Deja-Vu All Over Again: Still Killing Them Softly . . .

I originally wrote the post below on August 3, 2007. I have made only minor changes to the text to reflect the number of casualties and the location of the disaster, and to correct any anachronisms.

Today, 10 Sierra Leoneans drowned (many more are still missing) when their boat capsized on a sea journey from Shenge to Tombo, a village south of the capital, Freetown. Official sources claim the boat—which has not yet been recovered—was overloaded and did not contain lifejackets, in violation of the law. Many of the passengers were children. In spite of the shocking casualty figures, I am sure nobody will be held accountable for these disasters. People die, nobody answers for their deaths and nothing is done to prevent future deaths. In this way, Sierra Leone’s leaders continue to get away with murder.

Sure, the boat that collapsed today was—like all other means of motorized transport in Sierra Leone—old and rickety, overloaded with passengers and cargo. Sure, the water was rough where the Great Scarcies, swollen by recent rains, met the Atlantic. And sure, when God calls you, you can’t avoid it. Nonetheless, somebody should take responsibility for all this loss of life. Somebody should be held accountable. Somebody must be punished so that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again. But nobody will be.

Ultimately, no matter how this story is sliced or diced, one thing is certain. The government—the people who are supposed to be responsible for the welfare of the nation—bears responsibility for this catastrophe. But one question will not be asked: “Why were there so many people packed into a rickety, overloaded boat traveling up the Atlantic coast during the rainy season?” The answer is simple. They have no choice.

And why do they have no choice? Because the government has not bothered to try to make sure that people can travel from one part of the country to another without taking  their lives into their hands. And because there is virtually no public transportation network in Sierra Leone. Or in most of West Africa. The old colonial highways (and I use “highway” loosely because these roads are seldom wider than one lane in either direction) are in poor condition, unpaved, bumpy and barely navigable at speeds greater than 20 miles an hour. To go by land, would-be passengers have to cram themselves into . . . you guessed it . . . old, rickety, and overloaded minibuses. Secondly, there are no major roads that run from Freetown due north. Passengers would have to go towards the center of the country and transfer at one of the major junctions. Finally, the transportation system is a neoliberal freemarketeer’s wet dream come true. Drivers only go where there is demand, and the evidence of demand is a full vehicle. Passengers wait, sometimes longer than an hour, until the vehicle cannot hold another person or item of luggage. If you’re traveling from Freetown to another part of Sierra Leone, it doesn’t matter how you decide to get there. Traveling by sea or road is a costly, crowded, and uncomfortable experience. And you may not survive the trip.

Since independence, the country’s infrastructure has slowly been falling apart. Official corruption and public apathy—more accurately fatalism—have resulted in the literal and physical deterioration of every aspect of social life: housing, health care, education, transportation. Everything is falling apart. The recently ended civil war, which raged for a decade and a half, did nothing to improve the situation.

Now the war is over. It’s been over since 2003. And what has this meant for infrastructure in Sierra Leone? Not much, except that the international community has done a good job of rebuilding and refurbishing the main commercial and administrative buildings in the capital’s city center. When I was there last September, my guide pointed out all the buildings that had been rebuilt by the British, the French, the EU, the UN but I didn’t see a single building that had been rebuilt by the Sierra Leonean government.

“But,” I hear you say, “isn’t it a lot to ask of the fragile new administration of a post-conflict-country to invest huge sums of revenue into reconstruction?” Fair enough. But if they can’t or don’t spend money on rebuilding the country, what can or do they spend revenues on? Last time I checked, it was the duty of a government to provide for the wellbeing of its people. Certainly I’m not naive enough to believe that the government must do so out of altruism but the Sierra Leonean government is failing at performing its basic role even if we look at it from purely economic terms. How can the country progress economically without a reliable and comprehensive transportation system, a requirement for even the most primitive systems of trade and commerce?

Besides, not having enough money is no excuse. Isn’t it part of the government’s job to have money? Whether through loans or foreign aid or domestic revenue generation, it is up to the government to generate revenue, which can then be reinvested into the economy. Despite what we hear about the role of government in the US, this is actually how modern, industrialized and—dare I say it—civilized countries function. Sure there’s a role for the market and the entrepreneur and all that good stuff but even the most die-hard advocates of the free market would never claim that the market exists to serve the public good. Entrepreneurs will tell you that they are in the business of seeking profits, not serving the public good. So, if the market won’t do it, who should? I say the government should. Find me one modern, industrialized, civilized country in which the government does nothing to provide for the public good.

Which brings me to my greater point. The government of Sierra Leone does not give a sh*t about the people of Sierra Leone. Since indepencence—46 years ago—Sierra Leone’s leaders (like the leaders of much of the “developing” world) have been busy enriching themselves. Sure, colonialism left homogenous, un-diversified economies throughout sub-Saharan Africa that were dependent on European economies for their survival. And yes, structural adjustments took a grievous toll on social welfare programs in developing countries but the time has come to call a spade a spade. African leaders don’t care about their people. They have never cared about their people. In the ’60s and ’70s, Sierra Leone was a decent place to live, with passable roads, round-the-clock electricity, and running water in the capital (the “provinces” were always a different story).

On my recent trip, however, Freetown had become like the provinces. Roads in the once-affluent western suburbs were now rutted and potholed, the asphalt broken up by tank treads from the days of the war and the soil underneath washed away by rain. Where there were once sidewalks, I saw deep ravines and gullies where water had eroded the soil on the side of the road. In some places, so much of the road had been washed away that two cars traveling in opposite directions could not pass each other along the same narrow stretch of road. And the roads are just the most visible part of the decay. Schools, hospitals, homes are all in a deplorable state of disrepair. More and more people live in slums and shanties.

Not everyone lives in dilapidation, though. I saw the president’s house. It’s a mansion that sits on a hillside overlooking the capital. Paved driveway, fence, swimming pool. But this man presides over a country that is slipping further and further backwards. But here’s the rub. The very poverty of Sierra Leone is what keeps these people in business. Millions of dollars and euros in foreign and development aid are funnelled into Sierra Leone—and many other impoverished countries—but how much of that money gets to the people who really need it? Having seen the president’s mansion, I have to say, not much.

The government of Sierra Leone is parasitic, and that corrupting mentality trickles all the way down through the society as low-level civil servants, underpaid and undertrained, scrounge around for scraps—bribes and other forms of official theft. How many people get into government because they want to make a difference, to help lift their country out of poverty? Not many, I imagine. After all, why has it taken so long to make that difference, and why is the country so much worse than it was at independence? Yes I know, colonialism and the international financial institutions must bear some of the blame but let’s not forget, Africa was not the only colonized continent. Yet today, Africa is by far the most impoverished region in the world.

Why do so many Sierra Leoneans who have attained professional and financial success abroad give it all up to pursue a political career in Sierra Leone? Because that’s where the money is. Take the former ambassador to the US, who had been a successful attorney and businessman prior to his appointment. Why did he go to Sierra Leone to try to get involved in politics? Why not lecture at the university there? He has a law degree and legal experience after all. Why not find investors and open a factory or some other revenue-generating business? After all, he had worked in the private sector before. Because he was not interested in doing anything to make Sierra Leone a safer, cleaner, or more comfortable place for its citizens to live. But he’s not alone.

Post-independence administrations—from Siaka Stevens’ on—have demonstrated a stunning lack of vision and imagination. As the rest of the world has moved forwards, Sierra Leone has slipped backwards. Why has no post-independence government implemented any policies for sustainable development? No large-scale, industrialized agriculture; no modern land, sea, or river transportation network; no new schoolhouses; no new hospitals; no modern air- or seaport; nothing! Just a government that maintains form without function.

