Only White Presidents Are Referred To As “President” In The Corporate News Media

Racism is on full display on NPR and at least CBS Radio News. Throughout Dubya’s eight years every news program referred to him as President Bush. With Barack Obama (and you can check the audio archives) he was referred to as “Obama” in every news story that I heard during his eight years in office. I bet he’ll still be referred to as “Obama” instead of “Former President Obama”. Never or hardly ever “President Obama”. And now Trump has only been in the White House for 4 days and in every news story he’s either “Donald Trump” or “President Trump”. Yes, racism is alive and all too well in the corporate news media.

Should “Ladies Only” Always Include Men? Hell No!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/vivica-fox-apologizes-to-lgbt-community-over-offensive-remark/ar-BBy7wnb?li=BBnb7Kz

 

bby7u5o-img

This whole non-issue is crap. Chippendale Dancers’ shows were always targeted as “ladies’ night out” entertainment. So what the hell is wrong if Vivica A. Fox wants to have a reality TV show which revives the ’80s for women who either missed out or want to relive it (and both groups don’t want the hassle of driving down to a club or casino and paying to see the show live)?

And so what if Fox says the dancers dance for ladies only and “hell no” to dancing for gays? It’s her goddamn TV show and she can control who gets let in to see it live but she has zero control over who can watch it on TV. And if the ratings remain low because not enough women are watching it and the show’s canceled, then the market has spoken.

And of course the potential irony here is that some of the male strippers employed by the show might be gay themselves, just like there are lesbian strippers who perform for men. Nobody in the audience cares anyway because it’s the visuals, titillation, and fantasies components of the entertainment that matter anyway.

And besides that, there’s a greater issue involved here. What the hell is wrong with women getting together in a venue without men or vice versa? I may be a political liberal but I guess in some ways I’m a social libertarian. It’s both genetic and cultural that in some situations men only want to party with men and women only want to party with women. This behavior is established during childhood and you can observe it everyday. Children will naturally choose which play and activities are co-ed and which are segregated by gender and they will freely switch back and forth at any given time. But the important point here is that it is by their own choice.

 

Hillary Clinton Second Wave Feminists Wipe Out On The Third Wave

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-steinem-albright-and-clinton-don%e2%80%99t-get-about-millennial-women/ar-BBpks2o?li=BBnbfcL

The headline to this op-ed piece is misleading. Read down to the lower half of the article and it’s clear the female writer is trying to push two points: 1. Liberal millennial women are voting for Bernie Sanders because they’re too young to know better. 2. Liberal millennial women are ungrateful little brats for failing to respect the holy feminist trio of Clinton, Albright, and Steinem. If it wasn’t for them, your major goal in life would be to have “Mrs.” in front of your name.

And then, there’s this: “The more likely explanation, however, is that young liberal women, like their male counterparts, are attracted to the cool old guy because he’s promising a dream in which the rich have less and the poor have more. Robin Hood is so awesome.”

So all of you liberal millennial women are backsliding. You’re all Maid Marian hoping that someday you will become Mrs. Robin Hood in a May-November marriage.

And to think that the Washington Post was once the paper that exposed Richard M. Nixon and the Watergate scandal. It’s as out of touch with today’s young women as Clinton, Albright, and Steinem (although to her credit, Steinem has walked back her statements, claiming she “misspoke”).

So, do you agree? Are you closing the door on the feminist holy trio because you’ve forgotten they opened it? Or is it because both age and time diminish and tarnish even the strongest (to some) idols?

“But they’re missing the bigger point that had these older women not cut a path for others to enter and expect to be treated fairly in the workplace and elsewhere, these same young women would, indeed, be following the boys in hopes of inserting an “r” between the “M” and the “s” in their titles, as their predecessors had to.”

Or is it as simple as that while third wave feminists appreciate the trailblazing of the second wave feminists, they don’t appreciate the condescending attitudes of members of that much older generation currently raining down on them?

