"You can't fix black..."

Ron White has/had a comedy special on Comedy Central called "You can't fix stupid." He was dead on accurate with that statement.

But, to better understand my point, a paraphrase here works best: "You can't fix black."

Most football fans woke up to yet another dozzy of a story from the NFL this morning, news that NY Giants star WR Plaxico Burress had apparently accidentally shot himself in the leg.

In this blog, off and on, I have discussed the pathology of the black man in America and what it means to be black, and I've done so clearly noting that I am a white man, who grew up and currently lives in a predominantly white area of America.

I think this is the kind of shit that has driven people like Bill Cosby to lose his mind and start speaking out against "black America," and specifically to black men. Apparently, in America, we can fix all sorts of problems, but we cannot seem to be able to fix what I would call "being black."

Burress shot himself accidentally because he was apparently carrying a LOADED gun in a NY club and it went off.

This demonstrates just how stupid some of these morons are...it's so brilliant, it's stupefying.

I am far and away against censorship, but these are the types of events that make me even go..."Hmmmmm..." when considering the merits (more like that lack thereof) of allowing rap music to permeate our "culture."

A music that glorifies violence, thinks saying "my Niggah" is cool, preaches the concept to not help the police solve crimes even against your own family, preaches to be a "real man" you have to be able to "carry yourself" (in code = carry and handle a big freakin gun with tons o' bullets...HOW DOES THIS HELP EDUCATE young black men to be better people??????!!!!!

Most young, black men look up to basketball and football stars because they see those two sports as the biggest way to "make it" in America.

How many white football fans this morning when they first heard this news laughed at it a bit and thought, "sounds about right."

How many young black men this morning when they woke up and heard this news thought..."That's my Niggah?"

What was this morning seemingly a little story about a stupid, rich, black man shooting himself in the leg in a hotel club...was really about the sad, pathetic, pathology of the black man in America and how he can't go anywhere without a loaded gun and feel safe.

Ask Ray Lewis, that accessory to murdering bastard should know...

New Faces

For reasons I have identified before in this blog, I no longer can stand to watch CNN election coverage or general coverage of a tooth extraction.

And, as also noted previously, I am a fan of MSNBC in general.

However, with the impeding send-off of Chris Matthews, his show Hardball will need a new host.

Seeing as how I loathe to watch Gregory and his pompous ass, and seeing how he already has a show, I am getting the sneaky suspicion that one David Schuster is being groomed to at least take Matthews' job for the near future.

While I didn't care for the hilarious penalty he paid for his "gaffe" in saying the Clinton's had "pimped-out" Chelsea (he was correct, mind you), and I supported his right to free speech, and I didn't feel any disciplinary action was warranted at the time...I cannot stand Schuster as a host.

He is in the same vein as Blitzer, and Gregory, and he marks a growing trend for news anchors to be completely void of any personality on screen.

This is why I love Olbermann, and I love Maddow. It's not just that they are both left-leaning to be sure, they have personality. It's also why I tend to like Pat Buchanan, tho a nut-job he is, but he has some spunk, and he's not afraid to speak his mind.

I loved watching the late Peter Jennings when he ran the ABC News unit and when he was on screen because he had a charming, and witty personality.

I want personality MSNBC, I don't want a drone. Matthews was often over the top, occasionally inappropriate, but he was fun to watch and he had interesting things to say.

PLEASE replace Matthews with someone with a brain and a personality.

Here they come...

The leftists have found their voice against the Obama-man and they seem perturbed.

They are annoyed by what they see as old Clinton-era/Admin. re-treads in terms of cabinet posts (most specifically in the Treasury).

Look, lets make this clear, yet again to you left-wing nut-jobs:

To get shit done in big, bad D.C. you need to know how to grease the wheels, how to make the wheels of government at the most incremental level work, and how to go into those backrooms, cut deals and get the job done.

You leftists may not like the Clinton's, you may loathe them, in fact...but they know their way around D.C. and with a progressive Democrat in the White House you should see the more progressive agenda.

When an administration is over, or when people leave an administration, they often go into the power structure within D.C. and they become/maintain their expertise on their specialty issue.

