BS: Recipe for disaster?

Subject: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:44 PM

US voting patterns published in today's Sunday Times make disturbing reading.

Black voters went 95% to 4% Obama.

Hispanics went 67% to 31% Obama.

Whites went 55% to 43% McCain.

The population of the US is composed of, 65% white, 13% black, 15% hispanic, 7% other.

Is the claim that the election of Mr Obama will solve the "race problem" in America spurious?.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:57 PM

It depends. How much progress would we have made toward solving the race problem if Obama had not been elected?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:01 PM

Shouldn't that be:

Non-Hispanic "white" 65%
Non-Hispanic "black" 13%
Hispanic ("white" and "black") 15%
other 7%

Put it that way, and it seems quite likely that in fact more "white" voters will have backed Obama than will have backed McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:05 PM

Obama got a higher percentage of the white vote than any Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:07 PM

The numbers and presentation in Ake's initial post look quite reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:09 PM

Given these figures Jim, the election of Mr Obama may prove to have exacerbated the problem in the long term, especially if we are heading into a very deep recession with all the social and financial problems which will accompany it...

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:10 PM

ake, you're just borrowing trouble. Forget about it. Go worry about something that needs to be worried about. This isn't one of them.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:16 PM

Also, given the black voting figures and if things start to get tough, wont Mr Obama be wrongly perceived as a "black" president, when in fact he will continue to be a "corporate" politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:17 PM

Doesn't "recipe for disaster" seem a little hyperbolic? It's far from obvious how those statistics imply some kind of forthcoming "disaster" ...

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:26 PM

Race is just one factor but becoming less important all the time; "solve" is rhetoric. Other factors were important and, I think, decisive.

The shift of Hispanic voters to Obama engineered largely by the efforts of Bill Richardson.
The broad dislike of Bush, among all but the most faithful of his supporters. These supporters in general were older, many not immediately affected by the downturn in the economy (house paid for, some savings, etc.). McCain could not remove the Bush burden from his shoulders.
The desire for change, although no clear policies were outlined by either party.
The banking failures. The party in power is blamed although the syndrome is international, and has been building for some years.
Global, not just U. S. action, is necessary to keep jobs, loans, growth going. World economies have become interdependent and close cooperation is necessary.

Just 53% of voters supported the Democratic party. If the economy is not seen to have stabilized or improved in the next four years, there will be a drop in support.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:32 PM

He got more than half of the White vote. That's enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:59 PM

You know, Ake, as has been intimated above, the voter numbers in America rarely speak truly in specific cases. I don't know how it is in Scotland- 99.9%White? - but one of the strengths of the US culture, imo, is our diversity. If one takes the specifics apart it is bewildering, no doubt, especially to people at a distance. But except for the occasional disaster we seem to muddle through.

My feeling is that most people in the US currently are living in a state of relief. And hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 03:06 PM

People in America have not been this optimistic for a long, long time, in spite of the state of the economy.

So, in the words of John Prine:

listen up Buster, and listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM

Why has the election of a right of centre corporate lawyer induced this state of euphoria Alice?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:07 PM

Maybe because he has woken up a part of the electorate, the young and black voters, who, in the past, did not see much point in voting for what could be considered to be establishment figures.

Maybe because he is articulate and intelligent, but with enough humanity to come across being closer to being 'one of us' than any of the usual suspects.

Maybe because we have got rid of Bush and have not put a Bush clone in his place.

Maybe because this man talks about helping the middle classes directly, rather than spouting on about trickle down policies that certainly don't seem to have worked up to now.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:10 PM

Hi Ebbie! In fact, Scottish society is quite ethnically diverse.

We have many large, established, Asian communities, also immigrants from central and Eastern Europe who have arrived over the last few years.

There are Italian and Chinese communities in most cities.

Race is not an issue in Scotland,but religious sectarianism is.
There are Scots who would have no problem voting for a Muslim, but who would rather die than give their vote to a Catholic

With the number of guns in circulation in the US, I would think a white conservative backlash to be a distinct possibility, if we enter a lengthy recession.
The black voting pattern combined with the support of American "liberals" must add to the toxicity of the mix...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:14 PM

Holy fuck! Are you people serious? You vote by secret ballot (I thought), but this is the second thread I read wherein someone quotes what "faction" voted which way.

I think this is sickening. I am truly troubled by this. Am I the only one?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:20 PM

jacqui summed it up

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:24 PM

Jacqui....I would be mightily more impressed by Mr Obama if he gave a little consideration to helping the lower class!
But of course that would not be within his Democratic remit.
The past election has been a triumph for the "liberal" media.
The effects of his presidency on America and the wider world will not become apparent for some time.
If there are riots and civil unrest in the future, they will not be about the condition of the underprivileged in American society, but rather the old sores of race and power....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:28 PM

The media poundits, Gnu, rely a great deal on 'exit polls'. There have been times when they were not reliable- for whatever reason, whether. That is one way that a 'faction' can be identified. Another would be when a certain district is heavily Chinese or Black or whatever distinct population predominates.

Otherwise, I have to say that it mystifies me too- and bothers me.

It remains to be seen what the end result will be of having a self-identified Afican-American (Kenyan-Kansan?) at the helm if conditions in the US or global economy go really bad. My sense of it - and my hope - is that tbe farther along we go, the less the President's color will matter. We already had a taste of it, imo, the other day when he held his first press conference. His color mattered not a whit; the man is articulate, well spoken and easy to listen to. SO different from the clown that has been in the office for so long. This is an intelligent, thoughtful man.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:41 PM

Ebbie said, "This is an intelligent, thoughtful man."

There ya go.

Enough with the bullshit. Time to join arm in arm and get to work. Like I asked... are you people serious?... or intelligent and thoughtful?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 04:50 PM

Ake, you sound like you are living on your own angry planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:19 PM

People weren't just voting on the basis of the colour of the candidate, either in this election or previous ones.