When the president travels abroad, he is treated with all the respect befitting a dignitary. But every day in Sierra Leone, and in much of Africa, how many people die daily from easily preventable accidents and diseases? How many lives could be saved if the government committed itself to improving road networks and making transportation a faster and less dangerous business? Would the president be treated with such respect if he had lined the casualties of today’s boat catastrophe up against a wall and shot them all in the head? Sierra Leone boasts the world’s highest rates of infant mortality, with measles and malaria respectively accounting for 48 and 33 percent of all under-five deaths. What if, instead of having succumbed to easily prevented diseases, all these children had been gassed to death on the orders of the present government? There would be an international outcry, that’s what! No member of the Sierra Leonean government could travel abroad as smugly and proudly as they do now.

However, these people are not dying from accidents and disease. They are dying because the people who were elected or appointed to provide the basic amenities that would prevent their deaths are failing to do their jobs. Not having enough money to fix roads, build hospitals, or educate children should no longer be an acceptable excuse! Finding the money is part of the job description. Using the money to improve the country for everyone is another part of the job. Failing to do either of these things is the same as failing in the job. And failing to do one’s job is negligence. Every day, in Sierra Leone and all around Africa, people are dying from government negligence. But because they are dying from negligence instead of deliberate government action, the world looks the other way. Nobody is held accountable. The negligence goes unpunished.

Today, as 50 people go to their watery graves, we have seen one more demonstration of this negligence. With elections around the corner, let’s hope the next government is better than the previous ones. Let’s hope the next government values the lives of Sierra Leoneans enough to actively attempt to prevent such catastrophic accidents.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Read Full Post »

Gang Rape/Murder Trials May Strike a Blow for Women’s Rights in South Africa.

A little over a year ago, the body of 31-year-old Eudy Simelane was found in a park near her home on the outskirts of Johannesburg, South Africa. She had been gang raped and stabbed 25 times. Eudy was a sportscaster and a former midfielder on the South African national women’s football team. She was also a lesbian.

In a country where rape and violence against women is endemic, Eudy is one among countless victims. A recently published survey found that one quarter of South African men admitted to having committed rape. Further compounding the problem, the One in Nine Campaign, which takes its name from the grim statistic that only one in nine victims comes forward, maintains that rape is grossly underreported. This is no surprise considering that in South Africa, as elsewhere, women who are raped often find themselves blamed for it. For example, in a recent high-profile rape trial, the current president defended himself with the old she-made-me-do-it line, arguing (among other things) that the victim had provoked the sexual encounter by wearing a kanga—a traditional wrap-around garment—while she was a guest at his house. Unlike the president, however, most South African rapists are never tried for their crimes.

But Eudy Simelane’s case is somewhat different from the others. She was well-known, so the trial of the men accused of raping and killing her is bringing a lot of needed attention to South Africa’s rape crisis, especially to the targeted rape of lesbians. Dubbed “corrective rape,” The Guardian describes it as a practice wherein men—or gangs of men—rape lesbians in the belief that after sex with them, a lesbian will “become a girl.”

Earlier this year, one man accused of playing a role in Eudy Simelane’s death pled guilty to robbery and murder, but not rape. Today, the remaining suspects go to trial. Womens’ and gay rights activists are organizing around the trials—as well as around two other cases of “corrective rape”—hoping to push the government to take stronger action against rape, sexual violence, homophobia, and other hate crimes.

The convictions and sentences handed down in these cases ought to send a strong message that rape is wrong and go a long way towards improving life for lesbians—and other women—in South Africa. After all, it was the first country in the world to constitutionally guarantee gay rights, and the outcome of these cases will show whether, and to what extent, the South African government is committed to the ideals enshrined in the post-Apartheid constitution.

Read Full Post »

What Would Jesus Give Up For Lent?

Duccio's rendition of the temptation of Jesus. Not sure why the Devil's portrayed with black skin but, whatever. You gotta pick your battles.

It’s Lent again and, if you’re Christian, you’re probably giving up something you like. Or perhaps you thought about giving something up, but decided against it: Either way, thoughts of sacrifice must have crossed your mind. And, while I can’t speak for myself—I am not a Christian—I certainly know many Christians who are giving up everything from chocolote to alcohol to sex.

Once upon a time, Christians were only asked to make sacrifices in the real world but this year, at least one Italian cleric has asked Catholics to make sacrifices in the virtual world as well. According to the BBC , the Archbishop of Modena wants young people to give up texting and social networking sites (like Facebook) in order to  ”cleanse themselves from the virtual world and get back into touch with themselves.” Other Italian Archbishops have asked people to give up mineral water or to recycle more (I’m not quite sure how recycling is a fitting “sacrifice” for Lent, except that maybe not recycling is a luxury that would be hard to surrender).

All this got me thinking: People are giving up all this stuff for Lent but what would Jesus give up?

The question (like the title of this post) is purely rhetorical because we have a good idea of what Jesus would give up (if we take the Gospels at their word, anyway). In Christian tradition, Lent commemorates the 40 days and nights Jesus spent in the desert. According to three of the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark), Jesus was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit after John the Baptist . . . um . . . baptised him. He ate nothing while in the desert and, at the end of 40 days, was quite hungry. As if all this wasn’t bad enough, he was visited by Satan (or the slanderer, depending on the translation) who tempted him with food, wealth, and power. Here’s how Mark, the least verbose on the subject of Christ’s temptation, put it:

At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.”

The other two Evangelists go into greater detail, listing the actual temptations. First, Jesus was tempted with food:

The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Next, he was tempted with wealth:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”

Finally, the Devil tempted Jesus with power:

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ”‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

In the end, Jesus triumphed over the Devil and resisted his temptations, which leads to another, bigger question: If Jesus Christ, the spiritual founder of the the Christian religion, endured 40 days of hunger in the desert, at the end of which he rejected both basic needs (food) and luxuries (wealth and power), how is it that modern Christians have to give up so little for Lent? I mean, don’t get me wrong, texting is an essential part of many modern Christians’ lives, but is giving that up really in keeping with the spirit of sacrifice? Could the Vatican not demand a greater sacrifice from the congregations it instructs to emulate Christ? Frankly, it’s a little demeaning to the memory of Christ’s ordeal in the desert that today, people who claim to be memorializing his suffering, have the option of giving up something as trivial as chocolate.

Ultimately, what we choose to “sacrifice” says as much about the modern world we inhabit as it does about the gap between how we live and how the majority of the rest of the planet lives. Most people on this planet have never owned a cell phone, let alone a computer. Every day, millions of people wake up hungry and go to bed thirsty. Millions have no access to clean, pipe-borne water. And uncounted numbers of women and girls have no say in when, where, how, or with whom they have sex. For them, giving up sex is impossible. Likewise, for most of the rest of the people on this planet, giving up texting or chocolate or mineral water is not even an option. These are luxuries they have no choice but to do without—day after day after day.

There is, however, a glimmer of hope. At least one of those Italian Archbishops asked that people recycle more. Recycling is certainly a good start. Maybe next year he’ll ask his worshippers to oppose war or not beat their wives. Hopefully more and more religious leaders will ask people to not only give up things they enjoy but also to take up things they may not enjoy but which are beneficial to the rest of the human family. Maybe one day, a courageous Archbishop somewhere will order his congregants to never take a human life. After all, war and wifebeating (like most of our world’s ills) are intimately linked to wealth and power. Most importantly, lest we forget, these two temptations make up exactly two thirds of the temptations Jesus resisted in the desert.

