Astronauts for a Flat Earth vs. The Barbarian Hordes

barbariansburnbuildingThere are many things I’ve read in history that show how an unruly mob can change the direction of things.  The blogosphere is watching an unruly mob in action right now as Wonkette is trying to stack the WebBlog awards against all things PUMA.  I’ve started reading some of the threads coming in to The Confluence (example: here) and there’s a sense among some of the other folks in the other categories that they are the innocent victims of an unruly mob.  I’m sure that’s how the other Hun tribes felt when Attila assimilated them.

All you have to do is take a look back at the entire dark ages and the crusades and get a pretty good answer as to how this type of thing gets its start .  It basically starts with some ‘character’ who may or may not exist who gets an incredible amount of buzz placed around them that is clearly not based in history or fact or anything.   Thus, a mythical hero is born.  Some one to rape and pillage for … some one to use to justify an attack on other tribes, other religions, any other. It just builds and builds until you get a Spanish Inquisition or something similar.  

The King Arthur legends come to mind also.  A tribal king who may or may not exist turns into the great fictional hero just because tons of unruly mobs need some kind of  legend to mob around.  All kinds of morality plays develop to show that our legendary hero is just that mythical, legendary, and grounded more in a game of rumor than history and reality.  I know I just gave some examples of things way back when.  Why would I think that in an age of  ‘information’ we could possibly see the same kind of history repeat itself?

While many of the blogs are now upset that they’ve been caught up in the raping and pillaging which was no fault of their own, they too, now have been caught up in the creating the legends that turn the truth into a nice mythical legend that gets WAY out of hand.  In my first case, about 2000 years way out of hand.

MYTH NUMBER ONE:  It’s all about Hillary losing.  PUMAs just won’t get over it.  They are like Astronauts for a Flat Earth or WW2 Japanese Soldiers trapped up in the Hills refusing to believe the Emperor gave in.

While Hillary Clinton eventually wound up to be the candidate of choice for me, one year ago I had no preference.  What really drove me to the PUMA realization wasn’t Hillary loosing, it was HOW she lost or rather HOW the DNC went around constructing an OBAMA win.   If anything PUMA is about holding the DNC accountable for cheating that occurred in caucuses, how the distributions of delegates was determined, how lopsided the punishment of Florida and Michigan was compared to other states that moved their primaries up also against DNC ‘rules’, and the railroading of the democratic convention process.  If you think all of this is just one big conspiracy theory on the part of PUMAS either do some research or take up residency in the bat cave with Cheney.  I’m not certain he’s turning that over to Biden even though I know the Obama administration will want to lock him up there eventually. So that’s it, it’s not about HILLARY losing it’s about HOW Obama  “won”.  Yes, the “win”  (sic) is in quotes.

MYTH NUMBER TWO:  All Pumas are conspiracy theorists.  In every population there’s the average and there’s the extremes and outliers.  Yes, you can find the folks that went searching for that Holy Whitey Tape and the Kenyan Birth certificate, but the majority of the PUMA sites (especially The Confluence)  never jumped on to the wingnut stories. Again, I’ll go back to the basic reason PUMAs exist and that is how positively fucked up the primaries and caucuses were and how they were completely mishandled by the DNC and the DRC.

MYTH NUMBER THREE:  ALL Pumas are Racists and just can’t deal with the idea of a Black Man being president.  I’ll again point to the Bell Curve.  Of course there are Pumas that are racists but the majority are not.  The problems that PUMAs have with Obama has to do with his extremely small level of accomplishments and his overblown and now mythic intelligence and academic records (which by the way, the public has never seen).  It’s been debunked that he was the first black on the Harvard Review by Harvard themselves although mysteriously in Obama’s senate site there was a resume that said that he was.  It was  sitting there for the two years he pretended to be the Senator from Illinois.  The man has never been in an election where extremely weird things haven’t happened–like getting all your opponents thrown out on technicalities, having sealed divorce records of your opponents magically show up in public, or having the delegates to your caucuses in places like Texas leave the process with tons of forms in their arms.  I’ve looked and as far as I can tell, the man has never even had a full time job.  There are PUMAs of color. It’s not his skin color.  It’s his Chicago political career and his appalling lack of experience. For me it was, oh no, not another person who got into Harvard as a legacy.  I’m frankly tired of legacy Ivy Leaguers.  The hardest thing about the Ivy Leagues is getting in there if you’re anything but a legacy.  Getting out is nearly guaranteed.  Think DUBYA.

