again, though, beta, it's not exactly a one to one relationship. so in 1999 the stock market begins to plunge because of speculation in tech stocks. greenspan cuts interest rates to stimulate the economy, not an uncommon responses by the federal reserve to encourage spending. the problem is compounded after 9-11, leading to the lowest interest rates seen in decades. while this may have had an effect on the meteoric rise of the credit industry (subprime included), the fed had little to no effect on the predator practices and rampant marketing that was the key to the subprime meltdown. the mess had far more to do with the greed of the credit industry (note to aqua, this is laissez-faire capitalism working its magic.) the only real response would be greater federal regulation of the credit industry, but mr. bush has little interest in going there. hence why hillary's plan strikes me as the most sound, because it balances regulation with market forces.
[i have a feeling obama's plan will be very similar to hillary's; it's just not developed yet.]
beta, honey, you know I adore you. And I'M the one who publicly swore off these political threads, only to have to see what it was that made you come back again!
Also, I'll say that given the Philadelphia speech and Clinton's actions of late, I'm voting for Obama.
I'm also holding a "meet and greet" at my house in a few weeks for our Democratic Congressional candidate, David Orentlicher. The fervor of everyone here re: politics has really made me feel I need to get involved at a useful level, and David O. is a state leader who I want to see go national. He was formerly a doctor - I'm starting to think the best leaders start in another field and go into politics later, rather than being poli-sci majors and always being part of the works.
Also volunteering for the Jim Schellinger campaign for governor, and guess what, he used to be - still is - an architect!
jafidler - If I'm reading you right I think we both agree on the root causes of economic problems, at least agree politics and the economy are very tightly intertwined. But sounds like we have differen't ideas about the solutions, i.e. I don't support increased regulation.
Regardless, as a betting man I think no matter who wins this November, the nation is in for a shock. Not in a repub/dem or conservative/liberal type of way...but going back to the fact that politics and the economy are tightly linked.
aqua, i generally agree, but i would add that politics, while critical in the economic equation, is not the only variable - social, technological, ecological trends can play just as great a role. therefore it's not really fair to blame one individual for a particular economic circumstance whether that's the federal reserve chairman or the president.
however, i will say the general tone of the debate is greatly influenced by our political leaders, particularly the president. greater regulation was basically ruled out under the bush administration and largely ignored in the debate on how to dig ourselves out of the subprime mess (the out proposed in our current political climate: the economic stimulus package and making bush's tax cuts permanent). with a democrat in office, i have a feeling that the proposed solutions would have been very different.
NEW YORK (AFP) — US presidential hopeful Barack Obama turns out to be a distant relative not only of President George W. Bush but also of wartime British prime minister Winston Churchill, according to US researchers.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society traced the family trees of the three major presidential candidates, also revealing Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's ties to pop icon Madonna and Beat generation writer Jack Kerouac.
And while Obama and Hollywood heartthrob Brad Pitt are ninth cousins who share a relative who died in 1769, Clinton is a ninth cousin twice removed of Pitt's partner Angelina Jolie, sharing a common ancestor who died in 1718.
Clinton is meanwhile also related to a number of celebrities with French Canadian ancestry, including singers Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette.
"It is common to find people of French Canadian descent to be related to large numbers of other French Canadians," said genealogist Christopher Child, who conducted the research.
On the Republican side, John McCain's family tree came up with perhaps less surprising results, revealing mainly that he was a sixth cousin of First Lady Laura Bush.
Other ties established by the genealogical society linked Obama to former presidents Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, and to Civil War General Robert Lee.
Well, I've pissed off more than one person here already, so why not go for broke. I'm done with arguing about candidates (here at Archinect, anyway) and I'll stay out of the "Fed" debate, but there's always more that could and should be said about "unspoken" issues.
So many here are ready to state that we're not willing to face up to the discourse and issues on race, and that Obama took it on. Well, his opponent represents a repressed group as well, but there’s a strange silence about that. This was supposed to be a historic campaign on two fronts.
On just about any issue regarding the status of women, the political discourse dares not speak. There's an artist I recently read about who deals with "the past, present and possible futures of violence towards women being attributed to physical limitations and psychological reaction. Violence towards women is the only epidemic that has spanned the length of human history within all regions, ethnicities and creeds." Pick any "race" or group anywhere in the world, and no matter how subjugated that group is, women within it are even more subjugated. So I see a lot of screaming here that we are not dealing with or honestly facing up to the issue of race in this country, as if the issue of gender prejudice and suppression is supposed to be all fixed and hunky dory now. But as Lennon said in a song I will not quote the name of here, woman is still "the slave to the slaves".
Now, it's pretty clear that we got the wrong woman to be the first serious woman candidate for president, because she divides more than unites, and I respect anyone's right not to like her one little bit,
but...