The proportion of votes for Obama in all those categories - Non-Hispanic "white", Non-Hispanic "black", Hispanic ("white" and "black") and Other - was higher than it had been for Gore or Kerry.   

And both those candidates, though white as they come, also got the overwhelming majority of Non-Hispanic Black voters - the proportion of those votes that Obama got was not all that much higher.

There are no grounds for assuming that race was the main reason why a significant proportion of Non-Hispanic "white" voters continued to support the Republican candidate. And while Obama's "race" may have been an additional motivating factor for many people, there is no evidence that it was a major reason for the shift in voting patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:38 PM

We're talkin' about middle American perceptions here McGrath, the Bush administration had become so unpopular that someone on another thread was moved to say that "if Obama was white the Dems would be 20 percentage points ahead."

The "liberal" media got behind him when they realised there could be "months of milage in this one" the first "black" president

Remember the Blair honeymoon? How many years did it take before everyone realised what he was?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:47 PM

So if Obama did turn out to be a disastrous president there'll be people who'll say that's because he's not "white"? I imagine they'd be giving plenty of other reasons.

I mean people didn't slag off Tony Blair because he was Scottish.

"We're talkin' about middle American perceptions here" I'm not sure we are. Surely we're talking about perceptions about middle American perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Bert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:59 PM

Solving the race problem!!!

It won't happen in one generation. There are too many rednecks out there and too many blacks with chips on their shoulders. Also there are many blacks who adopt a servile attitude when dealing with us Honkeys (I have a dear friend who does that and it makes me cringe every time I meet him. Now that we have a black president, I think I'll talk to him and tell him that he can be himself now.).

Let's hope that Obama puts a lot of effort into resolving these issues. He will have some success with the blacks but I can't see that he will make much of an impression on the rednecks.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 06:05 PM

Ake, I live in a state so scarlet it makes blood blush. Gun sales are up -- so in unemployment.

But everyone, or almost every because I have to discount the 1% or less lunatic fringe, has a "wait and see" attitude.

There will be no race war. Perhaps a class conflict, but race...nah.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 06:07 PM

""Surely we're talking about perceptions about middle American perceptions. "

Very droll Mr McGrath......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 06:13 PM

Alice...I thought you "liberal" Dems appreciated intelligent thoughtful men.....or is it just the ones who correspond to your point of view?....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 06:17 PM

Yes Rap, they'll wait...till the jobs go...till the banks repossess the house..... THEN we'll SEE.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 06:28 PM

Ake, imagine Jude's Glaswegian accent,when I tell you that you are being a fookin' idjit and to stop! And, what's with this "we" shite? Do you no live in Scotland, anymar?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 06:58 PM

On Meet the Press today, Tom Brokaw said that now more than since 1960, people were coming up to him telling him they want to get involved. People now do feel invited "in", to get involved in creating the future of our country.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:15 PM

Somebody called Obama, I think, a "right of centre corporate lawyer". Must be a Brit, by the spelling. He is "right" only by reference to an electorate that has a real socialist or left-wing party, which the US does not. The US also does not have a real right-wing party, although it certainly has its fair share of single-issue fringies. And, BTW, what corporation did he ever work for?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:17 PM

IMO, there is NO race problem in the USA. There is an idiot problem. The idiots are dying out.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:21 PM

Ake: "Right of center"? Anyone who thinks Obama ran "right of center" needs to buy a new compass. While we are about it, Ake, would you please define "corporate politician"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM

I get the distinct impression that most Americans now have a feeling that the USA finally HAS a future.

I don't think many dared to consider the future while it depended on the somewhat limited ability of the previous incumbent.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:36 PM

Ake, dude, your data is cooked and your mind is on making bad hash. Get off this shtick.

Obama has more than enough attention on the lower class. I f you bother'd reading his platforms and his tax porposals you would recognize that. Furthermore, he is no corporate lawyer, but a law professor, and Senator, and community organizer. Your pulling all this black smoke out of your own troubled subconscious, but it is not intelligent or thoughtful.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:59 PM

I think some confusion may be caused by the constant use of the term term "middle class" in Obama's speeches. I believe this doesn't mean quite the same thing in the USA as it does in the UK. Or at least it hasn't got the same overtones.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 08:08 PM

No, it doesn't mean the same thing. We are apples and oranges. Even on Mudcat we've often discussed how language in the UK and the US is different, and the way we use the word "middle class" is an example.

We are supposed to be a classless society. But instead of middle income, people have the habit of saying middle class. The label does not even have a clear definition.

This quote is from the Wikipedia page on "American middle class".

"Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. Ah yes, there's a group of people bound to run into each other while house-hunting.
—Dante Chinn"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:59 PM

Very true, Alice. I think that we have (at least according to how we think of ourselves) people on welfare (and you'd better not call them lower class!!), the middle class and the wealthy. The vast majority of hourly workers consider themselves to be firmly in the middle class.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 10:23 PM

Gnu Re Factions-

It is very easy to figure out from the detailed vote breakdowns compared against detailed demographics. Individual ballots are secret, but put together by voting precinct and district, the story is there, and this information is on record.

Donations are public, so if one has contributed to a candidate, the name of the candidate, the name of the donor, the amount, zipcode, street address all appear on maps that one can search.

For an example, I set Albuquerque, postal code 87124, to see the pattern there. 46 people donated $20823 to Republican candidates. 123 people gave $124,974 to Democrats (mostly Hillary and Bill Richardson).
A few of the donors in the code area-
Don Chalmers, (auto dealer)- $12500 to DNC
Celina Sandoval (homemaker)- $2300 to Hillary
Robert Sandoval (Atty.)- $2300 to Bill Richardson
James Jimenez- $2300 to Bill Richardson (The occupations are all there, but I won't cite them)
Dave Patterson- $1100 to Republican NC
Etc. Occupations and usu. the institution worked for are all there.

