Truth

Recently I’ve been mulling over the concept of “Truth,” and how it is viewed and taken in society. Perhaps this is due to some recent findings that have come to light in mainstream media (e.g. exoneration of JonBenet Ramsey’s parents), or perhaps due to some occurrences in my personal life. Whatever the cause of my contemplation, it is perfectly clear to me that our desire and (seemingly necessary) quest for instantaneous responses to everything has a profound effect on our willingness to accept the complexity of Truth.

Succinctly said, people seem more willing to believe something that is false as long as it is simple to grasp rather than to believe something that is complex no matter how true.

We live in an era of instant potatoes and instant messages. Instead of giving an in-depth take on a speech by a political candidate, many news outlets dumb-down the contents of the speech and release (often-misleading) 5 second sound-bytes. In our personal lives, if a text message is not responded to within 60 seconds we are often frustrated and sometimes angry at the person we sent the message to.

It used to be that a good journalist could shorten a candidate’s speech, and (contextually) relay its message without sucking out all of its necessary juices (content). Now it seems that many times all we are left with is the immediate image of the outer shell of the candidate’s intent, with no fruitful substance to partake of. And on a similar note, some text message questions/conversations can’t simply be responded to in 120 characters of a text response. Understanding an issue, and getting to the truth(s) behind it often takes far more time than we are willing to give it.

The complexity of Truth necessitates that many factors be understood, including factors like context and perspective; indeed it takes context and perspective to understand most things, and these things take time (i.e. one doesn’t just wake up with a perspective, it is developed over time…likewise, background information needs to be gathered to be given context). But instead of actually taking the time to understand the complexity of a given story, situation or issue, we too often take in the headline without delving into its background.

I won’t belabor the point, but I will just ask of anyone reading this, do more than just accept the subject line of an issue as the Truth. Ask the follow-up question (or questions, as the case may be). Consider the source, question the relevance, determine the potential ramifications. Compare these parameters with the realities you have faced. Finally, make a calculated assessment as to whether something is likely true or not.

Because in this day of instant “this” and instant “that,” it is way too easy to believe things that are false as a result of their simplicity, and equally as easy to count something that is true to be false due to its complexity.

Think about it!

-Maelstrom

Political Comments Response (part 2)

I know that the Democratic Nomination Race is over, so most of what I say in this post is now “post-relevant,” but I promised a response to comments posted about my post “Tell the Truth,” so here it is!

“Everybody except Kucinich and Clinton pulled their name off the Michigan ballot…In Florida pulling your name off the ballot is not possible…Obama when he pulled his name…just followed the rules.”

To start, Clinton and Kucinich were joined on the ballot by Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and “Uncommitted.” Biden, Richardson, Edwards and Obama took their names off. By the way, there was a very vigorous campaign to have people vote Uncommitted, and it was promoted in 2 ways: 1. as a vote against Hillary Clinton, and 2. a vote for someone whose name wasn’t on the ballot (e.g. Obama or Edwards). Finally, “Uncommitted” is a Constitutionally recognized voting status, as pointed out by DNC member Harold Ickes.

Your other point here is perhaps the biggest (largely Obama supporter) myth. Obama could’ve pulled his name off the Florida ballot the same day he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot (Oct 9, 2007). In fact, he could’ve pulled his name off the ballot for 3 weeks after he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot. The argument that people make, falsely, is that if a candidate pulls his/her name off the ballot, they can’t be on the ballot during the general election should they win their Party’s nomination. NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE. The candidates are only penalized for pulling their name off the ballot once the ballot has been certified by the State of Florida. The date that the ballot was due to the Secretary of State was October 31st, with the certification on November 6th. Obama had ample time to pull his name off the ballot. This reality begs the question, why did he pull his name off of Michigan’s ballot and not Florida’s? For me, there’s a simple answer, he was playing politics.

You can find this is Florida’s Federal Election Qualifying Handbook for 2008, as well as in chapter 103, section 101 of Title IX in the 2007 Florida Statutes.

See 2007 Florida Statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0103/SEC101.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0103-%3ESection%20101#0103.101

For a more in depth summary, see:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/112416/694

You rightly stated, however, that the impossibility of pulling names off the Florida ballot is “what the media reported at the time.” A reality that lends credence to the notion that the media was favorable to Obama.

“If Obama would be on the ballot…he might have done pretty well (in Michigan)…significant African American Community, neighboring state of IL…”

Fair point, but the opposite, if you go based off your premises, could be said of Clinton in Florida; one of the largest (if not the largest) number of elderly people in the country, a large Jewish population, and a so-called “Big State.” Those are all demographics that Obama has trouble with and Clinton does well with. This is why I think that once we arrived at the month of May, there was no fair way of doing things.

That said, I know quite a lot about Michigan, being from there, and I don’t think it would have been as easy as you suggest. Here’s why: Both a very popular former Democrat Governor, Jim Blanchard, and the current Governor Jennifer Granholm are staunch Clinton supporters, and carry great weight with State Democrats. Although Obama, based on how he did in other similar large cities, would have likely carried many of the counties in the Detroit area, the only other Metropolitan area of note, Grand Rapids, is vastly Republican. Furthermore, other highly visible Democrats had endorsed Clinton, including Senator Debbie Stabenow, Rep John Dingell and DNC member Joel Ferguson (The only major Obama backers were Rep John Conyers and DNC member Virgie Rollins). Based on these realities, I think Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot with the knowledge that it would be tough to beat her there, coupled with the reality that the votes would not (at that time) count. Again, I think Obama was doing what people seem to think he is incapable of, and that is he played “politics” with Michigan and Florida. But that’s my opinion, and we’ll never know.

“Disenfranchised voters…many people stayed home knowing that their votes were not counted…”

You are absolutely right. I know that my best friend is one of the people that did just that. I also know that there were people who voted “Uncommitted” not because they were for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson, but because they were protesting the fact names weren’t on the ballot, felt a duty to vote but were upset that the vote wouldn’t count, as well as some people who were just unclear/confused about the ballot. For instance, I have a family member who voted Uncommitted in Michigan even though they did not want to vote for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson, they wanted to vote for Kucinich, who was on the ballot. So, it is unfair to assume that the entire Uncommitted vote was for the 4 candidates who pulled their names from the ballot; I know for a fact this was not the case. And the notion that the 40% Uncommitted vote was a vote for Obama is incredibly off base. The primary was held on January 15th, when Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all very strong, and Richardson still relevant. Finally, if you want to take the side that everyone was clear that the vote wouldn’t count in Michigan (which Jim Blanchard pointed out at the DNC meeting May 31st was not the case), I think it’s striking that so many people still turned out to vote for Clinton, despite the vigorous “vote Uncommitted” campaign.

