Twentyfive Seventeen

Racism isn't a problem for Black people in America

2009-01-23T21:54:00.000-08:00

This is a story from a NBMBAA conference in 1994.

The main speaker at the lunch that year was Lloyd Ward one of the first black people to reach the VP level at Pepsi. At the time, he was the President of Frito Lay's Central Division, an entity with sales of $1.3 billion. At that point, in his mid 50s, he had achieved the kind of career that most MBA students were aspiring to, so he was an eagerly anticipated speaker.

He opened his talk with the phrase "racism is not a problem for Black people in America."

At the National Black MBA Association, a statement like that is sure to get attention, and it certainly got mine. At first I thought he must be kidding, but I certainly paid very close attention to what he had to say.

He went on to tell a few anecdotes about how he had been treated badly based on his race. But he ended each one with that phrase - racism is not a problem for Black people in America. After the second one, I was getting pretty pissed and I was thinking this must be some Uncle Tom, house Negro wannabe. I was just about ready to make my loud exit in protest when he started his third story, and it really nailed me to my chair.

He explained how he was the first black plant manager in the South. When he arrived for his first day at work, he pulled his car into one of the parking spots reserved for management, and the security guard walked up to him, pointed his revolver at him and said "boy, you can't park here." With the gun pointed at his face, he asked the security guard "where would you like me to park." the guard told him where to park, and he followed the guards instructions.

And then he said it again, "but I'm here to tell you that racism is not a problem for Black people in America, and here's why: because problems are things we are taught to solve, and racism is not something that Black people can solve." He went on to say that racism creates situations for Black folks, like being on the subway next to someone who has a cold. If the guy with the cold starts coughing in your direction, you can hand him a tissue, or ask that he cover his mouth, or move to another car, or whatever works. But he's the one with the sickness, not you. And you can't make him well, so there's not point in trying.

He circled back to the situation with guard calling him boy and pointing a .38 in his face. In that situation, he could have angrily pointed out that he was the new manager. But we all know that expressions of anger towards people holding guns are not usually a good way of making it home in one piece. So he did as he was told. But in his first official act as plant manager, he fired the security guard and made sure that his replacement would not be authorized to carry a gun.

Personally, I think that many of us Black folks have, to some degree or other, caught the virus that is racism, and need to do some self healing. I also think that providing some level of "assistance" to those of our White bretheren who wish to be helped, is in our best interest.

But in the end, I agree with his central thesis, that for Black folks, solving racism would be like trying to boil the ocean. And that our efforts are generally better used in fighting battles that either can be, or must be, won.

Malia's Camera

2009-01-20T16:27:00.000-08:00

During the pre-inauguration festivities, I saw something that caught my eye. Malia Obama was sitting on the dais next to the stage with her soon-to-be President father, her soon to be First Lady mother, her little sister and the rest of a very distinguished group. They were there as the honored guests of a major performance, and all eyes were on them.

Barack had his normal placid but happy expression, Michelle had a slightly more serious looking expression that was certainly appropriate for being the honored guest. Sasha seemed to be having a good time, but was having some difficulty sitting still. Malia was staring intently into her digital camera, apparently filming the scene.

Initially, I thought this was sorta funny. I mean she is not going to need a camera for the next 8 (we hope) years to document the public aspects of her life. There will be photographs, official and unofficial, aplenty to do that for her. And it seemed a little odd, perhaps even inappropriate for the circumstances. But she's a kid, so I figured that it was just a little amusing.

Then today at the inauguration, I saw the same thing. Malia with her camera, seeming serious, and peering frequently into the little electronic box. So now I have a different theory: Malia is using her camera to avoid being overwhelmed by the whole experience. It's sort of like how you see people partially covering their eyes when they go to a scary movie. They still see the movie, but the act of blocking out some of the additional visuals helps them control the experience a bit.

