Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Cartoon for January 24


Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.

Posted by at

20 comments:

  1. Jana C.H.January 23, 2008 at 8:52 PM

    Bull's eye!

    Jana C.H.
    Seattle
    Saith JcH: He ain't Robin Hood, but he IS Little John.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AndersJanuary 24, 2008 at 8:44 AM

    Ach, why didin't the Demoscats field Cruise instead? At least he's got the correct level of pigmentation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aggie DudeJanuary 24, 2008 at 1:06 PM

    Anders:

    As a man of the 'correct level of pigmentation' who grew up in the south and now lives in Meeeshigan, I'd like to make the following observation.

    Non-southerners typically do not understand SFR (Southern Fried Racism). It's not that it's worse than they think it is, or not as bad as they think it is, just that it's far more complex. There's the very nasty, personal racism of the lower food chain, and the high society racism that says "we'ah not racist, they just don't exist in oua world." There are yet other forms that inhabit the academy or other elite social networks.

    A number of comments and assertions made on this blog represent, in my opinion, various levels of racist views. It is not to say that any of us are bigots, but what leading race scholars have moved on to in recent decades is the understanding that all Americans are racist, simply as a consequence of growing up and being socialized into a RACIALIZED society; one in which phenotype is used as a delineating factor (unlike, say, eye color, hair color, height, etc). People socialized into this reality simply can not help but recognize those characteristics and their embedded prejudices.

    I urge that you, and anyone else, take a deep and reflexive look at how you're measuring the character of others, as well as your presumptions about the character of this country in its ability to move past bigotry and 'tolerance' to acceptance.

    I hope I do not offend, as someone with the 'correct level of pigmentation,' I've actually been quite surprised by the sources of hostility toward Obama, and his sources of support.

    This man is an asset to us, whether he has the experience to be President yet or not. I think we all should be careful about where we interject our racialized tone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ted RallJanuary 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM

    I agree, all of us have been poisoned by racism. It's a constant struggle to deny it.

    I'll never forget the time I was driving a taxi at night, during a driving rainstorm, when my cab got a flat in Bed-Stuy. It was the '80s, and this section of Brooklyn was very dangerous. It was also predominantly black.

    I was changing the tire when a vanload of African-American dudes pulled up behind me. They were huge guys, real bruisers, and I was scared shitless. They pushed me aside, finished changing the tire, and sent me on my way. Refusing a tip, they told me I'd better get going because it was such a bad neighborhood.

    My worst encounter, with a guy who pulled a gun on me and would've killed me if I hadn't responded in a surprising way (details published elsewhere), was with a clean-cut white dude in a jacket and tie. Lesson learned: stereotypes are bullshit.

    My problem with Obama is not his lack of experience. I think I would make a decent president, yet I've never served a day in Congress. My problem is his accomodationism: his message that there is no red America, no blue America, only America.

    He is wrong.

    Republicans don't compromise when they're in power. They don't appoint Democrats to the cabinet. They don't let Democratic bills come up for a vote. They roll back Democratic legislative achievements from previous administrations.

    Now that Democrats have a chance at getting back into power--real Democrats, and there hasn't been one of those since LBJ--I don't want Republicans to have a voice.

    After all the shit they've pulled during the Bush years, they'll be lucky if their party isn't banned.

    Even Hillary, mistress of triangulation, understands that political progress doesn't result from being nice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aggie DudeJanuary 24, 2008 at 1:56 PM

    I have to admit, Ted, I do like Hillary for that reason. I want someone with a memory of what they did to Bill in the '90s and a desire to make them pay for it.

    It's the reason I like Bill so much, despite the fact that their policies don't strike me as particularly progressive. Honestly I thinkThe combination of those two attributes (vision and muscle), is of course Edwards, which is so sad to me that people want both the good qualities of Hillary and of Obama, but can't see that Edwards does possess a lot of both their qualities.

    I do think that Hillary is the candidate of old liberal vengeance though. That's why she gets the older demographic so much. Obama is about coming together, Edwards is about putting fascists in their place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ted RallJanuary 24, 2008 at 4:04 PM

    I do think that Hillary is the candidate of old liberal vengeance though. That's why she gets the older demographic so much. Obama is about coming together, Edwards is about putting fascists in their place.

