined with what as we have recently seen to be a clear lack of corporate ethics, will take unacceptable and at times deviant steps to secure the figures that investors want to see, often at the cost of those working beneath them. In such a situation, it is of little use to suggest that the situation could be remedied by giving directors the means to attain these figures. These are the people who would benefit from a clear moral code similar at times perhaps to the respectable chivalry witnessed aboard the Titanic, where the needs of those less fortunate or less able were placed above their own survival.
Of course, the effects of social anomie are witnessed much more vividly amongst the deprived sections of society. Among the unemployed and low income families, there can be found a much more realistic sense of exactly how removed from truth the American dream really is. If you call anomie the divergence of aspirations and expectations, it is among these classes that it will be the most prevalent. Such is the pressure to succeed when compared to the relatively meagre attempts to promote a lawful and moralistic lifestyle from those whose voices are largely drowned out by the culture of mass media that there is a huge pressure to live up to what society has come to expected. For people who find themselves in such a position, the levelling of the playing field could not be more vital. Poverty, and particularly social exclusion, have to be tackled if these people are to be given access to the incredible opportunities the righteous on the right never tire of talking about. Criminal policy may in the past have been an area the right wing considered to be home turf, however it is blatant that only through pursuing the policies traditionally associated with the left, such as social justice and the obliteration of social exclusion, can a market society be made to work. Particularly in coming years, education will come to be seen as each nation's greatest benefactor. The advent of mass communications has enabled a global market for jobs which means that more and more those jobs which can be done cheaper elsewhere are moving across borders. As countries realign to find their own niches in the global market, it is critical that education and retraining is made available to those in every sector of society, so that they are equipped to take on those jobs either which will not move abroad, or else those which were previously unavailable but which will come to settle in their own country, in order to ensure a strong and fair labour market with equal opportunities for good jobs.
Combined with this crusade for social justice, which countries such as the United Kingdom already pursue with vigour, there must be a wide scale refocusing of ideals away from the concept of money and material wealth as the holy grail, and towards a more open, diverse value driven society. Emphasis on the importance of family life, currently neglected, particularly in the over-worked and under paid areas of society, must be met with an equal strengthening of the institution in order to lessen the effects of the economy that currently impact on it. The importance of open and equal access to education must be highlighted as critical to the pursuit of social justice and a level playing field, however the value of education not as a means to and end but as an end in itself equally must not be underplayed. A greater respect for public service must be built to match the existing respect held for those who have (or had until recently) found great success in the city. All in all, what is required is a vast restructuring of society so as to lessen the importance assigned to monetary gain and emphasis the importance of other areas of life such as the family.
America is not the sort of country to give up on its dream. But in many ways, that is what those on the right have done, because rather than continuing to push for a levelling of the playing field, they are attempting to dupe themselves, or more likely everyone else, into believing that this has already been done. It is clear, from what has been written about how economic circumstances influence crime by the likes of Robert Merton, Messner and Rosenfeld and Elliot Currie, that there is a real danger to promoting such an image of an equal society of such singular aims as accomplished, when this vision is so far removed from the status quo. These theories were crafted to explain why America, as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, still had one of the highest crime rates. The answer is that when a country is so singular in its visions of success and so unaccommodating to the needs of its citizens in getting there, it creates a culture driven to meet its goals by any means necessary, even those society would consider illegal or immoral. This lesson does not just apply to the United States and can be extended to the likes of Britain where, over the past ten years, enormous steps have been taken to ensure a more level playing field on which every person can achieve their full potential. It remains however the case that Britain is not so different from the United States in the values that have become ingrained in our culture, for example with the glaring spotlight that tabloids focus on certain celebrities, combined with the morbid obsession it seems to have for their inappropriate and deviant behaviour. In this example the problems of social justice can be seen to go travel far beyond the economic realm as, such is the enormity of the coverage received by ill-behaving celebrities, a new instance of anomie can seemingly be created almost entirely by the media as. With such a huge emphasis placed on the status of particular celebrities with little thought given to the cause of their infamy, a new goal, fame, can be set with little regard for the means by which the more pathetic celebrities garner headlines. Likewise, over the last decades both the United Kingdom and the United States have entered into a state where politicians with legitimate policies, aims and objectives are afforded little more credibility than those who have tried to put polish on air.