Now I can imagine that many parents in Michelle and Barack's circumstances (or even circumstance way less formal and important) would tell their 10 year daughter old that it would not look right if she were up on the dais taking pictures. That it would be undignified, or even silly. I can imagine parents not knowing why they want to say no, but saying it anyway, and being quite rigid about it.

But Barack and Michelle, in the midst of this most important day for themselves and for our country, made the right decision to let Malia do what she needed to do to be OK.

Maybe this had been the subject of a long and difficult conversation, one of those dragged out conflicts we parents can get into with our kids as they struggle to become the adults they want to be. Maybe the Obamas have been searching for a way to give Malia some space while living in the crazy world that they are living in. Perhaps a professional therapist suggested this to the Obamas and they took the advice.

Of course, it's completely possible that I'm reading the situation all wrong. That Malia is doing this for her school project, or is really just interested in photography, or who knows.

Or just maybe, Malia said she wanted to bring her camera, and her parents had the right mix of instinct and knowledge to understand that she needed to take a little more control of her environment, and quietly just said yes.

Changing the name

2009-01-12T12:29:00.000-08:00

After such a long absence from posting, this next post is going to be really lame. The campaign is over, we won the election and Barack is going to be president in just a few days (eight to be exact).

So I guess that means that I should change the name of my blog to something else. I'm thinking "bitter and murky." This comes from the movie "The Edge" with Anthony Hopkins, Alec Baldwin and Harold Perrineau. Baldwin's character is asked how he like is coffee. He responds, in Airplane fashion "I like my coffee like I like my women" Perrineau's character adds "bitter and murky." That sort of captures how I feel at the moment, but it's, hopefully, not a permanent condition. In any case, the quote is funny, so it could work.

Another possibility is to snag part of Pulp Fiction, and call the blog twentyfiveseventeen. That's a reference to my favorite quote from that movie, the Samuel L Jackson monologue about the bible passage Ezekiel 25:17. (Note: the movie passage is not exactly as it appears in the actual bible, a fact about which Quentin Tarantino may have some explaining to do when he reaches the hereafter. I think he hopes that God has a sense of humor. I guess we'll see...)

The third and final option comes from a consistent frustration that I had during the campaign. Some people kept saying that we should stop saying that Barack is black, since he is half white. As if being half white precludes someone from being black. The name that came from that frustration is halfwhite-allblack.

So, there it is. Three names: bitterandmurky, twentyfiveseventeen and halfwhite-allblack. Please express an opinion.

Thanks

Hip Hop The Vote

2008-10-24T16:31:00.000-07:00

Just when I'm feeling all cynical about the craziness on the campaign trail, a friend sent me this. Niiiice.

Angry McCain 911 call

2008-10-24T14:54:00.001-07:00

OK - John McCain did not (as far as I know) call 911 to complain about traffic. But his brother did (read it here)

Really, that's the story. McCain's brother was stuck in traffic outside of DC and called 911 to complain. The 911 operator asked him if he was calling to complain about traffic, and McCain cursed him out and hung up (what a punk move).

But the really interesting thing to me is this comment posted below the article:

Forget all the crap I'm been spreading about Obama, I've always meant to vote for him, but it was a job. The GOP offered me money to blog pro-McCain, I never thought they would stiff me.

Does this mean the McCain campaign is so broke it's not even gonna pay its blog trolls (those who, for money, post incendiary comments negative to the other side)? Wow. This really is gonna be a landslide.

Yet another made up accusation

2008-10-24T11:15:00.000-07:00

Can we just get this damn election over already? Between black cameramen at McCain/Palin rallies being called nasty names, to Obama being accused of being a Muslim with a crazy radical pastor (I love that one), to Obama being hung from a tree in effigy, this has already gotten absurd.

