In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran for president against Lyndon B. Johnson. Goldwater leaned heavily to the right of the Republican Party. He championed free enterprised and ranted against large government. He was a strict constitutionalist who also believed in the moral health of Americans. He was also a gun rights advocate. Many Southern and midwestern Democrats switched parties; thus, began the Goldwater Movement. It joined social conservativism and the Republican Party. The tenants of the Goldwater Movement were simple: socially, the followers were conservative; economically, the followers believed in free enterprise and libertarianism. Social conservatives and Economic liberals joined together under the same tent.
Though Goldwater did not win his bid for presidency, he opened the way for every Conservative's champion, Ronald Reagan, who gave a speech for Goldwater in the 1964 campaign. Today's GOP prides itself in being "The Party of Reagan." Ronald Reagan preached smaller government, lower taxes for corporations to spark job creation, deregulation of the banking and finance sectors, fewer dollars spent on social benefits, cuts to education spending and mental health services, looser gun laws, and individual responsibility for crime (tougher crime penalties). That was 1980-1988. Fastfoward to 2010.
The problem with the Republican Party is that it looks hypocritical. Young people, who are not well-versed in history or political theory and who have never heard of Barry Goldwater, were born after Ronald Reagan or even George Bush elder served, do not understand how social conservativism and economic liberalism can exist together. For instance, most conservatives are against abortion but support the death penalty and war. So, conservatives would save an unborn life but take away another's who they may not like or regard highly? So, when the rich have to pay more taxes to support social/infrastructure improvement project it is "redistribution of wealth," but giving the banks and other Fortune 500 companies a tax-payer funded bailouts is not? Medicare and a public option are forms of socialism and that's bad, but allowing a few private companies to determine who is worthy of healthcare, what kind of treatments they can receive, and whether someone lives or dies is not a form of tyranny or even terrible? So, people should be free to choose when it comes to healthcare and medical treatment, but gay couples are not free to choose to be married? If Sarah Palin were truly a Conservative woman, why isn't she supporing her husband in the background while he commands the spotlight?
To younger voters, it seems as if the Republicans want things both ways. It seems like mass hypocrisy to a younger generation. How do they remedy this? If they do not remedy this perception problem, the party will dissolve as old, white male voters die and leave confused and angry younger voters who see their ideals as hypocrisy.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Problem with the postBaby Boomer Generation
Detroit is in ruins. Unemployment amongst African Americans is well past that of other nationalities. Suicide rates amongst African American males between the ages of 18 and 35 is also increasing. Most people, who live inside Wayne County, have to drive an hour for fresh fruits and vegetables. Even on Black in America, it was revealed that it is easier to obtain a gun in some Black neighborhoods than a fresh tomato.
How did this happen? When did this happen? How could we just sit by and let it happen?
It has been my privilege to spend my days teaching and discussing African American/diasporic literature. For the past two semesters, I've been focusing on Black people and our quest to achieve the American Dream. First, I ask my students, who are normally between the ages of 20 and 60, what they think the American Dream is. The answers include: a nice home in the suburbs, plenty of designer clothes, and at least one luxury car. Next, I ask them if they think the myth of American prosperity is true. If my class consists of mostly middle class white students, the answer is overwhelmingly "no." If my class consists of mostly Black and poor white students, the answer is "yes." These students really and truly believe in the American Dream. And they believe that it is achievable, one way or the other.
The next sector consists of me teaching them several texts written by Black people that are related to the American Dream. My major text is "A Raisin in the Sun," the groundbreaking play by the late Lorrain Hansberry. Here's the thing about their answers and the play that disturbs me the most, and these notes are also part of my lecture to the students.
