@ “No, it’s beyond creepy now, it just too bizarre…at least for me.”

As one famous old kook once said, “There is more between heaven and earth than ever was dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.”

Voters are realizing Clinton carries much baggage, including supporting the Bush administration on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Voters may, at the same time, be getting past any concerns about a candidate like Obama whose dad was from Kenya, Africa.

These areas addressed in the article:

“Obama’s Iraq position, mixed ethnicity are key factors”

AmericanChronicle.com
February 22, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53128

Experience is a bunk argument.

MIKE MID-CITY ROUND BELLY BLIVET....YOU ARE WHY THEY HAVE SIGNS WARNING SPEED KILLS....TO NICE TO PUT UP STUPIDY KILLS..  SLEEP WELL CYREANAS ‘GOT YOUR BACK’....

whyzowl:

You make a very good point.  Indeed, dare I suggest something truly controversial?  I know I will get my head handed to me, but it would seem a legitimate point to bring up.

Let us say that Obama gets elected, and is our next president.  You say that “he may betray the hope the voters have placed in him.” Let’s suppose that he does so (either deliberately or simply as a fact of not being able to keep political promises once in office) - plus, in attempting to clean up the mess that Bush left behind (as well as other things), he simply gets inundated with unexpected problems and is unable to rectify them, or implement solutions that the populace is happy with.  That is, suppose a combination of overexpectation and “circumstance” (call it “fate” if you like, or even “bad timing") cause his presidency to be a “bad” one (particularly given the expectations).

(Here comes the controversial part...) If this were to happen, do you think the country would consider voting for another black person for president - ever?

Yes, yes, I know: we have had a nonstop series of WHITE men, many of whom were either less than hoped for or downright corrupt.  But isn’t it just possible that people (and yes, we are talking mostly about white people) might feel: “Heck, we voted for the best black man who ever came along, and even HE couldn’t get it right?”

Indeed, is it possible that the reason the GOP is “softer” toward Obama than Hillary is that they WANT him to win - AND FAIL - so they can say, “Okay, you had your chance with a black president, and he failed.  So much for that.”

Many people here (and elsewhere) say that they have no problem with a woman being president; that it is only “this” woman they have a problem with.  Could it be that the REVERSE is true for Obama?  That people (again, mostly white people) are fine with “this” black man as president, but would NOT be fine with a black man in general?

Just some food for thought.

Peace.

Well that’s what happened when you split the vote, Non Credo, but without a preferential voting system. That’s what I mean about Americans being led by their fantasies.

This time they are being led up the garden path by Obama. But all they have achieved is to already split the Democrats party wide apart. Nader could see an advantage in that.

There is no longer much validity in the expectation that either Democrats camp will support the other as a Democrats nominee. Its maybe not so much Obama’s fault as the Democrats’ leadership.

Perhaps Nader will actually drain off a few older “change” fans from Obama or Hillary or both but the main damage has already been done. It will become more obvious AFTER the Democrats nominee is finally chosen as to the impact of Nader........

Maani,

I’m glad you understand that I am not supportive of Hillary.

From my perspective, both the Repub and Dem parties are laden with legacies that candidates cannot escape. The candidates can’t even have an honest debate because they must stay true to their corporate and political bosses.

They take their roles seriously, but election after election it’s pretty much the same. Take a close look at Bill Clinton’s legacy (which Hillary is proud to see as her own) and you’ll note thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians, many children killed due to regular US bombing and blockades that starved the nation of medical supplies and drinkable water. The Balkan war is another case in point, justified in the same way G.W. Bush trumped up our reason for invading and occupying Iraq. Than there’s Bill’s Somolia bombing - remember the pharmaceutical plant - that was a real pharmacy company. Once he had the pharmacy bombed, not only where there many killed, with absolutely no sign of “terrorists” but that plant produced medicenes which deprived countless Africans of innoculations for fatal diseases. And of course there was the Chinese embassy bombing under his command.

These and many other issues such as NAFTA and strong support for capital punishment, welfare reforms that have created countless working poor, and a 3 strikes you out which has led to unprecedented incarceration rates (mostly of minorities).

My point is that there is no difference between Obama (the man of “change") and Hillary (the woman of “experience"). In fact, if you can recall, Obama is really 1991 Bill Clinton ala African American/2008 version.

That’s my real point. If Obama really believed in change (besides replacing Bush with a Dem) than he’d be working his ass off to either create an alternative party or doing something about the one he’s in. Otherwise, it is the same deal every election cycle.

Welcome...Maani and Douglas Chalmers!! (everybody clap to irrelevancy)

So the writer’s strike is over, and the real script writing professionals have returned to work. For those who watch TV and those who earn their living in that industry, this is a good thing.

But it means that the scabs are now back on the street, or otherwise lurking as trolls in the bowels of the rabbit hole, all too often emerging in spots like blogs, such as Truthdig and others.

Here/There, they create episodes of a new soap opera, best entitled, “As the World Burns…” Welcome, Maani, Douglas Chalmers, with the occasional, (but even more bizarre contributions/dumpings) from the likes of Paracelsus, and other ideologically compromised trolls.

The theme of the series would appear to be an on-going presentation of the most IRRELEVANT –anything- that anyone could possibly ever conceive. Maybe it’s intended as satire or parody, and it’s just so sophisticated, that many of us haven’t made the connection yet.

Or, maybe it is what it is…insanity run amuck, prevailing in the depths of the rabbit hole existence, with these occasional whiffs of the foulest of odors, making their way into the air that the rest of us must share/breathe.

So, “As the World Burns…” we’ll just have to grab our virtual surgical masks, or hold our noses from time to time, to escape the smell and the virtual bacteria of such irrelevance.

