WHATTA RUDY!

(thanks Atrios)

danny glover -- whatta country!

yeah did you see the ad too?
@ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

randy newman -- whatta country!

-- thx to jeff fecke of the marvelous shakers...

"Papa, do you REALLY think this country would vote for a woman for President of the United States?"

Chris Matthews will be damned if it does.
...not to mention all the "Bitchy Boys" of November... startin' with McCain.
and the baby Jeebus will weep, weep and weep... ask any Babtist...

It'll take more than Hillary to jerk these jerks around by their choke collars. It'll likely take a huge majority of women to vote this country away from its next deeper dive into insanity -- with Giuliani, Romney, or St. John.

The "clown car" image of the Repub nominees is less funny daily...

I don't quite see Rudy the Insane slouching toward Washington to be born quite as prominently as I saw Bush in 1999. But it grows. And the media hasn't even rolled up its sleeves yet to make that Repub-Demo contest as close as possible.

So if it's Hillary vs. Crazy Rudy, and the media has its heyday disemboweling Hillary at every opportunity (while ignoring the already documented hideousness of Rudy Giuliani and his political mob of monsters) -- then the NEW lesson learned, ramped up from the one learned by the Murikan people in rejecting Gore for Bush, will be the shameful confession of a slight taint of misogyny in the culture, leading to the close victory of Giuliani. "... and we'll all learn a lesson from this, right?"

So here's to the US political process for the presidential campaign of 2008, and its media coverage: "Fuck you." (yer makin' worms' meat of the whole planet, you dumb shits ...)

For truly I say unto you: You won't be able to get far enough away from this country if Giuliani becomes president.

Must Be The Season of the Witch

Ahhh! The Republicans came to the healing waters of the "value voters" on the Sabbath of their god, and the candidates did lay out their gifts like bread upon the waters....

Besides their usual debate strategy: A linguistic simulation of carving off large chunks of meat from the carcass of some dead mammal and throwing them into a cage full of ferocious wild beasts to rip and gobble up -- i.e., all the Republican talking points, domestic and foreign, stoked on greed, selfishness, fear and anger (What? You hadn't noticed?) Each Repub candidate tries to cut off an even larger, bloodier chunk to get the ferocious beasts to frenzy all the more -- they did a NEW THING (at least according to the way media- and blog- receptors portrayed it...)

And no, I didn't watch the debate: Gad, I can't even handle the Discovery channel. Hell, to be honest, I just can't handle the teevee at all anymore -- as they say, "teh stupid, it burns."

So the NEW THING, the new Fall rollout, was puttin' the target on the Clinton-with-cleavage -- the only Vaginal-American -- running for the prez spot. There are juicy videos elsewhere on the web: tbogg's got the one with a roomful of Hillary-haters off the FOX coverage, and holy baby jesus if they don't spread the seeds of hate all over the place. They might come off as dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers (or a bag of Sean Hannitys, as tbogg would have it) but friends: these are your neighbors -- or these are the people who will socialize with your neighbors over the next year... and guess what? We've never seen the likes of swiftboating until the anti-Vaginal-American, anti-Hillary machine starts rolling downhill, if she secures the nomination...

So we got the certifiably insane Republican presidential candidates all atwitter over The Hillary during their Jeebus-loves-me-me-me debate. And there are probably a bunch a reasons for that, though the obvious one is that she has her machine fine-tuned and humming, and the media is perkin' away at her "framed" "narrative" of inevitability. Let's get the woman, that vessel of sin, that great metaphysical Other...

So my question is: Can the Republicans 'pick' Hillary, and then go out and beat her because sexist America will never vote for a woman for president? -- particularly after the Republican machine plays the biggest pipe organ of productions in swiftboating The Hillary.

Just thinking about all the hooks they'll have in misogynist and misClintonist hatred gives me a bellyache.

And is she set up for this? Going all "third way" centrist, with the triangulation that may end up the best weakening of her own opportunity. Because being Repub-lite isn't going to get it, if whoever gets the GOP nomination goes all Eisenhower-Ford-Rockefeller and the myth of Reagan -- as Bob Moser suggests in his Nation magazine series on this year's entertain-election. It's the building "frame" for the 2008 "narrative," and according to Bob, even Romney or Giuliani could beat The Hillary if they carry off the "back to 1956" scenario...

But I've been worried about THE TOTALITY since my daughter -- insightful but too busy by far mother-of-three to pay much attention to this pre-2008 circus -- listened to my spiel for about five minutes, my unreserved optimism about the Dems shoe-in to the White House in 2008.