“Why am I for Obama…”

I have no problem with the reasons you’ve stated for your support of Obama. However, perhaps I’m a little too semantic, but none of your reasons get deep on the issues. I say this because, on the surface, Obama and Clinton have a virtually identical set of goals and ideologies. However, having listened to hundreds of hours of press coverage, read dozens of print articles, read both Candidates websites, considered their public statements as well as voting records since Obama joined the Senate, spoken to members of both Candidates campaigns, and personally attended rallies by both Clinton and Obama, it is clear to me that once you get below the surface, Clinton has the most forward reaching, progressive, feasible (especially monetarily) and implementable ideas. And for me, that’s important for a Candidate to be clear about; have they really taken a look at this country, the state we’re in, and based their plans on how they think they can get us out of the problems we have. But I am certain many people voted for Obama, and hold angry views of Clinton without even considering what she and her platform are all about (or what Obama’s platform is all about for that matter either).

This is not to say that Obama doesn’t have forward looking plans, but if he has, we wouldn’t know it because he certainly hasn’t gotten too deep in articulating his position on the issues, except perhaps race. I say this having asked several people, including those working on the Obama campaign, what his views are on the Economy, the Iraq War, Health Care, Social Security, Michigan/Florida, etc., and it always turns out that I know more than they do (and in my opinion what he’s presented is leaps and bounds less comprehensive than what Clinton presented).

Finally, Hillary staying in the race absolutely did not disenfranchise voters. At no point during the last 3 months was Obama convincingly ahead of Clinton in popular vote or delegates. Even since the DNC meeting, if you look at the numbers, they are still incredibly close. And in years past, people have taken their case to the Democratic National Convention with only a tenth of the delegates of the leading candidate. She has perhaps the most compelling case of anyone in history.

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, the race should go to the Convention because neither candidate got the number of Pledged Delegates needed to wrap up the nomination. The media did a good job of conflating Pledged and Super Delegates, but the fact of the matter is, Super Delegates have the right to switch their vote at any time until the Convention. Therefore, if you want to go by the rules, Clinton had it within her rights to take her case to the Convention. I think she has done the prudent thing in suspending her campaign, but I’m bothered by many in the Media (along with the chorus of Obama supporters) who make it seem like she’s committed some crime, or violated the rules by continuing on. Many made it seem like she had no chance to beat him as far back as early March; a casual outside observer would’ve thought that she was behind by 1,000 delegates if they listened to many of the Media pundits. However, it became apparent to me that she had a slight, but very legitimate, chance to pull off the victory well into May. And what about Democracy? I think it was only Democratic for all the Primary races to run their course, especially in a year with 2 Candidates that were so close in delegate counts.

And I must point out that once you get to the facts, you’ll find that Obama has made as many misstatements, missteps, mischaracterizations and mistakes as Clinton during this campaign (AND I MEAN THAT…I was prepared to post a laundry list of comparisons of things Clinton has been grilled about that Obama also committed, but was given a pass on—including 2 statements Obama made that are as false as Hillary’s Bosnia statement that I’m sure most people reading this have NEVER heard about (thanks to the Obama friendly Media)...but since the nomination season is over, I’ll let it go).

I do give Obama credit for 2 things over Clinton: He is a more unifying figure than she is. I don’t think this is really her fault; I think it dates back to Republican characterizations of Clinton in the 90’s when she was fighting for Universal Health Care. I think it was those attacks on her that made people today HATE Hillary for no particular reason (I have contended for years that people hate her and can’t even give a reason why…I know because I’ve asked people why they hate her for years). The other thing Obama has done is run a much smoother campaign that even got young people to not just be excited, but to actually go out and vote. The Unity issue in Obama’s favor is what I think rivals Clinton’s forward thinking plans and platform, and what ultimately pushed this blogger to indecision on these 2 candidates until the last day before my State’s primary.

So to conclude, my basic point in my “Tell the Truth” post was simply that people should be fair, honest, truthful, learn to call a spade a spade and make their decisions from there. What’s right for one candidate is right for the other, what’s wrong for one candidate is wrong for the other. And ultimately, I think Obama supporters have done him a great disservice by not “vetting” him much harder. I don’t think people have been too hard on Clinton (especially considering that this is for the Presidency of the USA), but I certainly think there hasn’t been enough critiquing of Obama as a whole. By not holding him to the same standards they held her to, it only makes it that much easier for people (like Clinton supporters) to say “see, I told you so…you should’ve voted for Hillary” if Obama makes the slightest misstep in the future.

-Maelstrom

Horse and Pony Show

Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules executives are holding hearings concerning seating delegates in Michigan and Florida at the DNC Convention in August. I think this is just a puppet exercise that holds no weight, and ultimately demonstrates nothing. I don’t think either of the Candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, truly cares about the voters in those States. And I think there are 4 levels of people to blame for this huge foul-up. Ultimately, no matter what is decided today, what has taken place already will render this nominating process unfair because the voters in these States have been inexplicably mistreated, and there is no fair way to include them.

I think the 4 groups to blame are Howard Dean and the DNC, the States of Michigan and Florida, all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates from Clinton and Obama to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and finally I blame Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama specifically.

1^st, Howard Dean and the DNC have really screwed this process up. Several States were threatening to move their contests up. Iowa and New Hampshire had threatened to move their contests into December of 2007. Given that, I understand the DNC wanting to put in place as harsh a penalty as possible for States that violated the rules. But what was lost in their ruling decision was the voters. The voters didn’t violate the rules, the voters are who are most important in November, and the voters in Michigan and Florida (two States threatening to move up their contests) have carried very heavy weight in the last several Presidential Campaigns. Ignoring the voters on the basis of party principle is the absolute opposite of democracy.

The DNC should have done what the Republican Party did in Florida. That is to say that they should have punished the Delegates in Michigan and Florida by only awarding them half of their Delegates, but allowing the votes to count. This way the Parties in those States are punished, while not disenfranchising the voters.

2^nd, the States are to blame for violating the rules. This is more of a Michigan problem than it is a Florida problem. That is because the State Legislature in Florida is heavily Republican, and so the DNC in Florida couldn’t do much to affect the date that their primary was held. However, Michigan has a Democratic Governor and many Democrats in the Legislature. They should’ve known better.

This gets to a larger problem with our so-called Democratic process. Michigan and Florida (and several other States) wanted their primaries to have heavy influence over who was nominated. This is done by having your primary early. It shouldn’t be like this, and in the future I hope we move toward having regional primary dates instead of this “Iowa always first” mentality which renders most States voiceless in nominating a particular candidate. But that is another blog-post for another day.

3^rd, the Candidate’s that signed the agreement to not count Michigan and Florida are guilty. They should’ve objected on the basis that the voters in those States that violated the rules would be disenfranchised. Of the 8 Candidates, no one could muster enough steam to object to this silly ruling by the DNC?

4^th and finally, Clinton and Obama are to blame.

Although I think she is on the right side of the argument now (count the votes, somehow), Clinton is only on this side of the argument now because it would help her out in her bid for the nomination. She is now famously quoted as saying that the Michigan Primary isn’t going to count for anything (New Hampshire Public Radio, 10/11/07), but now she cares about those voters? Yeah right. I think those votes should count somehow, and I know many of those voters are frustrated, but if she really cared about them, she should’ve spoken up about 9 months ago about it, not now when it’s politically advantageous.