    Nice summary. I totally agree.

    I don't want to come together with the inbred yahoos who plastered their SUVs with Support Our Troops magnets. I want them to shut the fuck up because they were, and always will be, wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 24, 2008 at 6:18 PM

    Edwards,Clinton,Obama. Any combination President,Vice,Sec. of State. Unbeatable. Einie meanie,mineie, moe. They should quit trying to beat each other up on TV and concentrate on getting the friggin' job done. We the people, need people dedicated to us, and our country. Not their own political agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  8. swisnJanuary 24, 2008 at 7:47 PM

    Angelo, answer to your question on corporate ass kicking is essentially no, I have significant doubts about that.

    Aggie, where in the south are you from? As a northerner living in the south, prejudice and racism manifests itself much different than I expected. I actually think its worse here in Virginia than it was in Alabama. The perpetuation of prejudice is more than cultural though, it's hard wired into our brains. There is nothing we can do to prevent it from being there and the only to not be controlled by these tendencies is to accept them for what they are and try to recognize when they surface.

    Here's a thought about Obama and Hillary...do you think there is more support for or openness to having a black or woman president among people (of any race or sex) who have actually had black and/or female bosses or worked in an environment where they had a strong presence in management positions? And in turn, could people who would not vote for a black or female president be not just a faction of overt racism or sexism than because they have no experience with (and thus are made uncomfortable by) anyone other than white males in positions of power?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jana C.H.January 24, 2008 at 11:17 PM

    Any politician who thinks it is possible to compromise with the present-day Republican Party has not been paying attention for the past thirty years. I don't care what his fucking skin color is.

    When the white guy from the South is talking like FDR and the biracial dude from Hawaii is talking like a Scientology video, I know who to vote for as we plummet into fascism and depression.

    So don't try to lay liberal guilt on me. I'm too old and experienced to fall for that. Recognizing the best candidate in the race is not racism.

    Jana C.H.
    Seattle
    Saith Arthur Pinero: Where there is tea there is hope.

    ReplyDelete
  10. devilJanuary 25, 2008 at 3:15 AM

    "I urge that you, and anyone else, take a deep and reflexive look at how you're measuring the character of others, as well as your presumptions about the character of this country in its ability to move past bigotry and 'tolerance' to acceptance."

    it's not a presumption, slick. it's reality. maybe in 100 yrs a non-white will have a shot at being elected president, but it won't happen in our lifetime.

    and besides, deluded optimists like you are missing the point anyway. america is NOT a democracy-- it only pretends to be one. the november election will be fixed, just like the last two presidential elections were. if edwards were to be the dem nominee, people would get suspicious if he lost. that's why he WON'T be the nominee. the republican-controlled corporate media has made sure that the dem primaries are a race between clinton and obama, so that either a black man or a woman will be the dem candidate. that way, when the republican "wins," the media will be able to spin the easily-believable storyline that "america just wasn't quite ready to elect a black/woman candidate." that reasoning wouldn't work with an edwards candidacy, because the guy would win big, and the theft of the election would therefore be too obvious.

    the electorate will easily swallow a republican victory, however, if it comes against a dem candidate who's "handicapped" in some way, and in racist & sexist america, both clinton and obama are exactly that. that's why one of them WILL be the nominee, and why, consequently, we're all going to have four more years of republican filth to look forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJanuary 25, 2008 at 6:52 AM

    And once again Ted proves the Left's belief in free speech and expression is as intolerant and as limited as those he dislikes. It would be depressing if it weren't so totally unsurprising and far friom new news.

    When you're as bad as those you oppose how are you any different?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ted RallJanuary 25, 2008 at 7:15 AM

    And once again Ted proves the Left's belief in free speech and expression is as intolerant and as limited as those he dislikes. It would be depressing if it weren't so totally unsurprising and far friom new news.

    Interesting that you tacitly accept my contention that right-wingers are always wrong.

    Why should people who are always wrong run our country?

    When you're as bad as those you oppose how are you any different?

    You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. I admire the Right's tactics. We should use them. The difference is, our goals are very different.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJanuary 25, 2008 at 8:56 AM

    Well, first I don't accept (tacitly or otherwise) that premise.