I defy any one of you here who have used and continue to use the most scurrilous and degrading terms, which are used by (mostly) men to keep women in their place, against Clinton - terms, I might add, which have no connection to, or are despcriptive of, anyone's "political performance", but are simply meant to degrade and demean an individual - I defy any of you to honestly state that if Obama was a candidate with similar political baggage and similar vehement dislike among many people, and that if you hated him to the level you hate Clinton, would any one of you seriously pretend that you would ever use corresponding racial words of degradation and subjugation against him? (and you know what those words are in both cases) I seriously doubt it. I doesn't matter to me who one likes or dislikes in the political arena, that's a personal choice: but don't tell me that some of the treatment of Clinton is not thrown at her AS A WOMAN who dares to be political and have a pretense to power; and carries, if not consciously at least sub-consciously, a quite different, unspoken agenda. I mean, if so many here want our society to come clean on the race issue, than why not this issue? I guess that will have to wait for another election...
Now all of you will flame away about Clinton on this, but then you are misunderstanding this as a defense of her. My point is that I'm pretty sure many of you would use such "prejudice" no matter how brilliant and morally clean another woman candidate might be in a different election.
So where is the "let's come honest" speech about gender, to correspond to the one that Obama gave about race, in this campaign? Well, Clinton is the one who should give it, but most would not take her seriously, would laugh her off the stage. But you know what, and you can contend this all you want: we would laugh the female equivalent of Obama off the stage for giving that speech, because that's the one we're really still not ready to hear.
(and, the above having been written by a man, I would be really interested to hear from women contributors here at Archinect what they think).
well, I'm not a woman, but I imagine one part of this issue that lessens the comparison of gender to race is that women have often played quite significant roles in their husband's public lives. I was reminded of this recently while watching the John Adams series on HBO.
Husbands and wives have always relied on each other, shared information with each other, and influenced each other. I suspect (quite unscientifically) that the degredation of women in public life is due to an overcompensation for the equality or inequity that men really do have with them at home. I suppose it's an attitude (and one that I do NOT agree with) that believes: hey, I've already got a wife at home that bosses me around, why should I have another one here?
Again, this is not RIGHT in any regard, but I do think gender politics and racial inequity have some quite real differences.
Clinton doesn't have the balls to have a "come clean on gender" speech.
Instead we have tall tales about landing in a "combat zone" in Kosovo.
David Brooks explains her campaign very well:
OP-ED COLUMNIST The Long Defeat
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.
First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.
Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
Five percent.
Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?
The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.
For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.
No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.
If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.
Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
michigan and florida, this is what obama thinks of your vote.
no -- michigan and florida -- this is how much Clinton thinks of you to subvert the rules established by her own party that she agreed to in order to use you as pawns in her scheem to barter under the table for the democratic nomination.
obama knows he will lose (and did lose) those two primaries, hence he did what he could to avoid having those delegates counted. who will do anything to win? sounds like obama to me.
you're right, it was the democratic party -- the party she belongs to -- that had decided for the votes not to be counted because they broke ranks and moved their primaries up ahead of schedule. Both MI and FL were aware they were breaking the rules when they did so and that their delegates would not be seated as a result. I never claimed that Hillary had anything to do with them not being counted, but that her "wins" in these states and subsequent insistance that, now, after the fact and in the face of all rule-breaking on their parts their delgates be seated anyway (in her favor) is incredulous, contrived, and down right wrong.
...i'll pipe in a little retort here. when women decided to take up the cause of women in america, the suffragettes if i have my history correct, deliberately disenfranchised african-american women. so to suggest somehow that women's rights is equal to or on par with rights of people - both women and men - kidnapped, traded for and brought over on ships in chains, then sold to americans is laughable.
HRC is not an asshole of the highest order, because she's a women, she's an asshole because in an effort to "Tonya Harding" Obama, it's become painfully obvious that what's in the best interest for her, is above what's in the best interest for both the party and the country.
everyday, every single fucking day we all hear the never ending news coming out her anally challenge whoremasters mouths; the superdelegates this, the pledged delegates can still change their minds, the sun might actually rotate around the earth, and the earth might really be flat.
if we all held Obama to atone for what his pastor said, then at what point do we hold HRC responsible for what her trolling, cigar smoking asshat of husband did to ANOTHER WOMAN?
i'm not voting for Obama because he's a black man, but because i am...
it's a rather difficult argument to say that Obama lost MI since he wasn't even ON THE BALLOT! And while he was on the ballot in FL, he respected the agreement made by all candidates not to campaign, compete, or recognize the primary there because of the infracture of rules laid out by the national party organization.
it was the states' democratic parties that fucked up, but why should the voters of those states be penalized for their mistake? if obama cared about the voters of those states he should have supported a revote. plain and simple. but he saw the writing on the wall and did what was politically expedient.
i feel for florida voters. if any voters have reason to feel like the process sucks, it's them.
and db, obama never publically took a position, knowing that it would be politically harmful to have a revote. but if obama wanted a revote to happen, it would have happened. the michigan legislature killed a bill because state obama supporters opposed the mail-in revote.
