Garret A. Morgan was an African-American inventor (1877-1963) who known mostly for two inventions: an affordable gas mask and a traffic signal. A son of slaves and a native Kentuckian, Morgan's inventions made a big difference for not only America but the world in his time, helping the U.S. win WWI with his cheap and effective gas masks, and his traffic signal was used from 1923 up until the automatic red, yellow, green lights became all the rage. And he did this with a formal education that didn't surpass elementary school. There's much more about him at places like about.com, so check him out and happy Black History Month! Hopefully I'll be less lazy and get you more short bios!
I know, I know. I'm late with the posting. It's largely due to two things. 1. I do not have a job, so I have to spend my energy and time looking for one.
2. I don't get as mad about things as I used to, so now I have to try to think up things to type about. It's much more difficult than it was even weeks ago. Hmmm...
Either way, let me get on with the show...
Recently, I've been watching off and on (like whenever I am eating or right before sleep) Kino no Tabi (Kino's Journey) and it's short at 13 episodes, but it's super-fan-tabuloso! The main character is a child that travels through different countries, picking up all kinds of experiences and learning lots about people and life in general. Kino at times borders on flatness, helped out by an entire episode devoted to Kino's upbringing and reasons for traveling around the world. Even with that, though Kino no Tabi is quite interesting and a very nice way to wrap up a day I think.
Well, it's been a while for blogging for me. I tried to get a job -- to no avail, but that'll come a bit later. For now, let's talk politics!
Well, for the Democratic Party, it was an exciting night last night as the two Democratic candidates apparently of any worth (sorry Mike Gravel) left in the race had a debate sure to be full of conflict and fire and passion and...WHAT??!?
Smiles? Jokes? They were even acting nice to each other? Where is the anger? Where are the skeletons in the closet?
Obama attacked a Republican?! Wow, he really IS a Democrat after all...
Really, this was how the blogs have been handling what was a pretty pedestrian, lackluster debate. People on the news as well said it was substantive and very nuanced, when I saw talking point after talking point. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think two people sticking stubbornly to the same points they've had for months should be thought of as nuance. But, who cares what I think? In any case, it's always good to hear candidates tell the GOP that we fight back against their smears, so good on them for that.
Now to polls, which pollster.com provides very handily.
While I plan to give you an overlook at the state-by-state Super Tuesday polls tomorrow when I am not doing three things at once, here's a quick look using a chart that shows states that took polls within the new year and who in the Democratic primary is leading who, and same for the Republicans.
Now, since the picture placement function is giving me fits, here's a lowdown if it's too hard to notice...these are all 08 polls, state without 08 polls are excluded from the chart. The dots show on which candidate's side the poll of a certain week fell upon and the red line is the median of all the 08 polls for the state in terms of margin. Those markings on the right are Clinton-leading states, those on the left are Obama-leading states.
Obama is as of this week, out of these recently polled states, only apparently leading in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia and his home state of Illinois, leaving Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Utah, New York, Missouri, Tennessee, New Jersey, Arizona, California, Minnesota and Connecticut in Clinton country as of now. After he won South Carolina, Obama's bounce may be quickly scanned over by looking at the most recent polls, those with the darkest dots, and comparing them with the earlier polls, especially those of the week before. Not scientific but I think it can be a simplistic and yet helpful indicator nonetheless.
And now the two top Republican candidates, Romney and McCain. McCain on the right, Romney on the left. Here conventional wisdom says it's McCain with the bounce after winning South Carolina and then winning Florida.
Obviously a few ideas come up.
1) Obama's bounce doesn't make the race THAT much closer. He still has a lot of hard, hard, HARD work from tonight until Tuesday, as he is down big in California, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, and Massachusetts. Tennessee, if the poll is accurate, actually rejected his bounce from South Carolina so the nomination may still be Hillary's to lose.
2) Romney has, if I were to draw out an arbitrary number, 10% chance of not getting his ass handed to him on Tuesday. I know, I know, he has tens of millions he can dump into a campaign at a given moment, but his brand is so tarnished right now that it seems his ads aren't working, his campaigning won't help, and the media is still notorious behind McCain to the point that I don't see why a reasonable person would think Mitt Romney will be on the ticket in the general election unless McCain feels he really needs to try to get the Mormon voters in droves and nominates Romney as VP. Won't happen though, mark that one down.
Another thing I thought of, though, caught me a bit by surprise.
