Jaded Sage:

This part of my blog appeared before under “Burning Sage” but after realizing that Jim Rome has a TV show entitled Rome is Burning I decided to change it. I can’t stand Jim Rome. Also, I like the title Raging Sage better.

Worthless Degree

The country is most likely in a recession. The components of today’s financial mess are complicated. From the mounting debt which has devalued the dollar to the mortgage crisis which has caused Wall Street to retreat. Of course this is just a quick summary but what is interesting and most people aren’t talking about is the fact that our current President holds an MBA from Harvard Business School. Not only has this MBA recipient done little to forestall the recession he has failed to articulate the nature of the woes to the nation. I wonder how drunk Bush actually was during his years at Harvard. Here is a list of classes that one is required to take at HBS along with the list of electives:

Required Courses at Harvard Business School Term One

Required Courses at Harvard Business School Term Two

Elective Courses at Harvard Business School

I understand small business growth. I was one.

George W Bush  February 2000

Go Forth and Multiply, Frere Jacques

So Muslims have now passed Catholics in total population. Isn’t it about time the Catholics allow their priests to marry? If the Catholics don’t do something quick you can say goodbye to any chance at winning the next Holy War.

Honey Did You Pay the Electric Bill?

Sounds like Hillary might just know what it is like to be poor in America after all. It seems her campaign is stiffing some on the trail. How do you recover your money when the person that owes it to you is never in one place for more than two days? Will this affect her FICO score? For some reason I think not. The big question , however, does Hillary have to stay in the race to acquire enough money to pay off her campaign debts?

The war in Iraq has taken a new twist in recent days. Fighting has flared in Baghdad and Southern Iraq between the Iraqi government, backed by the US, and principally rogue elements of Moqtada Al-Sadr’s militia, known as the Mahdi Army in an attempt to tamp down growing tensions between the south’s Shia factions. This rift, occurring between the Mahdi Army and their Shia rival, the Badr Brigade, is quite troubling. Since the power vacuum was created following the ousting of Saddam Hussein, Shiite factions have been vying for supremacy in Iraq. The wild card, of course, is the role of Iran. Their influence in the struggle has been immense and they are sure to play a significant part in the current conflagration.  The current tensions have arisen over the rich oil reserves in southern Iraq and principally in Basra, Iraq’s third largest city and chief port on the Persian Gulf.  For the time being Al-Sadr continues to uphold his cease fire despite mounting casualties. If he elects to end the cease fire you will begin to see large scale fighting break out in the south, ending years of relative calm. To put the current crisis in perspective I have included a recent report from Al-Jazeera-English:

Thousands in Baghdad Protest Basra Assault

Al Sadr in Trouble, Iraq Headed for Meltdown

Moqtada’s Bitter Cup

What was Hillary thinking by stressing she came under sniper fire in Bosnia? Do we really want our First Ladies coming into the cross hairs, never mind the First Daughter? If it was true it wouldn’t matter. John Kerry came under fire in Vietnam and look where that got him? He was in fact braver than George Bush and he was made weaker through the “swiftboaters”. The line here is what was Bill Clinton’s motive in sending his wife into what was believed to be harm’s way? The whole story that Hillary concocted is filled with land mines. She is portraying herself as a person sent into a combat zone because it was too dangerous for her husband. To compound matters, today she decided to speak out about Obama’s pastor in order to change the subject. Democrats need to learn how to wage war. If Hillary’s intent is to show how tough she is, it will not measure up to John McCain. The guy broke both his arms and his leg and then was captured and tortured. Even if Hillary’s imaginary war story were true, it would serve as a breeze to McCain’s hurricane in regards to bravery. This election is not how tough one is, it is how smart one is. The Democratic candidate must be able to show that they are smart because Americans want change and most see Bush as not bright. The winner must also be able to show that they empathize with America’s pain in the coming economic woes. Making up “war stories” is not a good place to start.