no simpleton, it was at least in the case of FL their legislatures fault, and they are elected officials. rules are rules, and let's see if i get this right Obama says he'll do whatever the DNC decides, then MI and FL decide to do nothing and it's his fault. then if he proposes some solution, and HRC decides no dice, it's his fault. then if HRC picks the method of how they'll revote, and Obama says no, it's his fault. then if PR decides to move their vote and change from a caucus to a primary, it's ok?
only in Hillaryland, where flowers smell like shit and everyone will believe it's Obama's fault. in Hillaryland, where a vote on a war no one wanted can turn into she's more prepared. in Hillaryland, where sniper fire never happened and it's just mis-speak [3 times]. in Hillaryland where it's i'm not some stand by my man, and she does exactly that, and blames a "vast right wing conspiracy." in Hillaryland, where you can claim to do something regarding healthcare, and never actually do it, and somehow blame everyone else. in Hillaryland, where solving Irish and English conflict means reading Finnegans Wake in Picadilly Circus.....whooppeee for me!
she's so hated Nancy Pelosi wants to dropkick her sorry ass in the East River.
oh yeah, hanging chads = major fucking problem, but a mail in vote = cake...somehow i know Vince Fosters name would appear on at least 2% of the votes cast if that happened...
it's everyone else's fault, isn't it? that doesn't take away from the fact that the voters of those states got screwed, and obama did nothing about it; he in fact tried to evade the issue. the man is just as political as hillary (but with a grating sanctimonious air about his politics).
Emilio, I unfortunately don't have energy to respond to what I think are some very true and considered points in your post. But thank you for taking time to write it and pose the questions. I do agree that a "let's come honest" discussion of gender - addressing stereotypical beliefs about the roles and public perceptions of women and men both - is something this country, and the world, needs to have. It's a huge, huge topic, and one that is addressed constantly and slowly, though too slowly.
I also think when people call Hillary to task, its not because she's a woman, its because she's Hillary Clinton. I certainly think being a woman does not make one unqualified to be the president of the United States. I do, however, think that being Hillary Clinton does.
"but why should the voters of those states be penalized for their mistake?"
Well thats what they get for being part of the democratic party - Look the Fla and Mich. primaries, as well as super Tues were created by Democratic party bosses to give the Clintons the nomination unchallanged. I cant think of more sweet justice for favorite hillbilly lawyers. Fuck'm.
On the topic of woman - I have no problem shes a woman, I just hate her scum bag husband. Its Her politics about her I dont like. I Dont think Americans have any issues with having a woman leader. We elect women as senators and govenors all the time. Its just the president comes every 4 years and theres only 1 - so its hard for anyone to get into it.
liberty bell, thank you for your considered response. I agree, that discussion is slow in coming.
Again, my post was not a defense of Clinton. But I do wonder about whether there isn't a lot of denial and suppression in a statement like:
"I also think when people call Hillary to task, its not because she's a woman, it's because she's Hillary Clinton."
One of the points I was trying to make is that if anyone here at Archinect would write a statement like "Obama in an n-word" or similar slur about him and then say "I only mean that about him, because I don't like him; it doesn't carry any other connotation or apply to black people in general", he/she would, rightly, be ripped apart as a blatant racist and liar and probably be banned from posting.
But people here are continually writing that Clinton is a "c**t", "b**ch", "wh**re", and similar epiteths and then stating "Well, I mean those terms about her only, they don't carry any other connotation", and nobody here even makes a peep. It's one thing to "take someone to task" and another to use, as I said before, scurrilous and degrading terms that obviously apply beyond just that person (and if you don't think they do apply beyond her, and why, I'm not going to waste the time here to explain it to you). To me, that kind of aggression reveals larger hatreds and inner insecurities than just attacking Clinton, and are part of another large "silence" in our society (and I suspect many of those using those terms here and elsewhere are male and that goes to the heart of it).
I totally got your point, Emilio, and don't think it has been addressed here by anyone responding yet. What you're saying is:
Call a woman "cunt" = dismissed, no further consideration necessary
Call a black person "nigger" = dismissed, no further consideration necessary
Call a man "faggot" = dismissed, no further consideration necessary
But if someone actually used the second example on Obama, the (justifiably) angry outcry would be overwhelming. So why not for the other two terms?
I can only say, as a woman, when someone calls a woman they don't agree with a cunt, I immediately assume that means they don't have any more valid/intelligent argument to make than name-calling. So I tend to sorta disregard anything further they have to say.
Granted, yes, this is just a web forum; everyone feels looser with language here than we would to another person's face.
perhaps being a man i can't fully understand, but i'll try, c*nt/b*tch/d*ckhead/do*chebag/ does not equal n*gger - by any stretch - and no LB i am not NOT being critical of your point. i do admit it's bad form and derogatory, but there is no moral or immoral equivalency, none.
for me the word nigger implies so much more than any of us think. when whites use the word it brings so many things front and center, a history that this country refuses to apologize, acknowledge or even work through. getting past the issues of race and slavery is not the same with working through.
in some level i think there is a bit of myth in women when seen through the lense of the 20th century american history. women throughout history have been strong figures, heads of state, leaders in science, literature, art, politics, etc...yet even in the history of this country, as it continues to unfold, we find the importance of women in the creation of america.
so what happened in the 20th century that put women in the kitchen, ironing clothes, standing by their man? because if history teaches us anything, it's that women were/are the moral barometer that made/make america what it is.
the word nigger to me - and the reason why whites are forbade to use it - is a sign of "ownership," implicit in the word itself is a history embeded with white slave masters, southern KKK, segregationist states, etc....so when a white culture uses it, it means more than "a word" it means so much, to so many. whites "used" to own that word and that is why it offends many, and when african american youths use it whites cannot "get it."