And if there is any doubt that Obama is a politician, then look no further than his relative silence on the issue of Michigan and Florida votes counting. I am frankly pissed that no one has called Obama out on his silence. Clinton offered to have a re-vote in Michigan (which is lawful under DNC rules). She even offered up the money and the workers to do it, but Obama (who has raised infinitely more money than she) said and did nothing. He only offered to concede some Delegates to Clinton from those States when it appeared he had sown up the nomination. That is akin to a basketball game in which the team ahead by 8 points with 7 seconds left in the game gives the other team 2 points; you can have these points because it is inconceivable that we will lose to you even after lending you a few points this late in the game.

I know there are a lot of Obama supporters who don’t see it that way, but ask yourself, why wouldn’t he be for a re-vote in Michigan if he has the money and the staff, and his opponent offers the money and staff? Let me help you out: he figured that once he took the Delegate lead, he didn’t have to deal with that issue because he could effectively run out the clock in the race (as he has done) without having to do so (based on the polling and the media coverage). Counting Michigan and Florida would increase Clinton’s totals which would be a detriment to him.

In case you’re wondering, yes I know there were more factors in play than money as it pertains to re-votes, and I’m well versed in them. But as far as I can tell, in Michigan a re-vote could have been worked out. Florida had one significant kink (and it’s not paper ballots) that would be a hassle, but it too could have been worked through had the candidates (mainly Obama in this instance) demonstrated leadership in seeing that the voters in these States mattered. But far-be-it for me to think that politicians ever have the concerns of their constituents at heart.

Here’s my solution for Florida and Michigan as of today, May 31^st. I would approach this the same way a Math Professor would for a student who had to miss an exam. In Florida, I would count the votes as is, since both candidates were in the same situation. In Michigan, I would count Hillary’s votes as is, and I would pro-rate Obama’s votes (along with Edwards’, Richardson’s and Biden’s votes) based on the 2 contest before and after the Michigan primary, and allow him to have the percentage based on that pro-rated average, and make the total average of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden equal to 40% (the percentage that voted uncommitted).

But just like a Professor can’t know what a student would have gotten had they actually taken the exam, we can’t know what Obama (and the other candidates) would’ve gotten had his name been on the ballot. Furthermore, we can’t know if Clinton would have won by those large margins in Michigan or Florida since the voters in both States knew their vote wouldn’t count and many stayed home as a result.

I know that people write off Clinton’s votes in these States because many people didn’t vote at all, knowing that their votes wouldn’t count. But that is the same reason why I think it’s important that Clinton received as many votes as she did. Despite knowing their votes wouldn’t count, millions of people still went to the polls to vote for her. And to just give all the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama wouldn’t be fair either. I know America suffers from short term memory loss, but Edwards, Richardson and Biden were also still in the race at that time, and I’m certain that many of that 40% uncommitted also included a strong percentage of votes for those 3 candidates (especially Edwards and Richardson).

On the flipside of the coin, there were likely tens or hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters that stayed home. How can Clinton claim that she deserves all those votes that counted for her if people weren’t even voting because their candidate’s name wasn’t on the ballot? She can’t.

I have a lot more to say about changing perceptions over time based on prior primaries, and a whole lot of other things, but I’ll stop. In short, much like the Iraq war having no “win-win” exit strategy, there is no way to include these States fairly.

No matter how well the Democrats fare in this election season, Howard Dean and his entire staff should resign their posts as leaders of the DNC…they really messed this process up. And although I know I'll be sucked into watching some of the proceedings today, in my opinion it only amounts to a Horse and Pony Show.

-Maelstrom

Political Comments Response (part 1)

Yes, Yes, Yes! I’m really glad to have an open discussion concerning the comments I received on my last two posts. I will address the comments on “Racism vs. Sexism” first, followed by the comments from “Tell the Truth.” I will go through each of your points and offer my point of view on them based on the facts I’ve gathered. I will address each of your comments with care and respect. Thank you for reading “The Vortex!”

“Discrimination due to race and sexism is not the same, obviously…discrimination against race stays in a society for generations, discrimination against sex CAN be gone within a generation.”

I’m not sure if I’m fully grasping the distinction you’re making here. I read this as saying “because of the racist conditions of society, racism lingers for generations. But a female baby doesn’t have pre-determined conditions of discrimination awaiting her upon birth.” I would have to disagree based on everything I’ve witnessed, read and studied. If a set of boy and girl twins, born to the same parents, garnering the same level of education, and holding the same career post/title/position were to run life’s course, the research shows that the girl will end up being paid less and perhaps overlooked for further positions of advancement in comparison with the boy. So I would contend that women historically (from generation to generation) certainly are discriminated against. Within a generation, any exoneration of discrimination “CAN” appear to have disappeared for an individual, but not for the group as a whole.

As you (and I) both noted, racism and sexism aren’t the same, but I was keen to point out that there is incredible overlap between the two, and the opinions I expressed in that post were concerning that overlap. But once again, to demonstrate that women are “generationally” discriminated against, all you have to do is look at where women are today and consider they’re place in society historically. As I pointed out, Shirley Chisholm’s 1969 speech could be considered prescient with respect to society today. Susan B. Anthony’s struggles are still present today. Finally, the notion of female inferiority is as old as Biblical times. 1 Peter 3:7-9 makes reference to women as the “weaker vessel.” If that doesn’t demonstrate discrimination against women from generation to generation, I don’t know what does.

“Sexism and racism works both ways…”

Totally agree, and that is a point that I made in my “Tell the Truth” post. In many primaries, Clinton garnered roughly 60-70% of the female vote, while Obama has accrued roughly 90% of the vote of African American in the last 4 months of primaries. Now I don’t know if your reasoning as to why more women vote than men, or even if that’s true, but that wouldn’t shock me, especially since there are statistically more women in this country than men. But both realities trouble me greatly. I hardly doubt that 70% of the female population has truly looked at the platforms of all the candidates and come to conclusion that Clinton is their candidate. And Black people, seriously, are a monolithic voting block in my opinion (despite decrying this notion for years). It is inconceivable that a single demographic could look at all the candidates equally and come out with the same opinion unless the other candidate had done something insidiously wrong to them. The Clinton’s have been advocates for Black people in many ways for dozens of years, so much so that it has been a running joke within the Black community for over 10 years that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. So 90% for Obama whom many still don’t know much about? Really?