Today, what are we to make of this story, which teaches us that 2000 years ago, a lone man starving himself in the desert knew that, in order to prepare for his mission, he needed to make some sacrifices? After all, his mission was no small feat: He had taken on no less a challenge than the salvation of the world! Of the three temptations, Jesus rejected one for only 40 days, but the other two he rejected for ever. He gave up food for just 40 days and nights, but he resumed eating once he returned from the desert. The bigger temptations, wealth and power, he gave up for ever—if the Gospels are to be taken literally, he did not pursue them for the rest of his life.

So when Lent rolls around next year, what will you give up?

Read Full Post »

Hate Speech is Not Free Speech: Chilean Students’ Killer had a History of Xenophobia

On the morning of Thursday, February 27, 14 friends gathered at a townhome in Miramar Beach, Florida for a party. At around 1:45 am, Dannie Roy Baker, who lived in the same complex as the hosts, crossed the compound with a rifle and opened fire on the partygoers.

By the time police arrived at the scene, five people had been shot—two of them fatally—and the shooter had returned to his home, where he awaited the arrival of police. Since his arrest, Dannie Baker has not spoken to the police so his motive for the killings is not known. But enough information has come out to indicate that it was at least partially motivated by the fact that the victims’ were not native-born Americans. All 14 people at the party, including Baker’s five victims, are Latinos. The two he killed were Chilean students visiting the US as part of a work-study program.

The story is not getting widely picked up in the national media and one of the first places to compile details was the Daily KOS, who reports that Dannie Baker had volunteered with the local Republican Electoral Committee during the 2004 presidential race, after which he apparently sent “radical” and “inappropriate” emails to other members. Baker’s emails were so disturbing that they were reported to the local sheriff’s department but, because the emails did not contain threats against a specific person, the sheriff’s department took no further action against him. The actual text of these emails has not yet been released.

Although Baker had no history of violence, it appears he was not entirely mentally or emotionally stable. According to Jim Anders, a member of the Republican Executive Committee, Baker was very “eccentric” and seemed to have “some emotional problems.” And Crystal Lynn, a neighbor of Baker’s, says “he did come up to me one time and asked me if I was ready for the revolution to begin and if I had any immigrant in my house to get them out.”

Until more information comes out, there’s no way to know what Dannie Baker wrote in those emails that so troubled people that they reported him to the police. Hopefully, he didn’t write about killing immigrants because that would mean the sheriff’s department screwed up big-time by not investigating him further and putting him someplace where he could not be a threat to others. A direct threat against a specific person should justifiably be grounds for police action, but so should threats against a specific group. After all, a hate crime does not target a specific person but it does target a specific group, identified by race, nationality, sexual orientation, or some other collective identity marker.

So if it turns out that Baker had made threats against Latinos or any other immigrant group, the Sheriff’s department should explain why they took no further police action against him. Freedom of speech permits deranged and sane people alike to say whatever they please, but if one of those crazy people rants against foreigners, sends “radical” and ”inappropriate” emails, and tells his neighbor to get immigrants out of her house, that ought to be grounds for the local police to do something. Now two people are dead, three are wounded, and an entire community is traumatized. But of course, until the contents of Baker’s emails are released, there’s no way to know if he had made threats against a specific racial group.

At the end of the day, hate speech is not free speech, but it seems many Americans have trouble distinguishing the two. Or perhaps, with more Americans joining hate groups and anti-immigrant rhetoric—to say nothing of anti-immigrant action—becoming more mainstream, the question should not be whether Americans can recognize hate speech but whether and to what extent they are bothered by it. (The fact that several news outlets have mentioned the victims’ immigration status—as if that is relevant to the case!—further illustrates this country’s obsession with immigration. God only knows what the news coverage of this hate crime would look like if the victims had been in the country without the proper immigration paperwork!)

Now, twenty-three-year-old Nicolas Corp-Torres and twenty-two-year-old Racine Baldontin-Aragondona—two of Dannie Baker’s victims—are dead. But they might still be alive had local law enforcement understood, or cared about, the difference between hate speech and free speech the first time they had to deal with Dannie Baker.

Read Full Post »

Post-Racialism Marches On in America.

Image distributed by Los Almitos Mayor Dean Grose, showing the White house lawn prepped for the annual Watermelon hunt. Grose is claiming he was unaware of the racial stereotype that Black people love watermelon.

Lest anyone was having trouble remembering that we are now living in a post-racial America, here are a few reminders.

In Los Alamitos, Mayor Dean Grose has come under fire for sending a doctored photo titled “No Easter egg hunt this year.” Offended recepients, including Keyanus Price, a Black businesswoman, have demanded an apology from the mayor. Speaking in his own defense, the mayor claimed that he had no idea there was a racial stereotype involving Black people and watermelons.

Rupert Murdoch, owner of the New York Post, issued a reluctant apology for the above cartoon, drawn by Sean Delonas.

Other examples of post-racialism at work  have attracted nationwide attention. Take, for example, the New York Post cartoon in which two White officers shoot dead a chimpanzee, and one of the officers says to the other, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” While the Post and its supporters tried to argue that the cartoon ape and the reference to the stimulus bill were not coded racist references to President Barack Obama, there is no escaping the association. Although admittedly the president is not the bill’s author, a cursory Google search on the term “stimulus bill” turns up tons of articles that reference Obama in their opening paragraphs (see also here). So while the cartoonist may want people to believe that the link was unintentional, the reality is that on one hand, the ape has long been used as a  racist caricature of Black people, and on the other hand, there is a long history of White people doing violence to Black people. When the links among the stimulus bill and Barack Obama, the history of police violence towards Black men, and the ape as a racist caricature are considered, it’s hard—if not impossible—not to see the racist overtones in this cartoon.

Sadly, some of the other signs of post-racialism are much more real than a doctored photo or a newspaper cartoon, and the town of Paris, Texas provides a few examples. Paris is where a 14-year-old Black girl was sentenced to seven years in a juvenile prison for pushing a hall monitor. The sentencing judge had earlier sentenced a young White girl to probation for arson! Paris is also home to Turner Industries’ pipe factory, whose Black employees are complaining that nooses, confederate flags, and racist graffitti are prominently displayed all over their workplace.

Ah yes! We are living in heady times! Post-racial fever is sweeping the nation and everybody’s catching the bug! According to CNN, there has been a huge upswing in the number of Americans joining hate groups. Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard (what an unfortunate last name for a KKK Grand Wizard!?), told the cable news network that 2,000 people joined his online hate group the day after Obama’s inauguration: prior to the inauguration, he got about 80 new members a day.

Clearly, in this post-racial climate, many people are confused and disoriented, and don’t know how to handle life in the new America. In the spirit of post-racialism—and as a personal favor to Mayor Dean Grose, Turner Industries’ White employees, Don Black, and anyone else who wants to jump on the post-racial bandwagon—here are a few ways in which the post-racial esprit de corps can be advanced:

• Don’t make any jokes about Native Americans and alcoholism;
• Do not make casual references to Asians, math prowess, and/or penis/butt/breast size;
• Avoid associating Black people with grape soda, fried chicken, drug dealing, or primates of any kind;
• Whatever you do, DO NOT join a hate group. Joining a hate group will severely undermine your post-racial credentials.

Boy, it feels great to be living in a post-racial America! I shudder to think what America was like before post-racialism.

Read Full Post »

We Have Not Overcome.