Well, that word was once used as easily and freely to describe and put down a black person as the other words are used to put down women, but something finally changed in the culture to put that word and what it implies beyond the pale.
A word like "cunt" or "whore" have similar connotations regarding women, implying tons about what the speaker thinks a woman's role in a culture should be, but these words have not yet reached a cutural "beyond the pale" status, and are allowed with impunity against even someone running for presidential office. Protestations that these words don't hurt or demean are usually made by the persons using them against someone. A similar example is when Native Americans protest against the use of hurtful and stereotypical names used in our culture, but are usually dismissed with "Oh, it's just a sports team, we don't mean any harm, and it's tradition" as if the degree of harm is on the side of the abuser to determine.
And, beta, forgive me if I don't take your view of women's power in history as the last word on the subject. Yea, you can pick iindividual women who were powerful figures in history, and you can even point to matriarchal societies where women had power. But you really want to argue that that's the history of women in this world? Again, pick any group in the world that is suppressed and subjugated, and you can bet your ass that women in that group are usually the most subjugated of all. Hell, in some places in the world they are the ONLY subjugated group (and I don't have to list the cases here). It's really ludicruous to play "whose suffering is the most suffering" game, but even in the case of slavery in this country, all slaves were brutilized, whipped, subjugated, and turned into property, but which sub-group was on top of that also raped and made to carry the seed of the abhorrent slavers?
And, lb, I agree with you about the internet making everyone "looser" with their language, and I have been as guilty as anyone here of that. And I have also not been blameless in the use of those terms towards women in my past. But I have at least tried to not apply them to any of the candidates in this election, because I totally agree with you that at that point you "don't have any more valid/intelligent argument to make than name-calling."
Mostly, my aim here is just to bring this issue into the light, maybe try to finally have that discussion.
good point. i just think as americans we tend to look at the role of women through different lenses, and i think to role of subjugation is only seen in the light of 20th century enlightenment, and feminist politics...i don't think many women in the 18th century, in america, saw the world where we now see it, both in past and present tense, that is not saying it's right. however, i don't think, that if you can assume a slave in the 18th or 19th century felt good about their position, in that given context.
I see what you mean, but I don't think the suffragette movement and feminism in the 60s and 70s has solved all of the problems, just like the Civil Rights Movement and subsequent legislation didn't solve all those problems either.
and beta, I apologize for any past name calling.....that damn internets!
cool Emilio, no prob on the other stuff, i too apologize. in my 40 years, i don't think i have invested this much emotion in anything outside of family...i can't wait for this to be over, because i need to get architecture back.
As much as I support human rights for all I think some of you are really missing the mark. HRC has pushed gender in this race because we tolerate it. If Obama had ran on the black platform HRC would have the nomination, no question. So how can anyone question the fairness of gender and ethnicity in this race?
Viewing this primary as a race between a black man and a white woman is a bit misleading. I believe this is a race between a black man and a former first lady. How many people believe HRC would be where she is at without that connection? It kills the monumentality of it for me.
As for the terminology used against HRC, give me a break. Think about it. I can freely say "women/men get on my nerves." I cannot freely say "blacks/mexicans/gays/lesbains get on my nerves." No slurs used but the intent is incredibly different.
beta you are correct though; the n-word does have a deeper, more offensive history, so it is somehow worse than other slurs.
And mighty's funny picture reminds me that there is a use of "cunt" in British boy movies, where the guys are calling one another cunt, that I think is a funny usage. But that word hasn't passed beyond offensive yet, for me, nor has faggot, which has started to be well-appropriated by homosexuals, IMO.
VOTE OBAMA
again, though, beta, it's not exactly a one to one relationship. so in 1999 the stock market begins to plunge because of speculation in tech stocks. greenspan cuts interest rates to stimulate the economy, not an uncommon responses by the federal reserve to encourage spending. the problem is compounded after 9-11, leading to the lowest interest rates seen in decades. while this may have had an effect on the meteoric rise of the credit industry (subprime included), the fed had little to no effect on the predator practices and rampant marketing that was the key to the subprime meltdown. the mess had far more to do with the greed of the credit industry (note to aqua, this is laissez-faire capitalism working its magic.) the only real response would be greater federal regulation of the credit industry, but mr. bush has little interest in going there. hence why hillary's plan strikes me as the most sound, because it balances regulation with market forces.