Whether it is a lack of positive role models for young people in the media or simply the disproportionate respect that people hold for those with vast wealth met with a lack of focus on how it was accumulated, there remains a clear problem in this country and in America, that will take more than just government policy to change.
I have borrowed heavily from the works of Robert Merton, Messner and Rosenfeld, Box, Jock Young and Elliot Currie. For a more in depth explanation of social anomie or economic causes of crime in general look them up.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Monday, 19 January 2009
This a prayer that I can get behind
From the Friendly Atheist is the text of a prayer recited by Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson (Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire).
I want to bring this to attention essentially in reply to certain misgivings that I know people have about Obama. A lot of people don't understand the fuss surrounding him; who don't see the power of his message and question whether his policies can match his rhetoric.
For me this following prayer encapsulates the values and goals that I think Obama will represent as President. It is for this reason that I personally am so excited at his victory.
I wonder how different the current political climate would be if Bush had kept some of these things in mind.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people about the inauguration ceremony which we will be watching in New King's 11 from half four tomorrow afternoon. I hope to see you there.
I want to bring this to attention essentially in reply to certain misgivings that I know people have about Obama. A lot of people don't understand the fuss surrounding him; who don't see the power of his message and question whether his policies can match his rhetoric.
For me this following prayer encapsulates the values and goals that I think Obama will represent as President. It is for this reason that I personally am so excited at his victory.
O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…
Bless us with tears — for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless us with anger — at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort — at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience — and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility — open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance — replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity — remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
AMEN.
I wonder how different the current political climate would be if Bush had kept some of these things in mind.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people about the inauguration ceremony which we will be watching in New King's 11 from half four tomorrow afternoon. I hope to see you there.
The Bush administration in ten words
Here's a simple(ish) challenge for you, summarise the Bush Presidency in 10 words.
Here's Johann Hari's effort:
I'm sure that anyone brilliant enough to choose this blog to read can come up with something equally (if not more) cutting. I will post mine later (when I've thought of something, I'm a Science student not Arts so don't expect too much).
Olbermann summarises the presidency:
Here's Johann Hari's effort:
Collapsing economy, unravelling climate, 1,000,0000 dead Iraqis. Heckuvajob, Bushie.
I'm sure that anyone brilliant enough to choose this blog to read can come up with something equally (if not more) cutting. I will post mine later (when I've thought of something, I'm a Science student not Arts so don't expect too much).
Olbermann summarises the presidency:
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Come see history in the making.
Yes it's the time of the American Election cycle when we finally get to see how the new President of the United States does by finally assuming office.
At 12 noon in Washington D.C.(EST) on Tuesday the 20th of January Barack Obama will take the oath of office to assume the Presidency and Aberdeen University Labour Club is holding an event where we can watch, in the comfort of New Kings, live on a big screen, the swearing in ceremony.
If you want to know more then go look at our facebook group which has more information.
Monday, 5 January 2009
"The Minnesota Recount is Over"
To follow up on a previous post on the matter I am pleased to say that Al Franken has been declared the winner of the Minnesota Senatorial election.
From Greg Laden:
This victory gives the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate.
From Greg Laden:
As many of you have already heard, the recount process in Minnesota to determine the outcome of the Senatorial race is over, and Al Franken has been certified as winner.
There is now a review period of seven days during which any voter in the state of Minnesota. Including me, Al Franken, whomever, can sue for an Election Challenge. Although both Secretary of State Ritchie and I have expressed the opinion that Norm Coleman, who lost the race, is unlikely to issue such a challenge, the press and even Coleman's lawyers have suggested that a challenge will in fact be filed by three o'clock tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon.
...
Coleman really has two choices: Proceed with the challenge and end his political career or don't proceed and have a chance of continuing in Minnesota politics.
This victory gives the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate.
Monday, 22 December 2008
The De Facto Flat Tax
I'm feeling lazy today after travelling 250 miles on the train yesterday so I'm pretty much just going to copy and paste a story without a great deal my usual insightful analysis which I know you all love. This post from Mike the Mad Biologist at (Surprise, surprise) Scienceblogs looks at the conservative argument that a flat tax is the way forward, he believes that Americans essentially already have a flat tax due to the unfair distribution of the tax burden.