 

Bill Clinton: Big Dog? Big Phony

Bill Clinton. Big Dog. The guy the Democrats trot out every national convention time to rah rah the electorate to a fever pitch to bring the Democratic presidential nominee on home!

Big dog? Big phony. The only thing big about Bill is the stick he keeps trying to bash Bernie Sanders over the head with.

This morning I again heard on the radio the corporate media fiction of Clinton’s “Age of Prosperity” in the 90s. Yes, it was prosperous for some, unless you were poor. If you were lower-working class or among the poor there was little if any prosperity for you.  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the Republican bill which Clinton signed into law took care of that. It penalized poor children for living with their dysfunctional parent(s).  It forced people with no hope of finding a job to look for work or be removed from the cash grant after two years while a portion of any of the income they might be able to earn or receive was allocated to the child(ren) to further reduce their cash grant. After five years on welfare whether the parent(s) had found work or not the family timed out on welfare entirely.

The Food Stamps program (run by the USDA partly on behalf of agribusiness to sell more crops to sell more food) was slashed by over $20 billion dollars. The AFDC budget was $14 billion—less than 1% of the federal budget. Meanwhile, military spending was increased by about $60 billion over a six-year period, a time when we weren’t officially at war with anybody.  SSI eligibility for children was restricted.  LEGAL immigrants had their eligibility for programs greatly restricted and their benefits cut.

But while the those living in poverty were pushed into living in abject poverty, the rest of us were prospering, right? For some. For awhile. The Bill Clinton Golden Age of Prosperity sat atop the twin dotcom and real estate bubbles and balanced by some fancy shmancy bookkeeping that moved selected Accounts Payable ledger items off the Clinton books and onto the books of the next presidential administration. Yes, Dubya did fine in massively escalating the federal budget on his own but Bill did help his future best buddy along that path.

Yes, it sure was the Age of Prosperity alright, but all that prosperity was paid with credit cards and the bills started to come due in the 2nd financial quarter of 2007. You see, during Bill’s Age of Prosperity he sneaked a couple of things through: repeal of Glass-Steagall and the successful kibosh of the regulation of the sale of derivatives of which—if you saw “The Big Short” credit default swaps played a big part.

So here’s all these stock traders and stockholders becoming prosperous during the 90s but then the strangest stuff started to happen in 2007. Banks started to fail. Brokerage houses started to fail. Mortgage lenders started to fail. A whole lot of prosperous people lost their investments, lost their retirement savings, lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their families, lost their lives.

The Republicans came up with a plan to save it all called TARP. They came up with at near the end of Dubya’s term. Obama replaced Bush but on the first round of voting Senate Democrats stuck to their principles and voted it down. They became unstuck on the second vote and passed it with Obama signing into law in 2009. The problem with TARP was handled was similar to what happens on a baseball sandlot. Kids line up and wait to see which team captain will chose them. The team captain sticks with his favorite players and tries to give the lesser players to the other team. This is what happened with TARP. Obama chose his favorites: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, AIG. The lesser players not chosen: Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Bank, Countrywide, among others didn’t get to play at all because there was no other team to play for.  They had to take their bats and balls and thousands of employees and millions of customers and clients and walk away.

This is reality. This is fact. This is not the Camelot-like “Age of Prosperity” that the Clintons, the Democratic Party (especially the DNC), and the corporate media is attempting to have you still believe. When the lie becomes truth, then what is the truth?

So I will not join in on the Big Dog rah rah stuff. I will not speaking glowingly and nostalgically of the Bill Clinton Golden Age of Prosperity. Too much water has flowed under that bridge. The same floodwater that swept all that “prosperity” away for good. At least it worked out for the poor.  As Janis once sang, “when you got nothin’ you got nothin’ to lose”.

Hillary Clinton And The Republicans Working The System

It says a lot—maybe everything—that Hillary Clinton is joining the GOP and the conservative-to-right-wing political pundits in asking how can the federal government possibly afford to pay for Bernie Sanders’ proposals like “Medicare For All” and free higher education.