I notice that in their answers, nobody said anything about getting a better education. Nobody says anything about having more time to properly raise their children. The answers were solely materialistic and having the ability to buy bigger and better material goods. "A Raisin in the Sun" also has an interesting subplot. There is a generational/geographical shift between the mother, Lena Younger, and her children, Walter and Beneatha. Lena Younger and her husband, Walter Younger Sr. migrated from the South to one of our Northern industrial centers. Like the millions of African Americans to do so during the Great Migrations I and II, they were filled with hope and joy at the prospect of earning fair wages. But like so many, their hopes turned into the nightmare embodied by the ghetto in which they lived. Walter Younger, Sr. had to die in order for his family to earn enough money to even think of leaving that ghetto. I notice that, in the play, neither one of the children mourned their father. They were totally focused on that $10000 pay check, and what it meant for them individually. Lena sees this tendency in her children, but cannot quite articulate the trouble with them. Asaigi, the African boyfriend of Beneatha, did. He, like so many readers of the play, found it odd that the children argued over money that their father died for, with no mention or thanks to him.
Here's where I come in. With the Great Migration II, African Americans became mostly urban people for the first time in history. People were glad to get away from the cotton fields of the Mississippi Delta and the sugar cane farms of Louisiana. I cannot blame them. Share cropping is another name for volunteer slavery. These people took with them horror tales of white supremacy, Blues, jazz, quilting, church, spirituals, hair braiding, soul food, and jive. They told their children stories of how they were so poor that they could not afford new shoes and clothes; how they could not get their hair pressed every week; how they did not even have enough to eat most days. Suddenly, it became fashionable to poor and Black from Mississippi. Children, once seen as sources of wealth because added hands meant added labor for the farm, became an inconvenience. Women, like Ruth Younger, did not want added mouths to feed because they had to think about the children that were already here. Abortions became a blessing, and not a taboo.
What these people failed to take with them was family history. Yes, Jim Crowism was bad, but what about the uncle that always outsmarted the white man or the passive aggressive aunt that told her white woman employer, "I don't know about this strike Ms. Dorothy, but I'm gone stay off them buses until this mess get straightened out." What these people failed to take with them was a sense of pride and dignity. Yes, people were share croppers, but walking with your shoulders rounded is not worth anything man can offer. No, people did not have the best houses or the trendiest clothes. But the houses and the clothes that they had were kept clean and neat. Being poor does not give us a reason to live like animals. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
So the thing that came down between Lena Younger and her children was a lack of teaching and too much teaching. The South was bad. Mississippi was everybody's nightmare, but being next to the soil taught survival skills, dignity, family unity, and pride. The Baby Boomer generation, most of them having grown up in the South, or least visited with their grandparents from the summer, still have some of these skills. In the name of "progress," or in the name of achieving the ever-elusive American Dream, either wanted to forget these things or failed to pass them on. And look at what the forgetfulness, the lack of teaching has wrought. Look at Detroit. Look at Chicago. Look at Memphis. Look at New Orleans. Look at Houston. Look at Richmond. Look at Oakland. The next time a Baby Boomer asks, "What's wrong with the young people?" Look in the mirror.
In breaking the glass ceiling, in becoming the first this and the first that, in becoming middle class, in achieving the American dream, in racing to be my competition because you do not want to retire and become irrelevant, have you failed to teach me, my elder?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Gender is Still THE Issue; That Old Vaginal Tax
My colleagues and I pride ourselves on being very liberal, intelligent and tolerant people. After all, we have chosen the humanities as our focus. We have chosen to become professors of humanities as our career paths. We have chosen to dedicate our lives to enlightening students to the value of others' cultures through literature. And let me just say, we did not do it for the money.
I said all of that to say this, I am guilty, I think, of being hypocritical. Though I consider myself to be very tolerant, there is one group of people I cannot stomach. It is the group of young ladies who call themselves "lesbians," who walk around with three sports bras on and shave their heads or wear cornrows. They sag their pants and walk with a wide stance like a male. Some of them even wear dildos at all times. I have seen them challenge men to outward shows of physical prowess, and heard about them beating their girlfriends...just like abusive men. They are not transgender. They do not want to become men. Yet, they want to be treated and looked upon as men, especially in their relationships.
Let me be clear, here...I'm not homophobic. I have many friends who are gay and lesbians. But the above group of "lesbians" really get beneath my skin. I have placed this group in quotation because I am questioning their sexuality. It seems to me, that these people are not really lesbians at all. Before I get a ton of hateful emails, please finish reading what I'm saying and think about it.