    Second, since when is being wrong grounds for losing your civil rights?

    I'm pretty sure the left has been wrong on more than one occasion themselves (the acceptance of Stalin, Castro, and now Chavez cases in depressing point). Should they (the Left), too, be barred from office for being "wrong."

    And as to your final point: Since all political points of view/goals are inherently subjective, they're all "right" and "wrong" at the same time.

    Basing the legitimacy of governance solely on the POV of on ideological spectrum is the slippery slope to dictatorship.

    Your views, at least as expressed here, would lead to monologue and not dialog. A truly free society allows all folks a voice and a chance to lead.

    You don't, to my point of view, seem in favor of a free society, but rather one based solely on only your opinions and POV. In that limited way you're no different from W (or Hitler or Stalin or Pot or Franco or bin Laden or -- God but this is a sadly long list).

    Finally, barring someone from the process based on the "wrongness" of their views is nothing more worthy than sloppy, lazy, selfish thinking.

    If anyone is denied their voice and place then everyone is.

    And heck, it's the quickest way to violent unrest as well.

    Just as the Palestinians.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Aggie DudeJanuary 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM

    "it's not a presumption, slick. it's reality. maybe in 100 yrs a non-white will have a shot at being elected president, but it won't happen in our lifetime."

    Wow, I'm not even going to point out the irony in that statement.

    Hence we should not nominate someone until....when? Please explain to me when it will 'OK' to NOMINATE a candidate who you don't think has a shot at winning.

    I'd like to take this opportunity to commend Ted on his ability to make everyone uncomfortable enough to voice their views and take stands, as flawed as we all may be (I'm certainly extremely flawed).

    I'm in the Academy, and as teachers we're trained that it's good to make your students a little uncomfortable, that challenges them to greater achievement.

    I don't accept the premise that we can't work with republicans. I think that the republican party has been consumed by the neo-conservative movement, and those are the people we can't work with. I think that coalition is breaking down and, while there is a vengeful streak within me, to say that we must become as intransigent as those we oppose is self-indulgent and counterproductive. I will gladly vote for any of these three candidates in November, complaining about the 'rigged system' is no excuse to despair.

    SWISN: I grew up in North Carolina, and I wholeheartedly agree with much of what you said. I don't think we disagree and also think that Ted's comment echoes that.

    As far as the laying liberal guilt, I'm not trying to do that. What I am saying is that claiming to be a liberal or progressive does not immunize people from falling into traps where they act or speak in a counter-productive way. It's not a catch-all that allows us to relax and go on auto-pilot. If some people here feel a twinge of defensiveness they should take a few breaths and evaluate that feeling instead of barking out. That's just my opinion. I'm not calling anyone a bigot, I'm saying we are all capable of blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  15. angeloJanuary 25, 2008 at 4:12 PM

    swisn doubts Edwards will be any harder on corporate interests than Hillary or Obama. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  16. comsympinkoJanuary 25, 2008 at 8:54 PM

    aggie dude--

    Couldn't agree more about SFR.

    I grew up in western Virginia in a podunk shit town near real moonshinin' Appalachia.

    An African-American family bought a house and moved onto the street next to mine.

    They forgot to consult the locals.

    I was eight and didn't understand why I was the only one who befriended my new classmate and why the other kids seemed to hate him so much.

    My parents were Northerners transplanted by the Ag business and had raised me to believe that we are all good people until proven otherwise.

    Long story short, they planted a burning cross on his lawn within a month and the next day the moving van was out front.

    I related this story to a guy from New Orleans and he couldn't believe it. Told me I was a hypocrite (?) and a liar because it never happened where he came from.

    New Orleans. Perhaps the most cosmopolitan city in the US before Bush allowed its destruction.

    And there's NEVER been any of that kind of foolishness in Louisiana.

    SFR comes in all shapes, sizes, and locations.

    The guy next door to me has a pickup with a Confederate battle emblem sticker that says "REDNECK" in his back window.

    I live in Northern New Jersey.

    It's the most sinister force affecting this nation, and I wonder if we will ever be free of its evil.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aggie DudeJanuary 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM

    "It's the most sinister force affecting this nation, and I wonder if we will ever be free of its evil."