Now it's getting dangerous. The latest thing is the return of the big bad scary black man. You better lock up your vulnerable little white girls (especially your fat ugly ones) cause there's nothing that we scary angry black men want to do more than rob them and mutilate them.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a snippet: (here's the whole story)

According to WTAE's news exchange partners at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ashley Todd, of College Station, Texas, was using an ATM at Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m. Wednesday when a man approached her and put a knife to her throat.

and of course you know the description of the attacker (but say it in your head before you read it next, just to see if you can predict what it will be):

The robber is described as a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build, short black hair and brown eyes.

This shit would be funny if it weren't so damn dangerous. This shit is what gets us lynched. This is the kinda shit that cause police forces to detain anyone who matches "the description." WTF.

Kudos in advance to the Pittsburgh police for knowing this sounds fishy. Kudos to some on the right (Michelle Malkin for one) who said this don't sound right. And to the morons at Fox and the Drudge Report who have been making this a nationwide story - I quote John Stewart - Fuck all y'all.

UPDATE:
She admits (here), under questioning from the Pittsburgh police, that she made it up. Thank you Pittsburgh police.

We're voting for the n***er

2008-10-18T00:40:00.000-07:00

I really don't know how to react to this. I guess it's progress. I guess we need every vote we can get. But damn...

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

read the whole thing here.

Presidential Debate Preview: McCain Says He'll "Whip" Obama's "You-Know-What"

2008-10-15T09:53:00.001-07:00

* I posted this in HufPo in response to a comment that took as its premise that Rev Wright is anti-American. I got tired of ceeding that point because quite frankly, it total crap. *

I don't know much about Ayers. I do know that while Rev Wright did say a bunch of stuff that was provacative, I would ask you this: what is the obligation of a person who loves their country and sees that it is doing wrong in the world and at home? Is it to blindly pledge allegiance to the king (I mean president), or is it his or her obligation (not right mind you) to speak up and demand justice?

You may not like the way he did it. (some times I didn't either). But I challenge you to find me an in context quote or example of where Rev Wright did anything against our country. Also, find me an example of where he preached race hatred. He spoke of differences for sure. But not hatred, not supremacy.

You want to see hatred and treasonous intention, look no further than the Alaska Independence Party, it's former president Vogler, and recent member Todd Palin and a recent speaker at its convention, Sarah Palin. Or ask the "witch" that Palin's pastor drove from her home under threat of violence. Violence, not Christian love and forgiveness, violence.

You want to see crazy things that are against the ideals upon which this country was founded, and against the constitution that our forefathers have built over the last 230 years, look no further than the lunatics that McCain and Palin are pallin' around with right now.

About Video On HuffPost
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Phone Banking to New Mexico

2008-10-11T19:34:00.000-07:00

I went into the satellite Obama HQ for Northern California today to do some phone banking. (I had to go to the satellite location because the main location and it's overflow locations were too full of volunteers). They trained me on what to say, gave me a list of 65 people to call in the Albuquerque area, and sent me off armed with my cell phone.

First thing to note is that phone banking is not a bad way to spend a beautiful Saturday afternoon, as long as you get to do it while sitting outside on the patio. Second thing was that very few people were home - or at least very few were answering the phone. The third thing is that New Mexico is not like Oakland - about half the people that I talked to were McCain supporters.

The weird thing was that judging from the names and the voices, I talked to a pretty broad cross section of folks. There were older white voters (judging by voice), Latinos of various age (name and voice) and a few young white folks (again judging purely by voice). I was not able to deduce any patterns about who was supporting whom. I had strong supporters of either candidate meeting all of the above demographic criteria.

The one thing that did stick out though was that the McCain supporters seemed angry and weren't really interested in saying why they were supporting him. The most memorable call was with a woman who seemed to be elderly who almost screamed at me that "I'm voting for McCain because that other guy hates our country!" And then she hung up on me.

I laughed, but really it just makes me sad. How filled with fear and hate do you have to be to believe such drivel. I guess some people really are scared that Obama is going to implement Sharia or something. Maybe he's going to send in the storm troopers to make sure that churches are closed down and everyone has to honor the Friday call to prayer? Maybe they think he's gonna really get even for slavery. Who knows.