3) Would an Obama/Clinton ticket work? I like to frequent the blogs of other black political junkies, especially Too Sense and Jack and Jill Politics, and it seems on J&J, the word is bloggers of color that were behind Obama when the race-baiting began are not planning to vote Hillary. I was unsettled by this because I think the Republicans represent something much worse than Hillary Clinton in terms not only of the policy issues, but also in terms of the precedent Republicans would continue if they were able to win on fearmongering, and the use of the "liberal" tag once more. I think beating the Republican nominee in John McCain who they think is the most electable with the Democrat they hate would be a good thing for beating back the neocon spin machine and is worthwhile. The argument against black liberals voting for her is that her campaign race-baited Obama, which I see as true btw, and that she is therefore completely undeserving of black votes. It's a catch-22 for me, and I wonder what your thoughts are.
So I think it's Hillary-McCain and Hillary has a good shot at winning if she has someone who can bring wit, ferocity and yet a good, clean face to the ticket. Her attack style is, at least in this primary, often too much, too relentless, too ferocious, and it turns off people. Having a more humorous, somewhat gentler sort of attack that is still consistent, would work in her favor, to me lending a VP opportunity to someone like Joe Biden.
McCain might want someone who may actually help him on economic issues, so I see an opening for Huckabee, though I don't know if it'll work out very well in terms of getting out the vote. I'm just saying it's hard to talk straight talk when you're number 2 is completelybatshit insane. That's all I'm saying.
Little note: Did anyone see all the celebrities CNN kept cutting to? That, to me, was the proof I needed to know the debate was bullshit. That means that CNN was willing to allow many, many bouts of prolonged clapping to justify cutting to celebrities, wouldn't you think? Here let me try...
Now try to concentrate while reading the rest...mwahahahaha!
PERSONAL: Speaking of people trying to land a job, I've been looking at a whole host of employment opportunities (stupid business speak is all I know from 9, er 10-5) and have turned up jack in terms of actual job offers. Maybe you can help. I have a couple places where I interviewed (supposedly did well) but have gotten no job offers in a couple weeks. I contacted the hiring manager last week and was told a proposal to hire me was sent to the Exec. Director, so now a week after that email no offer. What should be my strategy on this? Forget about it, pursue aggressively...? I'm confused and a bit worried, but meh. That's all I can think of for now.
While I am thoroughly displeased with the lack of leadership from each of the last three major Democratic candidates in the Presidential race, one thing that keeps me coming back is my disdain for the Clinton campaign tactics in the current primary and my even greater disdain for the willful ignorance of the so-called progressive blogosphere and the mainstream press to these tactics.
It's something else to hear people either say it's Obama's fault for having to defend his race against slander, or that it's okay because it's politics.
Not only is that something Democrats were supposed to be against (weren't we against this when Harold Ford Jr. ran for Senate?) but it's a desperate attack line that cuts against Democratic theme and populist message. Instead of empowering the lower economic classes and the dispossessed of America, we're demeaning some of that group and dividing them politically.
As Democrats, we need a large coalition of voters, and to slander part of the base so nastily and repeatedly is politically and morally disheartening. When the Clintons get some sense and realize this race is less about them winning some game and more about empowering the American people to make a choice about their future, then maybe they'll earn these lost voters back.
I implore the Democratic Party leadership (if there be such an entity) to do what it can to head off this madness lest they hurt themselves down ticket and let the Republican agenda they hate rule the land again.
Well, folks, a little update then onto business. Burger Chef Friday went well in Madison, though I was not near a computer. I had Charley's actually, but some White Castle was brought home so plenty o' burgers went around. Twas tasty.
Saturday was not so fun, for I wanted Senator Obama to win the Nevada caucuses, and he lost big, 51-45, though you wouldn't know it from looking at his website graphic: So, now, after having read comments on Senator Obama's recent remarks about Pres. Reagan, which I'll display later, I'm starting to wonder where being an aggressive progressive fits into his rhetoric. I counted on the Senator returning to talking about progressive issues after Iowa so that he could show he would fight for the underserved and unnoticed against the powerwielders in American society. It has seemed otherwise, however.
When Senator Obama had a chance to talk about transformational politics, he mentioned former President Reagan and the quote made for some easy pickings by other campaigns:
I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
That was enough to send the Edwards and Clinton campaign into gear slamming the Senator for saluting Ronald Reagan, yes REPUBLICAN bane of liberalism Ronald Reagan, without mentioning any of the bad policies, and there were many, that President Reagan enacted, nor how then-Governor Reagan won the Presidency in 1980 in dirty and divisive ways. I must say that I am personally conflicted. This episode combined with the loss in Nevada has worried me about his candidacy and campaign greatly.
So, this is an open letter to the junior US Senator from Illinois.
Let me start by saying I appreciate the history of what you're trying to do, and I know it has already had a huge impact on black young men like myself and others and will continue to. I hope you win, and so understand that this is not out of hate, but love, my brother.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU INTEND TO WIN THIS THING?!
