Economy Still Toxic?

Watch the Video!

This isn't about Obama directly but because the financial crisis and its aftershocks are still major issues slowing the advancement of his agenda: with the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and managing the federal money loaned to the banks(and I hope to some small extent managing/monitoring the banks operations, say enough to prevent further fraud), I thought I should put it up. This is an interview by Bill Moyers of Bill Black. Even though we're being told the recession is over and everything is fine, after this interview I get the sense that everything is not fine.


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QL0BCb1tk&feature=related
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOA1RpK7ttg&feature=related
Part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4JXW_ErXQ

Not Too Big to Fail, Economy Too Weak To Oppose Them

Let’s do a little exercise for the imagination. If you were to tune into the first speech President Obama was going to give to Wall Street after the sub-prime loan/credit default swap crisis, what would you expect to hear?

Would you expect to hear him describe what we found out about the massive fraud in the lending and financial firms, and failure of regulation by Washington? Maybe even vows to never have it happen again? I might even have expected a harsh indictment of our reliance on the financial sector, it being it’s own bubble, near an unsustainable 21% of our GDP and a path toward a more sound economy, say by investing in new energy? “Banking is not the creator of our prosperity but is the creation of it. It is not the cause of our wealth, but it is the consequence of our wealth." A quote in Kevin Phillips, “Bad Money.” A world power’s heavy reliance on finance at this stage of development is not historically a reliable formula.

Obama still seems to be making his speeches about the financial crisis and regulation from a position of vulnerability. Although this speech marks the one-year anniversary of the crisis he is still talking in the present tense about closing the loopholes and passing reform legislation. You almost wouldn’t know the rhetoric in this speech is aimed at those who caused the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

The crisis revealed a weakness of the American economy, if the financial sector was not 21% of our economy they wouldn’t have been able to influence congress and the regulators to look the other way while they robbed the American people, which is exactly what they knew they were doing. They knew lenders were getting people into bad loans, or financially speaking, “high-risk” loans, that risk is what gave the assets (those loans) used in the derivatives and credit default swaps value. If Obama isn’t fighting for his plan to strengthen the structure of our economy by developing other industries like renewable energy, he is at the mercy of the financial firms. Without financial sector reform being part of a larger plan to reform the structure of our economy any changes that threaten the position of favor of the financial sector will threaten the overall economy, and his opponents and the financial sector and their supporters will not hesitate to make that call and use it to squash reform allowing our economy to safely recover, let alone be reconfigured in a stronger way. Without fighting for a plan to strengthening the economy through reform and his campaign promise to reform corporate tax loopholes any real change is a foregone conclusion.

Youtube-Obama Speech to Wall Street

Each part is about 7 minutes
Come on you know you want to listen to it, the first speech to wall street after the crash.

Part 1

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

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSkqNtx3iJs&feature=related

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwiv1FKv1Jc&feature=related

Cracker, the New Gay

If you’re in your twenties you know the utility which the term “gay” is or has been used, from lame to nonsensical to selfish, it can cover so many meanings, it can substitute for almost any adjective desired that has a negative implication. A friend’s whiny complaining, or their argument that makes no sense is “gay”. Whether you think using “gay” like this is right or wrong, it has the effect of making people hyper aware of society’s idea of masculinity and I would also argue, makes you more aware of your heterosexuality and on the flip side, more aware of homosexuality. I find it interesting that as the generation that used this term, we are also probably the most accepting of homosexuals in our history.

As racial anxieties are being stoked for political gain in this country, and pressure mounts on Obama to fulfill the expectations we have about the kind of civil rights figure the first President of African American heritage should be, we are all staring a real chance, maybe the best chance in my lifetime, for real progress in the civil rights movement in the face.

That’s why I’m going to start calling people on being “cracker”.

That’s why I am going to start using and advocating the use of a perjorative term against white people. We can make each other think as a culture about what makes us white(or what makes us good white people?), what do we not like about other white people, we will also start to think as a culture about what is our heritage, what will be our legacy. I believe if we feel we have more control and responsibility over what the values of mainstream white american culture are, and have a tool to label the destructive elements, those that wear down our resolve to fight for others civil rights and fight for our own freedom in a world of historical inequality, maybe we can get to where we can pick up the banner of equality Martin Luther King left 50 years ago.

Watching as Glen Beck and other public figures use coded language (meaning words which carry certain associations and emotional reponses) and misrepresent issues, and people’s statements or positions to create and drum up threats to white or upper class wealth and power in America and direct that energy toward opposition of policies, and people associated with Barack Obama.

If the white people who were protesting Obama’s speech to school kids were to think about how their actions would impact the perception of their race I think they would have acted differently. They missed a real opportunity to discuss, first of all, any issues raised by Obama in the speech AND the fact that this is the first African American president, because they were too afraid he would somehow magically make a hidden case for communism so strong that the kids would …I don’t know where the paranoid delusion goes from there but, they pulled their children out of school and scolded the first African American president for wanting to direct a speech at the nation’s children. Now if they had thought about how that will go down in the history books and makes whites today look racist, whether overt ideas or rhetoric of racism played a part or not, I don’t think it would have happened. Therefore, that is sooo cracker. Or my other favorite phrasing, how f*ckin honkey.