Should you really, truly, be punishing Obama for picking some of the most brilliant minds who just happened to have also be tabbed by the Clinton Administration? Just because they were in the Clinton Administration should be not even look at their curriculum vitae when faced with an economic crisis such as this?

I have a friend I chat with frequently, and he didn't like the idea of Larry Summers being the Treasury Secretary, so he's happy with the latest news I suppose. But, I don't get it. Summers said something inflammatory at Harvard while being their President (something which is not entirely unfounded according science as it may seem), but fine...he's a dick. Should we really punish the guy for being a dick and not avail ourselves of his brilliant economic mind? He doesn't have the best social skills, people who know him say. Are we going to preclude all those with appropriate "social skills" from serving our country, if so, you can probably kiss this teacher good riddance.

Put your petty views aside leftists and give your man, Obama, a chance. You elected him, let him do his work. You owe it to him, you owe it to yourselves, and dammit, you owe it to this country you claim to love.

So, sit down, shut the fuck up, and give the man a year before you start sniping. Geez!! We haven't had a Democrat in the White House for 8 years, be fucking grateful will ya?

Big Hill and the World

This whole Hill for Sec. of State has been playing out for a while. Initially, I didn't really "get" why she would subject herself to being under at least a pseudo-Obama thumb and why she wouldn't want her independence to generally speak her mind.

But, as this dragged on, I can see why she may take this post.

1. Being the junior Senator from New York behind the big mouth Schumer, doesn't give her much leverage to get the top committee posts she wants (the big money committees). Even if, and I hope he keeps kicking for years, Ted Kennedy were finally to die because of his brain tumor, or resign, she'd still be behind in seniority some big names.

2. There's currently a big hub-bub about former President Clinton's work and how he's been getting (no doubt sack loads) of cash and gifts during his travels. I think it's clear that if she were to run for President again she'll have to be more disclosing of what happened during the Clinton years and the post-years due to some Presidential records locks being undone via time passage. Those records are still locked and this was supposedly one of the big reasons she ran this year, those records were not available by law.

Moreover, it seemed very clear to me that her campaign struggled. I don't know why she trusted Mark Penn and he's clearly a colossal nimrod (if she'd listened to her own voice, much like if McCain had, she very well could have taken Obama). But, she really struggled, I think, in keeping Bill on the complete straight and narrow.

By going into this full vetting (though the Clinton's are haggling over what they will allow to be vetted), I think it will keep Clinton on a string and "under control" for as long as she is in the office. And if Bill goes off the reservation, that wouldn't necessarily be her fault...it'd be hung around Obama.

3. She would serve at least 4 years, and if Obama lost re-election, she could ride in on the white horse in 2016. If he won re-election, she could serve 5-6 and be out campaigning and raising vast sums of money for the 2016 race.

It appears at Biden's age, if Obama served 2 terms, may prevent him from running...so we may have another Cheney case on our hands in 8 years where both parties have new people.

4. By getting out of the Senate, she can escape that problem referred to in the post before this...where multiple votes begin to seem contradictory and you turn into John Kerry saying "I actually voted for the war, before I voted against it." But, she'd keep a public face during times of international crisis, which I think there will no doubt be.

5. Moreover, she can also stay out and above the political fray...good or bad. No one would remember the good, but they would the bad.

6. Deniability. Anything she says as an official envoy to the world can be denied in a later Presidential campaign by saying she was offering the position of the Obama Administration, not necessarily her own.

7. Israeli-Palestinian Peace. I think Obama may take a swing at this thing, a serious swing. And if she's handling the negotiations, she'll get a hefty chunk of the glory. If it fails again, whatever Obama tries, she wouldn't be blamed because of all the history in this conflict.

8. Hill is clearly a smart woman, but she can also use this opportunity to gather new ideas, new thoughts, new worldviews and perhaps re-invent herself and her message if she so chooses. Not to mention, perhaps, establishing new potential contacts to fund raise from.

9. She can not only re-invent her message, she can re-invent herself...yet again.

The only positive I can come up with her to staying in the Senate is her autonomy. It's possible that if the world blows up in mass hell-age she'd possibly get some blame, but again, I think it would all be targeted at an Obama administration.