Meantime, Non Credo brings to our attention another episode that the trolls will be able to grab, and just in time, as they desperately search for new and more irrelevant material.  Ralph Nadar, the “used to be” consumer advocate, has decided to become a spoiler for the 2008 election. He vehemently denies this of course, but it’s the Alzheimer’s, which is afflicting so many people in these times, when Americans live longer, but not necessarily healthier lives.

So, after 2 unsuccessful runs in 2000 and 2004; the one in 2000 very likely the reason for the Neocon Coup in December of that same year, which created the hell we’ve lived since, this old decrepit script asshole is gonna do it again.

I remember a time when he was actually a benefit to society. That’s when he was a consumer advocate. But now, he’s used that very resume to booby trap any possible recovery we might attempt.

In this case though, it may backfire the other way, for the same reasons that Hillary’s assumptions have backfired. It is ‘assumed’ (by the conventional wisdom) that this will damage the democratic party, rather than the repugs. Based on conventional wisdom, or the last century mood of Americans, that would be a reasonable assumption. I’m not so sure it is now.

In fact, Nader’s 3rd party candidacy may do to McCain, what Ross Perot’s did to Bush I, when Clinton the 1st won the office with only 33% of the American vote. Just a guess. Stranger things have happened.

Totally agree with you jack..then theres Cyrena who has a love child by Obama whos always aflutter with him...Shes working night shift too now since he won"t pay any child support and she is going broke .. What a shame…

Excellent question here Mike:

• “Another question, isn’t this a liberal/progressive blog?”

I’ve definitely been asking the same myself, though not as clearly and straightforwardly as you do here.

It’s actually a 2-part question. First, is it a BLOG on political conversation, and political issues? And then, is it of a liberal or progressive side to the political conversation?

That has become next to impossible to discern. When allegedly grown men hover at their computers to discuss a 1998 Japanese horror film entitled “The Ring” and somehow find a way to connect it to current events in the sphere of US politics, things just start getting downright flippin’ creepy. No, it’s beyond creepy now, it just too bizarre…at least for me.

It’s like, I’m all for connecting the dots, and trying to find the relevance in areas where I might not have been aware of it before. But hey...there is a point, at which it just veers completely down the rabbit hole path, and STAYS there.

Now I guess if that’s where the liberal progressive discourse is taking place, then this would be a liberal progressive blog. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the editors/publishers that bring this to us had in mind, but…I could be wrong.

Anyway, I see that there is a new interview posted with Scheer and Alex Gibney, on his film that basically (if I understand it) explores the reasons/ideologies that would prompt or otherwise encourage average US military personnel to engage in torture. I remember seeing a brief documentary of a similar theme, which examined specifically those involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib.  That’s been a couple of years ago now, and it was very compelling.

So, I’ll check out this more recent interview, and maybe that will return the trend (at least for some of us) to what many of us presumed (correctly or incorrectly) this blog to be about.

NC:

Nader has less and less support out there, especially since so many people blame him for Bush getting elected (and we can debate his role in that from now til doomsday).  He has largely been marginalized, and it is likely that, given the Obamamania and the general interest in the campaign, Nader will not be a factor this time.  Yes, he will pull a few votes from both sides (arguably a few more from the Dems - maybe), but not in anywhere NEAR the number he did in 2000.

He is an old monomaniac who certainly has done alot of good in limited ways, but most people now see through his johnny-one-note act.

Peace.

Doug:

Re Cyrena, you said: “In short, as regards your continued criticism of others from a psychological viewpoint, you are admitting to the very dysfuntions that you are accusing them of. Any qualified psychologist would confirm that for you.  Thus, what you see is your neoroses and your aggressions and your being lost. Can you not understand that?”

Thank you.  I had actually thought about saying exactly that, but knew that it would only give her more fodder for her toy cannon (the one that shoots blanks).

And given the almost complete inanity (insanity?) of her latest diatribe re my post, I am convinced that she has a great number of “issues” that she has never worked through, and that those issues come out here, where it is relatively “safe” for her. Indeed, it is not just the “dysfunctions” that she is tacitly admitting are true of herself by accusing others, but even some of the non-psychological things.

For example, her accusation that I “cannot see the forest for the trees” and miss “the big picture.” This would be laughable if it were not so sad. Because if anyone on these boards has consistently shown a limited, myopic approach to things, it is her - despite her quasi-intellectual, quasi-professorial attempts to show how erudite she is.  I am constantly catching her in the most unnecessary and ridiculous errors, not least because, as I have pointed out (correctly) ad nauseam, she simply refuses to take the time to do even the most basic research before making claims and statements.  She could save herself alot of unnecessarily looking foolish if she checked things BEFORE she said them; all she would need to do is plug in two or three key words in Google.

A perfect example: “And, the longer I thought, and even got up to search, I could not find a SINGLE SOLITARY TIME that Hillary Clinton has been to New Orleans since Katrina.  Now, please feel free, (anybody) to point out where I may have missed a visit to New Orleans, by Hillary Clinton, in the aftermath of Katrina, OR ANY TIME SINCE.”

She “could not find a single solitary time.” Yet I went to Google and simply plugged in “Hillary Katrina Visit” and IMMEDIATELY found at least two times that she visited NO after Katrina - including one in which she laid out a comprehensive plan for helping the people there and bringing the city back.

How much research could Cyrena have done NOT to find “a single solitary time” when it took me all of 10 seconds?  Yet she makes statements like the above - in which she uses caps to increase the level of her Hillary-bashing - and has done so many times.