Concerning the flat tax I think the conservatives are, in a twisted way, partially correct; a flat will work...
...if you don't want any Social Security, National Health or Universal Education. Most people however want to live in a fair society (or simply just live at all when it comes to healthcare provision) so this is not really an option. Unless, like Donald Trump, you want to be free to horde your millions; in which case a flat tax is great. That doesn't really cover many people.
Anyway here's what Mike has to say:
The first commenter at Scienceblogs makes a very good point:
The whole area of economics and finance is a bit over my head, so I think we're lucky in this country to have such a fine Chancellor and before him an even better one in Gordon Brown.
Concerning the flat tax I think the conservatives are, in a twisted way, partially correct; a flat will work...
...if you don't want any Social Security, National Health or Universal Education. Most people however want to live in a fair society (or simply just live at all when it comes to healthcare provision) so this is not really an option. Unless, like Donald Trump, you want to be free to horde your millions; in which case a flat tax is great. That doesn't really cover many people.
Anyway here's what Mike has to say:
Every so often, conservatives bring up the flat tax, wherein everyone pays the same amount of income tax, regardless of how much they make. Most of these plans, unless you want to eliminate the entire Pentagon, will raise the tax burden on the lower middle and middle class, and lower them on the wealthy, further increasing income inequality. But the whole argument presumes that the wealthy actually pay considerably more of their income in tax than the non-wealthy.
By way of Kevin Drum, comes this figure indicating otherwise--in fact, the wealthiest 400 Americans pay less than middle class families ($75,000-100,000):
It goes without saying that the wealthiest Americans have far more income left over after paying taxes, which is one of the reasons why college education and housing prices have increased much faster than the median wage. You're competing with people who have far more post-tax income than you do. Good luck with that.
But what's really astonishing is that, once all taxes are factored in, we essentially have a flat tax. For $50,000 and higher, realized tax rates range between 17.4% to 22.3%. Sure, it's not identical, but I'm pretty certain that those in the top 1% can handle it.
Extra bonus observation: Most flat-tax plans don't eliminate Social Security taxes, and these taxes fall disproportionately on those who make less than $100,000 per year (there's a cap, so, for the wealthly, most income is not taxed). Middle class households would end up paying more of their income in taxes.
CONSERVATIVE WIN!!
The first commenter at Scienceblogs makes a very good point:
The biggest difference between the rich and the rest of us is that, the further you go up, the proportion of their income that derives from wages and salary (and subject to income tax) becomes much smaller. Most wealthy people get the majority of their wealth from capital gains, which is taxed at a rate about half that of wages and salary.
The whole area of economics and finance is a bit over my head, so I think we're lucky in this country to have such a fine Chancellor and before him an even better one in Gordon Brown.
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Throw the Gay Down the Well and My Country Will Be Free
We are now under a month away from the end of Bush's term in office, more importantly we are under a month away from the Inauguration of Barack Obama as President. Much has been made of Obama's various cabinet appointments and the plans he has made with his transition team. This short period of transition is our first chance to see the reality as Obama as President, and it is for that reason that his choice of Rick Warren to give the Invocation at the Inauguration ceremony has kicked up a storm of commentary.
The issue is covered by Greta Christina, Daylight Atheism, The Questionable Authority, ERV, Friendly Atheist, Feministe, Religion Dispatches, The Boiling Point, Blogger Interrupted, , Pam's House Blend (Those last two cover the issue of the other religious leader speaking at the Inauguration which I will address later), amongst a mulitude of others.
The general consensus (Which I agree with) is one of disapproval; this choice of a man who has compared homosexuality with bestiality and abortion to the Holocaust is seen as misguided political manoeuvre intended to bring Fundamentalist Evangelicals to his team. Obama's stated justification of it is that:
Essentially the argument that Obama is proposing is that in a free and tolerant society all viewpoints should be represented and everyone should be included. I think his basic position can be summed up as "we can disagree without being disagreeable", now that is usually a sentiment I agree with. In this case however it is simply not true, because Rick Warren's positions are not just talk. As we have seen just recently in California (Our coverage here and here) people's rights can be curtailed and their lives affected detrimentally by the actions of people like Rick Warren. It's good to be inclusive but sometimes it's not possible to include everyone and then you have to make a choice. By choosing Rick Warren Obama is not simply giving a pedestal to a homophobe, he is essentially endorsing his positions as being ok, he is saying that it's ok to be a bigot and to campaign against rights. It's ok to make slanderous attacks against your fellow human beings on the basis of sexuality.