Fortunately for my spirit, the next person that I reached rushed me off the phone because she was already an Obama volunteer. And the one after that explained that he didn't have time to volunteer for Obama because he was spending so much time volunteering for the Democratic senate hopeful - Tom Udall.

In any case, I'll be going back next Saturday. And maybe even sometime during the week. Wish me luck.

Prop 8 Madness

2008-10-10T19:11:00.000-07:00

I really don't understand some people. Why on earth would social conservatives think that the government (who they frequently call the keeper of all things bad) should be required, or even allowed, to regulate who gets to marry whom. It's crazy.

So now the Connecticut Supreme Court has legalized same sex marriage there. To which I say it's about time. But check out this little nugget in the dissenting opinion from Justice Peter T. Zarella :

"there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage." "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," and "If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

Let me rewrite that in English. The state has an interest in the regulation of procreation, and since the purpose of marriage is procreation, it has an interest in regulating marriage. In other words, since same sex couples cannot procreate (as a couple) they should not be allowed to marry.

WTF!?! The state regulates procreation? The purpose of marriage is procreation? Did I miss the memo or something. Is that in the constitution? What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I've actually heard this argument before, from a somewhat nutty Catholic college student (one of my frat brothers, sad to say). He said that people who won't or can't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married. So according to him, senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. Individuals that knew they were infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry. In fact, couples who found they were infertile should be allowed (required) to annul their marriages. He told me all this stuff and I was just dumb founded. He said it was his religion. To which I say "that's nice for you, but I'll marry whoever I want for whatever she and I come up with."

But what about other marriages that the majority can be convinced shouldn't be allowed. Should there be a maximum age difference for marrying couples? How about an attractiveness difference? Since the state is regulating procreation (!) then maybe people should be required to meet certain IQ criteria. Or income criteria. The possibilities are endless.

So there's the real argument against Prop 8: a vote for prop 8 is a vote for the government getting to decide who you are allowed to marry. And that's just plain un-American.

West F*&king Virginia!

2008-10-09T13:02:00.000-07:00

Damn! In the days after the McCain - Palin campaign have launched their most racist campaigns lines yet ("he's pallin' around with terrorists", "he doesn't see the country the way we see the country"), two huge polls have come out.

The first one I noticed was that Virginia had gone from "toss up" to "leaning Obama." This puts Obama over the magic 270 mark according to Real Clear Politics. That is just amazing because that means that Obama has only to keep the states where he is significantly ahead now, and does not need to get any new ones. In other words, even if McCain wins every "toss - up" state, he still loses.

But then I saw that West Virginia, a state that is almost designed to be vulnerable to the kinds of race baiting that McCain - Palin have launched, has moved into the toss - up category. And that's because the latest poll has Obama UP by 8 points. Wow!

And almost all of that movement has come in the last 2 weeks, the period in time when McCain Palin have been trying their best to make white, working class and poor people fear elitist, black, scary Obama. I guess the good people of West Virginia are smarter than McCain Palin think they are.

VP Debate: McCain's Big Gamble Comes Up Snake Eyes

2008-10-03T10:49:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure which debate you were watching. But the one I saw showed two candidates who wanted to lead, two candidates with deep heart-felt ambition. But I only saw one candidate with command of the information and intellect to back up that ambition. Only one who will be able to participate honestly in the process. And only one candidate who would be able to, heaven forbid, lead a country in the extraordinarily turbulent period immediately after the loss of a president.

Remember that taking over the presidency after the elected president dies is NOT like taking over after an election and a transition period. It would be chaos. It would be emergency. It would require complete and total understanding of what needs to happen. Like him or not, Cheney was a perfect VP for Bush because he was an insider who was already working the levers of power. So if Bush did croak, the transition would have been seamless.