Examples at the other end-
Cizan Patsy, (homemaker)- $3 to G. W. Bush
Victor Read, (retired)- $60 to RNC

See fundrace; http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php
This site was pointed out in another thread, but I've forgotten which.
The sites on which this Huffington Post synthesis is based can be determined through Google, but it takes effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:53 AM

I have been advised by a very dear friend, that rational discussion is impossible on this issue.
Many of the Christian right, appear to have defected to the Dems, and view Mr Obama's election as the "second coming".

Kat...Aye ah dae bide in Scotland, but perhaps you may have noticed that the actions of an American Govt have a habit of impacting on this side of the Atlantic, for example finance and war.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 09:08 AM

I am a rural southern white male age 36. I voted for Obama and I am proud of my vote. Demographically (according to the news channels) I would have voted for Mcain. My state and county did go for Mcain. Race never entered my mind. I think race would not have played as big of a factor period if the media would have let it die. The media is now constantly pushing race race race and it disturbs me greatly. They are fanning the flames of some serious issues. I know sensationalism is the rule in American journalism anymore but this makes me sick. They are fueling the fear that could erupt into something bad. Obama is a good man and a (I hope) will be a great President. Now in that statement I didn't say African American I said man. I refuse to say African American because he is a man not a label. There is no need to point out his ethnicity because he is a man period. I am scared though that the constant reminder of his ethnicity by the media is going to ingnite more racial tension than we have seen in years. If the media would let it go I feel th whole race issue would go with it. America has progressed dramatically regarding the issue of racial inequality. In some ways we haven't progressed that much. Electing an African American president is a big step. Reminding everyone every few minutes he is African American is not a step at all. A true step would be not mentioning it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 09:23 AM

Well, Jayto, I myself am pretty tired of European-American who's currently President. I myself am Viking-American and my wife is Irish-American with a touch of Alsace-American. We have a friend who is Chinese-Canadian-American, but since he plays the piobrach you really have to forgive him. And I have a friend who is Indian-American, his name is Greg Standing Horse and he considers himself to actually be a Miniconjou-American. Hugh, of course, is Japanese-American and Kathy, my #2 at work, is a Rancher-American. Andy, who is on my Board, has the same problem I do: his ancestry is Mexican-American (like Dave, who is also on the Board), but we all consider ourselves to be "American". Even the piobracher, only he wants his family tartan: a golden dragon on a red silk kilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: kendall
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 09:29 AM

He is no more black than white. He is of mixed race, and he refers to himself as a "Mutt".

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 09:47 AM

When you come right down to it, we're ALL mutts.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:27 AM

When one talks of the "race" of public figures, it's too easy to get confused among at least three separate considerations:

1. On the surface, we SEEM to be speaking of the presumed source of the biological stock of the individual.   BUT

2. We might be speaking of things like relative skin color, or certain physical characteristics like nose shape or lip shape. OR

3. We may referring to perceived membership in "black culture", as divined from an amorphous combination (subjectively judged) of vocabulary, accent, music preference, expressed sociopolitical views, religious approach, and on and on.

As to the first, note that there are a number of different dark-skinned biological stocks in the United States, only a certain set of which are "African-American". One clear example is "Indian-Indian/Americans", who frequently have dark skins, but don't share the other physical characteristics in the second category.

Indeed, some in the African-American community had the quibble as to Obama that, while he had African roots on one side, his descent doesn't come down through the slavery experience in the US.

As to the first category (as has been observed by previous posters), Obama is just as white as he is black.

As to the physical characteristics, set 2, his features do not particularly declare him as "black" or "African-American", with the exception of his relatively light complexion.

As to the third set, his speech and his education certainly don't suggest putting him in the "black" group. His religious affiliation, of course, would tend to put him in the black culture. I don't have any idea as to his music preferences. His expressed political positions seem to put him right in the middle of the general US culture, it seems to me. He does, of course, express some particular identification with African-Americans, which I think is to be expected. Here again, some in that community think that he is much too mild in that identification/expression.

As someone remarked above, I think that, after Obama takes office and has been at the business of governing for a while, the "race" will fade to where it belongs--insignificance.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:35 AM

Well said both Dave and Rapaire. I don't care about any heritage I just hope the best for Obama and our country. I am trying to contain it but I am jumping up and down that he won :) I hope the whole race talk dies away quickly I am sick of hearing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:46 AM

I'm concerned about the misinformation that has been reported about Obama in the UK, if Ake calls him "corporate". You have some very bad propaganda going on over there if that's the impression the reporting has given you.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:01 PM

The idiots are dying out.

But not half fast enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:15 PM

And this sort of artificial problem is like throwing old kerosene on a dying fire.

If you want to know what a recipe for disaster is, it might start with investing executive power in people unaware of theior own history, uncomfortable with their own laws, devoid of principles, and committed to crony-support as the greatest good within their reach. Add a "base" of half-mad myth-minded theocrats and you have a recipe for serious disorder and the beginning of serious corruption. Add a power circle of high-dollar lobbyists backed by deep-pocker corporations with absolutely no governing sense of public ethics, driven only by the rancid smell of the trough into buck frenzy, and you have the collapse of empire and the ruination of a republic.

Well begun, wouldn't you say???

As for "rational discussion", if you will try to find and cleave to factual statements as premises for a dialogue, it would be a good start.

Obama's election is the first spark of possibility we have seen here in recent years of turning around the disaster already chewing away at the entrails of the republic. It is the possible cure, not the actual disease. To understand that, you have to be really clear about what the disaster actually is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:21 PM

"I don't care about any heritage" That's a bit extreme on a folk music site. But I don't imagine that is quite what Jayto meant.