And that makes me angry because those things aren't ok, and to justify it as disagreeing without being disagreeable is utterly galling. As The Questionable Authority puts it:
We can disagree without being disagreeable but comparing gay people to paedophiles and bestialists is very disagreeable.
From Boiling Point Blogs comes Rachel Maddow on the issue:
To show that I am myself trying to be fair and not just indulging in a bit of religion bashing I'd like to talk about what is pretty much the flip side of the coin, because whilst Warren's bigotry and intolerance are firmly based in his religion there are other, equally devout, Christians who disagree with his opinions. One such man is the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery. From Blogger Interrupted:
For those, like me, not familiar with that protest here's a video of the brutal events that unfolded at what was a peaceful gathering:
The main point I would like to make is that this is a fine and great leader, a person who is able to see beyond the differences between individuals and fight against injustice not matter who it falls upon. he is just as devout as rick Warren and yet treats his fellow humans in an entirely different way. This is the kind of person that should be endorsed, and I'm glad that Obama has done so by including him in the proceedings..
He spoke at the memorial service of Coretta Scott King (Another wonderful individual) and what he said resonates with me:
Now that is the kind of message that I want and expect from Barack Obama, and that's the kind of leader I want him to be. I believe in diversity, but if diversity in one direction curtails diversity in another we have to make a choice. In the case of gay rights that choice is between men like rick Warren who wish to curtail rights, and people who merely want to live their lives with the same freedoms as everyone else.
I don't think that that's a difficult choice.
I'd really like to hear what everyone else has to say, whether you agree or disagree please comment.
The issue is covered by Greta Christina, Daylight Atheism, The Questionable Authority, ERV, Friendly Atheist, Feministe, Religion Dispatches, The Boiling Point, Blogger Interrupted, , Pam's House Blend (Those last two cover the issue of the other religious leader speaking at the Inauguration which I will address later), amongst a mulitude of others.
The general consensus (Which I agree with) is one of disapproval; this choice of a man who has compared homosexuality with bestiality and abortion to the Holocaust is seen as misguided political manoeuvre intended to bring Fundamentalist Evangelicals to his team. Obama's stated justification of it is that:
In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
(Excerpt from released "talking points".)
Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. (emphasis mine)
Essentially the argument that Obama is proposing is that in a free and tolerant society all viewpoints should be represented and everyone should be included. I think his basic position can be summed up as "we can disagree without being disagreeable", now that is usually a sentiment I agree with. In this case however it is simply not true, because Rick Warren's positions are not just talk. As we have seen just recently in California (Our coverage here and here) people's rights can be curtailed and their lives affected detrimentally by the actions of people like Rick Warren. It's good to be inclusive but sometimes it's not possible to include everyone and then you have to make a choice. By choosing Rick Warren Obama is not simply giving a pedestal to a homophobe, he is essentially endorsing his positions as being ok, he is saying that it's ok to be a bigot and to campaign against rights. It's ok to make slanderous attacks against your fellow human beings on the basis of sexuality.
And that makes me angry because those things aren't ok, and to justify it as disagreeing without being disagreeable is utterly galling. As The Questionable Authority puts it:
The problem comes with that whole "disagree without being disagreeable" thing. Rick Warren recently compared homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy. That's not disagreeing without being disagreeable. That's being nasty without shouting. There's a very large difference, and it's a bit disappointing that Mr. Obama doesn't see that.
We can disagree without being disagreeable but comparing gay people to paedophiles and bestialists is very disagreeable.
From Boiling Point Blogs comes Rachel Maddow on the issue:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
To show that I am myself trying to be fair and not just indulging in a bit of religion bashing I'd like to talk about what is pretty much the flip side of the coin, because whilst Warren's bigotry and intolerance are firmly based in his religion there are other, equally devout, Christians who disagree with his opinions. One such man is the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery. From Blogger Interrupted:
If I were Rick Warren, I’d have the nuts to turn down the invitation to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, simply based on decency. But even further, if I were Rick Warren, in the interests of my own ego, I’d be smart enough to avoid comparison of my Celebrity Driven Life with that of the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who’ll be giving the benediction after Barack’s speech.