[i have a feeling obama's plan will be very similar to hillary's; it's just not developed yet.]
beta, honey, you know I adore you. And I'M the one who publicly swore off these political threads, only to have to see what it was that made you come back again!
Also, I'll say that given the Philadelphia speech and Clinton's actions of late, I'm voting for Obama.
I'm also holding a "meet and greet" at my house in a few weeks for our Democratic Congressional candidate, David Orentlicher. The fervor of everyone here re: politics has really made me feel I need to get involved at a useful level, and David O. is a state leader who I want to see go national. He was formerly a doctor - I'm starting to think the best leaders start in another field and go into politics later, rather than being poli-sci majors and always being part of the works.
Also volunteering for the Jim Schellinger campaign for governor, and guess what, he used to be - still is - an architect!
Carry on.
liberty bell endorses obama!!! this is bigger than gov. richardson's endorsement in the world of archinect:)
will Obama get the coveted LB bump?
I think it is awesome that you are involved in politics LB, I think more architects need to get involved.
LB for VP!
jafidler - If I'm reading you right I think we both agree on the root causes of economic problems, at least agree politics and the economy are very tightly intertwined. But sounds like we have differen't ideas about the solutions, i.e. I don't support increased regulation.
Regardless, as a betting man I think no matter who wins this November, the nation is in for a shock. Not in a repub/dem or conservative/liberal type of way...but going back to the fact that politics and the economy are tightly linked.
aqua, i generally agree, but i would add that politics, while critical in the economic equation, is not the only variable - social, technological, ecological trends can play just as great a role. therefore it's not really fair to blame one individual for a particular economic circumstance whether that's the federal reserve chairman or the president.
however, i will say the general tone of the debate is greatly influenced by our political leaders, particularly the president. greater regulation was basically ruled out under the bush administration and largely ignored in the debate on how to dig ourselves out of the subprime mess (the out proposed in our current political climate: the economic stimulus package and making bush's tax cuts permanent). with a democrat in office, i have a feeling that the proposed solutions would have been very different.
stop the bush legacy, DO NOT vote for obama!
Obama related to Bush, Churchill: US researchers
NEW YORK (AFP) — US presidential hopeful Barack Obama turns out to be a distant relative not only of President George W. Bush but also of wartime British prime minister Winston Churchill, according to US researchers.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society traced the family trees of the three major presidential candidates, also revealing Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's ties to pop icon Madonna and Beat generation writer Jack Kerouac.
And while Obama and Hollywood heartthrob Brad Pitt are ninth cousins who share a relative who died in 1769, Clinton is a ninth cousin twice removed of Pitt's partner Angelina Jolie, sharing a common ancestor who died in 1718.
Clinton is meanwhile also related to a number of celebrities with French Canadian ancestry, including singers Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette.
"It is common to find people of French Canadian descent to be related to large numbers of other French Canadians," said genealogist Christopher Child, who conducted the research.
On the Republican side, John McCain's family tree came up with perhaps less surprising results, revealing mainly that he was a sixth cousin of First Lady Laura Bush.
Other ties established by the genealogical society linked Obama to former presidents Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, and to Civil War General Robert Lee.
here's an article on what Greenspan said or did not say...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/DidGreenspanPushRiskyHomeLoans.aspx
Everyone is related to everyone if you go back far enough...
I inherited a rather large apparatus from a distant black relative, I just want to say thank you, really.
99.9% the same by DNA
A drafting machine?
http://www.bieffe.it/uk/images/prod_sm_big.jpg[/img]
re: Hillary's comments that Obama should have switched / been more careful about picking his pastor ---
some would argue the same thing about her choice of spouse!
Yes, a drafting machine. Of course what did you think i meant?
Well, I've pissed off more than one person here already, so why not go for broke. I'm done with arguing about candidates (here at Archinect, anyway) and I'll stay out of the "Fed" debate, but there's always more that could and should be said about "unspoken" issues.
So many here are ready to state that we're not willing to face up to the discourse and issues on race, and that Obama took it on. Well, his opponent represents a repressed group as well, but there’s a strange silence about that. This was supposed to be a historic campaign on two fronts.
On just about any issue regarding the status of women, the political discourse dares not speak. There's an artist I recently read about who deals with "the past, present and possible futures of violence towards women being attributed to physical limitations and psychological reaction. Violence towards women is the only epidemic that has spanned the length of human history within all regions, ethnicities and creeds." Pick any "race" or group anywhere in the world, and no matter how subjugated that group is, women within it are even more subjugated. So I see a lot of screaming here that we are not dealing with or honestly facing up to the issue of race in this country, as if the issue of gender prejudice and suppression is supposed to be all fixed and hunky dory now. But as Lennon said in a song I will not quote the name of here, woman is still "the slave to the slaves".
Now, it's pretty clear that we got the wrong woman to be the first serious woman candidate for president, because she divides more than unites, and I respect anyone's right not to like her one little bit,
but...