I fin its quite possible to avoid using the pseudo-scientific word "race". Most times if you replace it with the word "people" that serves just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:03 PM

"Many of the Christian right, appear to have defected to the Dems, and view Mr Obama's election as the "second coming"."

Oh Holy Crap - what in HELL are you smoking?? Where are you getting this mis-information?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:09 PM

I don't think akenaton imagined this!

This classic baby doll is our best-selling ladies top

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:16 PM

There's crazies everywhere. Doesn't represent the population as a whole though. I would think that item would be bought tongue in cheek by most folks - the died in the wool Christians would most likely find it sacrilegious.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:18 PM

Emma, noone in the US believes Obama is the 'second coming' . . . I imagine that t-shirt was a joke based upon the ridiculous "Is Obama the Anti-Christ" emails that circulated before the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:20 PM

it's a joke

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:23 PM

Of course it's not meant 'literally' Michael!
any more, I hope, than the number of people on mudcat who suggested a comparison between Palin as Pontius Pilate and Jesus as a 'community organizer'

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:08 PM

Despite its not being meant literally, the underlying dramatization of trying to crucify him is perfectly possible in the weird jungle of our national id.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:32 PM

Granted, but upon reflection, I'm afraid that some of the "Obama = Anti-Christ" stuff was serious!

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:39 PM

Ake, ther'e an unwritten assumption in your opening post - that those who voted for McCain did so for reasons of race (and therefore assume that it would be hard to solve the "race problem"). I have heard or read nothing anywhere to justify such an assumption.

More to the point, as has already been intimated above, this is to a large extent a vote for a "post-racial" world. Obama certainly talks and behaves that way so far.

While the majority of the posters in the thread (myself included) do not belong to the "post racial" generation and many of us have to be conscious of the prejudices of our own upbringing in order to cambat them. The future does not belong to us, thankfully, but to the generations that follow - like my daughter, who told me off for using innocently the word "ch*nky" in reference to a Chinese takeaway meal. I had to laugh, even as I cringed.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 03:55 PM

George....I think your assumption of my assumption is incorrect...as Mr McGrath would say.

The vote which is open to being questioned, is the black vote.
Not questioned by me of course, but by conservative white Americans.

BTW, I have a very good friend, who is a black from Chicago, she reckons that the expectations of black and "liberal" Americans vastly exceed what can be realistically achieved.
She also thinks that Mr Obama's inability to deliver on these expectations could be a setback to black aspirations...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:37 PM

Akenaton - You keep talking about what other people think. And none of these people have names. What do YOU think?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:54 PM

One thing I keep coming back to is that our president is elected by the people via the Electoral College. Yet in the UK you have a system where one person who wasn't elected - in this case the Queen - get to have a final veto power over the wishs of the duely elected Parliment. I know which system I would prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:59 PM

"The vote which is open to being questioned, is the black vote." Presumably the implication is that it was all about "black" people voting for a "black" candidate?

On what grounds? In 2008 the "black vote" was indeed 95% for Obama to to 4% for McCain.   But in 2004 it was 89% for Kerry and 11% for McCain.

In comparison the "white vote" (meaning the non-Hispanic "white" vote
was 43% for Obama as against 55% for McCain - compared to 2008 when it was 42% for Kerry against 57% for Bush.

For both sets of voters the proportional vote for the Democrat went up a few points, and the vote for the Republican went down. And both times it was clear that "black voters" are consistently, at this time anyway, more likely to vote Democrat than white voters are - whatever the colour of the candidate in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM

"the Queen - gets to have a final veto power over the wishes of the duly elected Parliament. "

I'm afraid you're several hundred years out of date, Wesley. The Queen does not in fact exercise any veto over Parliament. The last time a royal veto was exercised in Britain was in 1708.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 05:16 PM

The shift in Hispanics, especially in a few of the "battleground" states was much larger. On the whole, it was about 6% greater for Obama than for Kerry, but the shift was 14 percentage points (from 44% to 57% in Florida and about the same in New Mexico. "Hispanics", of course, can be any color - the distinction is cultural and linguistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 05:42 PM

But in 2004 it was 89% for Kerry and 11% for McCain.

That should of course have been

But in 2004 it was 89% for Kerry and 11% for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:12 PM

Had another look at that post of mine and noticed that wasn't the only mistake, Here's what I mean to post:

"The vote which is open to being questioned, is the black vote." Presumably the implication is that it was all about "black" people voting for a "black" candidate?

On what grounds? In 2008 the "black vote" was indeed 95% for Obama to to 4% for McCain.   But in 2004 it was 89% for Kerry and 11% for Bush.

In comparison the "white vote" (meaning the non-Hispanic "white" vote) in 2008 was 43% for Obama as against 55% for McCain - compared to 2004 when it was 42% for Kerry against 57% for Bush.

For both sets of voters the proportional vote for the Democrat went up, and the vote for the Republican went down. And both times it was clear that "black voters" are consistently, at this time anyway, more likely to vote Democrat than white voters are - whatever the colour of the candidate in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:32 PM

By world standards, Obama is definitely right of centre. For example he does not (yet?) publicly espouse a taxation funded national health service free at the point of delivery.

As for "corporate" lawyer, the normal use of that term is not to refer to an in-house lawyer but to a lawyer whose clients are mostly corporations and the subject of whose primary expertise is corporate (and financial markets and maybe tax) law. Is that not true of Obama?

As for the comparison with the Blair Trojan horse, there the issue is not that he is Scottish but that he went to Fettes.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 08:07 PM

"a lawyer whose clients are mostly corporations and the subject of whose primary expertise is corporate (and financial markets and maybe tax) law. Is that not true of Obama?"

No, that is not true of Obama.