Maybe these women are not lesbians. For them, lesbianism is not a function of sexuality. I feel that these women suffer from plain old penis enny. Now, I'm no dummy. I know Freud and his theories have been thoroughly debunked by feminists, but I'm writing about what I see. I feel that these women are mascarading as lesbians in order to get the same respect they feel that men sometimes undeservingly receive in our society.
Everything from teaching, to nursing, to the WNBA is devalued in monetary compensation as well as respect because they are female-dominated positions. Have you heard RAP lately? Are there any female rappers out there? Surely, when RAP first started and was marketed by African Americans to African Americans, there were many female RAP artists. With RAP's explosion on the mainstream market, came the disappearance of female rappers.
Have we in America created an atmosphere conducive to penis envy and "lesbianism?" Perhaps the only way many of these women feel that they can be taken seriously as human beings is to cloak themselves in masculinity. Walk like a man, talk like man, wear a man's penis, and beat another woman like a man. Does that truly garner respect?
Let me take this out of the gay/lesbian community and make it national. I recently posted an article claiming that I'm waiting on derogatory remarks toward Michelle Obama from the Right. Less than one week later, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was introduced as Obama's Supreme Court pick. The vile hatred and claims of reverse racism coming from the Right has been repulsive...absolutely repulsive. This woman has been called racist, stupid, and affirmitive action pick by men of the Right. The women have been fairly silent.
Racism aside, I wonder how much of this has to do with Sotomayor's gender as well. After all, C. Gordon Liddy did imply that the woman's menstrual cycle would inhibit her ability to render justice. Beck refered to her as "hispanic chick lady." Dennis Miller did a crude impersonation of her as a female Spanish dancer. With all of this derogatory activity, I wonder how long it will take some sick joker on the Right to come out with a Sotomayor nutcracking doll. I recall the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco. The amazing thing about that case was, his intelligence never came into question -only his sexual prowess.
It has been disheartening, as a young, Black, female aspiring academic to hear this kind of criticism thrown at a woman who became the editor of Yale's Law School Journal. It has proven to me, that the according to the Right, the American Dream is not only prohibited to those with skin of color, but also to those who happen to have been born with a vagina. And I can offer this word of caution to the "lesbian" community...wearing a fake penis won't make things any easier.
I said all of that to say this, I am guilty, I think, of being hypocritical. Though I consider myself to be very tolerant, there is one group of people I cannot stomach. It is the group of young ladies who call themselves "lesbians," who walk around with three sports bras on and shave their heads or wear cornrows. They sag their pants and walk with a wide stance like a male. Some of them even wear dildos at all times. I have seen them challenge men to outward shows of physical prowess, and heard about them beating their girlfriends...just like abusive men. They are not transgender. They do not want to become men. Yet, they want to be treated and looked upon as men, especially in their relationships.
Let me be clear, here...I'm not homophobic. I have many friends who are gay and lesbians. But the above group of "lesbians" really get beneath my skin. I have placed this group in quotation because I am questioning their sexuality. It seems to me, that these people are not really lesbians at all. Before I get a ton of hateful emails, please finish reading what I'm saying and think about it.
Maybe these women are not lesbians. For them, lesbianism is not a function of sexuality. I feel that these women suffer from plain old penis enny. Now, I'm no dummy. I know Freud and his theories have been thoroughly debunked by feminists, but I'm writing about what I see. I feel that these women are mascarading as lesbians in order to get the same respect they feel that men sometimes undeservingly receive in our society.
Everything from teaching, to nursing, to the WNBA is devalued in monetary compensation as well as respect because they are female-dominated positions. Have you heard RAP lately? Are there any female rappers out there? Surely, when RAP first started and was marketed by African Americans to African Americans, there were many female RAP artists. With RAP's explosion on the mainstream market, came the disappearance of female rappers.
Have we in America created an atmosphere conducive to penis envy and "lesbianism?" Perhaps the only way many of these women feel that they can be taken seriously as human beings is to cloak themselves in masculinity. Walk like a man, talk like man, wear a man's penis, and beat another woman like a man. Does that truly garner respect?