I defy any one of you here who have used and continue to use the most scurrilous and degrading terms, which are used by (mostly) men to keep women in their place, against Clinton - terms, I might add, which have no connection to, or are despcriptive of, anyone's "political performance", but are simply meant to degrade and demean an individual - I defy any of you to honestly state that if Obama was a candidate with similar political baggage and similar vehement dislike among many people, and that if you hated him to the level you hate Clinton, would any one of you seriously pretend that you would ever use corresponding racial words of degradation and subjugation against him? (and you know what those words are in both cases) I seriously doubt it. I doesn't matter to me who one likes or dislikes in the political arena, that's a personal choice: but don't tell me that some of the treatment of Clinton is not thrown at her AS A WOMAN who dares to be political and have a pretense to power; and carries, if not consciously at least sub-consciously, a quite different, unspoken agenda. I mean, if so many here want our society to come clean on the race issue, than why not this issue? I guess that will have to wait for another election...
Now all of you will flame away about Clinton on this, but then you are misunderstanding this as a defense of her. My point is that I'm pretty sure many of you would use such "prejudice" no matter how brilliant and morally clean another woman candidate might be in a different election.
So where is the "let's come honest" speech about gender, to correspond to the one that Obama gave about race, in this campaign? Well, Clinton is the one who should give it, but most would not take her seriously, would laugh her off the stage. But you know what, and you can contend this all you want: we would laugh the female equivalent of Obama off the stage for giving that speech, because that's the one we're really still not ready to hear.
(and, the above having been written by a man, I would be really interested to hear from women contributors here at Archinect what they think).
well, I'm not a woman, but I imagine one part of this issue that lessens the comparison of gender to race is that women have often played quite significant roles in their husband's public lives. I was reminded of this recently while watching the John Adams series on HBO.
Husbands and wives have always relied on each other, shared information with each other, and influenced each other. I suspect (quite unscientifically) that the degredation of women in public life is due to an overcompensation for the equality or inequity that men really do have with them at home. I suppose it's an attitude (and one that I do NOT agree with) that believes: hey, I've already got a wife at home that bosses me around, why should I have another one here?
Again, this is not RIGHT in any regard, but I do think gender politics and racial inequity have some quite real differences.
Clinton doesn't have the balls to have a "come clean on gender" speech.
Instead we have tall tales about landing in a "combat zone" in Kosovo.
David Brooks explains her campaign very well:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Long Defeat
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.
First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.
Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
Five percent.
Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?
The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.
For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.
No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.
If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.
michigan and florida, this is what obama thinks of your vote.
no -- michigan and florida -- this is how much Clinton thinks of you to subvert the rules established by her own party that she agreed to in order to use you as pawns in her scheem to barter under the table for the democratic nomination.
db, do you even know what happened in those states? hillary had nothing to do with the delegates not being counted.
There were rules that EVERYONE agreed to follow and Michigan and Florida broke them.
Shit, why not have the first primary in 2006? That's the problem. Clinton will say anything to win. Sounds like another Clinton...
obama knows he will lose (and did lose) those two primaries, hence he did what he could to avoid having those delegates counted. who will do anything to win? sounds like obama to me.
you're right, it was the democratic party -- the party she belongs to -- that had decided for the votes not to be counted because they broke ranks and moved their primaries up ahead of schedule. Both MI and FL were aware they were breaking the rules when they did so and that their delegates would not be seated as a result. I never claimed that Hillary had anything to do with them not being counted, but that her "wins" in these states and subsequent insistance that, now, after the fact and in the face of all rule-breaking on their parts their delgates be seated anyway (in her favor) is incredulous, contrived, and down right wrong.
oh wait, perhaps she mispoke...
...i'll pipe in a little retort here. when women decided to take up the cause of women in america, the suffragettes if i have my history correct, deliberately disenfranchised african-american women. so to suggest somehow that women's rights is equal to or on par with rights of people - both women and men - kidnapped, traded for and brought over on ships in chains, then sold to americans is laughable.
HRC is not an asshole of the highest order, because she's a women, she's an asshole because in an effort to "Tonya Harding" Obama, it's become painfully obvious that what's in the best interest for her, is above what's in the best interest for both the party and the country.
everyday, every single fucking day we all hear the never ending news coming out her anally challenge whoremasters mouths; the superdelegates this, the pledged delegates can still change their minds, the sun might actually rotate around the earth, and the earth might really be flat.
if we all held Obama to atone for what his pastor said, then at what point do we hold HRC responsible for what her trolling, cigar smoking asshat of husband did to ANOTHER WOMAN?
i'm not voting for Obama because he's a black man, but because i am...
it's a rather difficult argument to say that Obama lost MI since he wasn't even ON THE BALLOT! And while he was on the ballot in FL, he respected the agreement made by all candidates not to campaign, compete, or recognize the primary there because of the infracture of rules laid out by the national party organization.
it was the states' democratic parties that fucked up, but why should the voters of those states be penalized for their mistake? if obama cared about the voters of those states he should have supported a revote. plain and simple. but he saw the writing on the wall and did what was politically expedient.