On election night, I joined thousands of revelers in the streets of Washington, DC in a spontaneous celebration of Barack Obama’s presidential victory. And we were not alone: similar celebrations erupted all across the United States and around the world. Seventy-seven days later, the spectacle was repeated on an even grander scale as over a million people streamed into DC to witness the inauguration, and millions more around the world watched it on television and computer screens.  The inauguration of Barack Obama was hailed as a truly historic occasion, a sign that America had changed, that we had entered a post-racist era. We united in self-congratulation as we watched Bettye LaVette and Jon Bon Jovi end their rendition of Sam Cooke’s classic with the line, “a change has come, ” while the more eschatologically minded described Mr. Obama’s ascension to the presidency as nothing less than the fulfilment of Martin Luther King’s prophetic dream. But have we really overcome?

Well, if news headlines from around the country are any indication, we still have a long way to go. It will take more than a changing of the guard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to fix what ails our country because, while Obama’s victory is significant for many reasons, it has not brought us into a post-racist world.

Take, for example, what is taking place in Maricopa County, Arizona, where  Sheriff Joe Arpaio—who already has a reputation for brutally mistreating undocumented county residents—sank to hitherto unimaginable depths. A short while ago, the tough-on-immigration sheriff marched over 200 immigration detainees (mainly Latino men) from the county jail to a tent city created just for them. Detainees were dressed in old-time striped prison uniforms and paraded publicly to the tent city, which is surrounded by an electric fence. In the past, the sheriff’s department has caught flak for racial profiling and disproportionately targeting Latinos for arrest and harrassment. There have also been numberous reports of mistreatment of detainees, who have been hog-tied, beaten, and forced to work in chain gangs. To put things in perspective: 70% of Arpaio’s detainees have not been tried or convicted of any offense! So much for the American ideal of “innocent until proven guilty.” One doesn’t have to be a holocaust scholar to be sickened by Sheriff Arpaio’s pogrom against Maricopa County’s Latinos.

The situation is no better on the other side of the country where Jack Lacy, the ex-president of Hamilton Township in New Jersey, was forced to resign after sending an e-mail in which he compared President Obama’s inauguration to the evacuation of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. According to Lacy, “How can two million blacks get into Washington, D.C., in sub zero (temperatures) in one day when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans at 85 degrees with four days notice?” So . . . when over a million Black people gathered in DC to celebrate what could be the greatest day in the history of Black America since emancipation, Jack Lacy saw fit to compare it to what was possibly the worst time in recent Black American history.

And finally, who can forget the spate of hate crimes that erupted around the election? In Long Island, New York, a gang of teens went on an immigrant-bashing spree that culminated in the death of Marcelo Lucero. Another case involved a Black family of Obama supporters in New Jersey who found a burnt cross on their lawn a few days after the election. On Staten Island, New York, a Black man was beaten by two teenagers: during the beating, they insulted their victim with racial slurs and called him “Obama.” It’s worth noting that these are not isolated incidents, the death throes of bigotry in a post-racist America. In fact, there was a spike in hate crimes and ethnic intimidation around the country, according to a report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

There are countless other examples but there’s no need to recount more, because those who share my outlook already know about them, and those who don’t cannot be convinced. Suffice to say, attitudes from racial America have been effortlessly carried over into post-racial America, and eliminating these attitudes will take much more than a Black family in the White House. America is still America and, lest we forget, Obama did not get 100% of the votes cast. Far from it. He got only slightly over half. Yet watching the nation bask in collective self-congratulation, one might be forgiven for thinking that Americans had—by the mere act of electing the first Black president in our nation’s history—accomplished nothing less than the elimination of racism from the face of the earth.

Part of the explanation for this response lies in Americans’ limited understanding of racism. Many Americans understand racism simply as namecalling or violence. Other Americans see racism as the absence of Black people or other people of color in positions of power. Racism is both these things, of course, but it is also much more. However, for the average American, who understands racism as merely the absence of colored people in positions of power, the Obama presidency is a major blow against racism: some of the more sanguine of that lot even consider it a fatal blow. But there’s more to this racism-is-dead rhetoric. The claim that America has entered a post-racist era is nothing less than an extension of our national mythology.

Our nation’s myths tell us that we are a special nation destined to blaze a unique trail in the world. America, we are often reminded, is a city on a hill, a shining beacon for the world. Everything we do, everything to do with America, is further proof of our unique place in the world. Even when we are doing wrong, it’s gets spun as proof of our inherent greatness. At any given point in our history, for instance, the majority of Americans have tolerated unimaginable injustices carried out against minorities—enslavement, segration, lynching, ethnic cleansing, torture, the racist “war on drugs,” unprovoked war against Iraq, illegal roundups of undocumented immigrants. Yet when a few courageous individuals lay their lives and freedom on the line to end some form of  injustice, we unite in collective self-congratulation, holding up the victory as proof of how great our country is.

But is the constant need for some to triumph over injustice really proof of America’s greatness? Clearly, that is what the myth-makers would have us believe. After all, we are reminded, only a great society would give a dedicated handful of people the chance to risk their lives and liberty in the fight against state-sanctioned injustice. We point to people like Frederick Douglass and Rosa Parks as proof of America’s greatness, a place in which even those who are brutalized by the system can, through superhuman acts of heroism, become full citizens. Yet we never stop to wonder why these people were, in the first place,  living in a society in which they were compelled to stand up and demand that their dignity and inherent humanity be recognized. Why have minorities in America had to exert heroic efforts just to be recognized as full human beings and full citizens? What does it say about America that she has demanded nothing less than heroism from non-White people whenever they have aspired to nothing more than the chance to live as ordinary people? Would Frederick Douglass have chosen to be born a slave just for the chance to achieve greatness by rising from slave to human? Would Rosa Parks not have preferred to live in a society in which heroism was not a prerequesite for being able to sit wherever one pleased? Naturally, our myth-makers never answer these questions. Hell, they never even ask them. Instead, they tell us only that America is a great country in which Black people like Rosa Parks and Frederick Douglass can become national heroes. But they never tell us why the systems of injustice under which they suffered—which forced them to become heroic—came to be so widely accepted in the first place.

And so the myth-makers are spinning the story of Barack Obama, the first Black president . . . of the United States, anyway, because many other countries have had Black presidents. The difference is that in most of these countries, White privilege and racism were never so institutionalized that it became remarkable that a non-White person would rise to the ranks of the presidency. The fact that we find it so remarkable that America actually has a Black president says a lot about our society. But our nation’s myth-makers would rather ignore this inconvenient truth, choosing to remind us instead that Obama’s victory is further proof of how great our country is.

But the Sherriff Arpaios and Jack Lacys of the world remind us of something else. They remind us that we still have a long, long way to go.

Read Full Post »

In Defense of Single Moms and Black Men.

Yesterday, I had the rare pleasure of attending a City Council hearing on education reform in Washington, DC, which has some of the worst public schools in the country. The highlight of the event for me was seeing former Mayor and current Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry live and in person.

My excitement, however, quickly turned to disappointment once Mr. Barry’s turn came to address the witnesses. In his attempt to explain to the panel of experts why their “academic” policy suggestions might not work in the District’s socioeconomic and cultural climate, Councilmember Barry dragged out the tired old trope about how 80-something percent of DC households were headed by single mothers and how this fact alone was responsible for much of the District’s problems. But Marion Barry is not the first Black person to put forth this argument. It seems like only yesterday that then-candidate Barack Obama scored points on the campaign trail for calling on Black men to take a more active role in parenthood. But despite its popularity, this man-in-the-house argument is problematic for many reasons, not least of all because it is classist, sexist, and heterosexist.

First off, I won’t pretend to not understand that two-parent households can be more stable than single-parent ones. But we totally miss the mark if we assume that a household is more stable simply because it is headed by two parents, or because one of the household heads is a man. Poverty, not single motherhood, is the real problem in DC and other urban communities. Of course, a two-parent household potentially has double the earnings of a single-parent household, but this only holds true in cases in which both parents are earning an income. In today’s troubled times there is no guarantee that one, let alone both, adults are earning an income, and in impoverished urban communities—like much of DC—the question then becomes not whether or not there are two parents heading the household but whether household income can cover the family’s basic needs. And with national unemployment rates skewed so heavily against Black men, simply having a man in the house is no guarantee that the family will earn enough to improve its fortunes.