So, at the beginning when the name was floated by whomever, I didn't buy her interest, but the more I have thought about it...I think she goes for it.

She could run for Governor of New York and resign her Senate seat if she won in 2010, but I don't think being the Governor of New York will give her the broad national headlines that being in the Senate has gotten her, nor even close to being the Secretary of State in a time of world upheaval. Not to mention, it's been rumored Rudy may run for Governor in 2010, and within New York she could lose to him, which would look bad. Even if she didn't lose, it'd be a nasty, expensive campaign that would NOT help her in any way for her Presidential aspirations. So, this option for her, in my view, is closed as well.

One-Quarter

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has FINALLY sucumbed to the heard of the masses and has been bounced from his long tenure in the US Senate in giving his last speech ever on the Senate floor.

It certainly took long enough for this man, this jackass, to be ousted, but something made me a stir in the belly when I read this account from the AP NewsService about Stevens' last speech on the floor:

"...perhaps a quarter of the chamber's 100 members gathered to hear him and the gallery filled with his friends and family."

A quarter? Seriously?!?! This is a problem. Who were these quarter consisting of? I want names because they deserve to be ass-kicked out of the Senate with him.

This low-life Senator who has bilked MILLION of greenbacks over a generation for Alaska (not to mention himself) via earmarks, secret deals, etc...shouldn't be applauded by anyone.

He is not a likable figure on ANY level here.

Blech.

If I had to choose between preferring the Senate or the House, I'd prefer the Senate 7 days a week over the House and twice on Sunday's.

The U.S. House is too partisan to get anything serious done, and most of the consensus building is done in the U.S. Senate, which is why long-term Senators have a hell of a time running and winning the White House. Too many votes that are seemingly contradictory on their face, when in face it's consensus building.

But, this consensus building has it's drawbacks as well. Sen. Stevens is one example of those, and so is what happened with Sen. Lieberfuck. They all work together more often, so they actually tend to like each other more, thus Lieberfuck gets what is tantamount to a "pass" on his nasty, hateful rhetoric against Obama during the election cycle.

Almost like the Supreme Court. Scalia and Ginsburg could be chummy despite their radically divergent views because the very nature of the job insists they must collaborate and get along and, thus, come to respect and understand each others viewpoint (in theory).

But, to stand and applaud a total fraud like Stevens is awful and pathetic. Hope there were no Democrats in that quarter.

In a stunning development...

...errrrrrrrr....NOT...the Democrats pussy-up again.

Taking Lieberfuck was EXACTLY what needed to be done, and they could stomach enough balls to kick this Jewish piece of shit out of the party, much less of stripping him of his powerful committee chairmanship.

Playing nice to Lieberfuck was bullshit, and totally asinine.

This man shit on Obama. There have got to be consequences here.

This again shows why the Dems are totally clawless, toothless, and inept: They can't even whack someone in their own party when they so clearly deserve it.

Watch for roads in red country being covered in drool, the drool of Republican operatives seeing that the Dems are complete losers who can't play the game.

AIG & more bailing

Someone has to explain this to me. I really don't get nor endorse the idea of giving AIG MORE money to spend and bail them out.

This coming off the heels of them being busted for using the last bailout to go on a business "retreat" at some lush, tropical resort.

Sure, as I've heard it, they have agreed to cap compensation to their CEOs..but this doesn't stop them from wasting this money on these bullshit corporate "retreats."

Late Update 11/11/08: ABC News has broken another story on those damn execs @ AIG going on yet ANOTHER freaking resort trip...brilliant.

The Paradox of the Black Vote

Proposition 8 in California and 2 others like it in other states passed.

These banned gay marriage. There is a paradox of the black vote in America.

The jesus-loving black people who fought bigotry, racism, and brought this country to it's epic accent with the election of Barack Obama...are bigots themselves...bigots against gay people.

It's a sad sight to see really. These people, this group of people full of fortitude for generations have allowed themselves to become what they fought so hard against, just in another facet.

The huge turn-out in the black vote essentially doomed any chance of these referendums failing...ensuring gay rights would continue to be set back.