Cyrena is a classic example of a person who is SO myopic in her opinions and feelings that, as I correctly predicted, she found a way to rationalize and justify Obama’s non-attendance at the NO forum, and she maintains an “I"ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts” mindset.  Indeed, as you just saw, she even rationalized Obama’s acceptance of over $9 million from lawyers by saying, “I don’t care.” But she certainly DOES care when Hillary does the same.  And she has said so, though I am sure she will deny THAT as well.  (Funny thing, that: if Obama is the candidate who doesn’t represent the “special interests” - and he took more money from, for example, the energy industry than any other candidate - then what, exactly, is a “special interest?” Apparently, Cyrena defines it pretty narrowly...)

So much for having an intelligent or reasoned debate with her.  I agree: I hope she is seeing someone re working out her anger issues.

Peace.

#By cyrena, February 24: “Maani, You are SUCH a neurotic! The mental myopic disorder for you is serious. I’m sorry. I can’t help you with it. You’re the proverbial ‘lost in the forest’ guy, and will be forever it seems. Do you get what that means, when someone is ‘unable to see the forest for the trees’...”

You seem to be able to speak intelligently but have difficulty with conversing again, cyrena. The main problem is that, as you read others’ comments, you perceive them to be as stupid as yourself.

That is a trait you seem to share with some more unfortunate individuals on Truthdig who have confessed to such things as “licking their balls”. Of course, I only mention that advisedly......

In short, as regards your continued criticism of others from a psychological viewpoint, you are admitting to the very dysfuntions that you are accusing them of. Any qualified psychologist would confirm that for you.

Thus, what you see is your neoroses and your aggressions and your being lost. Can you not understand that? I was serious when I said before that you should seek professional help. Some others are beyond help.

Then again, perhaps you would be happier just living in the long grass.......??? Nobody really cares to read your long boring 2 or 3 part posts. It is so unnecessary if you would simply focus on the topic instead of insisting at all costs.

#By Non Credo, February 24: “Jerusalem Post, Malcolm Hoenlein deplores Obama’s condemnation of Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of putting the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the official list of terrorist organizations...”

Very interesting, Non Credo, and again that could lead to Israel doing something desperate between now and next January. They would see a pre-emptive strike by themselves as determining things in their favor with the White House as well..... but they would be so-ooo wrong, uhh!

Another question which could be asked is whether agencies such as Israel’s Mossad could contemplate an assassination attempt in the USA for their own interests? Given that AIPAC is already run solely for the benefit of Israel, why not?

Part 1 of 2
Maani,

You are SUCH a neurotic! The mental myopic disorder for you is serious. I’m sorry. I can’t help you with it. You’re the proverbial ‘lost in the forest’ guy, and will be forever it seems. Do you get what that means, when someone is ‘unable to see the forest for the trees’?

It means that there is a huge forest. And, rather than you being in a mental position, (say the view from above) to see the ENTIRE forest, as a collection of trees and other plants or sticks or leaves, etc, etc, and how they all form to create this forest, you are sitting at one tree, picking the bark off of it, then you move around to examine a leaf, and you don’t have a flippin’ clue about anything else going on around you.  You have no idea how any of the roots connect, or what the purpose of the bark is, or how any one of them interacts with the other, to create that larger picture.

And so it is. You interpret everything from this one myopic view point, and make the assumption that everyone else is seeing it the same way. I don’t know if it’s because you’re bored, or stupid. But the details that you focus on are simply not even worthy of attention. By doing that, you waste incredible amounts of time and energy, just like you waste incredible amounts of time examining a single tree in a forest.

For instance. NO. I wasn’t using Al Sharpton’s comment as a basis for my ‘argument’ because it wasn’t an argument that I was making. It was an observation, and a RESPONSE observation at that. You (and others) were going on and on about something incredibly trivial, and I made that observation. Obama is not in New Orleans right now. SO WHAT? WHO CARES? Do the people of New Orleans care? Probably NOT. Why? Because the disaster of Katrina happened to them exactly 2 ½ years ago, TODAY, and Obama has been there many times since then. THIS time, he won’t be there; for WHATEVER the reasons. There is NOTHING to ‘celebrate’ in MSY. They USED to celebrate there at this time of the year, and even if that were still possible, Lent began Wednesday. There is only misery and work there. If Hillary or any of the rest of them wanna do some of it, that’s spiffy. I have my doubts.

So, why are you telling us about air routes I’ve flown between Texas and Louisiana many, many times? Do you want me to chauffer him there, or give you a flight plan of high and low altitude airways? Do you want to hire us for Obama, even though he’s already decided he’s not making that trip, REGARDLESS of the days on the calendar? Are you his campaign travel coordinator? This is what I mean about your neurotic myopia. You just talk to say something, even though it has zero significance to anything.

Then you move along, again saying nothing, to suggest that I have ‘convincingly proved’ your argument. You are a moron Maani. I haven’t convincingly ‘proved’ your argument because I’m not making ‘arguments’ here, and YOU haven’t even convincingly proved any of your arguments, because none of what you call ‘arguments’ have anything to do with anything!!

Example, you’ve mentioned a few dozen times, that Obama failed to keep his promise to the people, (I paraphrase) to complete his senate term, as if we (the electorate) should maybe put him in jail for it. WHAT PEOPLE Maani? YOU are a NY resident. WHY do you care? The people of Illinois elected Obama to represent THEMin Congress. And for now, THAT’S WHAT HE’S DOING! If he’s running for the office of president as well, IT IS APPARENTLY WITH THEIR BLESSING. The State overwhelmingly voted for him in their primary election. AGAIN I ask, WHAT IS YOUR POINT, other than to come across as a whining hag or a whining kid who didn’t get the ice cream flavor he demanded? Or worse, YOU DID get the ice cream flavor that YOU demanded, but some other person or entity didn’t get the flavor that YOU decided THEY were supposed to have, even though they may not have even wanted any flippin’ ice cream AT ALL!

