THE CLUELESS DR. W. GABRIEL SELASSIE

Beneath the Spin*Eric L. Wattree

THE CLUELESS DR. W. GABRIEL SELASSIE

DR. W. GABRIEL SELASSIE

.
W Gabriel Selassie I:

December 14 at 9:12am ·
Them: Michelle Obama for President.
Me: What qualifies her other than sleeping with a President?
Them: You ignorant. Stop being fake Black Person. You think you so smart, but you dumb.
Me: Please tell me what she has done that qualifies her to be President.
Them: "silence"
.

THE HEAVY PRICE OF ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM
     .

Dr. Selassie, you recently posted a comment to one of my posts where I suggested that Michelle Obama be drafted for president.  In your post, you said, “I don’t vote for people based on who they slept with. Tell MO to go get a day job.”  Then you went on to ask, what qualifies Michelle Obama to be president? You said, “Tell me what MO has done concretely that qualifies her to be President of the United States?”
.
That was THE most uninformed, sexist, and bigoted comment that I’ve heard coming from any Black man since I’ve been posting to the internet, and I’ve been posting to the net since it was called a bulletin board. What makes you assume that Michelle’s only significance as a human being is the fact that she slept with Barack Obama, because she’s a woman?  So, once again, Selassie, you've managed to shock me beyond belief with one of your blindly bigoted, and recklessly unwarranted assumptions. The last time I heard anything even approaching your level of cluelessness was in 2008 when Hillary Clinton betrayed a similar kind of condescension against Barack Obama.
.
In her 2008 run against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton said, “He’s [John McCain] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." In other words, what kind of life experience could an ignorant coon possibly have that would qualify him to be President of the United States?  That's exactly the kind of attitude you're bringing to the table with respect to Michelle Obama. The irony of the Hillary Clinton episode was, in the end, it turned out that it was Hillary herself, with all of her "lifetime of experience," that ended up being the only smudge on President Obama's record after eight years in office. But in spite of that glaring irony, I'll respond to your question anyway, because you're obviously in dire need of an education.
.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson-Obama attended Princeton University and graduated cum laude in 1985. She then went on to earn a degree from Harvard Law School in 1988. Thereafter, she went to work for the Chicago office of the Sidley Austin law firm, where she met Barack Obama and was assigned as his mentor. She also worked as an assistant to Mayor Richard Daley, and later as the Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development for the city of Chicago. So based on just those qualifications alone, even then - before she became First Lady - Michelle was twice as qualified to be President of the United States as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was only self-taught as a lawyer, while Michelle Obama graduated from both Princeton and Harvard. In addition, she didn't just sleep with the president, she was his mentor - she was responsible for SCHOOLING him right after he graduated from law school.  And another thing, she’s certainly more qualified than either George W. Bush, or, Donald Trump. Charles Ogletree, a Harvard professor who taught both Michelle and Barack Obama, said recently of Barack, "you know his wife should have been president, absolutely." So tell me, Selassie, what in your eyes makes Michelle any less qualified than any one of these gentlemen, the fact that she’s a woman, or because she’s a Black woman?
.

Your comment clearly demonstrates that your perception is based more on Michelle Obama's race and/or gender than the facts, and there's a phrase for people who go around recklessly spewing such flawed and unwarranted assumptions as you've done here - the phrase is "narrow-minded bigot," whether you're cognizant of your bigotry or not.  It's not as though you initially asked whether or not Michelle was qualified, you simply made the assumption that she wasn't, just like Hillary Clinton did in the case of Barack Obama - and by the way, you can't be trained to become President of the United States, you simply have to have the knowledge and intelligence to learn on the job as you go along, and Michelle has more than proven that she has everything it takes in that regard, and more.  Look at what we currently have in the White House - a man who is both unqualified, and untrainable, because he has an inability to grasp complex ideas, and has the attention span of a tick.  Yet, you question the fact that this highly educated Black woman could do his job.  That's unbelievable.
.

BLACK WOMEN HAVE BECOME THE MOST EDUCATED GROUP IN THE UNITED STATES | The Independent
.

.

Black women are now the most educated group in the US, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Between 2009 and 2010, black women earned 68 percent of associate's degrees, 66 percent of bachelor's degrees, 71 percent of master's degrees and 65 percent of all doctorates awarded to black students.

www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas Jun 3, 2016
. 