"Papa, you really think this country will elect a woman or a person of color to be president?" It was my daughter expressing in a matter-of-fact tone an obvious query -- as if her three year-old had said that the sky was green. She arched her eyebrows -- as though now was the time for my first early-geriatric, "base" neurological test.

My sweet, uncynical-to-the-Nth-degree, Eugene OR daughter, calling me back to earth for a reality test. I had a searingly complex feeling of embarrassment, disorientation, and terror. I stammered, stuttered, dropped the subject for awhile...

So now, I find myself able to evoke that feeling anytime I want to: In 2008, are we thinking that Hillary (or Barack) will be greeted with flowers and candy, you know, like Baghdad 2003?

Yeah, it could well be that 2008 is the gateway to the next bigger nightmare.

NAFTA Super Highway

That is the title of an article in the August 27th edition of the Nation magazine. In the article Christopher Hayes talks about a current right wing conspiracy theory about a large super highway which is supposed to run from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. You should read the article for details, here is the link http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes .

My interest in the article is the concern on the Right about international trade which fuels the opposition to such a super highway. Opponents of the highway are concerned about US sovereignty and how making it easier to transport goods manufactured outside the United States into middle America threatens our independence. In other words, the nationalist in the GOP are becoming concerned about what the free traders of the country are doing.

The article claims the right-wingers are fixated on a supposed highway that does not exist nor is it proposed. However, the article does explain that existing highways already connect a Mexican deep water port and Toronto, Canada to Kansas City where investors are trying to promote Kansas City as a hub for international trade. I don't know if this highway is proposed or not, but I believe that if it is cheaper ( and possibly as reliable and as timely) to import goods from China through Mexico than many businesses will choose to use that route and, for the time being, existing highways will serve just fine. When the existing highways become overcrowded they will be expanded or new ones will be built.

NAFTA eliminated the tariffs which would have made this trade route impractical and clause in the NAFTA reauthorization bill permits Mexican truck drivers to drive Mexican trucks on US roads. Goods coming into the US from Mexico will have no tariffs, do not have to be transferred from Mexican to domestic trucks, and can be delivered to their destination in the US by drivers being paid Mexican labor rates. Much has been done in the last fifteen years to make the equivalent of a NAFTA superhighway more likely not less likely.

Back to the Right’s concern about international trade. The arguments made by opponents of this highway have some similarities to the Left’s concern about so called free trade and corporate globalization. The Right opposes the highway because they see it has a threat to US sovereignty. In short, they do not want foreigners to control what happens on our roads. Now this sentiment has racist overtones which anti-corporate globalization advocates reject, but it does seem to open a possible channel for dialogue. If they are concerned about foreign corporations influencing US politics, why aren’t they concerned about the influence of US corporations on our political institutions? If foreign trade decreases our independence, what about the WTO? The WTO was also created by free trade agreements and exercises control over US environmental, safety and labor regulations, but the Right rarely, if ever, includes it in their list of international conspirators.

In the past the Right has staunchly defended US corporations, free enterprise and deregulation. Perhaps this fear of the NAFTA Superhighway will allow them to see where the unfettered market leads and help them gain some understanding of why regulations are needed.
The second part of the article talks about a very real highway proposal in Texas to construct a large privately held toll road from the Mexican border up through the eastern corridor of that state. The highway will be constructed and operated by a Spanish firm. The fact that the road will be a toll road and that it will be privately controlled by a foreign firm has drawn lots of opposition in Texas from Republican activists. They are concerned that this proposal takes all the decisions about where to put the road, how much to charge etc.. out of local people’s control into the hands of a foreign entity.

[Terri] Hall soon became part of the broader anti-TTC effort, and though she originally thought she was just fighting a corrupt local government, she's come to view her battle in a much broader context. "There are big-time control issues," she said. "Someone is really jockeying around to control some things here in America. It explains the open borders, it explains our immigration
issues, it explains our free-trade issues, what it's doing to the middle class. "

The Left should oppose this type of proposal for many of the same reasons. But, I have the same concerns about the privatization of our public roads (or other public infrastructure for that matter) whether the corporation owning the road is domestic or foreign. Either way, local people have no control over how that road will be operated, yet will pay most of the cost via tolls and will be forced to live with the results.

