Great lessons of life from Obama's grandparents

As you've probably heard, Barack Obama is canceling nearly all of his campaign events Thursday and Friday to visit his gravely ill grandmother in Hawaii. Madelyn Dunham is the "white grandmother" Obama referred to in his speech on race and the woman he lovingly recognized when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in Denver.

She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me.

There's no doubt that Madelyn and Stanley Dunham loved Barack and sacrificed for him, but they also deserve to be recognized for their courage. Ta-Nehisi Coates touched on that quality in a moving meditation at The Atlantic. Here's an excerpt:

Likewise, I was looking at this picture of Obama's grandparents and thinking how much he looks like his grandfather. And suddenly, for whatever reason, I was struck by the fact that they had made the decision to love their daughter, no matter what, and love their grandson, no matter what. I'd bet money that they never even thought of themselves as courageous, that they didn't give much thought to the broader struggles in the the world at the time. They were just doing what right, honorable people do. But the fact is that, in the 60s, you could be disowned for falling in love with a black woman or black man. There is a reason why we have a long history of publicly biracial black people, but not so much of publicly biracial white people.

We often give a pass to racists by noting that they were "of their times." Fair enough, and I know Hawaii was a different beast, but still, today, let us speak of people who were ahead of their times, who were outside of their times. Let us remember that Barack Obama learned the great lessons of life from courageous white people. Let us speak of those who do what normal, right people should always do when faced with a child--commit an act love. Here's to doing the right thing.

We can all learn something from Madelyn and Stanley Dunham's example.

(Check out the picture of Obama's grandparents. His resemblance to his grandfather is remarkable.)

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Republicans Enable Domestic Terrorism

A blogging friend of mine has a post that I wanted to bring to peoples attention: How McCain-Palin are Fueling the Flames of Domestic Terrorism

The post was written by Donald Bortz (we know him as DJ), a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He spent 6 years of his life fighting terrorists and he's not happy - rightly so - about the tone of the McCain/Palin campaign and their followers.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Right-wing terrorism isn't a new thing. Tim McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Eric Rudolph killed and wounded hundreds of people. The Army of God is still in existence. But this is the first time that not only has a wave of domestic terrorist attacks have been perpetrated against a Presidential campaign, but this is the first time his opponent has condoned it.

We've had several attacks over the weekend. At an Obama rally, over 30 cars had their tires slashed. A black bear was shot and dropped at Western Carolina University with Obama signs stapled to his head. People had their lives threatened for putting Obama signs on their lawn. And a woman was assaulted for knocking on doors for Obama.

DJ just touched upon some of the incidents - there have been other ones - but he sums up the reason behind these attacks like this:

This is what happens when you tell your supporters that your opponent is a terrorist. This is what happens when you condone having your supporters scream "kill him!" and "terrorist" at your rallies.

Why isn't the Republican leadership condemning this behavior? Do they want their candidate to win so badly that they're willing to look the other way? Someone is going to end up dead.

As for McCain, DJ nails the reason he continues to defend these attacks.

Because he doesn't want to go against his base. He tried once to stop the hate that he helped create, and he was booed for it. He's more scared of what his base thinks of him than he is of preventing domestic terrorist attacks. It's sad that a war veteran is so unwilling to put country before political aspirations.

If someone does end up hurt or dead before election day, the McCain campaign, Republicans and media will be responsible. They were quick to condemn terrorism in the Middle East, but they're enabling it here at home.

Voters to Republicans: Our eyes have been opened

In talking to friends who formerly voted for Bush but now plan on voting for Obama, one theme continues to come through - Republican hypocrisy. People are finally connecting the dots and beginning to see that Republicans treat other Republicans differently, depending on income.

One recent example is McCain's claim that Obama's plan to cut taxes on the middle class and lower-income families is welfare. They felt that was a bunch of hooey and agreed with Obama's take:

"If John McCain wants to talk about redistributing wealth to those who don't need it and don't deserve it, let's talk about the $700,000 tax cut he wants to give Fortune 500 CEOs, who've been making out like bandits -- some of them literally. Let's talk about the $300 billion he wants to give to the same Wall Street banks that got us into this mess. Let's talk about the $4 billion he wants to give oil companies like Exxon-Mobil or the $200 billion he wants to give the biggest corporations in America. Let's talk about the 100 million middle-class Americans who John McCain doesn't want to give a single dime of tax relief. Don't tell me that CEOs and oil companies deserve a tax break before the men and women who are working overtime day after day and still can't pay the bills. That's not right, and that's not change.