They’ve convinced the non-thinking voters who adamantly support the presidential candidacies of Clinton and the Republicans to ask that same question. If those voters were actually thinking people they would realize they are being instructed to ask the wrong question so that don’t get the correct answer.  The correct answer is: Bernie’s programs will be paid for by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy and closing all IRS tax loopholes that enable many corporations and wealthy people to pay little or no taxes at all. Bernie’s programs can be paid for by passing laws enabling the federal government to seek out and find all offshore accounts that hide income and assets that so they can’t be taxed.

They can be paid for by forcing stock traders to pay for the millions and millions of automated transactions, which would also serve to drastically decrease these types of transactions that can quickly affect the stock market either positively or negatively or increase or lower stock share prices in a matter of moments.

These programs can be paid for by ending once and for all the corporate welfare by which working people subsidize the very corporations that pay them minimum wage, cut their benefits, raise the costs of their healthcare insurance, or lay them off entirely. Lastly, although there are still other ways to generate more federal income, the military budget can be cut by billions and billions of dollars.

But here’s the problem: politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Republicans, reinforced by the corporate media, train non-thinking voters to believe that they have absolutely no say about the federal budget because those decisions are made by powerful forces totally outside their control. This is the primary message of Hillary Clinton and the Republicans, reinforced by the corporate media, instill in non-thinking voters: “You have control of nothing. You need to elect us to control it for you.” Or they convince non-thinking voters that both parties are the same, they’re all crooks so there’s no sense in voting.

This is all mostly true under the present system. And this is what makes Bernie’s presidential campaign so important: he wants to change the system. Hillary Clinton claims that as president Bernie will never get his programs enacted because: 1. They’ll raise your (lower-and-middle class) taxes, and 2. No one in Congress will work with him to pass these programs. Non-thinking voters never stop to think that #2 would cancel out #1. And they never stop to think that, as I explained above, they shouldn’t have to be the ones to pay for all these beneficial programs anyway.

She is correct—under the present system. However, if you elect Bernie, chances are you will also vote to elect like-minded politicians who WILL work with him. And that’s the key. Incrementally over two election cycles it would be possible for thinking voters to elect enough like-minded politicians at every level to change the system so the programs that Bernie proposes will be enacted. And once that genie is out of the bottle there’s no going back. Unless enough non-thinking voters re-elect politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Republicans in sufficient numbers to reinstate the old system.

This is why Hillary Clinton and the Republicans, reinforced by the corporate media, keep telling non-thinking voters that they are the agents of change, because non-thinking voters keep buying into that fiction by electing and re-electing politicians who perpetuate the unchanging system.

Elect Bernie Sanders president. He is in the vanguard of like-minded politicians who want to actually replace the outdated system with a new one. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a brand spanking new system in Washington, D.C. for a change?

Hillary Clinton Snatched Nothing From The Jaws Of Victory

***UPDATE: Since I first wrote this the Clinton campaign is claiming victory in Iowa despite the fact there is no victory as yet to claim. One precinct remains uncounted and there are questions about the results in a few others. This shows how desperate that campaign is to claim a meaningless win, as I explain further down. It also shows how afraid they are of Bernie Sanders’ surging campaign. It’s Déjà vu circa 2008 all over again.***

 The corporate media is spinning the virtual tie in Iowa as a victory for Hillary because she didn’t lose. That’s utter nonsense. In fact, a few coin tosses led to the tie which further renders the Iowa caucuses results meaningless.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/a-coin-toss-was-actually-used-to-decide-some-iowa-ties-betwe?utm_term=.eqP99XPVk#.mtM779VdR

Bernie has been, ahead, behind, and tied with her in the Iowa presidential polls leading up to the Iowa caucuses. The very fact that he tied with HIllary, who has been the media-anointed eventual Democratic presidential nominee is a victory for Bernie.