Let me take this out of the gay/lesbian community and make it national. I recently posted an article claiming that I'm waiting on derogatory remarks toward Michelle Obama from the Right. Less than one week later, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was introduced as Obama's Supreme Court pick. The vile hatred and claims of reverse racism coming from the Right has been repulsive...absolutely repulsive. This woman has been called racist, stupid, and affirmitive action pick by men of the Right. The women have been fairly silent.
Racism aside, I wonder how much of this has to do with Sotomayor's gender as well. After all, C. Gordon Liddy did imply that the woman's menstrual cycle would inhibit her ability to render justice. Beck refered to her as "hispanic chick lady." Dennis Miller did a crude impersonation of her as a female Spanish dancer. With all of this derogatory activity, I wonder how long it will take some sick joker on the Right to come out with a Sotomayor nutcracking doll. I recall the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco. The amazing thing about that case was, his intelligence never came into question -only his sexual prowess.
It has been disheartening, as a young, Black, female aspiring academic to hear this kind of criticism thrown at a woman who became the editor of Yale's Law School Journal. It has proven to me, that the according to the Right, the American Dream is not only prohibited to those with skin of color, but also to those who happen to have been born with a vagina. And I can offer this word of caution to the "lesbian" community...wearing a fake penis won't make things any easier.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Gender is still a factor
Over the past two weeks, Nancy Pelosi and whether or not she needs to step down has been dominating the news circuit...much to my chagrin. I would much rather like to hear about the economy, or the two wars we are fighting.
Republicans claim that Speaker Pelosi is a hypocrite, that she knew about torture, and that she is a fool for taking on the untouchable Central Intelligence Agency. Democrats claim that this is really a smoke screen devised by Republicans to take the spotlight off their intiation of and complicity with torturing people who may or may not have had criminal intent toward the United States and her people. I agree with this last sentiment. The issue is not what little or lot Nancy Pelosi knew at the time, but that torture is wrong. All who need to be prosecuted should be by Eric Holder and the Justice Department.
Yet, I see another problem within the GOP that is not being addressed. Among the other hate-filled diatribes being spewed at the audience from the lips of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck is the hidden divisive rhetoric of gender discrimination and even misogony. People could argue that the GOP is fair to women, with Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin being two of their most vocal representatives. However, let us not forget that the Cult of True Womanhood, one of the most repressive social movements for women, was perpetuated mainly by middle class, White women of New England.
It seems that many neocons/Republicans take issue with Pelosi's gender. In fact, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been quoted by several venues implying that had he been in the House of Representatives, they would not be marching to the beat of a woman's drum. Let us not forget the many, many terrible jokes about "nut-busting" at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's expense. Many conservative men and women criticized former President Bill Clinton for letting his wife run the show. The worst joke I've heard was both racist and misogynist, "Bill Clinton was America's first Black president because he just laid back and let his woman do everything..." So many people circulated that joke that I've lost its originator. I never criticized Bill Clinton for acknowledging the fact that his wife was just as intelligent, strong, educated, and capable as himself. Being born a XX instead of XY does not water down intellectual abilities. Why would I? Why would anybody criticize a man for respecting his wife?
Now, I am waiting on the new jokes about Michelle Obama. After eight years of Laura Bush's quiet style of leadership (I respect that as well. Mrs. Bush, a former librarian, really cared about education and was satisfied with a type of quiet strength), I'm pretty sure conservative speaker boxes are anxious to discredit President Obama. So far, he has been a formidable opponent, tackling his opponents from all angles. I think Michelle, just like Secretary of State Clinton, is strong enough to keep going without allowing conservative talk boxes to slow her down. But for now, I'll be waiting.
Republicans claim that Speaker Pelosi is a hypocrite, that she knew about torture, and that she is a fool for taking on the untouchable Central Intelligence Agency. Democrats claim that this is really a smoke screen devised by Republicans to take the spotlight off their intiation of and complicity with torturing people who may or may not have had criminal intent toward the United States and her people. I agree with this last sentiment. The issue is not what little or lot Nancy Pelosi knew at the time, but that torture is wrong. All who need to be prosecuted should be by Eric Holder and the Justice Department.