 And in another thoughtless comment, you said, “I am not sure if Black people were ever behind neoliberalism. Can you explain?”
.
That’s yet another ridiculous statement.  It was Black people who got behind Hillary Clinton to get her the Democratic nomination during the 2016 primaries, and it was also Black people who were running around calling Bill Clinton “Our first Black president” - even as he was creating the Prison/Industrial complex which ended up negatively impacting the lives of more Black people than there were slaves in all of America in 1850 - and the Clintons virtually INVENTED neoliberalism.  So how can you say Black people weren’t behind neoliberalism?  Most Black people are into personality politics rather than movements, so they're into whatever their favorite politician is into, a flaw in our thinking that we're going to have to correct, because the Clintons were the very face of neoliberalism due to their closet conservatism.  The fact is, I’m still fighting many Black people over their mindlessly unwarranted love of the Clintons for that very reason:

.

A MESSAGE TO HILLARY CLINTON CULTISTS

 .

Whenever Clinton cultists try to point their finger at those of us who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton it makes me want to throw up. They shouldn’t point their finger at those of us who refused to vote for this woman, but look to themselves for being so delusional that they thought they could force the most hated and distrusted Democratic nominee since the Civil War down the people’s throat.
.

The Democrats didn’t lose to Trump on election night, Trump became the President-Elect during the Democratic primaries due to the unrealistic, short-sighted, and uninformed stupidity of Clinton cultists during the Democratic primaries. They didn’t have sense enough to realize that trying to force America to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was like trying to force INFORMED Americans to choose between cyanide and strychnine. In addition, they failed to realize that conservatives who claimed not to like Trump, secretly loved everything he stood for, so when they went into the voting booth, they secretly voted for him.
.
On the other hand, trying to get INFORMED progressives to vote for Hillary Clinton - who, again, was the most lying, distrusted, and hated Democratic nominee since the Civil War - they were asking progressives who were much more informed than themselves to vote for David Duke, since the Clintons have done a hundred times more damage to the American middle class, minorities, and the Black community than the Klan has ever done. So they need to put that dumb-ass bullshit to rest. We have Trump as a direct result of Clinton cultists’ closed-minded lying, deceit, corruption, and uninformed determination to shove Hillary Clinton down America’s throat in spite of the fact that we said we didn’t want her.
.