Maani Part 2 of 2

You’ve also told us repeatedly, that Obama has ‘taken money’ from law firms. According to YOU, it has been ‘less than’ Hillary Clinton, but that he has still accepted campaign donations from that ‘industry’. I don’t call the legal profession an ‘industry’, but I won’t deny that a large percentage of those practicing, DO serve the corporate oligarchy. So, maybe you’re right. I don’t know, because I don’t keep track, and because I DON’T CARE. I don’t care because it isn’t REMARKABLE.

So again, HOW IS THAT INTERESTING OR RELEVANT, and WHAT IS YOUR POINT? They are both attorneys. Hillary has not ‘formally practiced’ her CORPORATE lawyer specialty since she left the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas many years ago. Still, she obviously uses her ‘attorney’ skills, and includes them in her resume. WHY is it strange to you then, that she or Obama (for the same reasons), would receive campaign contributions from this group of professionals? Obama has actually continued to practice his chosen profession (the Civil Rights area of the law) since he’s been out of law school, and he has taught the same in the academic establishments.  Again, HOW IS THIS ODD, OR UNUSUAL?

He is also supported by Labor. The SEIU, the Teamsters. I could go on. This is the stuff of US campaigns and elections Maani. Are they ‘special interest groups”? Yeah, to the people who are in them, (labors in this case) they are.

Meantime, your tortured game of semantics has you so twisted up, that you don’t know whether to shit or blow your nose. You think you’re having a legitimate ‘argument’ with somebody, (me or anyone) except that if the person you think you’re arguing with isn’t engaged, or doesn’t otherwise see it as a legitimate or substantive argument, you’ve lost before you start. You can’t have a ‘fight’ Maani, until you have an adversary. You can’t have a ‘competition’ if there are no competitors. And, while I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, I’ve told you a more than a few times, that I am NOT a competitor here, to compete with you or anyone else. I am NOT presenting ‘arguments’ here as one would present in a court of law, based on the interrelation between the law and facts in evidence. I am NOT presenting an argument to support a ‘thesis’ as I would if I were actually writing something for publication in my own field. Maani…it’s a flippin BLOG!! An electronically transmitted communication. That’s IT Maani. GET OVER YOURSELF!

People here offer OBSERVATIONS. They share INFORMATION. Some of the information is helpful (to me and others) and some of it has relevance to whatever the subject matter is. Sometimes it doesn’t. Yours is generally irrelevant, (at least to me) because it’s wasted ink on what are generally considered to be wedge issues, which are ideological in nature. They lack any substance or means of connection. Like I said, you just write to be writing, like it was a gossip column or something.

Now, here’s a link to a short essay from Howard Zinn. I thought it was good. Some others here may enjoy it as well. Even you. If you’d like to read it, the link is here. If you DON’T want to read it, that’s quite all right as well.

Election Madness
By Howard Zinn
The Progressive

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022108B.shtml

Here’s another one that I found particularly relevant. Again…that’s just MY opinion.

Where’s the Substance?
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021808Z.shtml

I wonder where Sharpton was when the Guinea Pig Kids scandal was exposed in NYC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/40383 75.stm

These types would be out of a job if there was a sudden cure to racism, hence there will always be racism. I recall how Margaret Sanger spoke on giving black people false black leaders, who would direct them off a cliff.

http://blackinformant.com/?s=machina

It was in 1939 that Sanger’s larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger’s organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestion for Negro Project.” Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge as it was at an Atlanta conference.b>
It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with “contributions” to come from other local cooperating ministers. A “colored nurse” would follow, supported by a subsidized “colored doctor.” Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.
Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” money for two “Negro Project” demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.

Sharpton will be hot the latest white on black dust up, while larger numbers of black children are being imperiled by a system propelled by eugenic motives. This Sharpton is a real clown.

Wonder how many youg folks would attend Obamas Rock Star forums if he asked everyone there to sign up for two years military service ????

Cyrena:

“Yeah...it’s a no brainer. Even Sharpton figured it out, according to the lib here.”

Holy Cow!  You are using Al Sharpton as support for your argument?  What planet are you from?  This is the media whore who gave us Tawana Brawley, and was found guilty on eight counts in that case.  And HE is your support?  That’s low, even for you.

“But, it seems pretty obvious to most folks. There’s a primary in Texas on March 4th. Did ya’ll know that?  I suspect that’s why he’s there, and not in New Orleans.”

I see.  So there is a primary 12 DAYS FROM NOW, but he can’t take out a few HOURS from his precious campaign schedule to attend this event?  Because that’s all it would take, given the short airplane hop from Texas to Louisiana.  Sorry, Charlie (er...Charlene), but that doesn’t wash.

“How does standard reason and logic turn into justification or ‘rationale’ Maani?”

You have actually proven quite convincingly that I was correct; indeed, you have a tendency to do that, since (i) you don’t “do the homework” to support many of your claims, and (ii) you are the Queen of Justification where Obama is concerned, and everyone here (okay, MANY people here) knows it.

Peace.

Cyrena:

Once again - and it is getting truly tiresome now - you refuse to do even the most MINIMAL research.  Not only did Hillary go to New Orleans since Katrina (not once, but twice), she outlined a comprehensive plan to help New Orleans back in May 2007 - long before Obama came up with HIS plan, which is actually a watered-down version of Hillary’s.

Here are two cites for you.

Better get a grip sister: you have NO idea what you are talking about this time!