Yet, I see another problem within the GOP that is not being addressed. Among the other hate-filled diatribes being spewed at the audience from the lips of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck is the hidden divisive rhetoric of gender discrimination and even misogony. People could argue that the GOP is fair to women, with Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin being two of their most vocal representatives. However, let us not forget that the Cult of True Womanhood, one of the most repressive social movements for women, was perpetuated mainly by middle class, White women of New England.
It seems that many neocons/Republicans take issue with Pelosi's gender. In fact, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been quoted by several venues implying that had he been in the House of Representatives, they would not be marching to the beat of a woman's drum. Let us not forget the many, many terrible jokes about "nut-busting" at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's expense. Many conservative men and women criticized former President Bill Clinton for letting his wife run the show. The worst joke I've heard was both racist and misogynist, "Bill Clinton was America's first Black president because he just laid back and let his woman do everything..." So many people circulated that joke that I've lost its originator. I never criticized Bill Clinton for acknowledging the fact that his wife was just as intelligent, strong, educated, and capable as himself. Being born a XX instead of XY does not water down intellectual abilities. Why would I? Why would anybody criticize a man for respecting his wife?
Now, I am waiting on the new jokes about Michelle Obama. After eight years of Laura Bush's quiet style of leadership (I respect that as well. Mrs. Bush, a former librarian, really cared about education and was satisfied with a type of quiet strength), I'm pretty sure conservative speaker boxes are anxious to discredit President Obama. So far, he has been a formidable opponent, tackling his opponents from all angles. I think Michelle, just like Secretary of State Clinton, is strong enough to keep going without allowing conservative talk boxes to slow her down. But for now, I'll be waiting.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
What is the Government For?
Here's my blog. It is a series of questions that I had after listening to Republicans talk about big government and getting tired of listening to Rush Limbaugh all weekend long. I think, if Republicans want to start over, they should be answering these questions instead of listening and apologizing to a psychopath.
1. What is government for? Is it to be a chaperone for big businesses, issuing forth golden parachutes, and allowing them to take jobs overseas with the tax cuts given them by the federal government? Is government strictly an imperialistic millitary machine that imposes the culture of America on Third World countries whenever we need raw materials and cheap labor to fund our capitalistic ventures? What is government for?
2. What is socialism? Is it socialism or welfare when power is placed back in the hand of the laborer? What is it called when corporations and the ushers of capitalism strip power away from the hands of workers/consumers that must make and consume their products? Why isn't it socialism or welfare when the government gives individuals (corporations are often taxed as "individuals") taxpayer dollars to go out and buy themselves luxury planes and trips to expensive spas? Why aren't these people labeled "welfare queens and kings?" Aren't they, too, living irresponsibly, jeapordizing the jobs and futures of others, and then asking for a handout from the government? I ask again, what is government for?
3. Does government exist solely to help friends of the government become very wealthy from the deaths of our soldiers by passing out no-bid contracts to inept millitary contractors? Is it there to place the lives of our precious soldiers at stake to enrich people whose children will probably never see the battle field? What is government for?
Somebody, answer this for me. Rush Limbaugh and his party has not answered it, even though they are quite deft at telling a starving population what government is not for.
1. What is government for? Is it to be a chaperone for big businesses, issuing forth golden parachutes, and allowing them to take jobs overseas with the tax cuts given them by the federal government? Is government strictly an imperialistic millitary machine that imposes the culture of America on Third World countries whenever we need raw materials and cheap labor to fund our capitalistic ventures? What is government for?
2. What is socialism? Is it socialism or welfare when power is placed back in the hand of the laborer? What is it called when corporations and the ushers of capitalism strip power away from the hands of workers/consumers that must make and consume their products? Why isn't it socialism or welfare when the government gives individuals (corporations are often taxed as "individuals") taxpayer dollars to go out and buy themselves luxury planes and trips to expensive spas? Why aren't these people labeled "welfare queens and kings?" Aren't they, too, living irresponsibly, jeapordizing the jobs and futures of others, and then asking for a handout from the government? I ask again, what is government for?