Palin would be a disaster as VP if she were needed to take the reins of power from McCain. She doesn't understand the essential functions of the federal government, and is certainly not able to reassure the country and the rest of the world that we are in good shape. On the other hand, Biden would be a perfect Cheney-like VP to Obama. He's knowledgeable, well known and respected by the movers and shakers in the government and completely dedicated to the Obama agenda. The rest of the world would see a smooth transition of power.

Both McCain and Obama have higher than normal risks of needing their VP (I cringe even while I type that). Their choice of running mates speak volumes of how much respect for the country they each have.

About Vice Presidential Debate
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Charles Krauthammer - Obama booster

2008-10-03T09:20:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer, a right wing pundit if ever there was one, has come full circle. Way back in 2006 he wrote this piece strongly urging Obama to run, but lose.

Now he writes this new piece basically saying the McCain is done and needs to step aside. OK, maybe he didn't go that far, but if you squint a little, and read between the lines on both pieces, you'll see that Krauthammer is gonna vote for Obama in November. For goodness sakes, he even compares Barack to Reagan, and for a conservative, that's a big deal!

While I usually don't agree with Charlie, I will say that I always agree that his positions are well thought out, interesting, and even quite thought provoking. In other words, he's a smart guy who tells the truth as he sees it. A thinking Conservative.

And if the thinking Conservatives have come over to our side, that means that we have the thinking Liberals, the thinking Conservatives and the non-thinking Liberals. I think that should be enough for a win.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO

2008-10-02T12:40:00.000-07:00

He says it better than I ever could. The campaign should be promoting this speech with everything it's got, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and hell even West Virginia. Watch the whole thing, but really pay special attention starting at 4:25 or so.

Treasonous Republican Behavior - Part 2

2008-09-29T10:49:00.000-07:00

Naive little me. While I knew that Gore won the 2000 election, I thought that Kerry narrowly lost. I figured that voter suppression efforts had something to do with it, but I didn't really believe that there was actual, complete, Third World style fraud.

The short answer is that I was wrong. 2004 was stolen. Read this post on Huffington for a little more info. Then check out this article by RFK Jr. for the real vein popping details.

I wish I could say exactly what we can do about it. I don't know the answer to that. I will say that the more we expect there to be a fight for this election, for our Democracy, the better able Obama will be to make that fight. In other words, tell your friends, your family, everyone who will listen, to pay attention to what happens at the polls. To pay attention to what happens after the election. And if things don't make sense, be prepared to make some noise about it.

Gore fought to the Supreme Court. I don't particularly think he fought well, but he fought. Kerry gave up right away. We need to make sure, in advance, that Obama knows that we want him to fight to count every vote.

Remember this - we send out children overseas to fight, kill and die for Democracy. We owe it to ourselves, those who came before us, and those who will come after us to defend the Democracy that we are supposed to have right here.

First Debate: Obama's missed opportunity

2008-09-27T08:57:00.000-07:00

I watched the debate last night hoping to see Obama be his normal intelligent thoughtful self and really hoping that McCain would lose it and get angry or forget stuff. I got what I hoped for with Obama - he was good. McCain was also fine, but did not totally lose it as I had hoped.

But there is one thing that really worried me - Israel. McCain mentioned Israel 3 times. Noe of these times was in response to a question about Israel. Each time was an opportunity for Obama to strongly state support for the state of Israel, his support for the idea that Israel has the right and responsibility to defend herself, and that as president, Obama will support Israel because Israel is a critical ally.

It's not that I think Obama doesn't think those things - he's already said he does. But in this tight a race, you just can't let an issue like Israel go by without making your position clear. And there are those, who will see Obama, with his funny Muslim sounding name, as being a weak supporter of Israel unless he does something to correct that perception.

Specifically, if Obama is going to try to win Florida, he will need very strong Jewish support there. And he missed his chance in the debate to show his support for Israel. I hope that mistake did not cost him Florida. Because while he can win without Florida, McCain can't, and last night could have sealed the deal.