Peace.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeech2/a/ ClintonKatrina.htm

http://www.dailykingfish.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=470

I’m sure that Hillary will be able to find a way to be in two places at once whle your darling Barack Obama will be busily pursuing the path to the presidency alone.

He mustn’t be criticized for doing so because that is what The Ring wants. His oblique war support is fair, Hillary’s is not. His ‘Xeroxing’ is OK but hers is not. That is the power of The Ring.

Then there is the harassment of Smiley’s Family and the death threats against him. So that is the way The Ring really works, huh? Did you have anything to say to Smiley or his family, cyrena?

Yeah...it’s a no brainer. Even Sharpton figured it out, according to the lib here.

But, it seems pretty obvious to most folks. There’s a primary in Texas on March 4th. Did ya’ll know that?

I suspect that’s why he’s there, and not in New Orleans.

How does standard reason and logic turn into justification or ‘rationale’ Maani?

Talk about disingenuous language. You beat everybody!!

Still, I’m glad you’ve temporarily stopped accusing everybody in the world of being a Hillary basher. That’s a relief. It was getting sooo OLD!

I found the article from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, that you’d mentioned yesterday. The piece revealing the fact that the Secret Service had requested a LAX security for Obama in Texas. So, here’s the link to that.

(Remember that one piece was taken down with the SS disclaimer).

Police Concerned About Order to Stop Screening
By Jack Douglas Jr.
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022208E.shtml

What the H*** does this have to do with Robinson’s valid and interesting question?  Who give’s a $#** about citric acid versus whether Clinton should be dropping from the Presidential race?

Always someone as grinding some ax for what they are interested in.

When are the “It’s a Zionist plot!” tin-foil hatters going to leap in?

Funny you mentioned this DC. Because...I was just thinking about this last night, after reading Doc- know-it-all’s comments.

And, the longer I thought, and even got up to search, I could not find a SINGLE SOLITARY TIME that Hillary Clinton has been to New Orleans since Katrina.

Now, please feel free, (anybody) to point out where I may have missed a visit to New Orleans, by Hillary Clinton, in the aftermath of Katrina, OR ANY TIME SINCE.

I already know that Barack Obama has been there a number of times, and so that’s not what this is about. I’m just interested in knowing if Hillary Clinton has ever been there, IN RESPONSE to the accute needs of the people there.

NO. NOT for Mardi Gras, which is what has just finished up down there, and I would have been REALLY PISSED if Obama was jacking around in a destroyed New Orleans for a pretend Mardi Gras that can never happen again, until that city is restored. Obama needs to be working on his campaign in Texas and Ohio.

If Hillary wants to FINALLY go to New Orleans after at least appearing to totally ignore the place until the primaries heated up, I have no troubles with that. Actually, it pretty much confirms what we already know. It confirms why Hillary LOST all of these states. She ignored these people until the last minute, and sometimes, didn’t bother at all. So, let her tear her happy ass on down there, and see what she promises to do for them. Nobody seemed to much care when they bulldozed an entire neighborhood last month, even though it was livable, and could be renovated easily enough.

Meantime, Obama HAS been there on numerous occasions, and has worked directly with the local people, including Bill Quigley, who has been the primary lifesaver for that community. Yeah, Bill Quiglely..just an average white guy human rights attorney. The people of New Orleans are overwhelmingly grateful to him, and he’s done an enormous amount of good for them.

I don’t know where Hillary was, but she and her supporters are becoming increasingly desperate. I hate that. Desperate people do such desperate things.

For now however, Obama has other work to do. Bill can hold down the fort, (or hold it up) along with the ever present volunteers. Still not sure where Hillary’s been.

Well, yes, lets just bypass our rights for a fair election.  Thats how you Obamaites are going to be??
We’ll do it just cause you want to, no one has rights but you???  Sounds very much like the people we are trying to get out of office.  LAWLESSNESS ? Part of the BUSH doctrine.

JS:

“You never responded that you received the links concerning corn and citric acid...if in your ‘research’ and talking to your scientist and nutritionist friends, no one thought to look at Wikipedia or do a simple search on Google for ‘citric acid and corn,’ it certainly calls into question your research techniques.  If this is the case, should we all take your political comments seriously?”

First, no matter my lack of response to the citric acid issue, the last line of the above does not even merit a response.

As for the citric acid issue, I actually did quite a bit of research after reading your post.  Here is what I found.

Even today, only about half the citric acid used as an additive in various foods is derived from corn; most is still derived from sugar cane and sugar beets.

As well, the percentage of corn-derived citric acid is diminishing rapidly as (i) the use of corn for ethanol and other derivatives becomes more lucrative, and (ii) the subsequent reduction of food corn requires more corn to be kept aside.  These two factors have caused not one but two increases in the price of citric acid over the past year - price increases that the market is having major difficulty absorbing.

Indeed, the three largest U.S. producers of corn-derived citric acid (ADM, Staley, Cargill) are slowly but surely moving out of the citric acid business.  ADM closed one of its largest citric acid producing facilities (in Ireland), and Staley closed its second largest plant (in Mexico).  As well, two of Europe’s largest corn-derived citric acid producers (Solaris, Aktiva) also closed plants in India and the Czech Republic, respectively.  Even China, which only got into the citric acid market fairly recently, is rethinking its investment in that business, and has closed at least one plant.

So, yes, citric acid can be derived from corn, and for the past two decades or so, the percentage derived from corn grew from 10% to almost 50%.  But the use of corn-derived citric acid is decreasing rapidly, and may sink back to 15%-25% (or less) within the next few years.

Peace.