3. Does government exist solely to help friends of the government become very wealthy from the deaths of our soldiers by passing out no-bid contracts to inept millitary contractors? Is it there to place the lives of our precious soldiers at stake to enrich people whose children will probably never see the battle field? What is government for?
Somebody, answer this for me. Rush Limbaugh and his party has not answered it, even though they are quite deft at telling a starving population what government is not for.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Once Again, Corporate (Oil) Greed Escapes Scrutiny
As an undergraduate, I was introduced to a phrase that I've since grown to loath and despise: "liberal news media." I've often wondered what my fellow college students meant by it. I've always wondered what "power" lay in the hands of those "liberal news media" giants. I've always wondered why this "conspiracy" seems to be so easily used and believed by the Right after they face a defeat. I've always wondered why this phrase is so effective, seeing as how some of the most popular programs on television and radio are hosted by very, very conservative voices like Rush and Bill'O.
I've despised this phrase because news is news. From the BBC to CNN to Fox to MSNBC...news is news. As a matter of fact, Fox tells more world news than CNN or MSNBC. So could my classmates be talking about the spin shows, of which there are an equal number of conservative and liberal-leaning ones on the air?
I've despised this phrase because most of these shows, whether liberal or conservative-leaning, fail to criticize factors that are of the utmost importance. I'll give you a prime example. We are in an economic crisis. Over 600,000 people lost jobs in January alone. Political pundits, both liberal and conservative, have credited several factions for the cause of this economic downfall. Most have boiled it down to greedy corporate CEO's, banks doling out subprime loans to new homeowners who could have qualified for fixed-rate loans, a bloated and swollen housing market, and the disappearance of the smokestack economy.
Politicians in D.C. battle over how to get us out of this mess, while the pundits are allowed to spin it whichever way they please.
However, there is this one factor...one big, huge, gigantic factor that the "liberal news media" and "conservative crusaders" have thus far refuse to talk about...the role of big oil in this economic collaspe. If the saying is, "So goes GM, so goes America," a better alternative to that would be," So goes Exxon, so goes GM, so goes America." Oil prices, for the past six years, have been astronomical. We have been getting raped at the pump, and seem powerless to do anything about it. Nobody is saying anything about it. Period. In the midst of this crisis of unemployment and defaulted credit card/home loan payments, we know of at least one company who is posting record profits: Exxon.
It is my understanding, from a GM insider, that cars that use alternative sources of energy have been available since the mid-1980s. Remember that hideous electric car GM introduced in the 1980s? Whatever happened to it? Pressure from powerful oil lobbyists and the fact that we've had an oil barron in power for almost a decade have kept us helplessly dependent upon crude oil. It has been a battle of infrastructure. GM, Ford, Dodge, and Chrysler could produce these cars on a mass scale for years and years. And we, as smart consumers, could buy them. What the lobbyist have been successful in doing is blocking the infrastructure changes needed to support these manufacturers. If consumers buy these cars without proper infrastructure support, it would be like buying a gas-burning car, and not having any gas stations to refuel them. What sense would that make?
Conservative senators have been very successful in painting infrastructure updates and improvements as wasteful, porkbarrel, earmark spending. Conservative senators have been very successful in painting American car companies as behind our foreign counterparts when it comes to building cheap, efficient cars. In short, they are blaming GM and being silent about Exxon and their own complicity in this crisis. Now, we are suffering. As the pink slips become more and more numerous, has anyone noticed that the price of gas is creeping up again? Just as spring and summer are right around the corner and people are having to drive further for jobs that pay less. Once again, gas will consume a big chunk of the family budget.
Has anyone noticed how expensive diesel is? Diesel is slow-burning, and I guess the oil companies calculated the difference in and pushed up the price. If we don't drive diesel cars, how does this effect us, you ask? I'm glad you did. Truckers use diesel. Truckers deliver our goods. The price of delivering these goods is calculated in with the price of these goods once they reach us in the grocery store. So, if diesel rises, so does the price of milk, eggs, cheese, and everything else you can name.
