John Rogers lays it down: There is no free market in Hollywood. In television for example, with the dissolution of "finsyn" rules in 1995 almost every independent producer has been either absorbed into one of the big media companies or...[...]
Read The Full Article:
recently read an interesting article from Seke Ballard about Barack Obama, and he had this among other things to say:
"In the Presidential race the Democratic front-runner is a charismatic, bright and well-achieved man who has garnered the tacit support of arguably the most intelligent publication in all of Europe, The Economist, and a substantial number of American voters. Oddly enough, black Americans don't fall into the mass of supporters itching to cast their ballots for Barack Obama. The most obvious question is why? And, however unfortunate, the most obvious answer is because of the oft-referenced 'crab mentality' of blacks. A credible theory that explains crab mentality among blacks points to the division of work during slavery. Generally stated, there was a strong positive correlation between how light a slave was and the likelihood that they would work in the house as maids, butlers and/or cooks - instead of being in the field with darker slaves. Typically, those who worked closer to the owners in the home were privy to better food, clothing, shelter and overall treatment. For this reason, domesticated slaves were often more accommodating to whites and accepting of their subordinate status as blacks in society. The result was a mixture of jealousy and hatred of the so-called "house Negroes" by the so-called 'field Negroes.' "
Seke, you are wrong. The field Negro is not a "crab," and he only envied the house Negro's position because of the physical comfort it brought him. For instance, while his ass was in the house with all its comforts, and the assuage that comes with it; the poor field Negro was out in the fields working his ass off in the burning sun and living in constant pain from either being whipped, or from the pain that hard work brings. There was no envy of the house Negro's looks or his smarts (Although house Negroes today would have you believe that there is). And the field Negro did not envy the house Negro's stake in the house, because the field Negro knew then, and does now, that the house Negro has no greater stake in the house than he does.
Now you are right that the "domesticated slave" or the house Negro is more accepting of his subordinate role in society. And this, I submit to you, is another reason the field Negro takes issue with him. The field Negro sees the potential the house Negro has and he is disappointed because the house Negro is not maximizing it and using it to his (or his races) advantage.
Which brings me back to Mr. Obama. I don't think field Negroes see him as a house Negro, because we know that his heart is in the right place. --And the crap about him being born in another country and therefore he cannot share the African American experience, is just bull shit rethuglican talking points being used to divide and torpedo his campaign--- But to be honest, Obama isn't moving us either, and his campaign isn't gaining traction in the fields. In truth, Obama will never get mass appeal until he starts appealing to the field Negro. But he is afraid, because he mistakenly believes that by trying to appeal the field Negro he will alienate "charlie".
"...the field Negroes, once again, have been sippin' on their Haterade?. They've established this unreasonable idea of blackness that punishes balanced and long-term political perspective that is rightfully not militantly pro-black and opportunistic. However, paradoxically, this same critical group of people rewards reverends with perms, over-sized egos and rhetoric that could put Mother Goose to shame. Just as during slavery, a person's blackness is being called into question for largely invalid reasons. The result is an unfortunate illustration of how blacks continue to perpetuate their own mental enslavement. My advice: if you happen to be a field Negro, take a step back and analyze exactly why you don't support Obama."
Wrong again Seke, "Haterade" is a drink I know nothing about; and I think most other field Negroes feel the same way. You should know better, but I will tell you anyway: we do not reward Reverend Inc. for anything, although we do appreciate what they try to do at times. And with all due respect, or minds are quite free.
Finally, we are not cool towards Barack because he isn't black enough. We are cool on him because he doesn't seem genuine enough, and he fucks up every time he has a chance to show us that he is. Memo to Barak: If you can't put away the "ice Queen" with a royal bitch slap, how can you expect to deal with these rethuglicans out here and the rest of red state A-merry-ca? Folks that would have the field Negro back in the fields quicker than you can say Mississippi. Yes, a "balanced and long- term political perspective" is fine if you are teaching a political science class, but out here in this fucked up environment known as A-merry-ca, we just don't have time to wait for all of that to happen.