Democrats and Republicans differ on giving people opportunities too. Democrats support expanding Pell Grants and the GI Bill, as well equal pay for equal work and affirmative action. Republicans believe people should succeed on their own merit without a helping hand. At least that's their talking point, but as Alberto Gonzalez, Monica Goodling, Harriet Myers, Brownie and all those no-bid contracts awarded to war contractors showed, who you know still trumps merit among Republicans.

In fact, while reading Lawyers, Guns and Money, I was surprised to find that Bill Kristol and right wing journalists benefit from the same connections. [emphasis added]

Right wing journalism/punditry is absurdly nepotistic, and not just in the sense that many of the major pundit/journalists are second generation. Everything depends on relationships; this is of course true in every community of this sort, but the importance of relationships is more pronounced in the world of conservative punditry than in liberal or mainstream. Every conservative writer of note has a portfolio of these relationships, which allows said writer to place articles, give talks, find jobs, get invited on junkets, and even find the best parties. [...] These relationships are the grease that makes the world of conservative journalism run; it's mildly absurd that a community whose ideological focus rests so firmly on conceptions of "merit" depends almost entirely on relationships, but nevertheless.

But surely Bill Kristol, the godfather of conservative journalists, earned his position entirely on his own merits, right? Not according to a comment left by Harry Hopkins at Lawyers, Guns and Money:

I remember back in the late '90s when Ira Katznelson, an eminent political scientist at Columbia, came to deliver a guest lecture to an economic philosophy class I was taking. [...] Anyhow, Prof. Katznelson described a lunch he had with Irving Kristol back either during the first Bush administration. The talk turned to William Kristol, then Dan Quayle's chief of staff, and how he got his start in politics. Irving recalled how he talked to his friend Harvey Mansfield at Harvard, who secured William a place there as both an undergrad and graduate student; how he talked to Pat Moynihan, then Nixon's domestic policy adviser, and got William an internship at The White House; how he talked to friends at the RNC and secured a job for William after he got his Harvard Ph.D.; and how he arranged with still more friends for William to teach at UPenn and the Kennedy School of Government. With that, Prof. Katznelson recalled, he then asked Irving what he thought of affirmative action. "I oppose it", Irving replied. "It subverts meritocracy."

That's affirmative action Republican-style and the voters are not amused. They're finally beginning to realize that the torchbearers for the Republican Party have defrauded them.


(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

McCain plans new tax cut for millionaires

McCain flip-flopped back and forth last weekend about a new economic proposal before finally settling on The Pension and Family Security Plan. Part of his plan proposes cutting the tax rate on long term capital gains and dividends to 7.5 percent in 2009 and 2010. The current tax rate for these capital gains is 15 percent.

Who benefits the most from his plan? Wealthy millionaires like buddies Dick DeVos and George Bush. From the Wonk Room:

Today, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) released an analysis showing who would benefit from this cut. Like the rest of McCain’s tax cuts, this one overwhelmingly aids the wealthy, with two-thirds of the benefit going to those making over $1 million:

In 2009, under a plan that lowers taxes on both gains and dividends, those making $1 million or more would get two-thirds of the benefit, and an average tax cut of more than $72,000. Those making less than $50,000 would get, on average, nothing. [emphasis mine]

And according to Jared Bernstein:

The average tax savings for the top 0.1%--income above $3 mil--is $244,000.

Besides, in what world is John McCain living? In case he hasn't noticed, the stock market has been losing value, and losses are already deductible from our taxes.

Jared Bernstein summed it up best: "This isn't a recipe for helping families hurt by the financial crisis and recession. It's a recipe for more income inequality."