“No host in any show would make a racist or sexist remark…the best policewomen on the sexist side are the wives…men might be leading the nation (publicly), at home women are”

Absolutely, positively disagree. I can roll out a laundry list of commentators who have made both racist and/or sexist remarks in print, on TV and on the radio over the years (and could easily start with Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus). But in this campaign alone, there have been countless overt sexist statements aimed at Clinton, as well as many that could easily be construed as such even if they weren’t intended to be sexist. Many of the statements seem to come from one of the news outlet I watch the most—from many of the commentators I’ve admired over the last several years—MSNBC. I reported on one such statement at this site a couple months back in my post “David Shuster and MSNBC” (please note that my angle was not only about the sexist remark, but was asking if there was perhaps validity to the assertion made by Shuster). Here are a few other examples:

Every time Hillary comes on t/v “I instinctively cross my legs”

–Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Hillary is “a patriarch with a vagina”

–Jane Fonda, Actress

“How do we beat the Bitch”

–old lady at McCain campaign rally in reference to Hillary Clinton

“She morphed into a scolding mother, talking down to a child”

–Jack Cafferty, CNN

“When she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside of Probate Court.”

–Mike Barnicle, MSNBC contributor on Hardball with Chris Matthews

“Men won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she reminds them of their nagging wives.”

–Neil Cavuto, Fox News, during a segment about Clinton and Nagging Wives

“And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘take out the garbage’.”

–Man during Cavuto’s segment about Nagging Wives on Fox News

Male high profile politicians that were endorsing Hillary Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.”

–Chris Matthews, MSNBC

And if there are indeed a comparable number of “sexism police” and “racism police” out there, why didn’t we hear from any of them about such comments (by the way, can you name 1 such sexism policeman, I still can’t…certainly not 1 with as a high a profile as those on the racism side). On the flipside of the coin, even when race may/could be a lesser factor amongst a field of other more significant factors in any situation, you get someone crying foul on the basis of race (as I pointed out in my post concerning the New Hampshire primary).

Finally, I think the notion that the wives police the husbands who have commentator jobs only points to further sexism and so-called traditional roles for women in relationships/society. I find such a comment inherently sexist.

So on your comments we agree on a couple points, but overall, I tend to disagree. But like I said in the post, you don’t have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence I’ve presented, look toward those who have lived the life (like the Black Female Politician Shirley Chisholm), and call a spade a spade based on that.

-Maelstrom

PS: I should also say that I agree, Hillary coming out now and “pulling the sexism card” does make her look weak, no matter how true. However, I would caution against telling her to quit talking about sexism because there are tens of millions of women who are outraged at how she’s been treated in the media (whether they are correct or not). So it’s not just Hillary talking about sexism now, it’s a lot of women who are leading that charge on her behalf.

Racism vs. Sexism

I am kickin’ myself in the pants for not posting this a couple months back, because now it is the major talking point of every news outlet. Several weeks ago I had begun a post about two issues that severely affect the potential for equality in this country; sexism and racism. Since it is the talk of the news these days, I’ll give my synopsis of how I view it from a political perspective, in light of the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

There is a long history between fighting discrimination against minorities (largely led by Black people) and Women in this country. I’ll start by pointing towards two very famous Americans, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony. We all know Douglass as that great Black abolitionist and thinker who sported a signature hair-style. Likewise, we know Anthony as the lady who raised the issue of inequality towards Women, which ultimately earned her a spot on a piece of American currency. Many of us, however, are unaware that Douglass and Anthony were close friends and viewed their struggles for equality as one-in-the-same. Indeed, in many of her early writings, Susan B. Anthony made it clear that both Women and “the Negro” were being inhumanely treated, under-represented, and unlawfully disenfranchised by America.

A huge shift in their relationship occurred in 1869 when the 15th Amendment was debated, and supported Black Men’s right to equality, but not Women (incidentally, several States still haven’t ratified this Amendment…how shameful). Douglass was in support of the Amendment, but Anthony took offense to it. Thereafter, she largely spoke only on the behalf of Women since men, even Black men and her friend Douglass, seemed not to care for Women’s rights to equality.

It is well known that Women did not “earn” the right to vote until 1920 (with the passing of the 19th Amendment), and Black people until 1965 (despite the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the 15th Amendment of 1869).

Today it is also well known that Women earn roughly 0.75 cents to every dollar that a man makes for doing the same job. Likewise, Blacks and other racial minorities are significantly encumbered by a system of social inequality (though not the only factor, but in my opinion the major factor) that punishes them longer for crimes that the majority population is also guilty of, often limits how high in the ranks one can climb at the job, and has left many behind with respect to education (among myriad other things).

“So who is more discriminated against?” many are now asking as a result of the race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nod. What I once thought was an incredibly great thing, a Black person and a Woman truly being considered for the nation’s highest office, has now turned my glee into disappointment. I suppose the only good thing is that this race has pulled the sheets off of some very ugly social realities we have in this country, and hopefully it will elicit action to truly resolve them.

I first had the idea to write on this topic back in January when Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary over Obama, whom many thought would win the Primary by double digits. The day after, I was watching Chris Mathews show, Hardball, on MSNBC. He had a guest on the show that I hold in the highest esteem for his incredible intellect and understanding, Michael Eric Dyson. Because Clinton won despite all the polling, Mathews and Dyson were vehemently trying to make the case that Obama lost because people are racist (or vote on racial lines), but wouldn’t dare admit their racial bias to a pollster. Now as often as I agree with Dyson, I recall thinking that he was totally off-base this time. There were numerous factors that could’ve caused the incongruence between the polls and the actual vote. In fact, it is my opinion that age was the greatest factor, with youths favoring Obama heavily. It just so happened that the NH primary occurred during the Winter break for many of the college students, so I imagine that had enough of an effect to give Clinton the victory (the same in other States, like Texas, where spring break may have played a role).

The case that Mathews and Dyson made that day became symbolic of how the remainder of the contest was going to play out in this sense; at any turn that race could be injected as a possible reason for opposition to Obama’s candidacy, it would be injected. It was at that time, back in January, that I began to point out to many people in my circle that there are many well known “race-police” (Jackson, Sharpton, Dyson, etc), but not many “gender/sexism-police” (can you even name one…I can’t).

I think it’s great that we’ve moved into an era where someone can’t just make racist remarks without backlash. Indeed I am certainly one who could be classified as a race-policeman. When someone makes a statement that is racist, or unnecessarily racially charged, I will call them out. But it cuts both ways for me racially, whether that’s for or against racial minorities. Furthermore, it cuts all ways for me: what’s wrong to say about racial minorities is wrong to say about Women; unfair treatment toward minorities is unfair treatment for Women too, in cases that are congruent (have to put that caveat on there so people don’t accuse me of saying that issues that face minorities are the same as issues that face Women or the Disabled or whatever…there is much overlap, and I’m referring to issues within the overlap).

Specifically speaking, there are people who have racial problems, and who have and will continue to be against Obama because of his skin color. Likewise, there are people who are against Clinton because she’s a Woman.

So we’ve moved from racism being the accepted reality, to it being lawfully unacceptable but publicly and privately accepted, and finally to it being lawfully and publicly unacceptable, while being privately practiced. There’s still work to be done on that last front, but there has been progress. Unfortunately Women are still one step behind. This primary season has made it clear to me that it is still publicly acceptable to be sexist against Women.