I'm going to stop here, and wait for at least one person to bring up the oil culprits. I'm stopping here because I'm often astounding by the myopic vision of American business men. They are like race horses. The green blinders are on and they can see only one path. A really smart business man or woman would be leading the world in finding alternative fuel sources and infrastructure building. A smart business woman or man would have these markets already cornered.
I'm stopping because I'm angry. We get raped at the pump, and are supposed to be silent about it. Meanwhile, right-leaning people continue to blame the "liberal news media" who are also complicit in this crisis in their silences. Once again, politicians have put the greed of big oil ahead of the dire needs of their constituents. The fact that everyone, including the "liberal news media" personalities can remain silent about this outrageous display of greed and control over American consumer power, shows a blatant disregard for the needs and welfare of the entire American proletariat, be we conservative or liberal. The boys at the top apparently don't give a damn about us.
I've despised this phrase because news is news. From the BBC to CNN to Fox to MSNBC...news is news. As a matter of fact, Fox tells more world news than CNN or MSNBC. So could my classmates be talking about the spin shows, of which there are an equal number of conservative and liberal-leaning ones on the air?
I've despised this phrase because most of these shows, whether liberal or conservative-leaning, fail to criticize factors that are of the utmost importance. I'll give you a prime example. We are in an economic crisis. Over 600,000 people lost jobs in January alone. Political pundits, both liberal and conservative, have credited several factions for the cause of this economic downfall. Most have boiled it down to greedy corporate CEO's, banks doling out subprime loans to new homeowners who could have qualified for fixed-rate loans, a bloated and swollen housing market, and the disappearance of the smokestack economy.
Politicians in D.C. battle over how to get us out of this mess, while the pundits are allowed to spin it whichever way they please.
However, there is this one factor...one big, huge, gigantic factor that the "liberal news media" and "conservative crusaders" have thus far refuse to talk about...the role of big oil in this economic collaspe. If the saying is, "So goes GM, so goes America," a better alternative to that would be," So goes Exxon, so goes GM, so goes America." Oil prices, for the past six years, have been astronomical. We have been getting raped at the pump, and seem powerless to do anything about it. Nobody is saying anything about it. Period. In the midst of this crisis of unemployment and defaulted credit card/home loan payments, we know of at least one company who is posting record profits: Exxon.
It is my understanding, from a GM insider, that cars that use alternative sources of energy have been available since the mid-1980s. Remember that hideous electric car GM introduced in the 1980s? Whatever happened to it? Pressure from powerful oil lobbyists and the fact that we've had an oil barron in power for almost a decade have kept us helplessly dependent upon crude oil. It has been a battle of infrastructure. GM, Ford, Dodge, and Chrysler could produce these cars on a mass scale for years and years. And we, as smart consumers, could buy them. What the lobbyist have been successful in doing is blocking the infrastructure changes needed to support these manufacturers. If consumers buy these cars without proper infrastructure support, it would be like buying a gas-burning car, and not having any gas stations to refuel them. What sense would that make?
Conservative senators have been very successful in painting infrastructure updates and improvements as wasteful, porkbarrel, earmark spending. Conservative senators have been very successful in painting American car companies as behind our foreign counterparts when it comes to building cheap, efficient cars. In short, they are blaming GM and being silent about Exxon and their own complicity in this crisis. Now, we are suffering. As the pink slips become more and more numerous, has anyone noticed that the price of gas is creeping up again? Just as spring and summer are right around the corner and people are having to drive further for jobs that pay less. Once again, gas will consume a big chunk of the family budget.
Has anyone noticed how expensive diesel is? Diesel is slow-burning, and I guess the oil companies calculated the difference in and pushed up the price. If we don't drive diesel cars, how does this effect us, you ask? I'm glad you did. Truckers use diesel. Truckers deliver our goods. The price of delivering these goods is calculated in with the price of these goods once they reach us in the grocery store. So, if diesel rises, so does the price of milk, eggs, cheese, and everything else you can name.