That comparison fails on one mere fact.
In 1965, King named Lowery to deliver the demands of a planned Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights to then-Alabama Governor George Wallace. In an event that shocked the nation, police tear-gassed and clubbed the peaceful marchers at Edmund Pettus Bridge.
For those, like me, not familiar with that protest here's a video of the brutal events that unfolded at what was a peaceful gathering:
The main point I would like to make is that this is a fine and great leader, a person who is able to see beyond the differences between individuals and fight against injustice not matter who it falls upon. he is just as devout as rick Warren and yet treats his fellow humans in an entirely different way. This is the kind of person that should be endorsed, and I'm glad that Obama has done so by including him in the proceedings..
He spoke at the memorial service of Coretta Scott King (Another wonderful individual) and what he said resonates with me:
Thank you, Coretta. Didn't she carry her grief with dignity? Her growing influence with humility? She secured his seed, nurtured his nobility she declared humanity's worth, invented their vision, his and hers, for peace in all the Earth. She opposed discrimination based on race, she frowned on homophobia and gender bias, she rejected on its face. She summoned the nations to study war no more. She embraced the wonders of a human family from shoulder to shoulder. Excuse me, Maya.
She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.
Well, Coretta had harsh critics. Some no one could please. But she paid them no mind. She kept speaking. As we get older, or so I'm told, we listen in to heaven like the prophets of old. I heard Martin and Coretta say, "do us a favor, Joe, those four little children I spoke of in 1963, they are fine adults now, as all can see. They already know but tell them again. We love them so dear. Assure them we will always be near. Their troubles to bless and sanctify to them their deepest distress. Tell them we believe in them as we know you do. We know their faith in god and their love for each other will see them through. Assure them at the end of the tunnel awaits god's light and we are confident they will always strive for the right. Tell them don't forget to remember that we are as near as their prayer-and never as far and we can rest in peace because they know who and whose they are."
Now that is the kind of message that I want and expect from Barack Obama, and that's the kind of leader I want him to be. I believe in diversity, but if diversity in one direction curtails diversity in another we have to make a choice. In the case of gay rights that choice is between men like rick Warren who wish to curtail rights, and people who merely want to live their lives with the same freedoms as everyone else.
I don't think that that's a difficult choice.
I'd really like to hear what everyone else has to say, whether you agree or disagree please comment.
Saturday, 20 December 2008
This is unbelievable
I'll keep it simple and just say that I agree with Feministe's sentiment; this is sickening:
This is disturbing on so many levels. Most obviously the fact the a 12-year old black girl was supposedly mistaken for three white women, then there's the level of violence directed against a child, on top of that three weeks later she was taken out of her school in what seems to me like a pretty transparent attempt to intimidate.
Perhaps a little less obvious are the issues related to sex workers, I find it despicable that the police would unleash that level of violence against what is after all a non-violent crime. Not to mention that if they did, as they claim, believe she was a prostitute that's not something that should be dealt with by the police. A 12-year old prostitute is a child protection issue, it's not an issue that can be dealt with a club to the back of the head.
On a related issue this Wednesday was theInternational Day to
End Violence Against Sex Workers; sex workers are at high risk of violence not just because of their working environment but also because of society's (in my opinion hypocritical) disapproval of their profession. I would hope that anyone reading this would be able to put aside any disapproval of the profession and see the human beings who are affected by violence.
Related to this issue is human trafficking; the BBC has this to say on human trafficking into the UK (Emphasis added by bolding is mine):
A lot of the women brought into this country to be raped by British men are very young and some are children. I wonder how the British police would handle a situation like that involving Dymond Milburn, I would hope that it would be a lot better than the Galveston police. I can't imagine how it could be much worse.
This is one of many extremely serious issues that Labour must address, and for me it's one of the reasons why we must fight for a fourth term. The Tories, like the Republicans in the US, like to fight on a platform of "old fashioned family values". Which essentially means reinforcing the status quo of rich white men. They would ignore cases like this because "hey, if they weren't prostitutes it wouldn't happen to them so they're to blame".
Let's Go 4th for Universal Human Rights.
It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn’s home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.