I sincerely worry that your greatest strength, your excellent communication skills, have been grounded down in part because of some gaffes along the trail and in part because of rival campaigns successfully baiting your campaign into exchanges that overall hurt your appeal. I KNOW you've been caught up in this media creation of "Barack the Uniter" and it's nice to talk about, but goddammit Negro, get your ass in the game!
You know politics is dirty, you said so yourself; get your helmet on and start hitting Clinton and Edwards around! It's not wrong to attack someone; it's called drawing contrasts, it's called fighting for a better future! What are you waiting for? Also, when are you going to seriously attack the far right and their loony toon behavior or value systems? Is the far right and their warmongering, corporate profiteering, overtly theocratic, anti-intellectual, fact-hating agenda impenetrable?
I thought that you were the person able to fight for progressive values by winning the election with Republicans on your side, our side, and then working with more political capital for OUR values, like civic equality, progressive taxation, fairer trade, anti-war foreign policy, and a return to reason in government -- when you praise people like Ronald Reagan, I know what you mean, but you give Republicans ample praise for batshit, crazy-ass ideas and your rival Democrats fodder to blow your ass up with. You make people who do listen for the liberal dog-whistle upset and pondering the reason they support your candidacy.
Do you want people to doubt you? If so, please continue to say running the bureaucracy eludes you, even as you intend to be the top bureaucrat in the public sector. Please say you want to build a fence over and over and tell Latino audiences, just so they KNOW not to vote Obama. Please make sure to run away from race and racist tactics, run far far away each and every time anyone ever gets close to implying you were a drug dealer or makes light of your name because it's different or they call you the "hip black friend". These are the tactics of a well-spoken, shuckin' and jivin', second place black candidate, just where Hillary Rodham Clinton and the centre-right DLC want you to be. If this be your lot in life, to be the "almost..." black candidate, then step aside for me to take the reins in a few decades so that someone with a bit of smarts, wits and balls can take over.
Sincerely,
CAB
Feel free to explain how dumb and naive I am. Maybe then I'll understand how Sen. Obama got into this situation.
It's a boring Thursday today. I had that interview yesterday (it went AWESOME, thanks for asking) and today was just a lay-around day, really. I don't know what else to do but wait for the job offer and tie up loose ends like check my books, cancel any subscriptions I may have forgotten about, get in touch with contacts, etc.
The surge was always, in a sense, a gamble for time, a pacification program directed at the "home front" in the President's Global War on Terror as well as at Iraq itself. And if this is what you mean by "success" in Iraq, Bush has indeed succeeded admirably. As in the Vietnam era, when President Richard Nixon began "Vietnamizing" that war, a reduction of American casualties has had the effect of turning media attention elsewhere.
So, I'm left to ponder why we're still there, (IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID!) and to, without a hint of irony, turn my attention elsewhere.
On the campaign trail...
*Bob "Booty-Shake" Johnson has apologized for "inappropriate comments" he made about Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama. It's odd to me that, since Mr. Johnson said he was only referring to Senator Obama's community organizing experience and not his past substance abuse, ole Booty-Shake would want to apologize and call such comments "inappropriate". Oh and plausible deniability is awesome when it is even linked to a person campaigning on your behalf, isn't it Senator Clinton?
*In MD-04, progressive challenger Donna Edwards (whose campaign I have donated to) has garnered the endorsement of EMILY'S List, a group that supports pro-choice women in local, statewide and national elections. Great stuff, since Al Wynn LOVES corporate power, and as a part of the Energy and Commerce Committee has been in the pockets of corporate lobbyists.
As Matt Stoller of Open Left noted, he's openly throwing his corruption in the voters' face. Time for a change, people, and local groups like EMILY'S List have gotten on board. Good for them.
To the right is a picture from Open Left of an invite to a fundraiser for Wynn with the telecoms celebrating his record. Now maybe he's somehow really progressive on telecom issues and yet they love him, but the cynic in me thinks it's possible he's really just another stodgy, corrupt pol that needs to be ousted yesterday.
Lastly, I am going up north to check out some vacant rooms and possibly sign a lease so I can move post haste. Wish me luck and patience.
Okay, so I'm 20, and I'm interviewing for a job in nearby Chicago tomorrow, or later today, depending on when I get this entry posted.
I'm thinkin' blue shirt, grey slacks, ballroom shoes, grey sports jacket as a suit. What do you think?
I know one should be able to know what sort of candidate they're getting and that looks are important to that, but I really wish I could just apply through phone interviews and emails and online applications. Then I could relax and let them make their decisions without having me get on the El or anything like that.
Calm Over Calamity is mostly about one person's singular quest to find the best way to vent his anger without garnering the suspicions of his local constable.