I believe obama did support a revote, just not the specific plans put forth.
but really, can I ask this:
what the f*ck is up with voting in Florida??
why should we trust them at all anymore?
i feel for florida voters. if any voters have reason to feel like the process sucks, it's them.
and db, obama never publically took a position, knowing that it would be politically harmful to have a revote. but if obama wanted a revote to happen, it would have happened. the michigan legislature killed a bill because state obama supporters opposed the mail-in revote.
no simpleton, it was at least in the case of FL their legislatures fault, and they are elected officials. rules are rules, and let's see if i get this right Obama says he'll do whatever the DNC decides, then MI and FL decide to do nothing and it's his fault. then if he proposes some solution, and HRC decides no dice, it's his fault. then if HRC picks the method of how they'll revote, and Obama says no, it's his fault. then if PR decides to move their vote and change from a caucus to a primary, it's ok?
only in Hillaryland, where flowers smell like shit and everyone will believe it's Obama's fault. in Hillaryland, where a vote on a war no one wanted can turn into she's more prepared. in Hillaryland, where sniper fire never happened and it's just mis-speak [3 times]. in Hillaryland where it's i'm not some stand by my man, and she does exactly that, and blames a "vast right wing conspiracy." in Hillaryland, where you can claim to do something regarding healthcare, and never actually do it, and somehow blame everyone else. in Hillaryland, where solving Irish and English conflict means reading Finnegans Wake in Picadilly Circus.....whooppeee for me!
she's so hated Nancy Pelosi wants to dropkick her sorry ass in the East River.
oh yeah, hanging chads = major fucking problem, but a mail in vote = cake...somehow i know Vince Fosters name would appear on at least 2% of the votes cast if that happened...
it's everyone else's fault, isn't it? that doesn't take away from the fact that the voters of those states got screwed, and obama did nothing about it; he in fact tried to evade the issue. the man is just as political as hillary (but with a grating sanctimonious air about his politics).
Emilio, I unfortunately don't have energy to respond to what I think are some very true and considered points in your post. But thank you for taking time to write it and pose the questions. I do agree that a "let's come honest" discussion of gender - addressing stereotypical beliefs about the roles and public perceptions of women and men both - is something this country, and the world, needs to have. It's a huge, huge topic, and one that is addressed constantly and slowly, though too slowly.
I also think when people call Hillary to task, its not because she's a woman, its because she's Hillary Clinton. I certainly think being a woman does not make one unqualified to be the president of the United States. I do, however, think that being Hillary Clinton does.
After all, you put lb on the ballot, and I'd vote for her.
"but why should the voters of those states be penalized for their mistake?"
Well thats what they get for being part of the democratic party - Look the Fla and Mich. primaries, as well as super Tues were created by Democratic party bosses to give the Clintons the nomination unchallanged. I cant think of more sweet justice for favorite hillbilly lawyers. Fuck'm.
On the topic of woman - I have no problem shes a woman, I just hate her scum bag husband. Its Her politics about her I dont like. I Dont think Americans have any issues with having a woman leader. We elect women as senators and govenors all the time. Its just the president comes every 4 years and theres only 1 - so its hard for anyone to get into it.
liberty bell, thank you for your considered response. I agree, that discussion is slow in coming.
Again, my post was not a defense of Clinton. But I do wonder about whether there isn't a lot of denial and suppression in a statement like:
"I also think when people call Hillary to task, its not because she's a woman, it's because she's Hillary Clinton."
One of the points I was trying to make is that if anyone here at Archinect would write a statement like "Obama in an n-word" or similar slur about him and then say "I only mean that about him, because I don't like him; it doesn't carry any other connotation or apply to black people in general", he/she would, rightly, be ripped apart as a blatant racist and liar and probably be banned from posting.
But people here are continually writing that Clinton is a "c**t", "b**ch", "wh**re", and similar epiteths and then stating "Well, I mean those terms about her only, they don't carry any other connotation", and nobody here even makes a peep. It's one thing to "take someone to task" and another to use, as I said before, scurrilous and degrading terms that obviously apply beyond just that person (and if you don't think they do apply beyond her, and why, I'm not going to waste the time here to explain it to you). To me, that kind of aggression reveals larger hatreds and inner insecurities than just attacking Clinton, and are part of another large "silence" in our society (and I suspect many of those using those terms here and elsewhere are male and that goes to the heart of it).
Excuse the non-family-friendly language below:
I totally got your point, Emilio, and don't think it has been addressed here by anyone responding yet. What you're saying is:
Call a woman "cunt" = dismissed, no further consideration necessary
Call a black person "nigger" = dismissed, no further consideration necessary
Call a man "faggot" = dismissed, no further consideration necessary
But if someone actually used the second example on Obama, the (justifiably) angry outcry would be overwhelming. So why not for the other two terms?
I can only say, as a woman, when someone calls a woman they don't agree with a cunt, I immediately assume that means they don't have any more valid/intelligent argument to make than name-calling. So I tend to sorta disregard anything further they have to say.