 Even Reuters agrees, sort of. The news agency ran a story about how the Iowa tie raises doubts about her campaign. “‘She has had every possible structural and organizational advantage and Sanders fought her to a draw,’ said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.’This is almost a moment by moment rerun of 2008,’ Schnur said. ‘The difference is her competition is not as tough this time.'”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-idUSKCN0VB0PB

 So Bernie’s not as tough a competitor as Obama was in 2008 yet he still tied with Hillary. Do not think that that butterflies are not fluttering inside stomachs within the Clinton campaign today.

 But we must keep in mind that the Iowa caucuses historically have been regarded as a non-important event since they don’t really mean anything. They’re beauty contests which don’t even fully decide the number of delegates that will be sent to the national conventions for both parties. In Iowa after the caucuses, elections are held in the counties and congressional districts and then statewide to choose the slates of delegates who will go to the national conventions held by the Democrats and by the Republicans.Tonight was just the first of four contests to elect delegates to the national conventions for the Democrats and the Republicans.

 NOTHING WAS POLITICALLY DECIDED LAST NIGHT. All that happened was that both candidates could declare they didn’t lose a media-hyped contest. The full slate of 44 Democratic delegates headed to the convention won’t be decided until June. With O’Malley out of the race (suspending a campaign means the candidate still qualifies for matching federal funds for contributions that the candidate continues to receive, even after that particular election is over. These funds go towards paying down the outstanding campaign debt.) his few delegates are again in play.

 All that was at stake here were the bragging rights to winning the first political contest of the election season. These were denied to both Bernie and Hillary but they can brag they didn’t lose either.

 Meanwhile, the corporate media already has Iowa in its rear view as it has already moved on to New Hampshire. Bernie is expected to win big there but it’s predicted Hillary will win both the South Carolina and the Nevada primaries. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, like Iowa and New Hampshire those two states have never played a major role in deciding a presidential election, let alone the presidential nominee. Nevada, considered a swing state, only has 6 electoral votes. South Carolina only has 9. There are far more important contests than these two states to decide who will get the nomination and who will be elected president.

 

Donald Trump’s Running For President–Or IS He?

Here’s my take on Donald Trump–and I could be wrong. First, I question why a guy who’s historically been a political moderate is going so hard right that he’s even to the right of Ben Carson? My theory is that he’s intentionally saying outrageous, politically suicidal things because he doesn’t want to be president.

I think every presidential campaign of his has been a sham.  Why  should he run for president, win, and take a pay cut? All of his wealth–credit cards, financial accounts, all his business interests–are taken away from him and put in trusts until after he leaves office.  He’d have to give all control of his businesses to others otherwise we’re talking conflict of interest.

And he’s a businessman. Does he really want to deal with what he would have to consider the boring parts of the president’s job? ? Does he really want to deal with Congress, the different agencies, lobbyists, the corporate media, all those foreign countries–especially China and Russia, ISIS, al-Qaeda, the various wars around the world, global warming?  He’s worth several billion dollars, has access to everything and can do and say whatever he wants. Why the hell would he want to trade it all in to be president? I really don’t think he’s megalomaniacal enough to want to be president just to have control of the military and our nuclear weapons and to be the most powerful man in the world-without access to his financial empire.

Why is he slamming Muslims? Because I think he’s fomenting outrage to the point where his popularity tanks and it essentially provides him a way to gracefully bow out of the race instead of quitting when his numbers are high. He wants to lose this race.  If he knows how to read public opinion polls he can clearly see his voting base rests securely with the right wing lunatic fringe of the GOP,  a fringe so right wing looney that they view Rand Paul and Jeb Bush as liberals.

He’s already lost “The Apprentice” and after recently selling off his entire holdings in the Miss Universe Organization his future presence in the corporate media looked to be severely diminished.  What better way to increase it then to run for president and position himself as The Great White Wing Hope.   The good news is that after he closes his “presidential campaign” early next year we won’t be subjected to another installment of “Donald Trump Runs For President” until 2020.