The real issue is Hillary Clinton must realize she can’t win. You see headline after headline that states the dire situation the Clinton campaign is in. Does she care more about the party or more about her personal glory. Truth be told, the longer this goes on the more she will hurt her image, and the chances for a Democratic victory in November at the same time. If Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row he would be back in Illinois. It is time for her to grasp reality. But as the sniper story shows, that has become hard for Mrs. Clinton.

I read lots of history and political science books. In fact, I haven’t read a book of fiction in about 10 years. I seldom read books written by politicians or agenda driven hacks such as Limbaugh, Carville or O’Reilly. My dad bought me Obama’s last book, The Audacity of Hope, and I read it. I figured if I am going to vote for the guy I would like to know how the guy thinks. It is a great book not just because I agree with him on most issues but because the book is written with a calm practicality. This is why I tell people who are negatively affected by Obama’s preacher to read Obama’s book or listen to the temperament with which he speaks.

Recently I learned Barack Obama’s favorite book is Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, a book about Abraham Lincoln and those who first ran against him in the Republican Party and then were brought in to assist Lincoln in America’s greatest challenge during the 19th Century. I wanted to know why Obama chose this book to lead his list. Though I am early into the book I quickly realized why the Illinois senator coveted this book beyond the fact Lincoln was a senator from the same state. Goodwin writes as she refers to Abraham Lincoln in his primary run in 1860:

…in an age when speech-making prowess was central to political success, when the spoken word filled the air “from sun-up til sundown”, “Lincoln’s stirring oratory had earned the admiration of a far flung-audience who had either heard him speak or read his speeches in the paper.

Goodwin later continues:

…Lincoln clearly understood that he was “new in the field,” that outside of Illinois he was not “the first choice of a very great many.” His political experience on the national level consisted of two failed Senate races and a single term in Congress that had come to an end nearly a dozen years earlier. By contrast, the three other contenders for the nomination were household names in Republican circles.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Team of Rivals and enjoy reading detailed history, do so. The depth at which Goodwin paints Lincoln and those who would fill out his cabinet is astonishing. Whether Obama has a fraction of the ability of Lincoln is to be seen, but the fact that he is reading his history and learning from the greats should give comfort to many. 

I leave you with an excerpt from a campaign rally in the capital of Oregon yesterday. Listen to the manner and dignity with which Obama answers the woman’s question. With how big a brush would you like to paint Obama’s relationship with his pastor when you hear this?

The words of Reverend Wright? No. Actually these are the sentiments of those radical White preachers. You know, the ones that had (or have) national audiences to spew their vitriol. It was the damn secularists teaming up with the radical eastern monotheists that caused 9/11.

Every politician has interesting bed fellows. By what rules are we playing? Why did McCain accept Falwell’s endorsement? It was done to garner votes from the religious right. When this story makes headlines, and it surely will, will McCain denounce Falwell and an eventual Pat Robertson endorsement? Stay tuned.

Anyone with an open mind who heard Barack Obama’s speech on race today recognized the brilliance of the words. He is able to explain the anguish of the generation before him and the great strides that have benefited his generation. I have listened to a lot of right wing radio today simply because I wanted to hear how they were going to attack his speech. It was fascinating to hear them dissect and assault Obama They used the same tactic to attack the speech as they used to go after Reverend Wright. Don’t get me wrong, no person with intellect could condone the manner in which the Reverend said what he said. The “radio right” clung to two parts of this magnificent speech to criticize Obama. First, they said he threw his white grandmother under the bus by saying:

“I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

If he cared so much for his grandmother how could he possibly criticize her publicly like that?, they decried. But Obama was pointing to the fact that the generation that came before mine saw racism at almost every corner. My father had a Black friend at Kansas University in the 1950s and he would drive him to the African part of Lawrence to get a haircut because his friend couldn’t get his hair cut in town. This occurred in what is now the most liberal town in Kansas. I went to kindergarten in a school that was formerly the Black high school in Liberty, Missouri in 1969. When the school was converted to a kindergarten at the time when schools were integrated, the building, which had been battered and worn from years of neglect by the city was renovated to make it usable by the mostly White kindergartners. These events that are etched in my distant memory are nothing compared to the decades of injustice that has consumed this nation in the last century, never mind the two centuries prior. Are men such as Reverend Wright simply to forget this climate that surrounded their existence for most of their lives? Obama said it succinctly: 