I always thought that we’d see a White Woman be President before we’d see a Black man be President. Of course I don’t know how this race will turn out, but I am rethinking that notion now. I have made the point countless times how sad it is that women are maligned in society, even here at this site, but I didn’t realize how accepted it was for Women to be so publicly discriminated against…I thought it was mostly private and institutionalized, not public and overt. I was wrong.

Many would still contend that race is the greater of the two evils. I would contend that depending on the arena, one or the other may be more explicit. Having done my research and looked through History, I would contend that Politically, Women may have it harder than Blacks. But you don’t have to take my word for it…

...the great Black Woman politician who ran for the Democratic Nomination for President of the USA in 1972, Shirley Chisholm, said the following in a 1969 speech before the House of Representatives:

“As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as "for men only."

By the way, I would recommend reading her entire speech. She makes numerous valid points about inequality toward women that are, sadly, largely true today even though she made the speech almost 40 years ago. (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/equal/)

I guess my point is that many in the media have indeed discriminated against Clinton, for whatever reason, but have been enabled by our lack of concern for the tone we take toward Women. The same types of statements made regarding her would rarely, if ever, be accepted if leveled at a Black person like Obama. And even now that she points out the incongruent treatment, many in the media are saying that she’s “just crying” because she’s losing instead of considering the wealth of evidence out there that is consistent with her point.

As a reader of this blog, don’t you join the chorus of media personalities that dismisses her point as her just being a cry-baby. Sexism is real too, and we’ve seen far too much of it in this campaign for it just to be overlooked.

-Maelstrom

Just look at how Clinton has been portrayed in all areas of our society during this race

DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER:

I absolutely DO NOT endorse the anti-Obama rhetoric or the comments posted for these videos. I just want you to consider some of the media comments within the videos that demonstrate the points I've made above!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUmbjoEp2lU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bacxWGk88L0&NR=1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjG-jdybbIg

Tell The Truth

During this very exciting race for the office of President, I have found it very funny what non-truths people are willing to hide behind in order to support the candidate they like. Likewise, I find it interesting how the candidates paint these less-than-realistic images of themselves in order to become “one of us.” I think it’s time for everyone to finally keep it real, speak up, and tell the truth.

To that end, let me help all of you out! Candidates first...

Senator Clinton, tell the truth, you certainly have a wealth of foreign policy experience, but you were no consistent peace-broker, war-mediator, or Under-Secretary of State. You could easily stand on your record without embellishments: Yes, you did play a role in bringing a level of peace in Ireland, yes you were listed as the US Ambassador/Delegate to some conferences, and no doubt you were on-hand for some of the most important foreign events in recent world history. So just say that! Instead you’ve chosen to overstate your experience and it has gotten you in trouble. Hopefully you’ve learned your lesson now and you will just tell the truth about your foreign policy experience.

Senator Clinton, tell the truth. You are rich. Far richer than most people could ever dream. Now to those of us who pay attention, we know that recently Bill O’Reilly of Fox News actually got you to admit that you are indeed rich, but still Senator, quit trying to tout your gun-toting prowess to demonstrate that you are one of us. You don’t need to throw back a couple shots of Vodka to make me feel like you are as destitute as I. I know you live a lifestyle that I can only imagine.

On that note, Senators Clinton and McCain, quit trying to paint Senator Obama as some kind of elitist who is super-rich and can’t possibly relate to the average person. The fact is that you are richer than he is.

And on that note, Senator Obama, you’re rich too. I know that now you keep trying to remind people that you grew up without a father and that you were raised by your grandmother and that you had a rougher upbringing than McCain or Clinton, but the reality is that you currently have more money in the bank at the age of 47 than most Americans will have in the bank after 50 years in the work force.

All 3 of you are rich and the lifestyles that you have lived for years, McCain and Clinton longer than Obama, are so far out of the mainstream of America that I do doubt that any of you can truly relate to the current struggles that many of “us” are going through these days; especially since the economy is in a much worse state today than when you were “one of us.” So stop playing these games, and just tell us the truth.

Here’s one that I know will shock everyone: Senator Obama, you are a politician. I know you’ve made everyone to feel like they can just sit down and talk to you. Yes, you can even play basketball with a few of us. But make no mistake about it, you are a politician. Now like everyone else, I hope that you are not just another politician, but with each passing week you’re sure lookin’ like it.

A brief aside…

I’m currently situated in a state that has been bombarded by campaign ads from both Dems in the race. In one of Obama’s TV ads he opens by prominently stating that “I don’t take money from oil companies,” with the implication that McCain and Clinton do. Well, he’s telling the truth…but not really. As the Associated Press pointed out, he hasn’t taken money from the oil companies, but neither have McCain or Clinton because (here’s what he left out) it’s against the rules for the Candidates to take money from the oil companies. They can, however, take money from the wives of the oil executives and other people connected to the oil companies.

So, has Obama taken money from people connected to oil companies you ask? Absolutely, to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars (Clinton had taken some 300 thousand at the time the AP ran their spot, by comparison). To that I say “Senator Obama, if you’re going to tell the truth, tell me the whole truth.”

I could point to his silence about the disenfranchised voters of Michigan and Florida, the fact he left his name on the ballot in Florida but not in Michigan (which I think was a political calculation), his wavering position on the pullout of troops from Iraq (google “Samantha Power US Combat brigades”) or NAFTA (google “Austan Goolsbee NAFTA”) as other examples too. Just be clear, he too is a politician. And remarkably, he’s much more of a politician today than he was just 6 months ago.

…so dear Senator Obama, tell the truth, you’re a politician!

American people, tell the truth!!!

You aren’t voting for the remaining candidates because of the issues and their platform positions. You are voting for these candidates because of “stuff you’ve heard” but not investigated yourself, because of past perceptions, or because of emotional issues that frankly have very little to do with your everyday life. Many still think Obama is Muslim (he’s not), that Clinton has run an overwhelmingly negative campaign (many of whom likely unjustifiably hated Hillary long before this campaign began), and that McCain is old and incapable (ok, he is old).

The fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is a good enough candidate that Women who were going to vote for her simply because she is a Woman can say that they support her because “she has the experience.” Millions of Black folks are voting for Senator Obama because he’s Black, but he is qualified enough that they can exclaim that he is the best candidate for the job. Droves of military servicemen and Veterans are voting for Senator McCain because he’s a Vet, not because they believe in the many (and often changing) positions he takes.

I know this is the factual reality because when I challenge most people on their Candidate’s positions, most can’t even articulate a single solitary position that their candidate has taken, and how it is better or even different than that of the other Candidate’s. This let’s me know that this election is likened unto every other election, where people vote on things that are emotional rather than the platforms the Candidate’s are pushing.