He chose to work for a civil rights law firm.
That was a major point in his biography. He could have made more money working for corporate clients, but he chose not to.
Cases he worked on for example related to voter registration (where the ACORN connection comes which was used in attacks in the campaign), funding for minority housing, and defending a whistle-blower.

You can read more details about his rather brief career as a lawyer in this 2007 article in the Chicago Sun Times:

Click Here

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 08:07 PM

In the nine years he practiced law (ending in 2002), which included his first five years in the state legislature, he belonged to a law firm that specialized in civil rights litigation. He was also a professor of constitutional law at the same time. It is rather more likely that his cases were against corporations rather than on their behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 08:19 PM

You guys must have him mixed up with Ronald Reagan pr spmething. You're definitely typecasting the wrong guy.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 08:59 PM

Obama undoubtedly will work for a more comprehensive health insurance scheme, but any program will continue to be based largely on private insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 07:08 AM

Mr Obama is a lawyer, who will do the bidding of Corporate America,
just like every other president in modern times.

He would probably have done so anyway, but the coming recession will ensure that Mr Obama will be kept firmly in his box.

Before anyone jumps up and calls me anti American....Don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 08:21 AM

No...just silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:06 AM

Silly? Mr Brooks.

The lady who advised me, is a registered Democrat, very much darker than Mr Obama and in posession of two tickets for his inauguration.

Would you like to tell her she is silly?
Perhaps if you were a bit more aware of her political background you would not be so keen to insult her.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:16 AM

You know, Ake, it's a mighty strange phenomenon of Mudcat- no matter what the question - I mean, literallY no matter what the question - somebody pipes up with the same drivellish answers. Are you sure you're not all the sam guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:22 AM

If this hypothetical lady is saying that Senator Obama will, because he has a law degree, automatically "do the bidding of Corporate America", than she is ignorant. If she, or you, think that "Corporate America", if such an entity exists, can or will keep him in a box, you are simply foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:42 AM

Ake:

Your inside track notwithstanding, it is, IMHO, completyely inaccurate to try and capture Mr Obama's nature in such a trivialized and shallow buzz-phrase.

Corporations have to be dealt with, in government. For one thing, it is from corporations that most people gain their pay. Cut that lifeline off and you are in serious trouble.

But Isuspect your barbs are directed against the unfeeling high-level inhumane decisions which are often used to characterize large corporations with their armies of suits, funny mindless argot, and their heavy handed lobbyists.

These, too, will be part of the Washington scene which will have to be dealt with. But assuming these powers will "capture" Obama and enslave him to their wills is really meretricious and simpleminded, I am afraid.

If you have not read "The AUdacity of Hope", please do--you'll understand the man better and will find he is quite aware of the kind of traps you are so certain he will be taken in by.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:45 AM

"The lady who advised me, is a registered Democrat, very much darker than Mr Obama and in posession of two tickets for his inauguration."

Oh well then that's different - whatever she says has to be correct. Although I'm not quite sure what makes her so impeachable - her party, her darker color or the tickets to the inaguration.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 11:45 AM

If this was ten years ago, Mr Obama MAY have been able to influence American policy in a meaningful way.
Unfortunately we are about to enter the deepest recession that any of us will have experienced, brought about by the greed and stupidity of Western Capitalists.
Mr Obama is about to become the leader of Western Capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:05 PM

So. And so. And thus. And therefore.

OK. I get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:31 PM

Ake, do you think things would be better had McCain won?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:44 PM

Akenaton asserted:

Mr Obama is a lawyer, who will do the bidding of Corporate America,
just like every other president in modern times.

That statement just shows Ake's fuzzy thinking, lack of knowledge of logic, and prejudice. On examination, it is a fallacious syllogism which flows like this:

First premise:   EVERY lawyer* is crooked and willing to do the
    bidding of "Corporate America".
Second premise: Obama is a lawyer.
Conclusion:      Therefore, Obama (as president) will do the
    bidding of "Corporate America".

It mixes his prejudice against lawyers as a class with his virulence against Obama in particular. Since the first premise is clearly false even as to the class "every lawyer" (not to mention being false as to Obama, whose history makes him one of the legion of exceptions), the whole syllogism falls. *The first premise MUST refer to "every lawyer", in order for Ake's statement to fly.

The phrase "do the bidding of Corporate America" is way too vague to be the basis for a meaningful charge. What constitutes "Corporate America"? Every business which is organized as a corporation? Fortune 500 companies? The very expression "Corporate America" is a pejorative abstraction (at least as Ake uses it here), meaning that there exists a cohesive body called "Corporate America", which speaks and acts with one voice (by implication, usually if not always against the nation's interest). There is no such entity in the real world as "Corporate America". There are corporations and corporations, then there are corporations, with different interests, modes of action, and desires with regard to public and governmental action.   

Then in addition, of course, the last eight words, about "every other president in modern times", would have to be examined critically. And even if that clause were to be deemed true, it would destroy the meaning of the initial syllogism by making the first premise irrelevant.

In short, the italicized statement is merely an ill-tempered insult, carelessly issued without consideration of its own external or internal accuracy. Or possibly, (which is worse), knowingly wrongly issued.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:48 PM

The USA is a capitalist country and as such "Corporate America"
for good or ill is a fact of our political life. Every national politician, including presidents, must deal with that reality. They must to a certain degree "play ball" with "business". That doesn't mean they have to give away the proverbial "Keys to the
Kingdom". FDR, in another time of economic crisis, had the ability to
get "Corporate America" to mostly step in line with his New Deal programs, while at the same time knowing just how progressive he could get away with being. His distant cousin Theodore was able to push through quite a bit of anti-trust legislation and put limitations on "Corporate America" that they chafed under, but in the end, tolerated.
   Some on the right say both men were Socialists while some on the left say they were exerting just enough control on business interests to keep the country from disintegrating into class warfare. That both men, scions of the elite themselves, were really working for the best interests of Corporate America even though many
business leaders couldn't see it at the time. That may be so but at the end of the day ALL Americans were better off in say, 1940 than in 1932.
   Now John McCain says Barack Obama is a Socialist and Akenaton says
he is right of center. I say, if we are better off in 2016 than we are in 2008 then who cares. I think that he is above all a
pragmatist of great intelligence who will surround himself with the best advisors and will think his way to the right solutions. Then with calm leadership he will bring us all, corporate CEO's to hourly workers, along with him to a better America and we won't care wether he's right, left or center.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:03 PM

Ake:

You are mistaken, sir. He has been elected as the leader of the United States.