Truth about Taxes and Rich People

2008-09-21T16:57:00.001-07:00

I don't have anything against rich people. Really. I just think that since we are talking about tax cuts in this election season, and commentators are throwing around terms like "class warfare" and "socialism" we should all have a better sense of what we are talking about.

So check out this little graph from the Washington Post. It describes reasonably well the impact of the tax proposals that McCain and Obama have.

The most obvious interesting fact that I come away from this with is that McCain wants to give the top 1% (from approx $700,000 per year income to $3M) a tax decrease that is roughly equal to the average family income. And he's selling this as a middle class tax cut!

The next thing that I notice is that I can't tell how much money rich people make. I'm going to guess that the income bracket that is between 37,596 and 66, 354 is pretty evenly distributed. There are lots of people throughout that income bracket, so that assumption makes some sense. But the top 1% (really the top 1% without the top .1%) make between roughly 700k and 3M. That's a lot of range and not a lot of people, so I can't guess what the distribution is. So that means that I can't guess what the tax impact is. I mean a $115k tax increase might be a big deal for someone making 700k. But it should be barely noticeable for someone making $3M.

And then there's the bit about the people who make more than $3m. We know how many there are, about 0.1% of the people in the country. But how much do they make? We know that the bottom of that group makes $3M per year, but what about the middle, the average or even the high end? The short answer is that the government will not tell us that information. But a better answer is that their income is enormous. (Check out this site for more info on the income distribution. It's a little old school and difficult to read, but read it.)

Then think about this: who benefits from the the roads that get people to work? The people who are going to work, or the people who make money from other people's work? Both benefit. So if I benefit from you (and your 1,000 co workers) going to work in my factory, should I pay the same as you? Or should I pay 1,000 times as much?

The point is that people with more money, by definition benefit more from our government (and that's before considering the $700B injection of government money into the financial system) than do people with less money. Recently, that's gotten way out of whack, with the middle class being asked to shoulder more and more of the burden. Obama's plan is a small step in making things start to make a little more sense.

Wall Street Fat Cats

2008-09-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

It's funny how the McCain campaign is not railing about the Wall Street fat cats and their insufferable greed and how he's gonna ride into town and take care of em. It sorta reminds me of that Gil Scott Heron song about Ronald Ray-Gun riding in on a white horse...

But I digress.

Let's talk about how ridiculous it is that the guy who brought us (or was at least involved in) the S&L scandal, who even now admits to being "fundamentally a deregulator" is talking about how he's going to propose smart regulation to prevent these problems in the future. That's insane. He has absolutely no record of even understanding the mess. And his history is of being bought and paid for by folks he has been trusted to regulate. And his self described fundamental reaction to this is to put the foxes in charge of the hen house. Again.

And the media implies that both Obama and McCain are equally in the pocket of "Wall Street" because they've both taken lots of money from employees of Wall Street firms. WTF?!? Last time I checked, everyone is allowed to contribute to either or both candidates. And doing so does not on its face prove anything one way or the other. Just because you work for a company does not mean you are a lobbyist for that company. Ask the Obama donors who work for Walmart.

What is clear is that Obama has a record of being right on the two biggest mistakes of recent history: the Iraq war and the regulation of the economy. In both cases, he said we need to take a cautionary approach. In the middle east that means defend ourselves from our actual enemies and don't go starting wars for specious reasons. In the economy it means making sure that our regulations keep pace with the times. No surprise there, he's smart. These are difficult problems. Smart people understand difficult problems. They also know enough to know when they need people even smarter then them to deal with specific issues. I bet Obama has some really smart people who know the financial markets pretty well.

It's also equally clear that McCain has been wrong on these two issues. On the economy, he's been wrong for a very long time.

I also have some really smart friends who know the financial markets well. They are definitely gonna see their taxes go up under an Obama administration. But, like other people with lots of money, they understand that the merely wealthy or high income folks, those that make over the magical 250k that everyone is talking this year, but less than I-couldn't-spend-that-much-money-in-my-whole-life amounts like some CEOs (even piss poor ones like Carly Fiorino) will actually do better even with higher taxes.