The man-in-the-house argument is also problematic because it is classist, too often brought up in the context of low-income households—thanks to the nexus of race and class in the US, low-income households are also often Black households. In other words, it’s an argument that’s made almost exclusively in the case of poor or working-class women, a substantial percentage of whom happen to be Black. Needless to say, any argument that applies only to people of a certain class or skin color is problematic, for obvious reasons. In fact, the man-in-the-house argument is almost never brought up publicly when affluent single women choose to raise their biological children out of wedlock, to not remarry after a divorce, or to adopt children. Clearly, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander: if low-income Black women need a man in the house, shouldn’t the same hold true for affluent women?

There is also a pervasive element of sexism in the man-in-the-house rationale, because it assumes that women are somehow less capable of heading a household or raising a family. As mentioned above, household income is much more relevant to the stability or success of a household than whether or not it is headed by a woman. More importantly, this argument trivializes the significant and inescapable fact that generations of Black people—men and women—have been raised by women. When men have been unwilling or unable to be there for their children, it is the Black woman who has borne the responsibility of caring for the family. From the days of slavery when the “kitchen baby” was rejected by its White father’s family, it was up to Black women to raise and care for that child. Today, Black women are raising not only their children but also their children’s children. Without Black mothers there would be no Black community, and to continually insist on the importance of Black men is to trivialize and outright ignore the tremendous role played by Black women in American society.

Finally, the man-in-the-house argument is heterosexist, because it assumes that the ideal household is one headed by a man and a woman. So, are we to believe that a two-woman household is worse off simply because it lacks a man? Again, the argument holds little water because many lesbian couples are successfully raising children in stable homes without men. Obviously, the presence or absence of a man in a lesbian household is a moot issue. What matters more is whether or not a single woman or a two-woman couple can provide materially and emotionally for their children.

In light of the aforementioned points, the man-in-the-house argument is self-contradictory. On one hand we are asked to believe that single-mother homes have dire consequences for an entire community, but on the other hand, few people can deny that an affluent woman—or two financially stable women—can maintain a household. But even in cases where the woman is not affluent, it is wrong to assume that she would be better of with a man in her home.

Take, for instance, the issue of domestic violence (DV). Some studies indicate that up to 85 percent of DV victims are women. Closer to home, the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that in 2005, 43 percent of the almost 5,000 victims of DV were residents of Ward 8, Marion Barry’s own district. This is not to disparage Marion Barry or to argue that all men are abusers. It is simply to argue that in many cases, having a man in the house actually makes matters worse. One final point: the man of the house is much more likely to squander a family’s income on alcohol, drugs, or gambling. Is it any surprise then that international development organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations have recognized that putting a woman in control of a household’s finances benefits not only her family but also the community at large?

So why does the man-in-the-house argument carry so much weight? Part of the answer, I believe, lies in the inherent sexism of our patriarchal society, which presumes that men are natural leaders and that social problems arise when men do not lead. After all, we are taught that men lead nations, armies, churches, and corporations, so it is only natural that they should lead households. But the damage done to the Black two-parent heterosexual family—not to mention the wider Black community—is not the result of decisions made by individual Black men. Rather, it is the consequence of the same social and economic structures that continue to keep Black men under-educated, under-employed, and over-represented in the criminal justice system. This reality, however, does not totally exonerate Black men: many of us cling to the man-in-the-house argument, perhaps because we—despite being marginalized in many ways—still feel entitled to be higher on the patriarchal pecking order than women. Perhaps because we are so marginalized in the wider society, many of us view the home as one area in which we ought to dominate.

At the end of the day, the problems facing the Black community are wider and deeper than Marion Barry and the other proponents of the man-in-the-house argument dare to admit. Long-term solutions will require much more than two-parent, man-woman households, and we must not lay the responsibility for solving what is, in reality a national problem, solely at the feet of Black men. This is not to say Black men bear no responsibility. There is certainly much we can do to help. We can recommit ourselves to supporting our families and we can take a public stand against domestic violence. We can re-evaluate our attitudes towards schooling and start thinking of ways to make the schools work better for us and our children. And we can get more involved in our communities by mentoring youth and educating them about the challenges they will have to overcome as they make their way through American society.

But the problems we face are not caused solely by individual action or inaction, and it will take a collective national effort to rebuild Black communities. For starters, everyone needs to stop thinking of our communities as Black communities and start thinking of them as American communities: What’s good for Black people is also good for America. All Americans need jobs that pay a living wage. We all need better public schools, greater opportunities for educational advancement, and job training to ensure career mobility. And we all need a more affordable, accessible, and equitable health-care system. It may sound like we need a lot but as a society, it is hypocritical for us to demand that Black men provide for their families while we simultaneously deny them opportunities for moral uplift and social advancement. Historically, Black men have proven themselves to be a resilient lot, bearing with grace and flair the brunt of what our society has dealt us. But we are in the end mere men. And while some of us are indeed capable of working miracles, rebuilding our communities will take much more than simply having a man in the house.

Read Full Post »

In Iran, Opium is the Opiate of the Masses.

Back in 2001, the BBC ran a story on Iran’s drug problem and quoted a doctor who put the number of “serious addicts” at 1,200,000. The article goes on to say that the number of drug users was rising by 600,000 each year, with ever-increasing numbers of women among the new users. Drug addiction had suddenly become the primary social concern for the government, with over 70% of the country’s prison population incarcerated on drug-related charges. At that time, opium consumption in Tehran alone was estimated to be five tonnes a day. A more recent two-part BBC documentary states that Iran has the highest rate of opiate addiction in the world, with the official figure set at over two million addicts: Unofficially, the figure could be twice that. But as alarming as the figures are, Iran’s drug problem might merely be a symptom of wider and deeper problems.

After all, drug use in Iran is by no means a recent phenomenon. Just last year Rudi Matthee, a history professor, published The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500–1900 (Princeton University Press), for which he won the Albert Hourani Book Award and the Said Sirjani Award. Nonetheless, the fact that today’s Iran is governed by religious law does render the high rates of drug use a bit surprising, if not outright shocking. Further research, however, turned up some answers.

One explanation—also mentioned in the BBC documentary—was the impact of the eight-year war with Iraq, during which many young men started their drug use. This is plausible, considering it’s not unusual for soldiers to use drugs in wartime. The experience of American GIs during the Viet Nam War is a good example, differing only in that just a small percentage of returning American soldiers lapsed into opiate use once back in the US. Similarly, the chief psychiatrist in Sierra Leone reports that about 90% of the mental-health cases he has dealt with involve substance abuse. During Sierra Leone’s 10-year civil war, drug-influenced fighters (including child soldiers as young as 11) could be found in the ranks of all the warring factions. Although drug use declined after the war, it is once again on the rise. It is conceivable, then, that after a long and destructive war, many Iranians may have brought their drug habits back from the war front.

The experience of war, however, only explains drug use among that segment of the population that was old enough to actively take part in the war. And, since that population is largely made up of men (although women did fight as well), how can one explain the increasing rates of drug use among young Iranians and Iranian women? There’s always the possibility that the documentary was biased or that the figures they cited were inaccurate, but there can be no doubt that Iran has a drug problem. The issue has recently been examined by the UN, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Herald Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times, so regardless of the figures, it seems hard to argue that Iran does not have a drug problem. 