MYTH NUMBER FOUR:  PUMAS are bitter old white women who find sexism everywhere.  Considering the number of times during 2008 racism was found EVERYWHERE,  I just gasp at the total lack of awareness on the part of people on the obvious sexism.   If some one stood up  in a room and asked Obama if he’d shine their shoes, that would be such obvious racism that I doubt the KKK would rise to debate.  If every where he went there were folks wearing t-shirts with the N word emblazoned across them, there would have been riots.  If effigies of Obama hanging from trees on Halloween or  Little Black Sambo dolls were being manufactured with his face on them, the outrage from every where would have been swift and justified.  These things happened to the two women candidates in the white house races using language from sexist instead of racist tomes.  The outrage was nonexistent.

Side myth to this:  ALL Pumas are uneducated.  Just having spent time on any of the PUMA sites, I have to say this is really not true.  If anything, especially at the Confluence, there are a large number of PUMAS with advanced educations.  Not that this really matters because having worked for universities for years I can attest that there are some miserably stupid people out there with Phds.  I really get tired of the elitist meme.  Believe me, some times I really wish I was kat the plumber instead of kat the economist.  Last week would have been a perfect time for that in my house.

MYTH NUMBER FIVE:  PUMAS voted enthusiastically for Mcain and Palin, were basically Republicans all along and were just spoilers.   All you have to do is go back to The Confluence’s voting strategy series to see that there were very few PUMAS that fell into the enthusiastic Republican voters categories.  Yes, there were folks who eventually decided they felt more at home as Republicans.  Many decided to re-register independent.  But most of the PUMAS I’ve met are still your basic democrat with no party home any more because they feel the party has abandoned its root principles including, most importantly the ONE man ONE vote principle.  Most PUMAs I know disagreed with everything Sarah except for the fact that as a sitting governor, she didn’t deserve to be treated like a bimbo.

Now you can continue to rewrite history out there in the blogosphere, much like Constantine the high priest of the Sun God decided to invent Christianity, create the Jesus myth, and control slaves, women, pagans, children, barbarians and other Roman property or you can sit back and use the Internet to find the facts.  This is after all, the information age or have  you decided to ignore science and just restart the Spanish inquisition?


Krugman inkles the D-word

ts-krugman-190Paul Krugman’s op-ed piece today took my fears about the global free fall in manufacturing from the monetary sector straight to the real sector.   He’s making the case that the U.S. economy is at the start of depression.

The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.

As a liberal economist with impeccable credentials,  Dr. Krugman has always been called the consummate Keynesian.  This is despite his major contributions come from Trade Theory where he argues continually in his academic work for open, unfettered trade. Economists generally tend to be a pragmatic and practical sort because we focus on outcomes.

The main question posed by Krugman today concerns the Obama stimulus plan.

If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case …

So will we “act swiftly and boldly” enough to stop that from happening? We’ll soon find out. “

Read the rest of this entry »


You’ve just taken then Oath of Office and …

You take off across country on a ‘barnstorm tour’ to support your economic stimulus plan.

What?  Wasn’t that what the election was all about?

According to Fox news this morning,  Obama will meet with congressional leaders this week to get them started on an economic stimulus plan.

The first order of business for Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress is to enact the still-emerging economic recovery plan as soon as possible.

The plan, which some Obama aides think could swell to about $850 billion after negotiations with lawmakers, would be the largest investment in public infrastructure since the federal highway system was established in the 1950s. It also would provide tens of billions of dollars in aid to financially strapped states

Biden, Reid and Pelosi will be forming and enacting economic policy after a few kumbhaya, come to jesus moments with Republicans.  Then President Obama will begin a ‘barnstorming’ tour of the country to drum up support for the plan while every one else back in Washington does all the work.

gall_clinton_giMeanwhile, at the CNN Political ticker: Clinton Likely in for Bumpy Ride.  Evidently the news media thinks that the Secretary of State is in charge of foreign policy.

Has anybody read the constitution recently or are we about to see the birth of the European-style presidency here in the U.S.?  Will Obama become a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth waving his pretty hands to his subjects while His Majesty’s minister’s do all the hard work.  This was something that I’d never really given thought to during the election, but as of late I’m speculating about it continually.

Instead of one Cheney, will we get two?

I have to admit that I’m going to be pretty happy if Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President of the Middle Class Biden can effectively use their joint knowledge and experience to improve the country and the world situation.  Both of them are without a doubt two of the most qualified people on the planet.  Maybe I’m wishful thinking on one level because the degree of inexperience and lack of depth and breadth of knowledge by president teleprompter jesus just continually flabbergasts me.  He’s hopeless off script.  HOWEVER, and this is a HUGE HOWEVER, is this in keeping with the spirit of democratically elected officials as well as our form of government?

