Vote for Tancredo or Die. No, Seriously.
The definition of “must be seen to be believed.”
A Little Frivolity….
To declass this place up a little bit, here’s a video courtesy of Slate V about Romney’s claim that his sons are “serving America” by helping him get elected.
Enjoy…
By the way Andrew, it’s hard to embed videos which are not Youtube or GoogleVideo here. Or maybe I just can’t figure out the internets.
I Heart Huckabee
The post-Colbert Bump is working its magic yet again. The mainstream press (and even some of the blogosphere) has been having a virtual Huckabee love-fest, from the this article in the NYTimes, to this one in the Washington Post. The story goes that this Southern Baptist preacher is sincere, affable, plays the guitar, likes the Rolling Stones, and yes, is pretty funny. Plus he’s for environmental regulation, believes in cleaning up the prison system, and takes other stereotypcially “liberal” positions (although he is pro-life). Basically, from all the media hype he appears to be the dark horse favorite; an evangelical who can win “the base” but not alienate moderate voters.
I must admit, I too am loving Huckabee, if only because he makes for great T.V., (like Ron Paul) and he appears to be pretty genuine.
What do you all make of this Huckabee hype, and do you think it’s enough to carry him through the primaries (or at least get him V.P.?)
Bonus: Check out his 2002 NPAT
Zimbabwe President still clearly nostalgic about the Summer of Love
At the risk of penning yet another unreadable post, I feel I must share this article in the Guardian, which discusses a recent South African report blaming the UK for Zimbabwe’s economic demise. According the South Africans: “The most worrisome thing is that the UK continues to deny its role as the principal protagonist in the Zimbabwean issue and is persisting with its activities to isolate Zimbabwe.” This, to borrow an English phrase, is complete bollocks. While I agree with South Africa’s claim that “targeted sanctions,” which would only impact the Mugabe administration and their families might be preferable, no one but Mugabe himself is to blame for the almost unanimous international scorn the country is now facing, and for that matter, the 10,000% inflation rate (seriously). I laughed at Zambian opposition leader Michael Sata’s comment that Southern Africans should “join hands and launch strong protests against attempts by the west to recolonise Zimbabwe” but the truth is, this is quite characteristic of the mentality of such die hard African socialists like SA President Thabo Mbeki and Mugabe. Which leads me to the title of this post (kind of sounds like an Onion headline, doesn’t it? I know, I flatter myself).
The real issue here is that South Africa, which is like the America of the continent (crass commercialism and all) is failing to act on an embrassing problem happening right on its doorstep. I am convinced that the reason that Mbeki and other African leaders have done so little about Zimbabwe when they all know that it’s a catastrophe is because they are all throwbacks from the same era, and that while they might whimper a little in protest of what Mugabe is doing, he is still a member of their exclusive club. The late sixties and seventies weren’t just a big time for revolutionary protests in the U.S.; young (mostly socialist) intellectuals in Africa were leading the charge for revolution (in the form of decolonization) in their backyards as well. And because this was pretty dangerous business, most of them found refuge in friendly countries like Mozambique and Zambia, which is were they all trained, and I’m sure, bonded over their similar struggles. And even though they all run their own countries now, they must still be reading a heck of a lot of Frantz Fanon, since most are trapped in a mindset in which in the 21st century, “imperialism” and “colonization” are the biggest threats to black Africans and not say, I don’t know, AIDS, starvation, or poverty. Everything is the fault of the “West,” the classic boogeyman for all leaders of rogue states, which explains our BFF status with Venezuela. This annoys me, since it’s such a disingenous arguement that it makes it difficult for serious critics to hold Western governments accountable when they ought to (the “blame America” club, anyone?) and more importantly, retards any serious attempts at progress, which are predictably seen as Western subversion.
So I have just one last thing to say, in the form of an open letter to El Lider, El Duce, my President Robert Mugabe:
Comrade,
While I appreciate all you did to liberate us from colonialism and ensure that I grew up loving my black skin, this is no longer your time anymore, and you are making life worse for all of us. I know it must be such a scary paradigm shift for you to no longer live in a world of segregated parks and all-white, all the time, but we can’t afford to keep indulging your fantasy that it is the summer of’ ‘67 and that you are a still young revolutionary.
Sincerely,
R. Mudiwa
The rich man’s burden
The New York Times is on a trend-reporting spree again, which means that over the next couple of days you will all read articles in “lesser” magazines and newspapers all echoing the original article. This time, my beloved NYT has decided to talk about obscenely wealthy people, using what is surely the catch phrase of the month, ”The New Gilded Age.” The first article appeared on July 15 (it might be TimeSelected by now, irony of ironies; google it or email me if you can’t read it) and it profiled several billionaires whom the author thought were representatives of this throwback era, particularly because of their disdain for regulation and their philanthropy. According to the article, “Only twice before over the last century has 5 percent of the national income gone to families in the upper one-one-hundredth of a percent of the income distribution — currently, the almost 15,000 families with incomes of $9.5 million or more a year.” So brush up on your favorite over-used Mark Twain quotations ladies and gentleman, because we are now in the New Gilded Age. And like Carnegie and Rockerfeller, the new tycoons of today do not particularly concern themselves with economic inequality, but believe that:
1) Their incomes are justified because CEOs are unique (like Derek Jeter according one exec), and the profits that their leadership has accrued for their respective companies
and that…
2) Giving their fortunes away to charitable organizations is preferable to being heavily taxed
Now, although I am inclined to do so, it would be unfair to label these guys corporate fat cats, since based on the evidence from the article, a great number of them are committed to serving their communities and have donated vast amounts of their incomes to particular causes. Warren Buffett is the best example of this, having pledged 85% of his fortune to charities including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (another example of corporate philanthropy) and pledging that after he dies, whatever he still possesses will go to charity.
So my questions are for anyone interested are:
1) Are the high (some, like me, would say exorbitant) incomes of CEOs justified, or do they, as COSTCO CEO James D. Sinegal, argued, ‘’send the wrong message through a company, …. that all brilliance emanates from the top; that the worker on the floor of the store or the factory is insignificant” ?
2) In your eyes, does their philanthropy make up for the fact that under the current administration, they pay a minimal amount of taxes? (Sanford Weill of Citigroup, a benefactor of the Carnegie Foundation, said ”I want to give away my money rather than have somebody take it away”)
And 3, do you agree with the opinion expressed by one critic interviewed for the article, fmr American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall, that ”The way our society equalizes incomes is through much higher taxes than we have today. There is no other way.” ? (emphasis added)
I know the readers of this blog hold a myriad of opinions in terms of the whole “regulation vs. unfettered market” argument, so I am very interested to see what direction this discussion will take. On his blog, Altercation, Eric Alterman discussed the same article (albeit, with a decidedly pro-reg slant) and he had some interesting opinions regarding the distribution of wealth in this country.
Bork me once, shame on you….
I’m sure most of you news junkies have already read about this, but for those of you who haven’t, Robert Bork, the world’s favorite failed Supreme Court nominee, is suing the Yale Club after he fell on the stairs before giving a speech there…. for over $1,000,000 !!! After he fell, Bork went on to give his speech, so obviously nothing was seriously wrong with him, but now he’s whistlin’ a new tune. In addition, the critic of judicial activism and defender of framer’s intent also asks that they pay his attorney’s fees. What’s that thing about the courts being used for frivolous purposes again?
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0723225120070607