As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, “You’re a prostitute. You’re coming with me.”
Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, “Daddy, Daddy, Daddy.” One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.
As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.
All this is according to a lawsuit filed in Galveston federal court by Milburn against the officers. The lawsuit alleges that the officers thought Dymond, an African-American, was a hooker due to the “tight shorts” she was wearing, despite not fitting the racial description of any of the female suspects. The police went to the wrong house, two blocks away from the area of the reported illegal activity, Milburn’s attorney, Anthony Griffin, tells Hair Balls.
After the incident, Dymond was hospitalized and suffered black eyes as well as throat and ear drum injuries.
Three weeks later, according to the lawsuit, police went to Dymond’s school, where she was an honor student, and arrested her for assaulting a public servant. Griffin says the allegations stem from when Dymond fought back against the three men who were trying to take her from her home. The case went to trial, but the judge declared it a mistrial on the first day, says Griffin. The new trial is set for February.
“I think we’ll be okay,” says Griffin. “I don’t think a jury will find a 12-year-old girl guilty who’s just sitting outside her house. Any 12-year-old attacked by three men and told that she’s a prostitute is going to scream and yell for Daddy and hit back and do whatever she can. She’s scared to death.”
Since the incident more than two years ago, Dymond regularly suffers nightmares in which police officers are raping and beating her and cutting off her fingers, according to the lawsuit.
Griffin says he expects to enter mediation with the officers in early 2009 to resolve the lawsuit.
This is disturbing on so many levels. Most obviously the fact the a 12-year old black girl was supposedly mistaken for three white women, then there's the level of violence directed against a child, on top of that three weeks later she was taken out of her school in what seems to me like a pretty transparent attempt to intimidate.
Perhaps a little less obvious are the issues related to sex workers, I find it despicable that the police would unleash that level of violence against what is after all a non-violent crime. Not to mention that if they did, as they claim, believe she was a prostitute that's not something that should be dealt with by the police. A 12-year old prostitute is a child protection issue, it's not an issue that can be dealt with a club to the back of the head.
On a related issue this Wednesday was theInternational Day to
End Violence Against Sex Workers; sex workers are at high risk of violence not just because of their working environment but also because of society's (in my opinion hypocritical) disapproval of their profession. I would hope that anyone reading this would be able to put aside any disapproval of the profession and see the human beings who are affected by violence.
Related to this issue is human trafficking; the BBC has this to say on human trafficking into the UK (Emphasis added by bolding is mine):
The UK is a major destination for trafficked women. Police believe that about 4,000 have been brought in to the country and forced to work as prostitutes.
Criminal gangs bring them into the country individually or in small, escorted groups. The routes used can change quickly, although some broad routes have been identified.
Victims are found "all over the UK, not just in metropolitan areas", police say.
The gangs behind the trade buy and sell the women for between £2,000 and £8,000. Some have been forced to work 16 hours and have sex with 30 men a day.
A lot of the women brought into this country to be raped by British men are very young and some are children. I wonder how the British police would handle a situation like that involving Dymond Milburn, I would hope that it would be a lot better than the Galveston police. I can't imagine how it could be much worse.
This is one of many extremely serious issues that Labour must address, and for me it's one of the reasons why we must fight for a fourth term. The Tories, like the Republicans in the US, like to fight on a platform of "old fashioned family values". Which essentially means reinforcing the status quo of rich white men. They would ignore cases like this because "hey, if they weren't prostitutes it wouldn't happen to them so they're to blame".
Let's Go 4th for Universal Human Rights.
Friday, 19 December 2008
Franken Pulls "Way" Ahead in Recount
[Edit] The Huffington Post is projecting a Franken victory.
Yes, counting of ballots in still ongoing in the Minnesota Senatorial election a month and half after election day. The good news though is that Democratic candidate Al Franken has pulled ahead. This from Greg Laden at Scienceblogs:
It would be very amusing to see yet another Republican lose their seat after looking like they'd won. Especially in this case because Al Franken has done some very funny stuff.