That leadership governs some aspect of the lives of millions of people, many of whom are not capitalists except by reason of holding mortgages and working for companies which, in turn, depend on capital for their day-to-day operations.

Those who have an influence in the operation of your fantastic generality "Western Capitaslism", in turn, comprise hundreds of thousands of people each of whom makes their own decisions, exerts their own pressures, and has their own hopes for the future.

In short, your simplistic pigeonholing is far too narrow, shallow and abstract to impart any meaning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:21 PM

On Wikipedia 'Corporate America' is defineds as

- 'an informal phrase describing the world of corporations within the United States not under government ownership.

Its negative connotations imply financial or ideological self-interest, greed, resistance to entitlements and the irresponsible promotion of counter-socialist self-interest at the expense of government and competitors.

Its positive connotations imply a liberal and productive capitalist free-market society that creates wealth, directly and indirectly lifts the people's standard of living, rewards individual ability, and provides a ladder to financial success.'

Taking up the subject of health care again Ben Rowley, writing under Student Voices in mid July observes...

'The American health care system is said to be market-based. This means (whether admitted or not) health care decisions are often influenced more by the financial outcome for the provider and insurance company than the health of the patient.

This profit seeking is ruining the health of far too many Americans.

In the quest for increased profits, insurers and hospitals have resorted to practices that lead one to question whether any sense of ethics remains in corporate America.'

In May a new survey by consulting firm Watson Wyatt found that 84% of large U.S. employers do not support a single-payer system such as universal health care coverage. Of the 453 companies surveyed between November 2007 and January 2008, 78% favor private-sector solutions.

The report concludes

'it remains to be seen whether Congress and the new president can enact significant reform,'



'

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:39 PM

True enough, Obama can't walk on water.

And for better or worse, he's not Che Guevara. Whatever his opponents may have said, he's no kind of Socialist. (But unlike Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, he doesn't make out that he is.)

There are realistic hope that he will be significantly better than McCain would have been, and a great deal better than Bush has been (and still is, God help us...).

Obama has been elected with the support of most American voters - a majority made up of a slightly higher proportion of "white" voters than Bush ever received, a slightly higher proportion of "black" voters, and a very much increased number of "Hispanic" voters (of all colours).

It all doesn't really add up to a much of a "Recipe for Disaster". Let's just see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:06 PM

I hate to say it but the Obama=Antichrist is a real perception that some hold. I have heard it since 2004. I want to make it clear I don't hold that view but I have heard a bunch of people say that with total conviction. ScI to think they actually believe that. I do have to add that I live in part of the US they refer to as the "bible belt". So religious singificance is a common topic. End times prophecy has surged for a few years around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:15 PM

I guess I just don't understand. What kind of allegations or perceptions lead the so-minded to think that Obama = Antichrist? I suppose they must have SOME reason, but I can't remember or even manufacture any kind of argument for that.

Of course Mudcat may not be the place to ask the question.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:41 PM

Nostradamus said it, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM

Fear plain and simple. That is what fuels it in my opinion. I have not heard anyone make a decent argument for the case. Even the ones I have heard speak about it that are consumed with the notion can't make a decent case for why they think that. Fear is the only thing I can think of.Change from the norm is another aspect. They are fearful when things aren't exactly as they have always been. Bush has fed on these fears hard core for 8 years now. People are truly scared and it comes out in odd ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:48 PM

I suppose they must have SOME reason,

The assumption that fundagelical idiots need a reason to believe something displays an incredible degree naiveté.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:53 PM

At snopes.com, this is one of the many emails circulating to try to create fear about Obama.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

So people read this stuff forwarded to them in email, rumored word of mouth, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:00 PM

It just occurred to me what may be fueling some of that fearful conjecturing.

At the urging of family members I read one of the 'Left Behind' books; couldn't stomach any more than that. This is a series of thrillers written by two men, LeHays or somehing like that is the name of one of them. Their premise is that at a certain time the 'Rapture' occurs wherein the 'saved' are caught up and spirited away (literally- their clothes are left in a neat pile. It appears that clothing offends God. *g) while those 'left behind' are temporarily abandoned to face the 'tribulation'.

The Anti-Christ is a charismatic young man who has fooled almost everyone into believing that he is the hope of the world; the good guys struggle against him and his evil regime.

This Anti-Christ is postulated to have been born in the Middle East. I think he is born in the 1960s.

I don't know when the first of the series came out- at least 10 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:08 PM

Check this out. You talk about crazy.

Crazy Obama Antichrist site

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:30 PM

From the link:

"B. Hussein Obama's church is the liberal Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, pastored by the racist Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Wright preaches a message of black separatism and is a racist in every sense of the word. The UCC is one of the most liberal denominations there is. They ordain practicing homosexuals, support slaughtering babies, and preach the social Gospel of the religious left, having abandoned the inspiration of the Word and preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. The queen of the New Age witches, Oprah, also calls Trinity UCC her church.