Sharpton gave a speech few minutes ago coming down on Hillary. His quote “we need to make them responsible for their actions.” Said he was glad Hillary was there but Obama needed to be where he was.  So the way I get it everyone needs to be responsible EXCEPT Obama.  Obama also repeated at the debate that clintons former campaign manager says Obama health insurance plan is the best.  Fact check has now said twice untrue.  No one is holding him to the fire.

Maani,

You never responded that you received the links concerning corn and citric acid...if in your “research” and talking to your scientist and nutritionist friends, no one thought to look at Wikipedia or do a simple search on Google for “citric acid and corn”, it certainly calls into question your research techniques.  If this is the case, should we all take your political comments seriously?

It’s not certain, but highly probable that Obama will be the nominee.

Clinton supporters will attack him, Obama supporters will attack Clinton, but no one will get down to the nitty-gritty.

Clinton is down to her last throw of the dice. She MUST win Ohio and Texas. Period.  Plus, she really needs to win them decisively to have a chance.  If she splits or barely wins both, she should drop out and concede.

I personally prefer Clinton to Obama for lots of reasons, but I easily and vastly prefer Obama to McCain--that’s a no-brainer.  Obama is a FAR better candidate than John Kerry ever was.

But what Clinton needs is something to fire people up, to say “Yeah, she really gets it!” in a way that catches those who were preferring Obama.  But that’s not there.  And it needs to be something that isn’t about Obama, but about what we can expect, besides “I’m ready on Day 1!” Ready? And do what with it?

If either of them commits fully and clearly to undoing the attacks on our freedoms by George Bush, that person should be the nominee.  I think it needs to be a cornerstone--making the Presidency be, again, what it was intended to be.  To steel-plate the nation against another attempt to create a Fascist dictatorship.

To stand up and say “George Bush’s worst crime is attacking our freedoms and I WILL reverse that!”

Without something that bold and brave to SHOW she’s not just a politician, I think Clinton is finished.

And so be it.

Obama is all mobbed up. No wsy. You will be freaking out when he is in office. He is part of the Bilderger-Trilateral Commission-CFR axis.

People in Texas and Ohio can still vote for him if he is in New Orleans - but he has taken the view that “I wanna be president” is more important than a few good-fer-nuthin’ blacks in Louisiana.

They are supposed to trust him to do what is best for them while he turns his back on them and sacrifices their interests for his own gain. This is change?

Yes you can, Obama.......

Doug:

I noticed this too, and had the same reaction.

But, of course, as usual, the Obama supporters here will find some justification or rationale for his decision.

Peace.

JS:

“‘His abilities in the wrong person, could be more dangerous than Bush.’ I was just thinking about that yesterday; I always figured that when we got a politician who could bring 20,000 to a rally it would end with the participants beating up whichever scapegoat the politician railed against and destroying their homes and shops.”

Well, I don’t know about beating up scapegoats or destroying homes and shops, but it has not escaped my notice that supported of a candidate who talks constantly of inclusion, tolerance and not demonizing others have become intolerant and demonizing of Hillary and her supporters.  In fact, it is clear to me that a portion of the Obama movement has moved beyond the control of Obama and his campaign staff, and are, at least figurately, “beating up scapegoats” and “destroying homes and shops.”

Peace.

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, February 22: “I’m beginning to hold out hope that Obama is as big or bigger a liar than all the rest.... go down to Fucking New Orleans and do something substantive and sustained to help those poor Americans get their lives back...”

By cyrena, February 22: “...and I actually do believe that this is probably ‘the plan’ once Obama gets into office...”

Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union - NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN: “The annual State of the Black Union forum boasts a number of famous names as it gets under way in New Orleans, but this year’s event is getting much more attention for who won’t be there......” http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/ index.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton was the only major presidential candidate to accept an invitation to attend the annual State of the Black Union forum. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, declined saying that he needed to focus on his presidential run in Ohio and Texas.

Having won their primary, he is now showing that he couldn’t give a damn about African-Americans or anyone else and their problems in New Orleans after Katrina. And organizer Tavis Smiley has received death threats for criticizing Obama over not attending. So much for The Ring’s supporters, uhh.

Max:

Although you seem to dislike both candidates equally, I want to thank you for this post.  A couple of comments.

“Obama says the Iraq invasion/occupation was a bad idea. But he is not against invasion and occupation.”

True.  In fact, he has talked about invading Pakistan unilaterally, where Hillary has not.  And even if we accept Obama’s claim that he is only against “stupid wars” (like Iraq), then how to explain the fact that he voted to fund that “stupid war” each time funding was brought up.

“Do you know where these candidates stand on nuclear energy?”

For all of Obama’s rhetoric about reining in the nuclear industry, he took more money from the energy industry than Hillary did (in fact, more than any candidate in either party).  So why do Obama’s supporters think he will be any less beholden to his corporate benefactors than Hillary will be to hers?

“Do you really think Obama has a real comprehensive plan for universal health care? Or is it a continuation of insurance based privatization not unlike what we have only tweaked a bit?”

There is no question that Hillary’s plan is closer to true universal health care than Obama’s.  As well, according to Jonathan Gruber of MIT (who is one of America’s leading health care experts(, Hillary’s plan would cost FAR less to implement: $2,700 per newly insured person, as opposed to $4,400 for each newly insured person under Obama’s plan.

“Obama may make you shiver and shake. But kiddo, I’ve seen enough of this medicene man act to tell you it just aint so...But hey, you’re a believer, facts be damned!”

I have also seen enough used car/snake oil salesmen to agree with you (though I readily admit Obama is not nearly as unctuous).  And as for facts, many of the Obama supporters have a classic mindset: “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Peace.

Cyrena:

You are being highly disingenous in arguing semantics re Obama’s “insider” status.  He is, in every real, political sense of the word, an insider.  To suggest otherwise is to mangle the language, to say nothing of the intent of the speaker.