Huh? How is that possible? How can they do better if the government is taking a larger portion of their paycheck?

Simple - the sorta rich (think annual incomes between $250k and $2.5M) can only do well when the upper middle class are doing well. And those folks can only do well when the middle class are doing well. And so forth.

In other words, keeping 75% of $300k is better than keeping 80% of $200k.

Put another way, trickle down economics is bullshit. That's not the way our economy works. You can't make poor people richer by giving more money to rich people. That's just stupid.

You can, on the other hand, make rich people richer by making sure that poor and middle class people have more money. That's because one way rich people get rich because they figure out ways to get poor and middle class folks to spend their money - to trade it for something of value that the rich person sells. And if those poor and working class folks don't have any money, those rich and sorta rich people can't sell them anything, and their big incomes get small, quickly.

The other way rich people get and stay rich it to get the gubment to carve out a special niche for them. But that's another post for another day.

The problem is that capitalism relies on people with money being greedy. If you own a company that employs people, you want to charge the most for what you sell and pay the least. In other words, you want to keep your workers as poor as possible, but you want your customer to be as rich as possible. Obviously, that is a tricky balance.

And when it gets out of balance, it almost never goes the way of the employees getting richer. And that's because the natural flow of things is for owners to buy better machines so that they need fewer workers (think fax machines instead of messengers). And to create more interesting financial instruments so that they can pay their workers less (think 401k instead of pensions). And to lobby lawmakers to let them pay less (think of how the minimum wage didn't get indexed to inflation).

So, over time, you have a situation where more and more money flows up the food chain, away from the people who spend it, and towards the people who just use it to hoard more of it.

And that is why we need a government that fundamentally has the little guy in mind. That means real regulation. That means smart, tough government that holds businesses accountable for the damage they does when they go overboard. That means folks who do not say "OK" when the fox shows up (dressed as a duck) and wants to be put in charge of the company that has the contract to hire the dog that guards the hen house. (The fox never shows up and asks "where the chickens?)

And who is it that has always worked for the little guy? Who is it that wanted keep strong regulation to prevent the current mess? Which 2 of our 4 presidential and VP candidates are smart, tough, honest and fundamentally oriented to helping normal working people?

If I need to answer that, you're reading the wrong blog.

My new favorite T Shirt

2008-09-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

In case you can't read the text is says: Attention Sarah Palin, Jesus was a Community Organizer, Pontius Pilate was a Governor.

Treasonous Republican Behavior

2008-09-10T20:50:00.000-07:00

Thousands of our soldiers are, right now as I write this, overseas trying to bring the sacred right to vote to citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 4,000 have already given their lives in that effort. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans have, in the course of our history, ade the ultimate sacrifice so that the rest of us could live in a Democracy. And yet, right here, right now, in the US of A, the Republicans are trying take that right away from a specific group of particularly vulnerable Americans.

Voter suppression is un-American. Trying to find ways to keep citizens from participating in our Democracy is beyond politics, it should be called what it is: treason!

It was evil when it was done in Florida in 2000. It was evil when it was done in Ohio in 2004. Republicans do it because the voters easiest to suppress are also very likely to be Democrats. They are working people. They are minorities. The are poor. They are busy.

So now we see it in action in Michigan. Are you fucking kidding me?!? Trying to keep people who have been foreclosed on from voting?!? We need to make sure that everyone sees this. It is disgusting.

Read more: http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

Enough!

2008-09-10T12:15:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in a while. Mostly because I've been busy. But also because I have been gob smacked by the stupidity and smallness of the debate - if you want to call it debate.

So here's Obama fighting back. Fighting for the smart people who want to make this country better. Watch. Learn. Repeat. Forward to people.