(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Modern Day Charles Dickens Era

In the midst of the bailout crisis, I worried that taxpayers were being played. It looks like my concerns were well-founded. Via Dean Baker:

Remember way back to last week when it was going to be the end of the world if Congress didn't pass the bailout package? Remember the Washington Post's account in which Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told President Bush, "there is no Plan B."

Well, it looks like the Fed has discovered a Plan B. It turns out that the Fed can buy commercial paper directly from non-financial corporations needing credit to maintain operations. This will keep the credit markets working even if the zombie banks aren't up to the task. In other words, the threat of a complete meltdown in the absence of a bailout was nonsense and the media once again got taken for a ride by the Bush administration.

Adding insult to injury, we now find out that the limits on executive compensation were essentially meaningless too. When do we get our bailout, or do we have to work till we drop over dead? That scenario becomes more probable with each passing day.

Via the AP:

Americans' retirement plans have lost as much as $2 trillion in the past 15 months, Congress' top budget analyst estimated Tuesday.

Public and private pension funds and employees' private retirement savings accounts — like 401(k)'s — have lost some 20 percent overall since mid-2007.

Rep. George Miller, D-California, summed it up best: "Unlike Wall Street executives, America's families don't have a golden parachute to fall back on. It's clear that their retirement security may be one of the greatest casualties of this financial crisis."

Lessenberry vs Johnny McNasty

Columnist Jack Lessenberry wished he could have faced McCain in the first debate.

I desperately wanted to be Barack Obama, standing on that stage with old Johnny McNasty.

What I wanted to do most is stick a broom handle in front of the old turtle's face. McCain would have clamped on it, hissing violently, back feet kicking, shredding the wood with his little yellow teeth. Trust me, he would have done it. I know. I caught a large snapping turtle in the woods when I was in grade school, and it did exactly that. And it had exactly the same reptilian eyes Old Nasty does, except the turtle's were brighter and more reflective.

That was almost half a century ago, when McCain was only middle-aged. But on Friday night, the visibly aging Mac was a sarcastic sourpuss. He refused to look at Obama, evidently because that might acknowledge that his opponent was a human being.

"I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand," McNasty sneered, over and over, usually when he was trying to justify his having sold his soul to Dubya over the mess in Iraq. Unfortunately, the batteries Karl Rove inserted at the base of McCain's scrotum didn't last as long as called for. At one point, I thought the oldest living boy in Arizona was having a seizure when he stumbled over the name of the Iranian president, seemingly trying to sneeze out his name (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) before butchering it.

I think one could safely say Jack was not impressed with McCain, but he did find the silver lining:

Now, for the first time, I really think there is a real chance that we as a people may be able to put aside our racism and actually elect the superior human being and candidate.

That, as Martha would say, is a good thing.

Will McCain denounce violence against Muslims?

The Clarion Fund must be proud of the effect their movie "Obsession" produced.

Friday, September 26th ended a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West -- the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail -- were distributed by mail in Ohio. The same day, a "chemical irritant" was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers.

This isn't an isolated incident either.

A four-state fire at an Islamic Mosque is labeled as a religious hate crime by federal agents in what they call an attack on religious freedom. The Carl Junction fire department responded to this sign on fire early Thursday morning in south Joplin. The sign reads Islamic Society of Joplin in both English and Arabic and belongs to an Islamic mosque. The FBI has now taken over the investigation due to evidence which leads authorities to believe this was in fact a hate crime.

Those were recent, overt acts of hatred, but some of the bias is more subtle and has been percolating for sometime now: Muslim Group Reports Jump in Workplace Bias Complaints

According to the study, discrimination in the workplace against those already employed increased by 18 percent, with 384 cases reported in 2006 and 452 cases reported in 2007. There was also a 34 percent increase in reports of discrimination against those seeking employment.

This is vile, despicable behavior. Americans are better than this. We don't defile places where other people worship. We don't use violence against people we disagree with. We don't attack innocent children.

I blame the Republicans and John McCain for this violence and hate-mongering, and since McCain is the appointed head of their party at this point, he needs to step up and forcefully denounce these people and their actions - including the Clarion Fund - before someone ends up dead.