Re “the concept of “Yes You Can” rings far, far, far better than “No You Cannot”...It’s human nature to focus on what we CAN do/accomplish/achieve/etc as opposed to what we CANNOT. When people are suffering, it takes on even more meaning. The social psychology of the human condition suggests that an individual or a collection of individuals, will do whatever it takes to escape suffering, especially if they KNOW of a different (non-suffering) existence...In short, in a more balanced existence, where more are empowered, there is likely to be less suffering and need.”

You have just gone a long way to proving the point that many Hillary supporters (and Obama non-supporters) have been making: that his campaign is largely about the “social psychology” involved in creating a mass movement around such ephemeral and non-substantive concepts as “hope.” That is, he is “taking advantage” (I am using that term loosely) of the fact that he knows that people are “suffering,” so he knows how much more such “powerful” rhetoric as “Yes We Can” will resonate - even if that rhetoric has little substance behind it.  Or, even if there IS substance, that such substance is little different from that of his opponent; i.e., that they BOTH offer “change” (and mostly identically) from the “suffering” caused by seven years of Bush policies.

Obama is essentially “taking advantage” of the “human condition” by offering platitudes (okay, there are policies behind the platitudes, but little different from Hillary’s, and no more guaranteed to be implemented) that he knows will resonate - but does NOT know whether he can, in fact, implement.

Finally, I repeat again that, while he deserves much credit for getting people involved in the political process, the reality is that “we” is also an empty platitude: once a person become president, there is no more “we”: the president makes the decisions; he is not going to call you up and say, “Ney, Cyrena, it’s Barack.  Listen, I’m thinking of doing this or that, and I really wanted to get your input.” Please.

So, no, it is not “critical thinking.” It is acting out of a Pavlovian “pack psychology” each time they hear the “hope” bell.

Peace.

Aegrus:

“[I]f you cannot see the fundamental difference between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, I just don’t know what to say. One is trying to pretend she is a savior, and the other is trying to inspire us to save ourselves. It all cames down to this difference.”

Wow!  Talk about a complete 180 from the truth!  you are calling HILLARY the “savior?” It is not Hillary’s camp that uses religious language in talking about their campaign and its leader.  OBAMA is the one whose supporters see him as some kind of second-coming-of-Christ savior.

However, the entire concept of “savior” and “saving ourselves” is misplaced in politics - in fact, it is dangerous, since it conflates politics and religion in a particularly disingenuous way.

Indeed, I find the religious rhetoric of Obama and his supporters a complete turn-OFF, while the lack thereof is one of the reasons I am supporting Hillary: I am not looking for a “savior” (I already have one...LOL); I am looking for a savvy, knowledgeable, experienced, and yes, even wonk-ish leader who knows how to get things done.

If people want a “savior,” they should try visiting their local church.

Peace.

Louise:

Re the Obama article: but didn’t you read the comment by the police?: “the crowd seemed friendly.”

Sure.  And I’m sure Sirhan Sirhan seemed “friendly” when he walked into the hotel…

Peace.

Non Credo:

Uh, not quite.  Hillary came out against Bush’s saber-rattling against Iran BEFORE Obama did - and quite vocally.

As for “AIPAC bootlickers,” Obama is no less than Hillary - or didn’t you read his speech to AIPAC?  In fact, his speech was MORE pandering to Israel than Hillary’s.

You might want to actually read these things and do some homework before you make insupportable statements like that.

Peace.

pbr:

MMC, Johnny Smith and Cyrena are reading the opensecrets info incorrectly.  Yes, it lists almost all the money brought in as “individual contributions.” However, if you look at Hillary’s numbers, they are exactly the same; i.e., almost all the money she raised is ALSO listed as “individual contributions” (at least until the $5 million loan).

However, what it does NOT explain is that “individual contributions” also includes the “bundling” of contributions from various businesses and industries.  For example, Obama took in over $9.7 million from lawyers and law firms, $5.4 million from investment and security firms, $2.8 million from the real estate industry, etc.  [N.B.  Hillary’s number are slightly higher on these three.] Obama has also taken more from the energy industry than any other candidate.

As well, the highest personal contribution permitted in this election cycle is $10,000, not the “few dollars” that most people think.  Thus, of the amounts raised by Obama and Hillary, many of the “individual contributions” were between $5,000 and $10,000.

Obviously, this still means that the majority of the money raised by BOTH Obama and Hillary came from small contributors like MMC.  But you are correct: it is absurd to suggest that either candidate raised $125 million from $5, $25 and $100 contibutions.

Peace.

^ JPS, I’d never heard of Saul Alinsky, so you taught me something tonight (here), thanks for that.  I looked him up, and I agree.

How do you stop the future from coming?  The Clintons are standing in the middle of the tracks with a locomotive coming.  Can’t anyone on their staff tell them to get out of the way?  Their time has passed them by.

Hey, good one, Expat.  “His abilities in the wrong person, could be more dangerous than Bush.” I was just thinking about that yesterday; i always figured that when we got a politician who could bring 20,000 to a rally it would end with the participants beating up whichever scapegoat the politician railed against and destroying their homes and shops.

There are some who believe that he is simply applying the techniques of community organization at a national level (particularly the techniques of Saul Alinsky).  If that is the case, it explains why he felt that now was the time to do it.

^ history and Obama has little/none.  Hillary is/has baggage, while Obama’s is not evident.  Hillary is a known and Obama is an unknown with a yet to be identified future, full of hope and possibilities.  We are starved of hope and seek escape from the terror of despotism.  With his oratory abilities and soaring eloquence; how can Obama not be bigger than life?  His abilities in the wrong person, could be more dangerous than Bush.  That said, my feeling is, he is just what this country needs and at the right time.