But is the experience of long-term war the only explanation? The answer appears to be “not entirely.” Another reason for the high rates of drug use is the availability of cheap, raw opium. After all, Iran shares a border with Afghanistan, a top producer of unprocessed opium, making Iran a natural conduit for drugs making their way to markets in Europe, the Mediterranean, and or other parts of the Middle East. Clearly, Iran is also becoming more of a market for these drugs. Introductory Economics teaches that the closer a product is to its state and source of extraction, the cheaper it is. In other words, a more refined, processed, or finished product fetches a higher price. Uncut diamonds are therefore cheaper than cut and polished ones, peanuts are cheaper than peanut butter, and iron ore is cheaper than steel. Moreover, a product’s cost can increase as it moves farther away from where it was originally extracted. So it’s not unexpected that Iranians would—thanks to their country’s proximity to Afghanistan—have access to cheaper opium and opium-based drugs than say, someone living in Paris.

But all this leaves one glaring question unanswered. How is it possible that a country ruled by a conservative theocracy—which governs through religious law—happens to have the world’s highest number of drug users? Perhaps the answer lies in the question. After all, a government that believes that all the solutions to social problems can be found in religion might not be best equipped to deal with problems like depression and drug addiction, problems that cannot be easily solved through prayer and meditation. Perhaps such a government might not be the best suited for managing an economy and retaining human and intellectual capital, both vital for a strong economy. Is it any surprise that, according to the IMF, anywhere between 150,000 and 180,000 highly skilled Iranians annually vote with their feet by emigrating? Perhaps there is a possibility that those who are unable—or for whatever reason, unwilling—to leave join the ever-growing ranks of drug users. After all, lack of economic opportunity and personal and professional fulfillment lead to frustration and depression, which in turn may lead to substance use.

But there is yet another, darker possibility. In 1848, a famous German scholar wrote that religion was the opiate of the masses. A century later, George Orwell gave us a dystopia ruled by a brutal and despotic regime that used pornographic literature and alcohol to pacify the nation it governed. Today, with Iran having the lowest mosque attendance of any Muslim country, it seems the regime is witnessing the limitations of religion’s power to stupefy the nation. Luckily for them, though, it appears the nation has decided to replace a metaphoric opiate with the real thing.

Read Full Post »

In VP Debate, Sarah Palin Talked Straight to the American People . . . and Insulted Their Intelligence.

About thirteen minutes into last Thursday’s vice presidential debate, Republican candidate Sarah Palin declared that she was not going to answer the questions the way her opponent, Joe Biden or Gwen Ifill, the moderator, would have liked. Instead, she said, she was going to talk straight to the American people. By the end of the debate, it became clear that Sarah Palin’s straight talk was little more than rambling, disjointed answers, folksy anecdotes about small-town life, and political talking points. It also became clear that Sarah Palin has little regard for the intelligence of the American people.

Take, for example, her answer to the question about taxation. After pointing out that paying taxes is not patriotic, she went on to state that she and her husband, Todd, are middle class. While it’s difficult to get hold of exactly how much Sarah Palin earned as governor of Alaska, at least one source reports that she earned $125,000, and that her and her husband’s assets add up to a net worth of over $1 million. However, despite her six-figure salary (which is roughly half of her family income), Sarah Palin insists on painting herself as an everyday, middle-class American. Now, I’m not sure what planet the Alaska governor inhabits but here on planet Earth, a six-figure salary puts its earner above joe-sixpack status. Yet Sarah Palin spoke as if the American people are not expected to know this—in much the same way they were not expected to see any irony in the fact that the Republican party (which is trying to sell itself as the people’s party) mocked community organizers at their recent convention. In keeping with this line of thinking, Sarah Palin actually said in the debate that the Republican party puts people first. Of course, anyone who remembers 2005 would have been forgiven for asking if she was talking about the same party that so notoriously failed to put the people of New Orleans first.

Such hypocrisy seems par for the course for the Republican party, so there’s nothing new here. After all, this is the party whose presidential candidate owns more houses than he can count—including a $12 million mansion in Arizona—yet accuses his Democratic opponent of being elitist. But again, that sort of hypocrisy has become commonplace in presidential campaigns. At the end of the day, it was Sarah Palin’s utter failure—or refusal—to even engage with the moderator’s questions or her opponent’s rebuttals that was most insulting to the American people’s intelligence. Several times she ignored the question outright and answered whatever she pleased. For example, when given the chance to rebut Biden’s charge that Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain supported “deregulation almost across the board,” Palin responds, “Oh, I’m still on the tax thing . . ..” Clearly, even when the discussion had moved on, Palin insisted on answering only the questions she wanted. Why?

At another point, after the moderator had asked—and Joe Biden had answered—a question about subprime mortgages and legislation that had made it harder for debt-strapped Americans to declare bankruptcy, Palin decided she would rather ”talk about again my record on energy versus your ticket’s energy ticket also,” because she thought it was “important to come back to.” First of all, what kind of incoherent, rambling answer is that? Secondly, how could she have expected to get away with so blatantly not answering the question? But she didn’t miss a beat. She started talking about how “East Coast politicians” are keeping energy-rich states like Alaska from tapping into their energy resources, thereby leaving the US dependent on foreign oil while sending around $700 billion dollars to foreign countries who don’t necessarily like us. Although Sarah Palin’s energy-policy answer had nothing to do with the issue being discussed nor the challenge her opponent had just put on the table, she seemed unperturbed. She was on a roll. Throughout this charade, in fact, she acted as though the American people were not expected to notice any of this.

The rest of the debate continued in much the same fashion. On the issue of global climate change, Palin agreed the planet’s getting warmer but didn’t admit it was the result of human activity. Instead, she went back to oil drilling as a path to energy independence; as if burning oil drilled in the US was any more of a solution to climate change than burning imported oil. Palin’s rationale? The US is too reliant on countries that produce more oil and pollute more “than America would ever stand for.” Presumably, US dependence on these countries forces us to tolerate their pollution? Sarah Palin must have assumed that the American people don’t know that the US is the largest per capita producer of carbon dioxide, thereby making us the largest greenhouse-gas emitter. When asked about interventionism and nuclear weapons, Palin did not hesitate to make up a General McClellan, who she said is on the ground in Afghanistan. It turns out there’s no General McClellan in Afghanistan (though there was a Civil War–era general who went by that name). And, after Biden rebutted her answer on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Palin responded by calling his plan for an exit strategy in Iraq a “white flag of surrender.” Again, no answer, just a childish taunt. I could go on and on but that would mean listening to the entire debate again, which even I am not prepared to do.

Ultimately, Sarah Palin’s performance in the debate was very revealing. She showed herself to be charming and personable. She proved she is capable of speaking—or at least reading a flashcard—for 90 seconds at a time. She showed that she’s also good at dodging questions and reciting talking points since, more often than not, she barely responded to the question that was being discussed. What she isn’t good at, however, is coherence. But Sarah Palin’s apalling performance revealed something else about her. She is confident—perhaps it’s a trait she honed during her days as a beauty pageant contestant. How else are we to explain her unflinching demeanor during the debate? Anybody who only looked at her body language—or watched the debate with the sound off—would have sworn Sarah Palin was getting the better of Joe Biden. At times, it almost seemed as though she herself thought her answers were brilliant. This raises three possibilities: Sarah Palin is a phenomenal actress; she is delusional and out of touch with reality; or she simply believed that her answers were good enough for the American people. I think it’s the third one.