(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

U.S. is blamed for spawning global financial crisis

Add Germany to the list of countries less than impressed with the Bush administration and Wall Street.

Germany blamed the United States on Thursday for spawning the global financial crisis with a blind drive for higher profits and said it would now have to accept greater market regulation and a loss of its financial superpower status. [...]

"The world will never be as it was before the crisis," Steinbrueck, a deputy leader of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), told the Bundestag lower house.

"The United States will lose its superpower status in the world financial system. The world financial system will become more multi-polar," he said.

Germany recognized we were headed for trouble over a year ago and tried to do something about it to no avail.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose conservatives rule in coalition with the SPD, and Steinbrueck both pushed the Group of Eight (G8) to agree measures to boost financial market transparency during Germany's presidency of the G8 last year.

But their drive collapsed amid opposition from Washington and London.

Merkel criticized their stance at the weekend, saying the days of laissez-faire capitalism were over.

It's not just Germany either. The criticism comes from other countries too.

The German views were echoed by leaders of governments from around the world meeting this week at the United Nations in New York.

Many sharply criticized the George W. Bush administration's financial record and warned that U.S. financial mistakes now threatened the global economy.

Financial mistakes? I'm not convinced the Bush administration made a mistake. I think they knew all along what the outcome would be, but didn't give a damn as long as they kept raking in the money.

China is not impressed with Paulson

Eighteen months ago, Henry Paulson told the Shanghai Futures Exchange that China risked trillions of dollars in lost economic potential unless it freed up its capital markets.

``An open, competitive, and liberalized financial market can effectively allocate scarce resources in a manner that promotes stability and prosperity far better than governmental intervention,'' Paulson said.

That was then, this is now, and the grasshopper is not impressed with the master according to Bloomberg.

``The U.S. financial system was regarded as a model, and we tried our best to copy whatever we could,'' said Yu Yongding, a former adviser to China's central bank. ``Suddenly we find our teacher is not that excellent, so the next time when we're designing our financial system we will use our own mind more.''

They've noticed the hypocrisy too:

The recent moves by Paulson, the former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., contradict what the U.S. told Asian governments over the past decade. Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia were urged to let unviable banks fail during the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

``It's the end of an era,'' said Shanghai-based Andy Xie, a independent analyst who was formerly Morgan Stanley's chief Asia economist. ``In 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, socialism was discredited and the whole world turned right. Now financial capital has been discredited and the whole world, including the U.S., is turning left.''

China learned something from our failures and plans to make some changes:

That road may be different from the one Paulson proposed 18 months ago, according to Arthur Kroeber at economic research company Dragonomics Advisory Services Ltd. in Beijing.

``China's made it clear it won't listen to these snake-oil salesmen who come from Wall Street, even if they're wearing suits issued by the Treasury Department,'' he said. ``It's strengthened the hands of all the people who are very skeptical about financial liberalization in China.''

The question is...will we learn from this, or will it be business as usual?

The Election, Economy and Race

A new American Research Group poll shows that “[n]o Americans say that the national economy is getting better,” while 82 percent say it is getting much worse. So, the question just begs asking: In the middle of this financial meltdown, why is the election close?

Jonathan Tasini believes it boils down to race. "...certain people won't vote for a black person for president. Simple as that."

How do we combat people's irrational fear? Education. In this case, Tasini gives us a video he filmed at a recent Ohio delegation breakfast meeting where Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, took on the issue of race. It's about 6 minutes long, but well worth watching.

These are some of the important points I jotted down while watching it:

A friend told him she didn't trust Obama because he's black. Trumka tells the woman she's out of her mind - this is 2008. Workers are losing pensions, losing their homes, losing their healthcare and want change, but can't bring themselves to vote for a black man.

Education is the answer. Racism is a tool used to divide working people. The only way working people have ever won anything in this country is by crossing that color line, by turning to each other and not on each other, and by recognizing that our common interests as working people are far more important than race. That's how steel workers organized, that's how auto workers organized, etc.

Watch the video. Trumka is a good speaker and he's funny too. This was my favorite line:

A worker who votes for John McCain is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. If you vote Republican in 2008, you're bound to get plucked.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)