    I don't believe that racism is something a society rids itself of like a nasty rash, just as I don't believe democracy, liberty, 40 hour work weeks or legal rights are something we simply achieve and then can sit back and enjoy.

    Fascism never sleeps, greed and power are insatiable addictions that turn people into sadistic children who group up and torture another being for pleasure and solidarity. I don't know that we'll ever be rid of any of these attributes, but I do think that we will certainly not be rid of them so long as it is acceptable for politicians to play bigotry to win elections.

    This is why I sometimes come across as fatalistic (though apparently a few people accuse me of optimism), because what it would take to curtail the use of these scare/hate tactics in politics would be pretty savage, and it would simply whiplash again and again, just as the culture of the 60s delivered us neoconservatism and theocratic fascism with a vengeance.

    This is what Sociology has given me, and Durkheim himself warned me of total disillusionment. Sharp delineations can turn passive neighbors into butchers with the right campaign of inciting scapegoat tactics, just look at the last 700 years of history in the Balkans...not that you have to actually go that far.

    The recurrent immigration debate demonstrates this. The notion that a label and piece of paper makes someone a non-person instantly, even amongst people who insist on the universality of human rights outlined in our legal code....it only applies to US Citizens...as soon as we create a new label for "them," the process recharges itself.

    Say....'enemy combatant'?

    None of this is new, we just keep building more powerful weapons until we annihilate ourselves completely.

    -Dave

    ReplyDelete
  18. angeloJanuary 29, 2008 at 2:20 PM

    Dave,
    when you talk about your "vengeful streak", are you referring to your inclination to want to help the poor, improve the schools, end useless wars and save the environment? As I am sure you are aware, it might not even make a difference if we yielded to our vengeful streak at this point because we have been compromising with obstacles for so long that they own the game. And you know they laugh about it.

    I still think that the goal is not to work with obstacles, but to pulverize them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. SWisnJanuary 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM

    Dave,
    Don't forget that fascism isn't the only political extreme that leads to immoral behavior. The taste of power and the desire to rule rather than govern can and does corrupt for both the far-right and the far-left -- it is human nature and we have not evolved to the point of overcoming this. Clipper chip in the 90's and domestic spying today, both D's and R's are willing to infringe or deny our rights to privacy and freedom from intrusion.

    Angelo,
    On Mr. Edwards, my rationale is thus:
    Large salary from plus personal investments in a private hedge fund that incorporated in Caymans to avoid paying corporate taxes, where hedge funds are major contributors to current credit mess (largely for middle-class and minority first-time homebuyers) and managers do not have to pay income taxes but lesser-rate capital gains taxes on their earnings, in order to "learn how the industry affects poverty" does not hold wash to me. Fortress employee donations make me wonder how beholden he will be to them for their generosity even as he campaigns against the unfairness of it all.

    The list of campaign advisors also concerns me. On foreign policy he's got a bunch of retired Generals from materiel and acquisitions - these are the guys who oversee the pentagon purchasing gajillion dollars of military equipment that may or may not work and which we need to trim the fat off of, they aren't foreign policy experts. Then there's his Senate foreign policy aide - wonder what his 2 cents was on the Iraq vote. Economic guy Leo Hindery has a questionable track record of selling off company assets for personal profit at the expense of a significant number of jobs and his reputation is not spotless - and I'm not saying that just because TCI cable sucked.

    And lets go back to that Iraq vote. Edwards is sorry for his vote...why? Because he was misled? Because it was expedient to go along? Or because he never read/didn't pay attention to the reports that would have been available to him? He sat on the Intel Committee and he'd been in the Senate a couple years already. Iraq never came up before Bush's Team B started spin-doctoring in 2002? Team B's reports were not the only information available to congress.

    I know that makes me the minority here but I do not take him at his word. I'm not trying to change your opinion, just clarifying mine.

    ReplyDelete
  20. angeloJanuary 30, 2008 at 7:00 PM

    swisn, I still don't see how Edwards would be more of a corporate tool than Hillary or Obama. At least we have some of his own rhetoric to hold him to. Hillary and "They can have a seat at the table" Obama have made clear that they will allow more of the same shit.

    I wanted Kucinich.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)