My Differences

I found this great interview with a Fox News pundit, or partisan, on a hiphop and politics blog. In the interview the pundit, Marc Lamont hill, incorporates a great analysis of current healthcare debate and the Obama presidency in general. He also touches on other issues and I’m going to take advantage of the clarity and insight of Mr. Hill's arguments to lay out my disagreements with a few common positions of the "left". If you don't listen to the interview it may be hard to follow my comments, so...(the first four minutes are music, and it is about 30 min long. Just start and you will get hooked.)

First I think asking President Obama to just start focusing on some minority specific issues is something he can't really do. At this point he can either become a major civil rights leader or……not. I hadn’t thought about the pressure on Obama to become a civil rights leader before…that’s kind of serious I think.

I disagree about the Van Jones thing. I agree Mr. Hill and the other leftist activists should probably have been more active about it, but I think I understand why they haven’t. The things he said, and some of the things coming out of left during the Bush Administration, not just criticisms that were exaggerated or polemic, but some arguments, the war was about corporate profits(as opposed to oil geopolitcs) etc, etc. were irresponsible, incorrect, etc. and now, they see that and the consequences that come it. The things Van Jones said were politically suicidal in Washington. Look realistically at where mainstream America is and why. Especially if you want to start winning elections.

The issue of American policy in Latin America and its influence on immigration here can’t be purely about U.S. agricultural policies if it was I’m sure there would be protests in Mexico. I’m not read up on our trade policies in Mexico but if that was the main driver of why people are risking their lives crossing the desert to come in, I would think there would be protests in Mexico. I’m sure they contribute and play a role but let’s be responsible about the arguments we make. As far as I know there are a lot of industries moving into Mexico with globalization. But you can still make the argument that coming for a better life(from grinding poverty) is a legitimate to risk entering a country illegally and worthy of considering in relation to similar migrations into America in the past.

People should think about what they say publicly and how the other people in the country will feel about it, and as far as being labeled a communist, the best defense against that is to understand how you disagree with communism and be able to articulate that. I feel on the left in this country, as in every country, there are communists and socialists on the left that actually do conceal what they really believe to get more people to go along with the arguments and positions they put forth, just to get things going in their direction. Citizens need to be weary of the underlying beliefs or warrants of all arguments they hear, even ones from people in their own party, or faction, or whatever. People should be wary of political extremists in their own in-group, and be able to disagree with them and/or dispel accusations of being lumped with them. If you aren’t capable of doing that, then your ideology and possibly that of your party is unfortunately, tied up in their ideology a little too much, on certain arguments or issues, take the ones that are being used to force out President Obamas appointees, for example animal rights with the animals will have lawyers arguments being made, or extremist arguments in environmental racism that have been used or constructed from quotes being taken out of context and used. This is a politically, or in an argument, a difficult tactic to work against I think but...

Everything else I agree with. Marc Lamont Hill has my vote in any election.

Marc Lamont Hill Interview on Davey D's Blog

http://odeo.com/episodes/25106705-Fox-News-Pundit-Talks-About-Van-Jones-Progressives-Why-the-Left-Keeps-getting-Smashed-On

Healthcare PR Campaign by the Insurance Industries

I started this blog as part of a class project to take advantage of an opportunity to follow, write about and continue to educate myself about the issues from Obama’s platform that I felt were the most important and also about Obama himself as a politician and leader. I will most closely watch developments and write about healthcare, new energy, and closing corporate tax loopholes, which were the main issues of the platform Obama ran on.

I do not consider myself to be a supporter or an opponent of Barack Obama as a politician, but have my own ideas about these issues. I will be writing about them from my own perspective citing the influences that have shaped my views, in relation to the President’s policies. So this will not be the typical Obama supporter’s blog about the presidency, I want to try and be more objective and rational than most of his supporter’s blogs and not afraid to criticize or disagree with him or things he says. I am hoping to create a record of the Obama presidency from the eyes of a white working class college student from rural upstate New York. Growing up on hip hop and with parents who lived through the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, issues of race are something that I see as critically important in the world around me. That will be a major part of this blog too. I don’t think I need to include any more personal info about me, but if anyone has any questions feel free to ask.


My first thought is how can people be missing the real issues involved in the current “debate(debacle)”, namely the influence of special interests, health insurance firms, and drug companies on the basic functioning of our democracy.

The insurance industry is funding the FreedomWorks organization with Dick Armey as it’s former chair(I think chair) who has publicly stated his opposition to having any government health safety net program for the public. I won’t get into blaming the media, investigative journalism has been dead for way too long, I will stay focused on my disappointment with the lack of the people as well, to recognize the hijacking of our democractic process that took place with this campaign waged by the health insurance industry to kill reform. And I will add another point, babyboomers look like complete idiots right now in my eyes, being manipulated to leave the health insurance industry the way it is(by opposing reform, hell it might even make the insurance companies more brazen in denying people coverage) right before they all retire.

I will pass that message on to my Mom and Dad.