The Clintons walk like liberals and talk like liberals but they always seem to leave conservative policies in their wake. They've been more successful in promoting the conservative agenda and destroying the American middle-class way of life than any administration in American history, including Ronald Reagan's. They're responsible for NAFTA, which allowed $20 an hour jobs to be sent out of the country to be performed by people who make less per week than many upper-middle-class Americans spent on lunch per day, and they gutted Glass-Steagall (which President Roosevelt put into place to prevent Wall Street greed from plunging the nation into a second Great Depression), which led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash. Clinton also abolished the Fairness Doctrine (no, it wasn't Reagan as many people think. Reagan simply prevented it from being elevated from a regulation to a law, but Clinton abolished it outright). That led to the creation of the corporate media culture and propaganda machines like Fox News that were then allowed to spew conservative propaganda and disinformation with impunity.
.
Clinton's "Welfare Reform" led to the undue suffering of millions of poor Americans. And then, after colluding with Ronald Reagan to flood the Black community with crack cocaine while governor of Arkansas, after becoming president - even as Black people were running around calling him our “first Black president” - Clinton signed the most draconian crime bill in United States history to incarcerate on a massive scale the very victims of the crime that HE committed, just to prove to Republicans that he wasn’t “soft on coons” - and he actually paid states EXTRA to give those victims longer sentences. And again, as a direct result, today there are more Black people under the control of the prison/industrial complex than were enslaved in all of America in 1850, a decade prior to the Civil War, and that very same prison industrial complex became one of Hillary Clinton's largest and most prolific political contributors.
.
Thus, as a direct result of Clinton’s unconscionable actions, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Black people have been completely destroyed - and it’s still having a negative impact on Black people today. There's currently a huge part of an entire generation of young Black people who don't know anything about their culture, and don't really know what it means to be Black, because the people who were responsible for teaching them were either dead, in prison, or mentally disabled by the effects of crack cocaine. As a result, instead of developing their potential and preparing for the future, many of these young people, who were literally raised by the corporate media, has been conditioned to believe that their role in life is to be criminals, drug addicts, and at the very bottom of society. In addition, they're being mesmerized by the media by being fed a constant diet of music that celebrates drug use, killing one another, and referring to the very womb of their culture as "bitches and hoes." So their fate is all but sealed. And worse, they're unfit parents for the generation that's coming up.
.
So if a new election were being held tomorrow and my vote alone would determine the outcome, I'd still vote against Hillary, Trump, or noTrump. It’s much easier to fight a bloviating idiot than it is the insidious treachery of a Hillary Clinton, because she's more subtle, and not in your face. We have the entire country up-in-arms against Trump, but with Hillary it would have been business as usual, because she would cut our throats with a scapel instead of a hacksaw.
.
"New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or Moderate Democrats, are a relatively centrist ideological faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. Describing themselves as "centrist", they are an economically moderate to conservative and "Third Way" faction which dominated the party for around 20 years, starting in the late 1980s after the US electorate turned to the political right. They are represented by organizations such as the New Democrat Network and the New Democrat Coalition."
.
New Democrats - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
.
So Dr. Selassie, if you profess to be an educator, you really should bone up on what’s going on around you, or at the very least, put more thought into what you say before you say it.  Because, again, the comments you’ve made above are absolutely ridiculous, and as a so-called educator, you’re not only embarrassing yourself, but you’re embarrassing the Black community as a whole. Many in this White supremacist society already think we’re ignorant, so please don’t add to that perception, because as we should be able to see, such perceptions are deadly. We can't out-scream 'em, because they control the media, and we can't outfight 'em, because they control the military and police, so our only alternative is to out-think 'em.  That's where our educators should come in, but you're absolutely worthless until you train yourself to think efficiently, and I'm not seeing that here. What I see is a lot of very sloppy thinking.
.
So I’m keeping a list of some of the more outrageous comments being made by politicians, ministers, and so-called Black intellectuals for a book on “THE PRICE OF ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM,” and I can see now that you're gonna be featured quite prominently, because it's very important for the Black community to understand that the primary reason that Black people can’t find justice is because we aren’t respected, and the reason we’re not respected is because far too few of us are using our creativity and powerful intellect for anything other than singin’, dancin’, and running with a ball.
.
Due to a system filled with shallow-minded, uninspired, and tribalist educators, our educational institutions are conferring advanced degrees upon people who are actually moderately educated 9th graders who fail to understand that no one can educate you. You must educate yourself. For that reason Black people can't afford to just think as a hobby, we must make thinking a way of life.
.
But unfortunately, many of us in the Black community would rather be seen as cool, than knowledgeable - we're not as interested in actually seeking knowledge as we are wearing the robe across the stage to get a receipt from the White man attesting to the fact that we've been through his brainwashing  academy- and we’re paying a heavy price for that.
.
So do the Black community a favor - if you choose to be an educator, dedicate yourself to being a real educator. Don't just stand before a class and regurgitate the words of dead White men, teach students to think for themselves; and don't just collect a check for keeping our young people ignorant and uninspired, teach them to be careful, thoughtful, and creative thinkers.  If you're not doing those things, regardless of what you're being paid for, you're not an educator, you're a fraud - just another Cornel West, with his "prophetic tradition" and advanced degrees in talkin' snakes. 
.
"The Prophetic tradition?" That's laughable. Prophecy and all other unfounded beliefs are the very antithesis of knowledge. It translates into Voodoo. Truly learned individuals believe in efficient thought, not prophecy or any other unfounded beliefs, and what seems to be your trove of unexamined assumptions fall right into that category.  Instead of examining the facts, you indulged your sexist and/or racist mindset to simply assume that Michelle Obama doesn't possess the wherewithal to be  President of the United States.  But if you were truly a man of knowledge and wisdom (putting your PhD, receipts, and all other accoutrements of alleged knowledge aside for the moment), immediately after making such a baseless assumption, your very next thought should have been, "What evidence do I have of that?" That, in turn, would have led to your doing at least a minimal amount of research, which would have helped to inform you, and it would have prevented you from making a public fool of yourself.
.
You once told me that you didn't answer one of my questions because since I didn't have a PhD in psychology you thought it would be a waste of time.  But as I told you on that occasion, Socrates was a mere stonemason, yet, by many, he's considered the father of modern thought, and he educated some the greatest minds of his time, including Plato. So you should never confuse education with intelligence.  While I haven't been anointed by the White man with one of his PhDs, nevertheless, I'm something of an educator myself, so I sincerely hope you have the innate intelligence to embrace the following axiom: Arrogance betrays itself. If you possess the kind of brilliance that warrants arrogance, you should also possess enough wisdom to avoid it.
.
And let me leave you with this bit of knowledge.  It involves two very simple concepts. First, never rely on a receipt from the White man to attest to your intellect. That's a form of worship, because you can't worship a document without worshipping the man who conferred it upon you. Your PhD has absolutely no value unless you assume that the man who conferred it upon you is superior to yourself.  Thus, you're relying on the fact that the man who conferred your receipt upon you is not an idiot himself. There are enough advanced degrees in congress to be used as toilet paper, yet congress is undoubtedly among the most dysfunctional institutions in America. Think about that. It speaks volumes regarding the relative value of credentials as opposed to intellect.
.
And second, always make sure you know what the hell you're talking about before you start shootin' off your mouth.  That'll prevent you from embarrassing yourself in the future. Always avoid the tendency to jump on your high horse, because it's inevitable that you're going to come across people capable of dragging you off of it. Instead, you should always think of yourself as a student of knowledge, intent on sharing what you've learned with your peers, because in the final analysis, that's what we all are - students.