This is Franken on the Late Show with David letterman discussing running for Senator:
And on the issue of conservative "facts":
Yes, counting of ballots in still ongoing in the Minnesota Senatorial election a month and half after election day. The good news though is that Democratic candidate Al Franken has pulled ahead. This from Greg Laden at Scienceblogs:
There remain at least to other matters to settle. One is the question of alleged duplicate ballots that the Coleman camp wants rejected. It may in fact be the case that some ballots were duplicated and both the original and duplicate counted. There may be about 150 - 200 of these, but I am not sure what removal of these votes from the count would do.
The second issue is the absentee ballots. There are quite a few, possibly between 500 and 1500, absentee ballots that were rejected for invalid reasons. These rejected ballots should really be counted. The Franken camp pushed for this, the Secretary of State agreed and told the counties that they could (but did not necessarily have to) do so, the Coleman camp too this to the State Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled, essentially, in favor of looking at these ballots.
A third issue, I have just learned, is that some of the previously withdrawn challenges have not been added back into the count.
The de-challenged ballots that were removed before the Canvassing board started have not been included in the total, or at least, some of them. Still trying to find out how many. The ones that were removed during the canvassing operation itself are being dealt with on the spot.
The consideration of these absentee ballots is generally thought to favor Franken.
It would be very amusing to see yet another Republican lose their seat after looking like they'd won. Especially in this case because Al Franken has done some very funny stuff.
This is Franken on the Late Show with David letterman discussing running for Senator:
And on the issue of conservative "facts":
Thursday, 11 December 2008
The Worst Predictions for 2008
Now I know that not everyone can be incredibly accurate political barometers like we are at the Aberdeen University Labour Club, but some of these predictions are just horribly wrong.
My favourite has to be:
Not quite on target with that one were you William. Never mind, I'm sure closer to the time you made better predictions.
Or not.
My favourite has to be:
“If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. … Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.” —William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006
Not quite on target with that one were you William. Never mind, I'm sure closer to the time you made better predictions.
After Iowa, Kristol lurched to the other extreme, declaring that Clinton would lose New Hampshire and that “There will be no Clinton Restoration.” It’s also worth pointing out that this second wildly premature prediction was made in a Times column titled, “President Mike Huckabee?”
Or not.
I <3 Jon Stewart
He can be hilariously funny, but at times like this he can also be compassionate and rational. I love the way he just keeps on going back to Mike Huckabee's intolerance but he at the same time he's so polite. I'm not sure I could keep a cool head in the face of such obstinance.
It's a fantastic video and i hope you all enjoy it, I got it from the fantastic ERV. She's an extremely talented young scientist and blogger so maybe if you've got a few minutes free you can go and check out her site.
It's a fantastic video and i hope you all enjoy it, I got it from the fantastic ERV. She's an extremely talented young scientist and blogger so maybe if you've got a few minutes free you can go and check out her site.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Senator Bill Clinton?
Amid the blizzard of résumés blanketing Washington as the Obama era dawns, there is a superbly qualified candidate for full employment whose name has been overlooked. We refer, of course, to William Jefferson Clinton, America's 42nd chief executive and commander in chief. Yet now, by a wonderful combination of circumstances, comes an opportunity to harness his unquestioned political talents to benefit his country, the Democratic Party, New York state and his spouse. If, as is expected, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes secretary of state, New York Gov. David Paterson could send her husband to the U.S. Senate.
[Source:The Washington Post via Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs]
I find this idea intriguing. I was only 15 when Clinton left office so I don't really know how his term was viewed here in Britain but he seems like he was an excellent President and like he would be a great Senator. The main drawback that immediately springs to mind would be the danger that a return to politics could hinder Hilary's career by pulling the spotlight from her. It also would make it easier for misogynists (As in the majority men. Sorry if you don't like it, but to one degree or another it's true and a lot of those that aren't direct misogynists help extend gender inequality by refusing to recognise its extent.) to rationalise away her success as being a result of her husband.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Isn't it strange how two Republican Senators who won in the Polls this year now find themselves losing in the recount.
Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, recently found guilty on seven felony charges for making false statements, won back his seat in the United States senate in this years election; or did he?
It was found shortly after the election that a few ballots had been mislaid, and so not counted...
...and when I say a few, I mean over 90,000. [That's about 29% of the total number of votes cast.]
Yes you did read that correctly, 90,000 uncounted ballots surfaced from the æther. Amazingly the newly counted ballots have so far demolished Steven's 3,257 vote lead and he now trails his opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by 814 votes.