"A modern day foe of God, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is ordained thru this liberal and ungodly denomination. Lynn has made it his life's work to try and silence and destroy true works of God, and last year came after Liveprayer for my stand on satanic cult member Mitt Romney, by trying to get the IRS to take away our tax-exempt status. His efforts failed because we did nothing wrong. The fact is, Lynn has tried to get the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of over 70 churches and ministries over the years, and has failed to be successful even once!"


Good gracious! He doen't like MItt Romney or Oprah either!

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:12 PM

I think a lot of people who believe Obama is the Antichrist do so because their preachers, the televangelists, and Christian radio commentators tell them to believe it. And the preachers, televangelists, and Christian radio commentators are largely shills for corporate America, so it's not surprising to me that they would want to create this kind of fear toward Obama among their followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:16 PM

"...preachers, televangelists, and Christian radio commentators are largely shills for corporate America..."

Nope, no prejudice in that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:18 PM

They believed Bill Clinton was the Antichrist, too, BTW. Here's just one example...

http://www.soundanalarm.net/ClintonSetsthePatternofantichrist.html

The leaders of the Christian right will proclaim every non-Republican president to be the Antichrist from now until people stop listening to those kinds of charlatans.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:18 PM

Not prejudice. Just experience. I have enough family and friends who believe that stuff to know where they're getting it from.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM

I also know from having heard such people spreading that kind of crap myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:27 PM

The nutball troupes of the Rapture belief system are more than a human heart can bear in their smugness and saccharine superiority.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:29 PM

"the Christian right" is a term I'd question. You're talking about a particular variety of deviant religion which is active in some parts of the United States.

Most Christians in the world, including those with right-wing views, would regard them with disdain and some revulsion. I'd suspect that that is very probably true even in the States.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

Corporate America and Theocracy

"The connection between the Christian Right and US corporations has a long and disturbing history. From prayer-breakfasts sponsored by right-wing churches to the massive donations from corporations to those same churches, it often seems as though the two are covertly working together toward the same goal. I once saw a painting in a real estate broker's office above her desk which showed two men in suits in a lusciously-appointed office suite shaking hands with Jesus. On the bottom it said something to the effect of 'Deals go better when Christ is your partner'. I was struck by how close it was to a Coca-Cola ad tagline of the time--'Things go better with Coke.'"


Economics from the Religious Right

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

Some excellent posts above, especially from Guest (Neil D) heartwarmingly good.

Emma, as concise, thorough and even handed as ever.
Even McGrath is taking the blinds off.

I cannot believe that the rest of you can give any thought to the anti-christ rubbish, how can your opinions be respected when you feel you must address such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

Carol - Blanket statements like yours about preachers lend themselves to prejudice - as you would be willing to point out if the word Muslim had been used. Could you have perhaps used words like "some" or "many"?

And Amos - what I love to point out to people who believe in the Rapture is that the word "Rapture" never appears in the bible - anywhere. They tend to sputter a little after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:34 PM

Yes, I should have said "the preachers of the people who believe that kind of thing". Which is what I actually meant but wasn't clear about.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM

The whole Rapture myth was, IIRC, developed by a blind drunk shepherdess in the nineteenth century and has nothing to do with the Bible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:52 PM

"I cannot believe that the rest of you can give any thought to the anti-christ rubbish, how can your opinions be respected when you feel you must address such nonsense. "

It is interesting I think. I am not justifying or damning anyone I think it is an interesting social observance. I did state in some crazy and things like that. I strongly disagree with the view but it really interests me as to why they feel that way. Plus I have heard this statement so much from so many people I think it is a relevant discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:53 PM

It all sounds like an extreme version of Special Rendition.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:58 PM

McG of H:

Great one!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:59 PM

The reason some of us address the whole Antichrist nonsense is because the people who believe that sort of thing (I expect that Sarah Palin is probably one of them) are currently in control of the government of the US, and they will work very hard to regain control of it after Obama takes office. Which is why they are promoting the idea that Obama is the Antichrist in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:38 PM

Since I don't watch or listen to "the preachers, televangelists, and Christian radio commentators" they are not who I refe to when I think of the 'end times', the 'rapture', the 'antichrist' and the like. What I grew up with, along with the devout people I know, is of a much smaller, less flashy sort.

And they do believe it. They will continue to believe it. Any and every attempt to 'educate' them out of it is taken as evidence of evil forces, and of the blind stubbornness of those who espouse a different view. We don't understand them, but they certainly do not understand us, either.

Furthermore, at least some of these people distrust the flashy, glitzy halls and polished performances that are found on televisions.

The US, for whatever reason, is much more overtly religious than the UK or Europe. Religious belief is not derided, by and large, in this country, even outside the bible belt. Inside the Bible Belt, of course, not only do they not deride it but going to a physical church is expected; even musicians and other performers are comfortable giving it lip service. Bubba loves God.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM

Do Amish people believe that Obama is the Antichrist?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:56 PM

Probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 08:33 PM

Speaking of demographics and the election, you'll be able to find out how much your neighbor contributed to what's-his-name here (click). I was pleasantly surprised to find that an acquaintance contributed $650 to Obama. My stepson swore she was Republican.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 09:09 PM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 05:35pm EST / in Press Releases
Obama Transition Announces Rules for Lobbyists in Transition

During a briefing today at the Presidential Transition Team headquarters, Obama Transition Co-Chair John Podesta announced the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.

The rules are:

    * Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.

    * Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.

    * If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.

    * If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.

    * A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

Statement of Thomas Mann
Brookings Institution

"The ethical guidelines released today for the Obama transition are tough and unequivocal. They will prevent some honorable people with rich experience from serving in the transition. That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect. He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest. This is a very constructive step in that direction."

Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute

"Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign."

Statement of John Podesta
Co-Chair of President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden's Transition Team

"President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to change the way Washington works and curb the influence of lobbyists. During the campaign, federal lobbyists could not contribute to or raise money for the campaign. Today, the President-elect is taking those commitments even further by announcing the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history."