I hate jesus freaks for sure, and these great people, these blacks who have fought against persecution and hanging for generations sadden me and frustrate my rational mind. Religion, used for years against black people, is such a bitch.

Obama MUST be fleet-a-foot

For Obama to get the most out of his Presidency, he needs to move decisively and quickly in his first 6 months in office, and set up priorities beforehand.

I believe he can and will do this, but if he doesn't...his Presidency will be doomed to accomplish very little.

For what seems like a potentially long time, 8 years, is really scant little to get shit done on your terms as President.

A good 6-8 months after your inauguration is the key period.

Too much longer after that, people in the Congress are looking to the next 2 year election cycle. Then you end up in the 4 year Presidential re-election mode, where Presidents often become too cautious and propose anything that can be seen as a radical change.

Once elected, you have maybe another year and then your a lame duck. If defeated, your fubar.

Obama, and his oratory, his history-making moment here may be able to squeak out more valuable "get shit done time" than your average US President.

But, he can ill afford (nor do I think he will get caught up by anything this stupefying) what happened to the ill-disciplined Clinton who got trapped into gays in the military issue within moments of taking office, effectively killing his honeymoon period.

Supporting US Automakers

Previously in this blog I have argued vociferously that any/all US automaker companies should be allowed to fail under their own fiefdom.

I still believe this theory, and I drastically encourage the US Government to let Chrysler alone go under.

I am still in favor of letting GM and/or Ford to also go belly-up, UNLESS they agree to some serious strings with any type of cash held the government gives them.

I'm thinking of strings like:

A. Caps on CEO compensation

B. Forcing these companies to cut back their line of car choices

C. Mandatory fuel efficiency ratings for any car or truck they make/manufacture, based on graduated scale (higher than 32mpg for any cars, higher than 27-28mpg for any truck.

D. A written in stone commitment to pay the people their pensions as promised up to 80% of the value.

E. A written in stone commitment to put more profits on a percentage basis into environmentally friendly R&D.

F. An agreement to pay back any/all bailout money given to them with 5% interest, a modest 5% I think considering.

If these automakers refuse to adhere to these strings, then fuck 'em. Let them fail.

Obama has "no mandate"...???

Gotta love them Repos. A man of color, who is also a Democrat wins the popular vote by 6% and the Selectoral College vote by a margin of more than 2:1, and they come up with this gem.

Obama has "no mandate" they say. I agree. Obama doesn't have a mandate.

He does, however, have a: "Roll-the-bus-back-over-your-dead-ass-SUPER MANDATE!!"

Not to get technical or anything...

Hurdle 1 - cleared easily

Now onto hurdle number 2...be a successful African-American President.

GO OBAMA!!!!!!!

Senate/House Veto

I am thinking here I want the Dems to pickup all but 1 seat to make any law veto-proof. By giving Obama such a large margin, he will for sure be effectively responsible for damn near everything that happens in the next 4 years.

There's something to the argument that saying you couldn't stop X is effective.

Than again, Obama will be blamed anyways. If your going to be blamed, may as well hold ALL the power I suppose.

FWIW: As of now this race is still fairly tight, and OCGM is showing some strength on his own personality. Imagine if he had actually run a reasonable campaign.

Breaking as I write this: MSNBC just called Ohio for Obama. If that holds up, this is over. Period.

The 7pm harbinger

At 7:00pm EST, Indiana is too close to call. For this state to be too close to call foretells of a sweeping Obama and Democratic victory nationwide.

Imagine that. The first Presidential Election that is even marginally close in Indiana during my lifetime, and I am not there to vote and make a difference.

And, this year, my vote wouldn't have been canceled out by my mom. No, she didn't vote Obama, she just didn't vote.

I concur completely

In this article entitled, "The Huxtable Effect..." by ALISA VALDES-RODRIGUEZ highlights the effect of The Cosby Show on a generation of young people.

This is me. My favorite show when I was a kid was the Cosby Show and it's still one of my favorite all-timers. If I catch it late at night surfing around it only take a few minutes to recall the episode events and occasionally, I can recite lines.