The Last Conversation with my Dad

2008-06-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

My father died in 1995. I didn't hear about his death for at least a week after it happened. My oldest brother - half brother actually, his first son - found my mom's phone number, called her, and she called me with the news.

A week after he died, I learned that he had succumbed to TB. This was his second battle with TB in a few years. He was 68.

At that point, I hadn't talked to him for at least 2 years. So I guess the extra week that it took for me to find out that I would never actually be able to hear his voice again, didn't really matter. I mean it was just a week, right.

That voice. My dad was a singer. He never really made a living at it, but that was what he was. Anything else he did, was just to pay the bills. He sounded almost exactly like Billy Eckstine, but he always maintained that it was Eckstine who sounded like him. I'm not sure why he said that, since Eckstine was born in 1914 and my dad was born in 1927. But that's what he said, and I think he was serious about that. He was a very serious guy.

After my parents split up, he'd call and ask to talk to me. My mom would hand me the phone, and he'd say "Brian, it's me . . . your father." Every time he said that, I'd think how clueless he must have been, how could I not recognize him and that voice.

He was little, 5'6" and no more than 150 lbs. But he had this intensity that was genuinely scary. He didn't smile often, and he wasn't quick to give praise. He was liable to explode at you for some infraction that seemed pretty minor, but which he took very seriously. He was not an easy person to live with. Looking back, I'd guess that he was very hard on himself about not feeling that he had reached his potential.

Three months after he died, I was sitting in a restaurant in Johannesburg. It was kind of an odd restaurant - a bohemian hangout that served Thai food and played American Blues records - loudly. The owner seemed to be enjoying himself, but he clearly had no patience for anyone telling him how to "improve" the place. If you didn't like to food, or the music, or the waitresses or the service, well you could just go eat somewhere else. That is exactly how my dad ran his restaurant. And the rest of his life as well.

I was sitting there at that restaurant by myself, eating my dinner and enjoying the music, and all of a sudden he was there. Sitting across from me, with his legs crossed, enjoying one of his signature unfiltered Pall Malls. He didn't say anything, so I couldn't hear his voice. But I felt it. He was smiling. He was proud of me. He was at peace. Finally.

No Country For Old Man

2008-06-19T21:31:00.000-07:00

I LOVE this video. And all of the others from PSA.

But before you watch - know that the worst word in the ENTIRE english language is said repeatedly. But it's bleeped. Still - not really safe for work. Or for kids who are gonna say to you in public - "mommy, what's a ..."

Enjoy?

The truest moment starts at 1:44.

The not safe for work version is here

Raising Money

2008-06-18T10:56:00.000-07:00

It seems that first thing that the Obama campaign did well was to raise money. But that won't stop me from piling on and trying to raise more. So to my massive readership, I'd ask you both to go to my personal Obama campaign fundraising site, and give a little more.

I'm also putting it into the headline of the blog as well, just in case you forget :-)

Thanks,
Brian

It's Going to Be Cold This Winter!

2008-06-16T23:21:00.001-07:00

The price of Diesel and the price of home heating oil (HHO) track very closely to each other. The reason is that home heating oil and Diesel are very similar products, such that to make more of one means making less of the other (from a given barrel of oil).

The price of Diesel has risen significantly faster than the price of gasoline, most likely due to the increase in Diesel cars being built and sold around the world.

In the winters of 2005 - 2006, and 2006 - 2007, Diesel and HHO cost about $2.50 per gallon. Last winter, they cost about $3.50 per gallon. Diesel is currently going for about $4.75 and rising.

This is going to be a big deal this winter. If Diesel hits $5.00 per gallon and stays there over the winter, there are going to be people freezing to death all over the Northeast and Midwest (where HHO is commonly used).

I don't have any answers to this problem. But I will say that if I lived in a home that used HHO, I'd spend my summer insulating. If I ran a local government in an area with lots of HHO heated homes, I'd be scrambling to find funds to do whatever could be done to mitigate this problem NOW.