Here in North Carolina, the I-85 bridge across the Yadkin river needs to be replaced. This is a major bridge. I-85 connects Charlotte to Greensboro & Raleigh and on a larger scale Atlanta & New Orleans to Washington DC and the rest of the Northeastern seaboard. In addition to that there are only six bridges that cross the Yadkin between Winston Salem and the South Carolina border. Someone going from Greensboro to Charlotte would add 30 to 40 miles and 45 minutes to their trip if they wanted to avoid the I-85 bridge. This is a trip that tens of thousands of North Carolinians make every day. Yet some politicians in North Carolina want to solicit proposals for private companies to replace the bridge and operate it as a toll bridge. Proponents of the privately owned toll bridge claim that North Carolina cant afford to replace the bridge and that private capital will be required. This is a cop out of the largest degree. Of course the State can afford to build this bridge, but it will most likely require federal subsidy and additional local taxes, advocating for either of these things requires real leadership, something that is in real short supply these days. Instead corrupt politicians see it as a way to enrich their friends on the public dole, and lazy ones just see it as an easy way out.

The push to privatize our public assets has supporters in both political parties in this country. To defeat this dangerous trend, we need opponents from both the Right and the Left side of the political spectrum. We, on the Left, should engage with opponents of this superhighway and ask about their concerns and then talk to them of our concerns about privatization and unfettered capitalism in general. Because if you take away the underlying racism of the Right’s concerns, there is much common ground that we can find on this issue.

Prophetic witness

According to Cornel West in Democracy Matters:

Prophetic witness consist of human deeds of justice and kindness that attend to the unjust sources of human hurt and misery. It calls attention to the causes of the unjustified suffering and unnecessary social misery and highlights personal and institutional evil. The especial aim of the prophetic utterance is to shatter deliberate ignorance and willful blindness to the suffering of others and to expose the clever forms of evasion and escape we devise in order to hide and conceal injustices.

This definition seems to fit the beliefs and actions of a great many activist on the left. I agree with it's premise that if all mankind strove to be prophetic witnesses and acted accordingly than suffering in the world would be reduced. However, I am concerned that being actively conscious of all the injustice in the world is hard. Not that it is too hard on me personally. I am mearly pointing out that my life would be easier if I choose to ignore injustice and pretend it doesn't exist. Or better yet I could blame the victim for their ill fate and my
conscience would be clean.

In my opinion the Right has done a very good job of building a culture that blames the victim. To change this culture will be extremely difficult because it requires people to do something which is much harder on them personally. We want them to take responsibility for their part in creating and/or exacerbating the suffering in the world, and to change they way they live.

The Right tells the middle class and wealthier people that they are innocent, the poor are responsible for their own stake in life. Then the Right plays to the wealthy's pride in achieving their status, "You are a responsible citizen and look at how you have succeeded, if only they worked hard, like you, they too would be wealthy." The Right says you are just fine the way you are. The Left says you are part of the problem and you must change to make the world a better place.

You can see why the Right's message is appealing to many people and why the people who agree with the Right just want those pesky leftist to shut up and go back to wherever they came from. (Note: pesky leftist are always from someplace else, but that is another post.)

Around the Left blogosphere people are writing about creating a progressive culture. We realize that we can not reverse the long term political rightward trend in this country, if we do not replace the culture of "individual responsibility" with a culture of "caring and community." A culture where it is not "every person for themselves" but one where "we are all in this together." I applaud this effort and think it is absolutely essential.

But we must recognize that we are asking people to choose the harder road. Individuals have to sacrifice some of their wants and desires in order to build community. If we do not offer people some reward for their sacrifice then I fear our efforts will be in vain. No, I don't know how to describe the reward, but a better world is not a sufficient reward. It has to be something personal which rewards each individual for their sacrifice.

To live in community is more fulfilling than to live in isolation. We each try to build a circle of friends whom we trust, but we ignore those outside our circle. When we are young we have free time and our circle of friends tends to be large. As we get older, work takes more time, family takes more time, and as everyone gets busier our circle shrinks. At the extreme, people only associate with coworkers at work and their family for the rest of their time. To engage in your community to address common concerns is a way to break this cycle of isolation, to expand ones circle and thus live a more fulfilling life.

American today is a very alienated society. Americans feel isolated from their neighbors and fear people they do not know. The elite in this country benefit from our isolation and appear to reinforce our individualism constantly. They know that only in combination can we challenge their power and status. This is a challenge for the Left but it is also an opportunity. People are uneasy in their isolation. If we can convince them that not only are we stronger together we are happier and more fulfilled as individuals when we are together than we will be moving in the right direction.