I have come over the years to firmly believe that this show largely shaped my worldview and my politics. Being raised in a conservative, church-loving house, who didn't really care or concern themselves about world events...I am the antithesis of that from which I grew up.

I am an atheist, liberal Democrat, who thinks more macro than micro when it comes to my worldview.

A Treatise on Turnout

The past 2 days (Fri-Sat) I've had a whopping 4 calls from the Obama campaign. I am infuriated by this astounding occurrence, just as I was 4 years ago when I got several calls from the Kerry camp.

This liberal hates the fact that this election and every election in the foreseeable future is largely about turnout. Not only because I think, in general, the Repos do this better...but, just the fundamental idea that turnout is the key to a win is sad in some respect.

There have been ruminations on how to best address, and whether to address, this low-turnout factor that has plagued our country.

I have swung back on forth a bit on this debate. I'm snarkish enough to raise my middle finger at those who don't vote, but am also incredulous at the very same people who clearly don't GET IT and why it's freaking important (even if you think all politicians are sell-out slimeballs).

I have pondered plausible remedies to this notion. I support a national holiday for election day, I support nationalizing the electoral process and taking away power from the states especially for Presidential elections as I think it's clear states cannot be trusted. Since the debacle in 2000, very few reforms have been made in several states, and Florida CONTINUES to be a problem.

Other possible remedies have included:

1. Mail-in only ballots like they do in Oregon. You can't vote in a voting booth, all ballots are mailed in.

2. Have multiple election days instead of one big day.

3. National Holiday, as mentioned earlier.

But, I think there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. And, in my view, here are some ideas we should go with:

A. The elimination of soft money, and forcing candidates to adhere to a spending cap.

B. Ten mandatory Presidential debates across the country, with several different moderators, and several debate styles (and 4 mandatory VP debates).

C. Conventions held on dates determined not by each party, and they must be held in consecutive weeks (meaning 1 week Dem convention, the very next week the Repo convention, vice versa depending on incumbent party going last).

D. Weekly mandatory press conferences for each Presidential candidate for at least a 1/2 hour of consistent time with a pool of at least 1 reporter from all prominent news organizations (yes, this includes FoxSnooze). Moreover, Presidential campaigns must make space on their travel arrangements for this pool and cannot kick anyone off for asking a tough question (something Obama's campaign did after Biden was asked some tough questions, Obama should be ashamed of himself).

**These get to the heart, the core, of distrust in the political process. These are reforms suggested in an effort to boost morale amongst the nation and believe in "the system" again.**

E. Make Election Day a national holiday. (The only flaw with doing this alone is clear, the retailers would turn this national holiday into a big sales day in retail stores which would draw people away from the voting booth).

F. Provide multiple ways to vote: Allow early voting by mail. Allow/relax absentee voting laws. Open polling booths for the weekend before the National Holiday (Saturday & Sunday). Another idea I have heard about, which really appeals to me is the idea of voting when you want, where you want. Some states have put voting machines in public places like malls, which allow people to vote when it's convenient for them to vote. It also gives them a paper copy of their vote so they have proof they voted. I think if we allow people who have driver's license to do this, it opens up voting lines for the poor to vote and others to vote without waiting in lines for hours on end. Basically, it's ATM voting.

G. Make it a felony for ANY organization to call any citizen and ask how they voted until 3 days after Election Day. I think while exit polls are fun, I think they generally hurt the voting process.

H. Nationalize Elections and Election Day.

I. Make voting mandatory would also be an option, but I think this is hard to enforce. If we were to choose something like this, I'd be in favor of having a voting line that says "Abstain" to allow people to give notice they were there to vote, but they abstained from doing so by their own free will.

Just some thoughts. But, I just deplore the wasted time and money being spent on voter turnout efforts. I don't think allowing people to access their own rights should be this complicated...but MOREOVER, I don't think they should be fucking hassled by jackasses hounding them via phone.

Whether I voted or not, is none of Obama's nor McCain's fucking business. It's mine and mine alone. By hounding people with these damn calls, it makes them wish they hadn't registered to vote. I know, I am so annoyed that I may vote for someone other than Obama in this safe state just to spite him.