.

CORNEL (THE PROPHET) WEST ON THE VERY MORNING THAT BARACK OBAMA ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY

.

.

THE VERY SAME CORNEL WEST SUCKIN' UP - AND LEAVING MESSAGES AND PRAYERS
OVER THE PHONE - AFTER OBAMA WON 

.

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

AND FORMER OBAMA CRITIC

Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Well, Mr. President, I warned You Over Two Years Ago

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Well, Mr. President, I warned you over two years ago - on November 2, 2009, to be specific - about allowing the Dick Cheney and the GOP to goad you into Afghanistan. Now, with the 2012 election coming up, they don't look so bad, because you've allowed them to entice you into getting the very same kind of uselss death and destruction on your hands as they had in Iraq, and in the end, you're going to have to do exactly what I suggested back then - simply pull back, and assist Pakistan in defending their nuclear weapons. So maybe you need to trade in your advisors for my crystal ball.

.

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?

At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.

.
The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.
.
This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.
.
And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.
.
That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.
.
But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.
.
Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."
.
And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.
.
There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.
.
But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.
.
The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.
.
I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the mechinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.
.
On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.
.
And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.
.
Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.
.
Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.

. 

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com

Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in? (Reprise)

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in? (Reprise)

In light of what's currently going on in the country I thought this would be an appropriate time to reprise this article that was published on November 2, 2009.

At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.

The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kum By Ya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.

This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.

And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.

That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.

But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.

Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."

And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.

There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.

But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.

The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.

I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan [and now Libya] that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.

On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.

And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.

Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.

Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.


Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Christian bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in? At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents. The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change. This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place. And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections. That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him. But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back. Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill." And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster. There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people. But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP. The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands. I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee. On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify. And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal. Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people. Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