Granted, yes, this is just a web forum; everyone feels looser with language here than we would to another person's face.
perhaps being a man i can't fully understand, but i'll try, c*nt/b*tch/d*ckhead/do*chebag/ does not equal n*gger - by any stretch - and no LB i am not NOT being critical of your point. i do admit it's bad form and derogatory, but there is no moral or immoral equivalency, none.
for me the word nigger implies so much more than any of us think. when whites use the word it brings so many things front and center, a history that this country refuses to apologize, acknowledge or even work through. getting past the issues of race and slavery is not the same with working through.
in some level i think there is a bit of myth in women when seen through the lense of the 20th century american history. women throughout history have been strong figures, heads of state, leaders in science, literature, art, politics, etc...yet even in the history of this country, as it continues to unfold, we find the importance of women in the creation of america.
so what happened in the 20th century that put women in the kitchen, ironing clothes, standing by their man? because if history teaches us anything, it's that women were/are the moral barometer that made/make america what it is.
the word nigger to me - and the reason why whites are forbade to use it - is a sign of "ownership," implicit in the word itself is a history embeded with white slave masters, southern KKK, segregationist states, etc....so when a white culture uses it, it means more than "a word" it means so much, to so many. whites "used" to own that word and that is why it offends many, and when african american youths use it whites cannot "get it."
Well, that word was once used as easily and freely to describe and put down a black person as the other words are used to put down women, but something finally changed in the culture to put that word and what it implies beyond the pale.
A word like "cunt" or "whore" have similar connotations regarding women, implying tons about what the speaker thinks a woman's role in a culture should be, but these words have not yet reached a cutural "beyond the pale" status, and are allowed with impunity against even someone running for presidential office. Protestations that these words don't hurt or demean are usually made by the persons using them against someone. A similar example is when Native Americans protest against the use of hurtful and stereotypical names used in our culture, but are usually dismissed with "Oh, it's just a sports team, we don't mean any harm, and it's tradition" as if the degree of harm is on the side of the abuser to determine.
And, beta, forgive me if I don't take your view of women's power in history as the last word on the subject. Yea, you can pick iindividual women who were powerful figures in history, and you can even point to matriarchal societies where women had power. But you really want to argue that that's the history of women in this world? Again, pick any group in the world that is suppressed and subjugated, and you can bet your ass that women in that group are usually the most subjugated of all. Hell, in some places in the world they are the ONLY subjugated group (and I don't have to list the cases here). It's really ludicruous to play "whose suffering is the most suffering" game, but even in the case of slavery in this country, all slaves were brutilized, whipped, subjugated, and turned into property, but which sub-group was on top of that also raped and made to carry the seed of the abhorrent slavers?
And, lb, I agree with you about the internet making everyone "looser" with their language, and I have been as guilty as anyone here of that. And I have also not been blameless in the use of those terms towards women in my past. But I have at least tried to not apply them to any of the candidates in this election, because I totally agree with you that at that point you "don't have any more valid/intelligent argument to make than name-calling."
Mostly, my aim here is just to bring this issue into the light, maybe try to finally have that discussion.
good point. i just think as americans we tend to look at the role of women through different lenses, and i think to role of subjugation is only seen in the light of 20th century enlightenment, and feminist politics...i don't think many women in the 18th century, in america, saw the world where we now see it, both in past and present tense, that is not saying it's right. however, i don't think, that if you can assume a slave in the 18th or 19th century felt good about their position, in that given context.
I see what you mean, but I don't think the suffragette movement and feminism in the 60s and 70s has solved all of the problems, just like the Civil Rights Movement and subsequent legislation didn't solve all those problems either.
and beta, I apologize for any past name calling.....that damn internets!
cool Emilio, no prob on the other stuff, i too apologize. in my 40 years, i don't think i have invested this much emotion in anything outside of family...i can't wait for this to be over, because i need to get architecture back.
and bring sexy back!
As much as I support human rights for all I think some of you are really missing the mark. HRC has pushed gender in this race because we tolerate it. If Obama had ran on the black platform HRC would have the nomination, no question. So how can anyone question the fairness of gender and ethnicity in this race?
Viewing this primary as a race between a black man and a white woman is a bit misleading. I believe this is a race between a black man and a former first lady. How many people believe HRC would be where she is at without that connection? It kills the monumentality of it for me.
As for the terminology used against HRC, give me a break. Think about it. I can freely say "women/men get on my nerves." I cannot freely say "blacks/mexicans/gays/lesbains get on my nerves." No slurs used but the intent is incredibly different.
not to mention her buggy eyes and screechy voice, is she medicated? we know McCain is
does this count as offensive?
beta you are correct though; the n-word does have a deeper, more offensive history, so it is somehow worse than other slurs.
And mighty's funny picture reminds me that there is a use of "cunt" in British boy movies, where the guys are calling one another cunt, that I think is a funny usage. But that word hasn't passed beyond offensive yet, for me, nor has faggot, which has started to be well-appropriated by homosexuals, IMO.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.