Gosh it has been a busy week and there has been so much to comment on and simply not enough time to do any writing. So, this post has a little about a lot in it. First things first, the democratic primary. I simply can’t seem to interest myself in the republican primary. I am not going to vote in it so, whoever the Republicans want to put forward it there business. I am a registered democrat so, I am interested in who we nominate.
I have actually watched several of the debates. I think the two smartest people running are Joe Biden and John Edwards. They are my dream ticket and I don’t much care which is at the top of the ticket. Obama would be ok, but I have to say, I really don’t like Hillary. She votes to give Bush power to attack Iran, which isn’t a hypothetical if you watch Fox, and then just laughs off the attacks against her for that stupid vote! Edwards is right, she should be ashamed for how she voted. I would not be surprised if the other members of her prayer group are swaying her judgment.
The bigger news is that my old Representative, Jane Harmon, has accused the administration of terrorizing congress to get legislation passed. Here’s the thing, why is an unknown congresswoman the one to bring this to the media’s attention? Shouldn’t this be something the entire Democratic Party is concerned about? Apparently, she was one of the only people to actually try and find out what the reported terrorist activity was about and that is how she found out that it was all a lie.
I don’t particularly like Harmon, she voted against NAFTA then wasn’t exactly honest in a letter to me about how she voted. I had sent her a letter saying I wouldn’t vote for her again (which I didn’t) if she voted against NAFTA. She voted against it, took a couple of months before responding, then wrote me to tell me how important NAFTA was; as if I didn’t know she had voted against it. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Anyway, I have been wondering why she is the message carrier here. I can only surmise that the Democrats are floating this message to see how it floats using an incumbent congresswoman whose seat is safe. If the message that the republicans are using terror to pass unconstitutional legislation resonates well, I am willing to bet you will see more and more democrats start using that line of attack. I wish they weren’t so scared to call a spade a spade here, but I suppose we should be grateful that they are at least testing the waters.
In the past week – Both Commentator Bill O’Reilly and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said really stupid things. I think actually it is possible that they were actually trying to say something that was meaningful but that they are both so weird, it just came out wrong. So, in an attempt to translate for the insane, I am going to start with something Ahmadinejad said when he was at Columbia. Apparently, when he was talking about his denial of the holocaust, he said that even if the holocaust happened, it still didn’t justify what the Jews did to the Palestinians. This is very interesting as it can be basically taken to mean, the reason he is opposed to the idea of a holocaust is because it was used to justify Jewish oppression of Palestinians, the massacre of Palestinians and the stealing of Palestinian land. And, regardless of what you think of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you should at least acknowledge that a lot of Palestinians were killed and violently run off their land when Israel declared it independence. If it wasn’t for the actions of the Israeli state against the Palestinian people, and the use of the holocaust to justify those actions, Ahmadinejad would not need to refute the holocaust at all. I find this interesting because the moral reasoning that nothing the Jews endured could justify their killing of Palestinians (who were not involved in the holocaust), should be able to stand on its own, and Ahmadinejad basically acknowledged this. So, why he is even hurting his own moral cause by tying it to something absurd, like holocaust denial is just plain stupid.
Moving on to O’Reilly. He obviously said some stupidly racist things. Basically, he should not have been surprised that the skin color or ethnicity of a particular restaurant owner wouldn’t really have an impact on the quality of the food or the service, type of clientele, etc. That has everything to do with menu, and the quality of the cooking.
Regardless, I think we should keep in mind that his listeners are for the most part, really stupid. And, even if it is not politically correct to say so, there are still a lot of stupid white people out there who really need to hear that it is ok for a white person to go to a black owned restaurant, because that is something they probably didn’t know. With that in mind, his message to that segment of our population was right on and needed to be heard. So, while his delivery was unfortunate, I think he really did mean for it to be an anti-racist sentiment. The problem was, he was delivering his anti-racist sentiment to a racist and stupid audience and to a certain extent, he has to speak in a language they will understand, which is racists, so, he got himself into trouble there.
I don’t like the guy, I think he is a bit delusion and based on his response to the critique about his behavior, he is clearly paranoid and potentially dangerous, but lets cut him some slack. He is the mouthpiece for the stupid and racist segment of our population and they really need to be encouraged to be pleasantly surprised that you can go to a black owned restaurant and have a nice meal, (with the exception of a po’boy shop in south central LA that refused to serve me because I was white. Eventually another patron took pity on me and helped me order so I could eat, which was really nice of her. I wouldn’t have put up with it, but the po’boys were really really good.)