I must remind myself that this is politics, and politics is simply a game of psychology in which truths can be bent or largely ignored. Asking for truth in politics is like asking for eggs from a rooster...you ain’t gonna get it unless you look elsewhere. That said (and to keep with the analogy), American people and politicians alike, I know better than to ignore the hens, and I’m gonna find my golden eggs of truth, so quit trying to give me the once over; I know better.

To be fair, some people do tell the truth, and unfortunately it is laced with all kinds of unfounded rationales. Many people won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a Woman and, as I’ve heard several men say, other countries don’t even respect Women (this despite numerous countries having had Women leaders; India, Chile, Great Britain, Germany to name a few). Some 19% of Pennsylvania voters indicated that race played a factor in how they voted in their recent primary; most of whom voted for Clinton (I can only imagine how many more people were too ashamed to admit they wouldn’t vote for a Black person). And everyone has a problem with McCain’s age, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has several Justices over the age of 80, but apparently they’re virile enough to make precedent setting laws for everyone.

Although I disagree with many of the reasons people who actually tell the truth give, I’d rather have that than people delivering untruths veiled in a blanket of positivity or unsubstantiated basis.

So please, if you see me in the streets and you’re trying to push your pick for President, unless you can tell me about their positions, why those positions matter to you, and how your Candidate’s positions are different than the other Candidate’s, spare your breath, save me the time and just tell the truth.

-Maelstrom

The Relevance in 2008

Black History Month began as the brainchild of Carter G. Woodson in 1926. It actually began as Negro History Week, and coincided with the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. For several decades the Month of February held great importance amongst American citizens. It was perhaps the only time that Americans paused to take note of the contributions of African-Americans to the United States of America, with perhaps the exception of MLK Day in January since 1981. However, in this new millennium it seems to me that the significance of Black History Month has diminished to the general public. So I pose the question to myself, “what is the relevance of Black History Month in 2008?”

To demonstrate my point, just ask yourself how many forums, discussions, or Black History Month events you participated in last month. My point exactly!

It’s likely that many factors contribute to my perceived loss of importance of Black History Month. To begin, as a result of observances like Black History Month (BHM), MLK Day, the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s, etc., the level of awareness about Black people and their contributions to history has been increased (although it’s not what it should be, in my opinion). Likewise, the overt racism of decades past has been greatly diminished. Without a doubt these realities have given the impression to some that BHM is no longer necessary.

But there are other factors, namely the emergence of awareness about other minority groups like Native Americans and Latino Americans, each with their own space on the calendar set aside to honor their peoples, cultures and contributions. Furthermore, time, dates and months have been set aside for causes like Breast Cancer Awareness in October. In fact, it is practically impossible to keep up with all the “days” that represent a group of people or causes on the calendar. Like, did you know that April 23^rd of this year is “Administrative Professionals Day?”

Finally, I think the fact that Black people as a collective have lost their position as the largest racial minority in America to Latinos plays a role. Although the Civil Rights’ Movement, as Martin Luther King Jr. saw it, was for everyone who was disenfranchised, the Black community was the focus of it for myriad factors, but also because they represented the largest minority group at the time. With the emergence of the growing Latino population, as well as the steady growth of several others, the need for awareness about those groups amongst the general population is more apparent now. Therefore, the focus on BHM specifically has been parsed.

And I should say that I’m totally for raising awareness about all groups.

So I guess I’m left with the question about what the point of BHM should be in the years ahead. I don’t think that the focus of BHM should be about how brutal and cruel previous generations of (White) people were to Black people, but it should be about understanding the origins of how ignorance and blind hatred of a person/people could lead to such inhumane behavior.

In conjunction, I think BHM should focus on dispelling many of the age old misconceptions about Black people. Not all Black people are criminals, violent, academically inferior, or economically incompetent (I feel so silly mentioning such things, but believe it or not, a lot of people still hold such sentiments).

Lastly, I think BHM should continue pointing out the many areas where Black people have contributed mightily to this country. When I was in grade school, the only time the contributions of Black people to America were highlighted was during BHM. That should not be the case. Black people (as well as Women, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, Homosexuals, etc.) have made essential, undeniable contributions to this nation, and the history that we are taught should reflect this reality.

In short, reflection, understanding, awareness, and a positive future outlook should be the foundation of Black History Month and all other months wishing to honor groups that have otherwise been left out of the history of the USA.

-Maelstrom

David Shuster and MSNBC

Last Thursday, while serving as a guest host for Tucker Carlson, MSNBC Political Correspondent David Shuster made a very regrettable statement. While discussing with a guest on the show the solicitation of superdelegates by Chelsea Clinton, he asked the question, doesn’t it seem she’s being “pimped out” in some weird sort of way by her parents. As a result, he has been temporarily canned by the entire network, and NBC has come under considerable criticism in the aftermath. To me, some of the criticism is fair, but much of it is inconsistent. As for Shuster, I have watched him for years and regard him as a very tough, but fact-based correspondent. He is one of my favorites because he always asks the hard questions of our political leaders. His choice of words was poor, but I don’t think his choice of words should cloud the point he was trying to make.

Let me address the criticisms first.

Shuster often appears as a correspondent on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews as well as on “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson and “Countdown” with Keith Olberman. One of the criticisms I’ve heard in the aftermath is that MSNBC is a very sexist station and that Matthews leads a “frat-boy” mentality on the station that includes Shuster, Carlson and Olberman. Although I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that Matthews has some inherent sexist positions, to paint Shuster, Carlson, Olberman, and the entire station in the same way is totally unfair. I did not find, and have not noticed a consistent pattern of sexist behavior with the other show-hosts that one could easily find with Matthews.

Furthermore, many of the faces you see on MSNBC during the day (including the primetime hours) are those of women. Among them are NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and senior political correspondent Nora O’Donnell (who often fills in for Matthews and Carlson as well). Furthermore, there is a plethora of female panelists who are regulars on the station, especially on Hardball, including salon.com editor Joan Walsh, journalists Karen Tumulty and Anne Kornblut, and political analyst Kate O’Beirne. Although I must say, it would be nice to see a full-time female, as well as a full-time minority Host to one of MSNBC’s primetime shows.

Right-wing pundits, like Bill O’Reilly, claim that Matthews and Shuster are on the far Left side of the political spectrum. I find this claim interesting because to me Matthews is pretty centrist on many issues. Despite my centrist view of Matthews, mediamatters.com has found him to be Right leaning for several years now. As for Shuster, he worked for the same Right leaning station that O’Reilly works for, Fox News (1996-2002), so I don’t know what his stake in saying such a thing is, but he’s obviously got an agenda. In any case, I think this criticism is unfounded as well.

But as it pertains to Shuster, “pimped out,” and Chelsea Clinton, I think Shuster made a terrible error in using the phrase. However, the fact is that he may have been making a very valid point. Moreover, by Bill and Hillary Clinton crying foul over the whole incident, criticisms about the tactics that they’re using to solicit superdelegates will likely be squelched; at least for a while.