Are we moving from an imperial presidency to a historical symbol presidency ?  And by whose authority have we morphed the role of the president?

Pinch me if I’m wrong here.  Tell me on one level to relax and be glad the grown ups are in charge.  Still, there’s that little bit of Colonial Dame/DAR member (my mom registered me, really) that worries about the role of the presidency in terms of our Constitution.  (Silly me.)  If we’re going to amend the constitution, shouldn’t we at least get to vote first?


The Dakini’s Office Pool

morgana 

It’s almost the New Year.  Having once dated a New Yorker for an extended period of time, I got used to William Safire (whose column I miss a lot) and his end of the year Office Pool.  He always had a list of predictions that challenged you to beat the pundit.  Some of my favorite questions had to do with the results of elections as well as topical things like the number of troops left in Iraq by the end of the year.

You can be as snarky, hopeful, truthful, or scary right on as you wish. 

 

Here’s a few of them to get you started:

  Read the rest of this entry »


When Inclusion is Really Exclusion

200px-bishop_gene_robinson_portrait_2005When I heard that Rick Warren was invited by PE Obama to say a prayer at the inauguration,  my first thought was that Obama’s pandering to the religious right was more than just electioneering.  Obama seems intent on including them in his administration.  To me, this  bodes poorly for science, rational thought, and civil rights.   I was hoping he might ask some one like Rev. Gene Robinson, an Episcopalian Bishop to give the prayer because it would demonstrate a true commitment to civil rights.  Rev. Robinson is openly gay and his appointment has been an ongoing source of controversy.

I was pleased to read Jeffrey Feldman’s blog today to find there was some one else out there with similar feelings.  I always find the Feldman’s analysis of how people looking for positions of power  ‘frame’ cultural and political issues fascinating.  Feldman believes that Obama is not leading on civil rights issues but ‘tinkering’ and points to previous democratic leaders who took bold stands on civil rights issues.  I’m going to highlight his main points, but would suggest you go look at the entire essay.

Obama, Feldman believes,  comes up short on the leadership scale.

Marriage equality for gays and lesbians is not just some “social issue” akin to school uniforms, warning labels on music or smoking in restaurants.  It is the current epicenter of the civil rights movement in America.

…  When Lincoln took office, the abolition of slavery was the epicenter.  When Wilson took office, the women’s suffrage movement was the epicenter.  When FDR took office, poverty was the epicenter. When Kennedy took office, segregation was the epicenter

Thinking about Obama’s presidency in terms of an  ‘epicenter’ of civil rights changes how we think about Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration.

Rick Warren is not just a pastor opposed to gay rights. He is a highly political leader of a mega-church who has compared abortion to the Holocaust and opposed marriage reform in terms equivalent to the bigoted plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia–the landmark 1967 civil rights case overturning anti-miscegenation marriage laws.  In an era where gay rights are the epicenter, Rick Warren is a widely recognized voice arguing against those rights. 

Translating Rick Warren into the terms of previous civil rights eras is the key to seeing why his role at Obama’s inauguration is so troubling. By comparison, if this were Lincoln’s inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent pro-slavery pastor giving the invocation.  If this were Wilson’s inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent of an anti-women’s suffrage pastor saying a prayer.  For FDR, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor opposed to rights for the poor. For Kennedy, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor who spoke out repeatedly about the dangers of desegregation. 

In each of these cases, for the President-elect to invite the a voice known for arguing against progress–and to do so in the name of political peacemaking, as Barack Obama has done with Rick Warren–would have revealed a tinkerer on civil rights, not a leader.

Feldman raises just one faucet of leadership where Obama fails.  Obama’s cabinet appointments are being ‘framed’ as pragmatic.  Obama has said he wants to be surrounded by folks that are not idealogues, but folks that will get things done.  I guess I have to raise the question of how important is getting a bureaucracy to work when the overall goals are based on functionality and not vision.  This is where I think Feldman sees the gay rights as symptomatic of Obama’s lack of leadership skills.  As President, Obama should be doing more than just making history based on appearances.  If Obama is ‘symbolic’ of civil rights gains, then what does it say to choose Warren, some one who assaults the civil rights of both women and GLBT Americans? 

I feel compelled to add my voice to those asking Obama to disinvite Warren.  What would it say if Obama, instead, asked Rev Robinson to contribute this prayer instead?   Wouldn’t the inclusion of Rev. Gene Robinson make a compelling statement towards the future of  civil rights in this country?  Wouldn’t this be a strong statement given that the President Elect’s supporters contributed so heavily to the defeat of Prop 8 in California?  This would be a sign of leadership and not just a going along with what worked to get Obama elected.