Eugene:

“Wasn’t he concerned that Republican John McCain has such a head start in unifying his party and plotting his general election campaign?”

**Are you talking about the “unifying” of crooks, liars, pedophiles and the sexually dysfunctional...? I challenge you, try that..
Without cheating (that’s the caveat), I guarantee McCain DESERVES the presidency if THAT’S attainable.

“change, hope, empowerment—Clinton’s pollster-guru, Mark Penn, responded with slogan after slogan that sought to marry the words “change” or “hope” with Clinton’s basic theme of “experience.” Slogans had always worked in the past; surely they would work again.”

**C’mon Eugene, you know those are “JUST WORDS”, the American people are a bunch of sloughs...they don’t care...just check out the Heritage Foundation, they’ll put you “on the RIGHT track”.  Hey, slogans are great, that’s why we Americans are more than enamored to buy from ANY monopoly available.

“the battle-tested Clinton machine allowed itself to be outsmarted and outhustled at the arcane science of winning delegates in caucuses. And it’s even more surprising that the campaign has been so careless with its money that it now is resigned to being outspent anywhere and everywhere.”

**I have to concede...it really does make one wonder who’s side who is on…

“the campaign still can’t settle on what kind of candidate Hillary Clinton should be.”

** Clinton had at least a viable chance being who she really is, without that...she couldn’t compete.  Personally, I don’t doubt Clinton has the moxie, it’s just that she’s allowed herself to be part of the machine.

“ Bill Clinton, whose ham-fisted intervention”

**Bill Clinton....ham fisted...."surely you jest”.
Whatever would make you say that?

“Yes, we’re dealing with Hillary Clinton, whose picture ought to be in the dictionary beside the word resilient.”

** On that note..I’ll stop, cause that’s a fact.

Dr Knowitall, Phd, Phd:
“I’m beginning to hold out hope that Obama is as big or bigger a liar than all the rest--except that, once in, he’ll advocate for the middle and lower classes instead of for the “special interests.” This is what I urged Kucinich to do but, alas, he was too principled.  You’ve got to fight fire with fire.”

My sentiments exactly.  Kucinich needs to be in this next administration.  He IS a driving force for change and the paradigm shift so desperately required.  The next administration will not reflect the will of the people if he is not. If he isn’t, I sense a travesty of MONUMENTAL error regarding not only domestic but current world affairs.

Max Shields writes:

• “Anyone who thinks there’s a substantive choice between Obama and Hillary needs to explain that. To date, I see no evidence of it. I suspect the followers of Obama are quite young, or have not followed world events too much, or have lost (never had any?) any application critical thinking.”

Just as an ‘FYI’ Max. I’m not young. (age 55) and I am very much a ‘critical thinker’. (some would even say a ‘cynic”, while a prefer ‘skeptic’) And, as a scholar, I have very closely followed world events.

I also know that as important as history may be, the future is NOT ‘pre-determined’. So yes, I believe that we have the power to change things, and to take part in our own salvation. As a matter of fact, it’s the ONLY way we even stand a chance to survive. That seems like real old wisdom to me. In short, if we wanna get something done, we’ve gotta do it ourselves.

There are other versions of that, which take on a bias, dependent upon the messager. I have a friend who likes to say; “If you wanna get something done RIGHT, get a woman to do it!” Oftentimes, that happens to be true. I’m more inclined to look beyond those identifiers though, (beyond the ‘packaging’) to see how the thing/person is likely to work. What’s in the big print, as well as the fine print.

So, that’s the ‘difference’ and it’s a big difference, between the candidates. Aegrus, has explained it below, so I needn’t re-do the work.

You are wrong of course; about Obama being an ‘insider’ in the sense that Hillary is an ‘insider’. That too, is a major difference. Ironic that anyone can read through these blogs, and comments, and NOT know that most folks (including those that hate Obama with a passion) don’t see him as an ‘insider’ and use that of course as the reason for their ‘hate’. They just call it something else…’experience’.

So, there’s an ironic twist to that paradox, depending I suppose, on what one calls an ‘insider’. The fact that Barack Obama is NOT an ‘insider’ is at least one of the main reasons for his popular support. Far too many Americans have been kicked out of the ‘haves’ group, and into the ‘have-nots’. It stands to reason and logic, (even among cynic and skeptics) that if somebody, anybody, (in this case, Barack Obama) comes along and attempts to organize that increasing number of the ‘have nots’, to the purpose of ‘having again’ or believing that we CAN in fact, have a stake in our own survival, and not just be dummies marching off to extermination, she or he is going to get some support. Those who would fail to exercise the critical thinking involved in analyzing simple language, may be the one who are missing out.

For instance, the concept of “Yes You Can” rings far, far, far better than “No You Cannot”. In legal theory, it’s called Legal Positivism; anything is ‘allowable’ unless it is specifically prohibited. It’s human nature to focus on what we CAN do/accomplish/achieve/etc as opposed to what we CANNOT. When people are suffering, it takes on even more meaning. The social psychology of the human condition suggests that an individual or a collection of individuals, will do whatever it takes to escape suffering, especially if they KNOW of a different (non-suffering) existence. One cannot reasonably expect that in a society where the “haves” can be seen in FULL VIEW by the ‘have nots’ that the ‘have nots’ wouldn’t recognize that they’re suffering doesn’t ‘have to be’. In short, in a more balanced existence, where more are empowered, there is likely to be less suffering and need. We CAN figure that out.

THAT is ‘critical thinking’, and I’ve probably mentioned before, we the people are smarter than we might look.