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 03:36 PM

What's the definition of "a lobbyist"? If you write a letter to a politician about some political issue, that is lobbying. So does that make you "a lobbyist"? Or do you have to be paid for it as a living?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 03:42 PM

I think that among the criteria for lobbying are x amount of time, whether of day or year. I don't think it has to do with amount of money garnered.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: jeffp
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 04:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

McG of H asked:

What's the definition of "a lobbyist"? If you write a letter to a politician about some political issue, that is lobbying. So does that make you "a lobbyist"? Or do you have to be paid for it as a living?

Writing a letter or calling on one's own behalf is not lobbying, at least as used in this connection. In any case, even if you call such action "lobbying", it's okay, and protected by the Constitution.

I believe the kind of lobbyist we're talking about here is the individual who represents someone else (individual or organization), usually for pay but not always. Such paid lobbyists quite commonly are lawyers, and they represent clients in a professional capacity.

Lobbyists can be extremely helpful to legislators and/or regulators, by providing bodies of information they or their clients have access to. The flip side of this is, of course, since they represent interested parties they tend to provide data with a slant favorable to the client. Because such "information services" to a legislator can be helpful, it tends to help the lobbyist gain greater access to influential ears than you or I might have. This is all legal, so far as it goes.

But when the issue to be influenced has large financial consequences there's often a lot of pressure for lobbyists to push the envelope, so to speak, possibly getting into impermissible political pressures which come close to or equal extortion, the supplying of outright false information, the provision of "favors" to legislators which may be difficult to distinguish from bribery, and of course outright bribery.

There are regulations that require lobbyists to register as such, depending on such things as number of contacts, hours/days spent, and compensation received. I'm not sure how those apply to volunteer lobbyists who may represent an organization they belong to. By and large, such volunteers are less likely to have the big war chests in hand that the professionals so often do (and thus may have less power to do harm), but volunteers can be effective with a legislator because they often are the legislator's constituents.

Please excuse me if I've expatiated too much on the obvious.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 04:44 PM

the individual who represents someone else...

So someone agrees to write a letter on behalf of other members of a folk club, calling for a change in the law affecting folk clubs, or opposing a proposed change and they count as a lobbyist in this context? There has to be more to it than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 09:22 PM

McG of H, when I said, "who represents someone else" I meant representing some organization, or perhaps representing some multimillionaire, probably for pay.

The little "folk club" example you posited could, I suppose, justify calling the letter writer "a lobbyist" (I wouldn't use that expression myself), especially if the club had authorized him/her to speak for them, but that's not what is being talked about here. Ordinarily I think when people use the expression "lobbyist" or "lobbying activity" it would have to do with much more ambitious activity than writing a letter, such as arranging personal office calls on a number of legislators, or sending a blanket mailing to an extensive group of legislators. Or paying for travel junkets for Senators to "study" Latin American conditions in Rio de Janiero. Or paying for a "seminar" held at a famous golf club.

In the case of a club-authorized writer of a letter or two, especially where the writer is a member of the club, even if the term "lobbyist" is to be used, the writer is merely exercising his/her Constitutional right of petition. No problem.

It's almost always with hired, professional lobbyists whose main connection with the client is that a hiree that the questions and perhaps problems arise.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:15 PM

This article will help explain what the professional lobbyists do.
K Street in Washington, DC, is where most of the offices are of professional lobbyists.

Read the full article here... Washintgon Post

note that the article is from 2005
We've gone through scandals of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, who is now in federal prison. Click the link and read the whole article to get an idea of what Lobbying has been all about in the last 8 yeas under Bush.

"The Road to Riches Is Called K Street
Lobbying Firms Hire More, Pay More, Charge More to Influence Government

...Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A01

To the great growth industries of America such as health care and home building add one more: influence peddling.

The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.

The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.

"There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm. "Companies need lobbying help."

Lobbying firms can't hire people fast enough. Starting salaries have risen to about $300,000 a year for the best-connected aides eager to "move downtown" from Capitol Hill or the Bush administration. Once considered a distasteful post-government vocation, big-bucks lobbying is luring nearly half of all lawmakers who return to the private sector when they leave Congress, according to a forthcoming study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

Political historians don't see these as positive developments for democracy. "We've got a problem here," said Allan Cigler, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. "The growth of lobbying makes even worse than it is already the balance between those with resources and those without resources."

continued at link

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 11:57 PM

I think the big problem is when people who have worked on Capital Hill become lobbyists and take jobs at lobbying firms. I think those are the ones that Obama's new rules are aimed at. For instance, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Rikki Ott, who had previously been a fisherman in Alaska, and whose fishing business was destroyed by the oil spill, became a lobbyist on behalf of the towns in Alaska that were affected and also for people with environmental concerns about the oil industry. While she would be called a lobbyist, she wouldn't be one of the people those rules are aimed at, because she wouldn't have the kind of incestuous relationship with the government that the K Street lobbyists have.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:16 AM

While she would be called a lobbyist, she wouldn't be one of the people those rules are aimed at.

That's what I had in mind - I'd be concerned if restrictions aimed at those lobbyists-for-hire were to affect the work of people engaged in non-commercial lobbying, either on a voluntary basis or as paid workers in a community group engaged in lobbying for or against political change.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 09:08 AM

A look at the rules will show us who they are aimed at. They are aimed at any lobbyists who might contribute financially to the transition, who might work with the transition while lobbying at the same time, and lobbyists who might want to give gifts to members of the transition team.

These rules would apply to any lobbyists, including Rikki Ott. The reason they are not aimed at lobbyists like Rikki Ott is because lobbyists like her would not be likely to do any of the above listed things. However, if they did, the rules would apply to them, too.