Now, I don’t mean to imply that Sarah Palin didn’t try hard enough during last week’s debate. In fact, I’m certain she did her best up there on that stage. The trouble is that her best just wasn’t good enough. No doubt, confidence is a good quality for any politician to have but, as a certain former Texas governor showed the world, confidence is not enough. Leading the most powerful country in the world will take more than self-assuredness. It will take experience, knowledge, insight, and—dare I say it?—education. This is something we should all be mindful of, considering there is a 50% chance Sarah Palin may literally find herself a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Hopefully the American people realize this. Otherwise, we might end up with something even worse than more of the same.

Read Full Post »

VP Debate Live-Blog

In case you missed the vice-presidential debate, here’s a blow-by-blow live-blog. That’s right folks, I typed non-stop for 90 minutes. That’s how much I care. What can I say? I’m a giver.

Wow! Sarah Palin looks pretty good!

Good opening response by Biden. He sounds very friendly. So far so good. Just maintain, Joe. No foot in mouth!

Sarah Palin’s going now. Playing the mom card: did she just say “betcha.” Golly gee! But she hits on the fear factor, which is legitimate. She agrees that the economy is hurting and the federal government’s not done a good job of policing the economy. Gotta call BS on McCain’s role in policing the economy.

Joe Biden worked on violence against women? Good one. I had no idea. Ooohhh! Called McCain out on saying the economy was strong, and then flip-flopping on the economy. John McCain’s out of touch!! Zing!

Sarah Palin says the American workforce is the strongest in the world? In theory, sure. But with jobs being shipped abroad, I’m not sure how strong that workforce is now. Ah! She threw in “maverick.” Less than ten minutes in? Americans are craving something new and different . . . oh maverick again! Twice in two minutes? Damn!

Sarah Palin just said “darn right.” She’s more folksy than Rachel Rae. I think I’m going to keep a tally of “Palinisms.” Oh, there she goes with soccer moms and joe sixpack. A “heck” of a lot of good lessons. She should write a thesaurus of folkisms. Her answers aren’t so deep.

Biden calls McCain out on the deregulation thing again. Cha-ching!! McCain called for deregulation 20 times in the last however many years? Had no idea. OK Joe, you made your point. McCain’s for deregulations. Oh! Biden pulls out the folkism. Talks about guy who doesn’t have enough money to fill up his gas tank!

Palin said “darn right” again. Wassup with that. Just noticed Palin’s gigantic flag brooch. People need to learn to live with less? OK. What about the corporations, Sarah? Are they going to have to learn to live with less? Palin says Obama voted to raise taxes on middle-class families.

Biden comes back saying McCain voted the same way to raise taxes. Calls Palin out for not answering the deregulation question.

Oh, Palin says she’s going to talk straight, admits she’s not going to answer the questions the way Biden or the moderator would like. New tactic. Apparently Palin lowered taxes in Alaska. Got cut off by moderator.

On taxes.

Biden says it’s only fairness to raise taxes on people making over $200 thousand. McCain wants to cut taxes for very wealthy. The super-wealthy don’t deserve any new tax cut.

Palin challenges “redistribution of wealth.” Brings up small businesses. Raising taxes will create unemployment? Paying taxes is not patriotic. Government is not the solution, too often the problem. Oh, she and Todd are firmly middle class. Good one. McCain’s health care plan is good, offers a $5000 tax credit so people can buy their own coverage? Hmmm . . . with families being bankrupted by healthcare costs, I’m not sure five grand would make much of a difference to a family.

Biden scoffs at Palin’s “redistribution” argument. Calls BS on tax breaks to ExxonMobile. So Biden’s bringing out facts, Palin’s waxing eloquent with her folkism. McCain’s $5000 credit goes straight to the insurance companies. The ultimate bridge to nowhere!!?? Dag! Zing!!

Promises parties won’t be able to keep.

Biden admits party won’t be able to double foreign assistance. But stands firm on opposing tax breaks for corporations, commitment to education, job creation, affordable healthcare. Biden slips on “characterize” but recovers nicely. Offshore tax dodges are unpatriotic.

Palin says McCain doesn’t say one thing to one group and another to another group. Except for when he flip-flops on the status of the economy twice in one morning? Hmmm . . .. Palin took on the oil companies in Alaska? She knows the names of all the oil companies . . . “bless their hearts” . . . WTF? So Obama’s energy plan gave tax breaks to oil companies and Palin had to undo those policies in her area of expertise (energy)? Palin’s determined to stop the greed and corruption on Wall St.

Biden’s getting sidetracked refuting Palin’s statements. Good comeback . . . no . . . the audio just went out . . . phew! . . . it’s back. Praises Palin’s windfall profit tax. McCain wants to give another $4 billion tax cut to the oil corporations.

Debt, credit, and bankruptcy.

Palin would have supported the bill that made it harder for debt-strapped homeowners to declare bankruptcy. McCain raised the alarm, brought people together. “A toxic mess?” Greed rears it’s ugly head? She’s all about heads being reared. First Putin in Russia, then greed on Wall Street. I feel something rearing its ugly head in my pants.

Damn Palin, answer the questions. Stop talking about your energy policy. We all know this country needs to be energy independent. East Coast politicians? Oh, here it comes: we gotta drill in ANWR. And it’s the fault of East Coast politicians who won’t allow energy-rich states like Alaska to tap into their reserves. “A heck of a lot more than that.”

Climate change.

Palin says climate change is real but she won’t admit that it’s all the result of man’s activities. So she agrees it’s real, won’t comment on the cause. We have to clean up this planet? We pollute far more than any other country. Energy independent again? What does energy independence have to do with climate change? Oh, I see, other countries are polluting more than the US would ever stand for? We’re the biggest polluter.

Biden says climate change is man-made. If you don’t understand what the cause of climate change is, it’s impossible to come up with a solution. Dayyyuuummm!!!! McCain has opposed clean alternative energy more than 20 times in the last 15 years. Obama supports clean coal? Not sure how I feel about that. I mean, clean coal is better than Chinese dirty coal, but still. Drill, drill, drill baby! But the oil won’t come for at least ten years. I had no idea.

Palin corrects Biden: the chant is “drill, baby, drill!!” Ka-pow!! Good comeback. Alaska’s providing natural gas for hungry markets. Drilling is not safe and it’s not environmentally sound. Stop lying! Glad to hear Palin supports capping carbon emission.

Biden asks how to deal with global warming if we only look to oil. Good question.

Granting same-sex benefits (gay marriage).

Biden supports benefits for same-sex couples. Yay!! Equal rights for everyone: hospital visitation, health insurance, etc. Good one, Joe Biden. I had no idea you were so progressive.

Palin is afraid we are redefining the definition of relations between a man and a woman, but she’s tolerant with a diverse family and groups of friends. Some friends don’t agree with her. Does that mean her friends are less “tolerant” than she is? I thought when people say “diverse” they mean different ethnicities and lifestyles? She opposes redefining marriage as something other than a between a man and a woman.

Biden caves on the marriage question.

Palin does not support gay marriage.

Foreign policy.

Palin thinks we have a good plan (the surge) that is working in Eye-rack. Good one. Lots of great Americans. Oh . . . no she didn’t . . . Obama opposed funding for the troops! How can you end an illegal and unjust war while continuing to unquestioningly fund it? I’m just saying . . .. Grow our military, send troops to Afghanistan. Oh, we’re getting closer and closer to victory in Iraq? Yeah.

Biden didn’t hear a plan for Iraq: neither did I. Even the Iraqis want us to get out. McCain’s the only one who doesn’t. McCain also voted to not fund the troops if the funding came with a timeline. McCain wants us to be there indefinitely. Very strong response: we will end this war. For John McCain, there’s no end in sight.