"My advice: if you happen to be a field Negro, take a step back and analyze exactly why you don't support Obama."
............OK, self analysis done, and I think I just gave it to you.
Read The Full Article:
Certainly one looks at Fred Thompson and doesn't really see someone who wants to be the preznit. Maybe he's really running for Veep.
But generally the sad thing is that literally everyone who really wants to be president right now is basically nuts. That's true generally, and it's extra true now.
(h/t Heather)You knew we had to post this…On a related note, the most news generated by this debate was unfortunately not the substance of the issues as raised by Kucinich and Edwards, but that Hillary Clinton was heckled. Turns out that it was a Code Pink member. Hey media? Do you think maybe focusing [...]
Read The Full Article:
In the wake of the recent crisis in Pakistan, Iraq escalation architect Frederick Kagan of AEI and Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon penned a column yesterday urging the U.S. to weigh a military option in Pakistan to secure its nuclear stockpiles:
[T]he United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. … We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that. … Pakistan may be the next big test.
As the “intellectual architect” of the surge, Kagan (who also advocates war with Syria and Iran) was personally invited by the White House to help “hammer out” the escalation strategy last year. O’Hanlon has backed war with Iraq since 2002 and is a chief proponent of a long-term occupation of Iraq.
In the op-ed, they recommend the use of Special Forces to secure the nukes, or a “broader option” requiring “a sizable combat force.” “Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place,” they write. “Moderate Muslim nations” would join the U.S. in organizing a combat force in Pakistan.
The duo claims it is not “strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq” to implement these plans. But such a plan would eviscerate the “out of balance” U.S. military, according to Gen. George Casey. The National Security Network adds:
Kagan and O’Hanlon clearly have a hidden stash of U.S. soldiers. Even if you were sending “just” 40,000-50,000, our military could not sustain that operation without taking our troops out of Iraq.
O’Hanlon and Kagan’s strategy depends on cooperation from Pakistan and “moderate Muslim nations,” but such cooperation is unlikely as President Bush’s approval rating in Pakistan is currently at nine percent and at similar levels across the Muslim world.
The White House said in July that it would consider strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan, which drew “a chorus of protests in Pakistan” and caused greater instability. No matter the consequences are, military strikes are always on the table for O’Hanlon and Kagan.
I tend to like Courtney Martin's musings on Gen Y activism, but I'm not terribly clear on what she thinks would happen if students stopped conducting activism within their colleges and "step[ped] into [the] raw power...of being young and mad."...[...]
Read The Full Article:
Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here.
Subject: Nevada DebateBookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati Technorati Tags: BuzzFlash Mailbag Privacy Economy John Sweeney Howard Krongard Libertarians Catholic Church Impeachment
Associates of Al Qaeda in Iraq have reportedly developed a new style of IED in Karbala, which has lo
Read The Full Article:
Well, the deadline for filing that appeal has passed and none was filed. Bambenek was all talk, no action.
The only hope for Republicans in 2008 is that they can make Iraq a bipartisan disaster, something the Villagers in general are desperate to make happen.
In his first Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan remarked that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." While the quip has provided Republicans with a cheap slogan for two decades, the philosophy behind it is beginning to box them in. If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology. And when you elect people who believe that government won't work, you shouldn't be surprised when government stops working [...]
Democrats should and will use Bush and his destructive policies on the campaign trail as the primary example of what happens when people who hate government are elected to run it. The message will be that Bush isn't a historical anomaly: he's the embodiment of modern conservatism.
If Americans want willfully ineffective government, they'll have a Republican Party desperate for their votes. But with 70 percent of the American people thinking the nation is on the wrong track, it's clear they expect the opposite. As long as Democrats make that contrast clear—and Bush's record will be integral to that argument—they should be headed for victory in 2008.
Outgoing Homeland Security Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend today sent President Bush a three-page handwritten letter announcing her resignation. A highlight from the letter:
In 1937, the playwright Maxwell Anderson wrote of President George Washington: There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, til all men walk on higher ground in their lifetime.
Mr. President, you are such a man.
See a full-size version of the letter HERE.