GOP Underestimates Conservative America

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE GOP Underestimates Conservative America While President Obama is going about his valiant and statesman-like attempt to rescue America and restore our image at home and abroad, the GOP's politics as usual, diehard operatives are acting like spoiled brats determined to undermine the president's–and America's–effort. But in their blind attempt to regain power they seem to have forgotten one important fact–the vast majority of true conservatives are fiercely loyal Americans, and don't share their view of power at any cost. While conservatives have a vastly different view from liberals regarding the policies that make America great, the two groups have one very important thing in common–both groups understand that even as we indulge in our sibling rivalry, we are all Americans. America is a family, which means the viability of our nation and proud American traditions must come first. But many of the wingnuts on both the right and the left have long since lost sight of that very fundamental principle. They've allowed what was once a healthy sibling rivalry to escalate into a hatred within the American family that supercedes the viability of America itself. That is unacceptable, and it is exactly that mindset that has led directly to the crises that the nation faces today. In their wisdom, however, the American people decided to put an end to it. That's why we have radicals on the left, calling President Obama a sellout, and reactionaries on the right, calling him a socialist. But the fact is, President Obama is a true mainstream American that the American people have sent to Washington to put an end to this childish bickering. President Obama is neither liberal nor is he a conservative, he's a progressive--and while the terms liberal and progressive are often used interchangeably, there's a big difference. Both liberals and conservatives are people who have, by definition, surrendered their independent thought to the exigencies of political ideology. On the other hand, a progressive is an independent thinker who recognizes that truth and wisdom, more often not, is neither black nor white–it generally resides in the grey. A clear example of that is the liberal tendency to promote the idea that a "progressive tax" is a system where people who make less money should pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than people who make more. That's complete nonsense, unjust, and therefore not progressive thinking. A true progressive supports public policies that are fair to all, and recognizes that justice is blind, therefore, caters to neither race, creed, sex, nor social or economic status. True progressives understand that it is just as unjust to discriminate against the privileged as it is the poor. Egalitarian principles dictate that everyone pay the exact same percentage of their income in taxes--that, is progressive taxation. The argument that it won't work because it won't bring in enough revenue, is a meaningless argument to a true progressive, because progressive thinking dictates that convenience has nothing to do with what is just. On the other hand, fiscal conservatives argue that the national doctrine of freedom of expression dictates that corporations should be allowed to send lobbyist to Washington with pockets full of money to lobby and influence congressional legislation. That's also ridiculous. Corporations are not citizens, so a citizen's right to petition government is not an inalienable right required to be extended to corporations. When citizens incorporate a business they are relieved of much of their personal liabilities, therefore, when acting as a corporate entity, they must sacrifice many of the rights that they enjoy as private citizens. Thus, if the nation wouldadhered to common sense in addressing national issues rather than allowing public policy to be dictated by radical wingnuts and special interests, the gains that we would acquire as a direct result would allow everyone to prosper and be treated fairly. If tax payers didn't have to foot the bill every time some corporate big wig took his girlfriend to a power lunch or bought a Mercedes and wrote it off as a business expense, we'd have enough revenue to treat every American taxpayer equally. It would also take a wedge issue off the table that political demagogues use to divide us–after all, many fiscally conservative Republicans are socially progressive, so an evenhanded taxation policy would make them much less apt to align themselves with social bigots. Contrary to what some would have us believe, all conservatives are not self-serving bigots. The election of President Obama makes it clear that many registered Republicans understood that in spite of party and personal interest, President Obama was uniquely qualified to lead this nation at this moment in our history. They didn't see his Black skin as a deficit. On the contrary, they saw Barack Obama's diverse background as an asset, so they set their personal interest and idology aside, put America first. They should be honored for that, instead of dragged through the mud with GOP demagogues. These people understood that Obama's Black skin allowed him to understand what it meant to be Black and poor in America. They also understood that being the product of an immigrant father, he fully understood the challenges and hardships of millions of immigrants across this land. It was clear to these conservatives that after having lived all over the world, and even enjoying the benefits of differing cultures within his own family, that Barack Obama had a unique understanding of the mindset and views held towards America by other people and cultures throughout the world. They also recognized that after being raised and loved by White Americans in the very heartland of this nation, that he also understood the needs, fears, and aspirations of middle American. And finally, they recognized that he's a brilliant intellectual and constitutional scholar, whose knowledge of America and American traditions would dwarf nearly any president in the history of this nation. So in spite of all of the divisive rhetoric served up by the GOP hatemongers, these conservatives said, while I don't entirely agree with his philosophy of governance, I going to support him, because he's right for America at this point in our history. They deserve recognition for that, because unlike the Limbaugh wingnuts, and liberals of every stripe, it was the ideological sacrifice of those conservatives that led directly to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. Therefore, as progressives, let us not make the mistake of gloating in the face of these people, because while liberals and progressives turned out in larger numbers, no group in America has made a greater sacrifice to ensure that Barack Obama is sitting in the White House today. Progressives should also learn from President Obama, and not confuse all conservatives with GOP wingnuts. Listen to the words of Charles, a true conservative, at the link below, and begin to understand that it is not conservatism that is the enemy. Limbaugh told this conservative caller that he was not a Republican, he was one of the stupid people that allowed President Obama to be elected. Limbaugh was right in one respect, the man is not a Republican, at least, as Limbaugh defines Republicanism, but neither is he stupid--he's a loyal, conservative American. I take great pride in coming to the defense of this man. He said that he was a former Marine, and so am I, so it comes naturally. Limbaugh told him that he didn't know diddley squat, but unlike Limbaugh and his kind, Charles does know what it means to come to the defense of America. As a former Marine, I've known such men. He's of the very same breed that left their families and marched off to die, to defeat slavery.    Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY

A FEARLESS LOVE

A FATHERLESS CHILD

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY
*

You’re slipping, Hutch. Your lack of customary objectivity has finally betrayed your loyalties. I came to your site to comment on your Huffington Post article, "What Will Obama Do When There's No Hillary Firewall?", only to find another article that was even more partisan. In the first article you dug up everything you could think of that you indicate Republicans will be able to use against Obama in the November election--and you were right. In fact, you were so effective, that you all but built the Republicans a tailor-made swift boat. You’ve rendered the Republican Party a tremendous service in that article. As a result of your article alone, they can fire all of their researchers--you’ve done all of their research for them. And now I find in your most recent article, "What to Make of Obama’s Strange Bedfellows, Namely Blacks and White Males." In that article you imply that Black people, along White males, have come together in a sexist coalition against Hillary to support Obama. In your final paragraph you say the following:

*

"Even if unconscious gender bias affects only a relatively small percent of men in a close contest between a male and female candidate in which the two are rated fairly evenly in competence, qualifications and experience, the refusal of many men to vote for her could harm her candidacy. Female candidates offset the male bias by getting solid support from women voters." But I think you made a few typos in your last sentence. Didn’t you mean to say, "Female[s][should] offset the male bias by [giving] solid support from women voters"?

*
I really can’t understand this Obama hatred that seems to be centered, primarily, among many Black intellectuals and leaders. First, we have a Black television host jumping up and down because the senator won’t drop everything in the middle of a hard fought presidential primary to come kiss his ring, then we have a that group of Black cynics demanding that he walk the water to earn their vote, and finally, a handful of Black pundits, intellectuals, and political leaders trying to sabotage Obama’s march into time. And, oh yes, I almost forgot those who are prudent enough to want to hedge their bet. They’re maintaining a silence so profound that it’s deafening. In fact, I didn’t think Sharpton was capable of keeping such a low profile–it makes one almost wish this year would never end.

*
I find this situation very sad, yet, extremely interesting–but what’s going to be even more interesting is watching these very same Black intellectuals and so-called leaders squirm when they find themselves stranded on the wrong side of history. It’s really ironic. This nation is about to bring into reality everything these people have been screaming for every since they’ve had permission to open their mouths, and now they’re doing everything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s almost as though they’re afraid they’re going to lose a trusted friend–the right to fail with personal impunity. I’ll be kind and not even mention those who may have to find a new line of work, because they’re gonna have it rough--I don’t think the employment office has a line for social agitator.

*
But just in case I’m wrong, and they really simply don’t understand what everybody is so excited about, let me lay it out. We discussed it the very same week that Obama announced his candidacy. I told you then what was coming–in fact, now that I look back on our discussion, I’m sure you’ll agree, things are happening just like I predicted. Remember when I used the analogy of a runaway train, even before that train left the station? And remember when I compared Obama to JFK and you laughed, and that reporter from KFWB kinda looked at me sideways? I’m certain you both reflected on that when Caroline and Ted Kennedy made the very same remark in their endorsements. But I shouldn’t brag, because it really wasn’t hard to see it coming. The fact is, you’re such an astute political observer, I’m shocked that this one got past you–and even more shocked that you still don’t seem to get it.

*
The key was in understanding the American people. Americans love drama--and I mean that in a good way. They love the idea of hard work and sacrifice–especially when it comes to the underdog fighting to overcome adversity, because that’s the story of America itself. And what we have in Obama is a fearless love, a fatherless child, and now, an appointment with destiny.

*

It's a story that's uniquely American--and the kind of story that will be told and retold as long as man has a yearning for hope. Thus, every American across this land is blessed to be living at this moment in our history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. It’s a moment in history when America is on the very brink of disaster, and the founding fathers have literally reached back from the grave to both save this nation, and fulfill their promise to humanity. Historians will someday define this as the moment in our history when America truly became one nation under God--a time when, hundreds of years from now, young people, and particularly young Black people, will look back upon our contribution to their quality of life and say, due to the courage and tenacity of that great generation of Americans, America was finally able to meet its appointment with destiny.

*
So you see, this is not just Obama’s story–it’s an American story. It's a story being written by all of us, and about all of us. So Bill and Hillary can throw all the mud they like, and the Republicans can come with a fleet of swift boats, but it will all be to no avail. Because America is not about to let this opportunity pass them up. Senator Barack Obama is about to walk right into the annals time, and he’s taking us all along with him.

*
Note that I’m dating this communication, because thanks to the internet even the most common scribe can leave a note for posterity, and I want them to know that I could clearly see the significance of this moment. Let’s just call it, my graffiti on the walls of time.
*

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
February 16, 2008

*

LEGACY

*

I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance.

*

I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep.

*

I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less. And the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve, a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast.

*

I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts-- no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land.

*

Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness.

*
I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people.
*

Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free.

*

Eric L. Wattree
Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content