Palin stumbles! Then comes back saying Biden’s plan is a white flag of surrender. Damn!!! Tough cookies! Commanders on the ground will tell us when the Iraqi people can govern themselves. She’s on the attack (Biden laughs). Palin’s got a lot of good facts at her fingertips. Very impressive. Now she’s praising Biden . . ..

Biden says McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops, voted against life-saving equipment. Calls McCain (and Cheney) out for saying Sunnis and Shia got along well and that we will be welcomed as liberators. McCain was dead wrong.

Nuclear Iran vs. Unstable Pakistan

Biden says Pakistan is bigger threat. Pakistan can hit Israel with nukes (boo!). Next attack will come from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. OK. Pakistan should be stabilized. Schools are better than madrasas. No disagreement. But attacking Pakistan? Crazy talk.

Palin says both are equally dangerous. Great non-answer. Then she talks about . . . wait . . . did she just say “new-killar?” Israel is in jeopardy? Eye-ran? I’m having trouble keeping up . . . but somehow she can correctly pronounce “Ahmedinejad.” Oh brother. Here we go again about Obama meeting without preconditions. Yet she agrees with Kissinger that engagement is crucial. These dictators who hate America, hate our freedoms, hate our tolerance of women’s rights (like abortion, gay marriage, visitation rights for lesbians?). Did she just say diplomacy is hard work by serious people? Guess Obama doesn’t count as a serious diplomatic person because he can’t see Russia from his living room.

Biden’s comeback is good. Good point about McCain not understanding that Ahmedinejad is not really in charge in Iran. Biden, stay cool, brother. Stay cool. Your voice is rising. Uh-oh! Is he gonna blow? OK, last point. McCain won’t sit down with the government of Spain? Incredible!

Israel

Palin supports two-state solution. Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice met with leaders on one side or other? Which side, I wonder? Yeah, yeah . . . Israel is our greatest ally . . . we’d never allow another holocaust. Israel is a peace-seeking nation? Track record of forging peace? Somebody hasn’t read a lot about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Biden’s the greatest friend of Israel. Great. We know, Joe. We know. Bush policies might have failed in Israel but I don’t know if AIPAC’s been succeeding at bringing peace either.

Palin says Bush hasn’t failed in the Middle East. Admits huge blunders. Putting the people first? Yeah, ’cause that’s what the Republicans are known for. Like when they put New Orleans first.

Biden says he’s hearing nothing new from McCain, nothing different from Bush. “The past is prologue.”

Interventionism/nuclear weapons

Palin answers about new-killar weaponry. Apparently, she’s answering a different question. The moderator asked about nuclear weapons. Is it a requirement for being a member of the Republican Party, that you can’t pronounce nuclear? Oh well. She likes to name the leaders of countries. Impressive. I’m going to call BS in advance on her talk about Afghanistan. Accuses Obama of making reckless comment about killing civilians. I wonder why the Taliban is resurgent if the US is making such great progress on the ground.

Biden points out that commanding general in Afghanistan says surge would not work in Afghanistan. Said we need more infrastructure, non-military spending. Nation-building versus combat.

What is it about Palin’s voice that makes me yearn for cookies and milf? Then she makes up a name for a non-existing commanding general in Afghanistan. McClellan? I think McClellan was Bush’s press secretary. He was never a general in Afghanistan (further research has revealed there was a civil-war era General McClellan, though).

Biden says the American people have the stomach for success. Yeah. And for swallowing whatever war the government sells them, if you ask me. Our stomachs are actually pretty tough when it comes to war. Not so tough when it comes to helping people in a flooded city, though.

Palin says “Oh man” she’s not a Washington insider. Doesn’t answer the question. Answer the question please. Supports no-fly zone in Darfur, all options on the table. Which options, I wonder? Urged divestment of Alaska investments in Sudan. Hmm . . . they’re atrocities in Sudan but not in Iraq or Afghanistan?

OK, so Biden supports invading Sudan or other countries that commit genocide or harbor terrorists. Ho-hum . . ..

This debate is boring now. They’re not really talking about anything real. What’s happened to politics in this country?

Palin says McCain knows how to win a war? The only thing he knows about war is how to get shot down. The US lost the only war McCain was in.

Biden/Palin as President

[I'm fading now] Biden’s not saying anything new. Oh, brought up the Bush Doctrine. Wonder if Palin knows what that is now.

Palin brings up mavericks again. Great. Putting government back on the side of the people? McCain’s entire campaign was run by lobbyists! What’s Palin banging on about?! Putting Wasila Main Street in Washington? Sorry, no moose here. And you can’t carry guns. For now anyway.

Thanks for reminding us how the Republicans have screwed the working class, Biden. Good response.

Palin says “say it ain’t so” and “doggone it.” Is this woman for real? Is this 1950? And “God bless her.” What the hell is she talking about now? Schoolteachers. A family of schoolteachers. How is that an answer to any kind of question? Clearly she didn’t get much from the schoolteachers in her family because she can’t pronounce nuclear.

Views on Vice Presidency

Palin’s being very charming and personable. But she’s dodging the question. Answer the question. What does the Vice President do and how do you see your role in that position. John McCain has already “tapped” Palin? Ha ha ha . . . I bet he wished he’d tapped her . . . if you know what I mean . . . nudge . . . nudge . . . wink . . . wink . . ..

Biden’s got a very clear idea of what he’d do as VP.

Palin agrees with Cheney that the Vice President should have a lot of power. Surprise. She’s stumbling now. She answered the previous question this time around.

Biden says Cheney’s the most dangerous Vice President ever. Damn right!

Wisdom vs. Discipline (Achilles heel)

Palin’s experience comes from being a mayor and governor, being connected to the heartland, being a mom with a kid in the war and a special-needs kid. The question was about your weaknesses, not your strength. Now she’s quoting McCain and Reagan in one breath? She’s talking about democracy, and tolerance, and freedom and equal rights? Yet she opposes abortion and gay marriage. And books she disapproves of. Is this for real? Are people that stupid?

Biden says he is who he is. He’s very confident. Damn! McCain voted against both violence against women acts? Biden reached deep down for the heartstrings talking about his wife’s death. Oh! Here come the tears . . .. The people around the kitchen table are looking for help, not more of the same. Bravo!!

If Palin says maverick one more time, I’m going to rip out my hair! Maverick again, in the same answer? Sarah Palin, stop putting yourself into the same category as real mavericks. Way to hit those talking points: war, economy, greed and corruption, entrenched partisanship in Washington.

Biden attacks on the maverick question! Yay!!! McCain voted against healthcare spending for kids, in education, for sending kids to college.

Have you ever had to change your views?

Biden changed view on what is required of presidential nominees. Changed sides when he figured out that the ideology of the judicial appointee is important too.

Palin talks about caving on not passing vetoes as mayor and governor. Yawn! She’s never had to compromise on anything major. Nice. Way to show you’re capable of changing your mind.

How do you change the tone in Washington?

Biden and Obama will question people’s judgement, not motivation.

Palin will hire people from different parties and political opinions. Working for the greater good is what’s important. Right. Working with other people. I get it. Like when she tried to ban books from the library because she was offended by them, or when she tried to have her ex–brother-in-law fired from the state police. Silly me. I guess she’s very open-minded and tolerant of differing opinions after all.

Final statements

Palin wants to talk directly to the American people without the media filtering what she says. ‘Cause if you say something dumb, gosh-darn it, don’t you know, those awful media people will show it to the world. Another Reagan quote? We have to fight for freedom and protect it and hand it to our children. What does this have to do with anything? Only John McCain has fought for us? I think Senators fight for us too. I don’t think soldiers are the only people capable of defending American democracy.

Biden talks about economics and politics and war, health care and education.

Read Full Post »