Hillary Clinton has threatened to not participate in any more debates sponsored by MSNBC as a result of Shuster’s comments (there was a debate scheduled for February 26th). By raising such a fuss, I believe the news media will be less likely to scrutinize her campaign’s efforts to sway superdelegates to her side. One might ask if Hillary would use this opportunity to get such scrutiny off her back. My response is a resounding yes. The Clinton’s are the savviest of savvy politicians. They are smart enough to know that they can keep reporters at bay on the issue of superdelegate solicitation by making the issue Shuster’s “pimped out” statement, diverting attention to the point he was making.

You see, from my vantage point, I don’t think Shuster was using the phrase in the “back-alley” sense. I think he was using it in the vernacular, pop-culture sense; you know, the “pimp-my-ride” sense. The phrase is a colloquial, common slang phrase that has nothing to do with selling your body (or goods) and giving what you earned to a pimp who vows to protect you.

But let’s say that he meant it in the most sinister of ways. Let’s say he meant that the Clinton’s were using their young, attractive, 27-year-old daughter to do the work of political solicitation in order to court the endorsement of high-ranking democratic superdelegates; the majority of whom are probably men. Why isn’t that a fair question to ask?

To me it would seem that a political advisor, like Marc Penn, or a former President, like Bill Clinton, should be the one doing such a job. Not that Chelsea shouldn’t, but lets be real (seriously, lose the women’s lib, politically correct mindset and see reality), the reason that Men’s Clothing Stores often have young women out front mingling with the male customers is because the men are more likely to make a purchase with the young lady there than if a young man was the solicitor. It’s no surprise that, although you can’t touch ‘em, Clubs employ female dancers to dance solo all night. Even in the news media, young, attractive women are often the anchors during prime news hours, and rarely ever do you see a female newscaster that is overweight (even though the men can be old and overweight).

It is in that same “Men’s Clothing Store” sense that I think the question David Shuster raised is a fair and valid question. I do not think the Clinton’s consciously said, “let’s pimp Chelsea out for votes,” but perhaps in the recesses of their minds, or in the sub-consciousness of their psyche they thought that these superdelegates would be more amenable to the plea of Chelsea’s voice over the voice of a rigid male politician.

Now I know I’ve overlooked a few factors. People have noted that Chelsea has probably known most of these people all her life, so it’s not a shock that she would call them. But I’d argue that if this is true, then why would the Clinton’s need to contact these people at all? I also recognize that Chelsea is an independent adult who doesn’t need her parents to think for her. But to that I’d say, then why the vociferous defense by her parents, especially since they’ve brought her into the political sphere. And as an addendum to that last point, I think it’s a little hypocritical of the Clinton’s to cry foul because they’re protecting their daughter; as far as I’m concerned, once the Clinton’s brought her into the political forefront, she became fair game (she’s not just the daughter of the President now, she’s actually “stumping” with her mom). The Clinton’s can’t have it both ways.

In closing, I’d just say that I absolutely think the Clinton’s are defending their daughter against unwarranted attacks, as any parent would. However, I also think they are taking advantage of the situation and using it as an opportunity to stifle questions about their solicitation of superdelegate votes. On the other side of the coin, I wouldn’t doubt that David Shuster has some inherent sexist views, as many people do. I’d also say that I believe NBC made the right move by temporarily suspending him. But, I think that it is important to consider not just what he said, but also the issue he was trying to address.

And that seems to be what’s been lost in the controversy.

-Maelstrom

Everything Else...in Sports

Since the sports world and sports media has been grossly preoccupied with the Super Bowl (and will likely continue to be inordinately concerned with football and the NFL until late July…just in time for the start of training camp) I’ll report on a couple sports occurrences that I found entertaining.

To start, I have to applaud the performances of numerous tennis players in the year’s first Slam event, the Australian Open. It was incredibly entertaining to watch. I found myself waking up at 3:00am, 4am, and 5 o’clock in the morning to catch a glimpse of the action throughout the fortnight. And boy was it competitive. With the exception of #5 seed Maria Sharapova on the Women’s side, the finalists on both the Men and Women’s sides were virtually unknowns.

One name everyone better get used to is Novak Djokovic. He dominated and beat the seemingly unstoppable Roger Federer—in straight sets too! Not to be outdone as far as upsets are concerned, the gentleman that Djokovic beat in the finals, Tsonga, made light work of world #2 Rafael Nadal. On the Women’s side, both Williams’ sisters were put out in the quarterfinals along with the very powerful world #1 Justine Henin. And what’s in the water in Serbia? Jelena Jankovic made the Women’s semifinals while Men’s finalist Djokovic and Women’s finalist Ana Ivanovic all hail from Serbia. In fact, virtual unknown Serb Tipsarevic pushed Federer to 5 sets in the 3^rd round. It looks like this year in pro tennis will be hotly contested…and who knows, there may be a changing of the guard on both the men’s and women’s sides by year’s end.

What a surprise the New Orleans Hornets have been in the NBA! In a year that was supposed to be all about the Boston Celtics super trifecta of Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, the Hornets are the real story in the league. Coming from out of nowhere, the team that was moved from Charlotte, North Carolina to New Orleans (and then displaced from New Orleans to Oklahoma City following Hurricane Katrina to only resurface in New Orleans again this season) has dazzled and dominated for the first half of this NBA campaign. And straight up, Chris Paul is a beast! If he continues to play this way, he deserves to be the league MVP, hands down, bar-none!

Yo, since I’m on the topic of the National Basketball Association, I’m amazed at all these trades that have gone down this past week. Shaq to Phoenix, Gasol to the Lakers, and Webber to Golden State. I think that the Gasol trade might be the best of the bunch, but I’m not sleepin on Shaq.

Video has surfaced of New York Mets star pitcher Pedro Martinez attending a cockfight in his native Dominican Republic. On the heels of the Michael Vick story, I want to know where all the people are that were incensed that Vick was attending and bankrolling dogfights. True, there are a few factors that differ: 1. we don’t know if Martinez actually bet on or funded the cockfight, 2. we don’t know if this is a pattern of behavior, and 3. this happened in a nation where cockfighting is legal. However, if the sentiments of those outraged Vick protesters were complete and thorough, they would be calling for Martinez to be on the chopping block in NY. If something is wrong, like fighting animals happens to be, then it’s wrong no matter where it occurs (e.g. murder is murder, and animal cruelty is animal cruelty, whether in the USA or in the Dominican Republic). So I’m just asking for a little consistency from the supposed outraged public. I guess I was just disturbed by the fact that people seemed only SO upset about Vick because he was fighting dogs. I thoroughly doubt that if Vick had been cockfighting, or fighting snakes or cats, that we would’ve seen the nationwide outrage that we did. At least PETA is consistent…they want Pedro’s head on a platter.

And this just in, Tiger Woods is unreal! This guy seems poised to dominate for another year on the PGA tour. He is still on a roll, which extends back to last year. He’s started this year off with 2 convincing wins, with the second being a show of just sheer resilience. Tiger trailed Ernie Els by 4 strokes heading into the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic last week, but surged ahead to take home the trophy on Sunday. Is there any competition out there for this guy?