Now in Minnesota, despite Norm Colman's best efforts to throw out votes, Al Franken's deficit in the polls has dropped to a mere 204.
It was found shortly after the election that a few ballots had been mislaid, and so not counted...
...and when I say a few, I mean over 90,000. [That's about 29% of the total number of votes cast.]
Yes you did read that correctly, 90,000 uncounted ballots surfaced from the æther. Amazingly the newly counted ballots have so far demolished Steven's 3,257 vote lead and he now trails his opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by 814 votes.
Now in Minnesota, despite Norm Colman's best efforts to throw out votes, Al Franken's deficit in the polls has dropped to a mere 204.
So, yeah.
This is Obama's chance to end the Star Wars fantasy
Another well written and thought provoking article from the Independent's Johann Hari:
The US has spent $160bn, only to increase the nuclear danger to itself and the rest of us.
The world is still pleasurably suffering from Woah-bama whiplash. Did he really win? Are we all awake? And would anybody mind if he starts a few months early? The need for decisions is rapidly piling up – and one of President-Elect Obama’s first choices is whether to bring to an end the strangest story ever told in American politics.
It is the tale of how a man with Alzheimer’s Disease came up with a physically impossible fantasy based on a B-movie he once starred in – and how the US spent $160bn trying to make it come true. These billions succeeded only in making some defence companies very rich, and making Russia point its nukes at Poland and Britain once more. Oh, and if Obama doesn’t decide to close this long-running farce now, it will make one more contribution to world history: the number of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world will dramatically increase.
Read the rest here.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Keith Olbermann on the passage of Proposition 8.
Keith Olbermann here delivers a Special Comment on the passage of Proposition 8 in California. I don't always agree with Olbermann, see for example his ridiculous rant about Senator Clinton supposedly raising the spectre of assassination, but in this instance he's spot on.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Arbeit Macht ein Douchebag
Just a quicky today beacuase I'm tired and I have work to do. Anyway over at Scienceblogs there's a fun story about some right wing stupidity.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
The Last Battle of the American Civil War
Do you know who the last US President to call Illinois his political home was.
The Answer may change tonight with the election of Barack Obama, but at this point the last one was Abraham Lincoln.
The American people may vote for a leader who is African American, a leader who has limited experience of national politics and a leader with a young family from a poor background who has pulled himself up with hard work and represented the poor as a lawyer.
Lincoln was not African American but he was the rest, he had limited federal experience, was married with a young family who only one of his sons lived passed his childhood, was born in a log cabin in Kentucky and worked as a lawyer representing the poor.
The very fact that today America gets to vote for an African American is thanks to Lincoln and the many thousands of Americans who fought and died in the Civil War, it is thanks to the men and women who saw slavery as an abomination and it is thanks to the many people who risked their lives to help fugitive slaves stay safe.
Lincoln and Obama have one last thing in common, both in their own way are figures in the American Civil War, Lincoln President at its start and if all goes well Obama the President at its end.
Because today could be seen as the Last Battle of the American Civil War.
The Answer may change tonight with the election of Barack Obama, but at this point the last one was Abraham Lincoln.
The American people may vote for a leader who is African American, a leader who has limited experience of national politics and a leader with a young family from a poor background who has pulled himself up with hard work and represented the poor as a lawyer.
Lincoln was not African American but he was the rest, he had limited federal experience, was married with a young family who only one of his sons lived passed his childhood, was born in a log cabin in Kentucky and worked as a lawyer representing the poor.
The very fact that today America gets to vote for an African American is thanks to Lincoln and the many thousands of Americans who fought and died in the Civil War, it is thanks to the men and women who saw slavery as an abomination and it is thanks to the many people who risked their lives to help fugitive slaves stay safe.
Lincoln and Obama have one last thing in common, both in their own way are figures in the American Civil War, Lincoln President at its start and if all goes well Obama the President at its end.
Because today could be seen as the Last Battle of the American Civil War.
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Election Snippet: Lies, Intimidation, and the Youth Vote
This is a post by my favourite blogger about the intimidation of student voters in the swing states of Virginia and Pennsylvania. I suppose the one plus point is that it shows how desperate the republicans are getting.
And this is Rachel Maddow's take on the situation:
And this is Rachel Maddow's take on the situation:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