I'm going to stop here, and wait for at least one person to bring up the oil culprits. I'm stopping here because I'm often astounding by the myopic vision of American business men. They are like race horses. The green blinders are on and they can see only one path. A really smart business man or woman would be leading the world in finding alternative fuel sources and infrastructure building. A smart business woman or man would have these markets already cornered.
I'm stopping because I'm angry. We get raped at the pump, and are supposed to be silent about it. Meanwhile, right-leaning people continue to blame the "liberal news media" who are also complicit in this crisis in their silences. Once again, politicians have put the greed of big oil ahead of the dire needs of their constituents. The fact that everyone, including the "liberal news media" personalities can remain silent about this outrageous display of greed and control over American consumer power, shows a blatant disregard for the needs and welfare of the entire American proletariat, be we conservative or liberal. The boys at the top apparently don't give a damn about us.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Reasons Why I Can't Leave the South, a Reminder
Given all of the craziness that happens in politics nationally, I felt I had to remind myself. I know that some of you have read this once before. But for others, this is new. Yes, I'm suffering through Haley Barbour's idiotic budget plan right now, and sometimes, I just don't know. Perhaps this can help me and you weather the Republican storm.
I have decided to stay in the South to help bring about change here. I know the South is often pigeon-holed as America's "third world" section of the country. Being from Mississippi, no one feels and lives this myopic perception more than us. However, there are some good reasons for staying in the South. I'm not saying that these reasons apply to everyone. This is my South as I see and live it.
1. $250,000 will get you a nice home (a home, home. Not a condo), some land, and a house full of furniture in a nice neighborhood in the South.
2. $100,000/year is still a better-than-average salary in the South. Getting a college education is definitely worth the sacrifice here.
3. Gaining 5 to 10 extra pounds will not ruin your social life in the South. Unlike our Northern counterparts, Southern brothers are still into thick chicks (I said thick not flabby).
4. Food is plentiful. Most of my cousins from the North think it is horrible the way we just go into each other's refrigerators to help ourselves. Why not let one person fix the food so that everybody gets something to eat? Well, everybody always has something to eat. Food is plentiful here. I know many, many Southerners that will let a credit card bill slide to put some extra food on the table. Do you remember coming home to grandma's. Did she ever limit your food? No. Even though she lived on a fixed income, there was always plenty of food on the table.
5. The rat race is slower here. Work is important, but a worker can be replaced. A mother or a father cannot. Southerners work hard and play hard. Life and family are to be enjoyed -which explains the scarce amount of boarding schools in the South. There's always time for family.
6. Children are not inconveniences. Yes, they get on our nerves. They make us mad when they are being hardheaded. But in the South, you still see Mommas walking into churches with switches. You see Momma's taking their children to the dressing rooms with belts. And it's okay. Everybody knows what that Momma is trying to do. She's trying to raise her children to be productive citizens. And sometimes, they just need a little heat put to their bottoms. As we say in the South 'Sip, "a little heat to the bottom will make the top percolate!"
7. In the South, it's just easy to chill and let it all hang out. I love throwing on last year's fashion with some flip flops and going to the store with no makeup. It's too hot for all that!
8. In the South, you know where you stand. Racism tends to be covert in the North. I love knowing where I stand down here so I don't have to wonder and blame myself for another man's prejudices.
9. The beaches of Texas,Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, New Orleans, Atlanta, Hot Springs, Arkansas, can be reached in a day's drive...sometimes in as little as three hours, depending on your location.
10. In most places, the Spirit is still alive here. Whatever that Spirit is for you, you can always drive to the country and feel it. We still chill real hard in the South. Want an instant party? Put the radio outside, get the coals smoking, and before you know it, somebody shows up with some beer, sodas, dominoes, spades, cigars, and jokes! There's a spirit of unity there...even if a bunch of old women just get together and shell peas on the porch together.
The South is no Utopia. The cities here have many of the same problems and issues of our major Northern Counterparts. But I love this South. I was born in this South. My folks made this South. It's my South, and I can't leave her. I'm staying!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)