Ok I’ll stop…I think I watch sports too much!

-Maelstrom

Everything Else

Since the media world seems to be inordinately preoccupied with the race for the presidential nomination, I’ve decided to illuminate several recent occurrences, both here and abroad, that I found interesting.

The obvious immediate news focuses on several storms that ripped through the south of the country on “Fat Tuesday.” Some 50 plus people from several states perished as a result of the storms. Hopefully federal aid and support will be swift in getting to the victims.

This January Genarlow Wilson started college. You might recall that this is the young man from Georgia who was sent to prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old classmate when he was 17. You might also recall that the law that put Wilson behind bars was an old one that actually forbade oral sex, even between married adults at one time. Even though the law was overturned as a result of his case, Wilson was kept behind bars at the behest of some very cruel state prosecutors. I’m glad that the young man can actually move on with his life now, and I wish him all the best in the years ahead. For a full account of Wilson’s dilemma, see the July 2007 post “A Grave Miscarriage of Justice” here at the Vortex.

On the economic front, the stock market continues to be on a super roller coaster ride. Unfortunately the ride headed down a steep hill this week. The Dow Jones Industrial average lost some 370 points on Super Tuesday and the trend continued downward the next day with the Dow losing over 60 points. The Nasdaq isn’t doing well either; it has lost some 13% of its volume since the start of the year. The unstable market, along with housing market troubles, credit woes, and a very weak US dollar are fueling fears that our economy is headed for an economic recession. Indeed, some critics think we’re already there…sadly.

Briefly, on the foreign front there continues to be unrest in Kenya following a disputed and unpopular election late last year. And although the violence briefly assuaged, tensions remain high and hostility persists. Where is the international community on this one?

On a positive note, I was pleased to see that when the newly elected parliament of Australia opens their first session next week, they will do something quite admirable: The government will offer a formal apology to the Aborigine population of Australia. The Aborigine’s are the indigenous people to Australia; they also happen to be the poorest member’s of Australian society. Strain between the Aborigine population and the general population has persisted for centuries. The apology is not only a kind gesture, but is seen as a huge step in mending tensions and righting injustices exacted on Aborigine’s. A formal government apology…now there’s a novel idea!

Till next time!

-Maelstrom

The Republican Nomination Race

The current race for the nomination for President of the United States has been among the most lively and interesting that we’ve seen since perhaps the 1991-92 election season. It is the first time in decades that both parties have a full complement of candidates vying for their party’s nomination since the outgoing (Republican) incumbent Vice President isn’t seeking the nomination and the current President has reached his term limit.

The field has shrunk on both sides at this point, but we’re a long way from determining who will win the nod for either the Democrats or Republicans. And then there’s always the threat of a 3^rd party candidate throwing their hat in the race, with a buzz circling NYC Mayor and Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and even whispers of CNN Primetime anchor Lou Dobbs potentially running.

So here’s the race as I currently see it…Republicans first:

It is a free-for-all on the Right side of the aisle, as the first three major stops along the road to the nomination have yielded three different victors; Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (Iowa), Arizona Senator John McCain (New Hampshire) and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (Michigan). And all this before Rudy Giuliani even makes a major campaign attempt at the nomination. And don’t forget about the 6 million dollars in campaign donations in a day guy, Texas Senator Ron Paul.

I’ll start with the guy who “cleaned up New York,” Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani’s strategy has been to watch the first few political showdowns from the sidelines and then ramp up his campaign in the larger states. He has done this in large part because he is seen as about as far Left as you can be and still call yourself a Republican; at least socially. With three different winners on the Republican side in the first three major contests, it appears that Giuliani’s strategy may pay off. The race is still wide-open which means Giuliani could very well win one of the next few major Primaries and be just as likely to win the nomination as Huckabee, McCain or Romney. However, recent polling in Florida shows him trailing despite his heavy campaigning there. Time shall tell if his strategy is successful.

Michigan native son Mitt Romney finally traded in his “silver’s” for gold as he won the Primary in Michigan last week. Unfortunately for Romney, his competitors are simply writing off this victory in Michigan as one of sentimentality and familiarity from the Michigan populace (similarly, his victory in Nevada has also been downplayed due to the large Morman presence there). It will be interesting to see if the business-minded Romney can win other states that have strong Unions like Michigan does (e.g. states like Pennsylvania).

Vietnam vet and former POW John McCain has thrown a little bit of a wrench into the race. Early in the campaign season it appeared that his bid for the nomination was becoming irreparably unraveled. Somehow he weathered the shake-ups in his campaign (and the lack of large financial stores) and parlayed his perseverance into a victory at the New Hampshire primary and a very strong showing in Michigan. He also seems to be a favorite of Independent voters, along with Obama on the Democratic side. With his ship righted, he will definitely be a major player in the Primaries to come.

A virtual unknown this time last year, Mike Huckabee has become a formidable presence at each stop along the nomination path. He is perhaps best liked among social and Christian conservatives. As a result, he registered a stunning victory at the Iowa Caucus, despite being outspent tremendously by the second place finisher Mitt Romney. He didn’t fare nearly as well in New Hampshire or Michigan, and at times he hasn’t looked like he’s ready for the big stage. On more than one occasion he has been caught off guard and unaware of major foreign events and occurrences. His challenge is to be more appealing to fiscal conservatives (who have attacked his record of tax increases while he was Arkansas Governor), as well as to be more aware of world affairs.

Finally, there’s the non-conventional Texas Senator Ron Paul. Although I think some of Paul’s ideas are impractical, I do take offense to the cavalier and snide rebuttals toward Paul (at the New Hampshire debate) from Giuliani and Romney when Paul suggested that “they” (the terrorists) attacked us in part because we have a strong military presence in many of their (holy) lands. Paul is partly right on this issue, and his sentiments are echoed by many others, including Conservative MSNBC Political Commentator Pat Buchanan (who has spent several years studying the Middle East) as well as Osama Bin Laden himself (and a whole host of others that I won’t bother naming, including high-ranking military personnel and the like). But whether one disagrees with him or not on the issue, it bothered me that there was no rational consideration of his point-of-view, just terse dismissal. In any case, I don’t think he will win the race (despite his ability to raise millions and millions of dollars seemingly at will), and so I’m curious to whom his votes will go; perhaps the Independent favorite McCain?

Having mulled over the multivarious parameters that voters may consider on the Right side of the political spectrum, my guess is that Romney will eventually win the Republican nomination with John McCain being his biggest challenge. I think Giuliani’s strategy has cost him valuable national face time, and so he won’t grab the nomination. However, how he fares on “Super Tuesday” (Feb 5^th) should clear things up on the Republican side.

Best Bet to win the Republican Nomination: Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney

Potential Spoilers: Arizona Senator John McCain and Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani

-Maelstrom