“And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”

The second criticism of Obama was best expressed by Dick Morris, the right winger on TV tonight. Morris said Barack Obama is too weak to be President because leaders need to be able to throw people under the bus, even when they are close friends. Well as we have learned Barack Obama is not your normal politician. He could not disown Reverend Wright because to do so would be to disown the entire generation that Wright speaks for; the generation that lived in pre-civil rights America. For us, it would be like disowning the WW II vet and all he has done to save us from fascism because he, to this day, can’t stand Blacks. But Obama does not identify with this generation. He doesn’t use race as a crutch. When he started his candidacy most African Americans were weary of him. You heard on the news that he was not “Black” enough because he was not running like all Black candidates had done before him. In past campaigns, like that of Jesse Jackson’s, he spoke primarily to the Black man with the hope that others would join. Others did not. Barack Obama spoke to everyone and the Blacks bought in. In this way he has transcended race.

As the Conservative right ties the beliefs of Reverend Wright with those of Barack Obama, they continue to be ignorant of African Americans and further distance themselves from creating a nation where all citizens are truly equal. It seems they think Barack Obama, once he becomes President, will somehow metamorphize into a bitter Black man with a chip on his shoulder instead of someone who understands the Black experience and who fully comprehends the direction this country needs to go.

“For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”

Barack Obama is the embodiment of the change that is going on in this country in regards to race. It seems it is those who wish to cling to the battles of decades ago; the culture war, Vietnam and racism, that engage with great vigor the issues that bring divisiveness. You will hear it from Reverend Wright and you will hear it from right wing radio; but you will never hear it from Barack Obama.

Why are Republican Congressmen hindering witnesses in the latest hearings on credit card abuse? Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has proposed a bill that would protect credit card holders from their interest rates skyrocketing for the slightest infractions. Several consumers who have had their interest rates go from a fair rate to 23% overnight due to one late payment had agreed to testify before Congress. Republicans found a way to silence many of these witnesses. The panel’s Republicans insisted the visitors allow their lenders to discuss their financial histories publicly-in any forum, at any time. This did the trick for four of five witnesses who were fearful of the one part in the waiver that would allow their history to be fair game at anytime. The credit card companies and their lobbyists were there in huge numbers during Thursday’s hearings espousing the virtues of their consumer relations while the those who had been unfairly treated sat in the audience, successfully gagged.

Maloney’s proposal, called The Credit Card Holder Bill of Rights serves as a check on the companies that give out credit cards. Their power has become increasingly one sided in the past ten years. This should be a signal to everyone just who the Republicans cater to, and it isn’t us.  

If you haven’t seen the Frontline special on the abuses of credit card issuers see it here. It is an outstanding piece of journalism.

For more on the Credit Card Holder Bill of Rights (HR 5244):

Congress Takes on Credit Card Interchange Fees

Maloney and Conyers Introduce Two Bills

It is fascinating how the Bush Administration is incapable of winning an argument these days. In fact, it appears they have given up even trying. Like the waning hours of the Titanic when the crew understood bailing out the water was hopeless, the Bushies have deemed any struggle to state their case is not worth the effort. Take, for instance, the latest report compiled by the Defense Department that used 600,000 documents captured from Saddam after he was deposed. The document suggests there was no link between the Iraqi dictator and Al-Qaeda. But in a recent article written by the right wing apologist, William Kristol, he points out the document does elude to possible connections. Kristol states those inside the administration are mum on the assertion there are no terror links because  the case is “too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, (the administration) will say.”  Kristol goes on to write, “Furthermore, once the first wave of coverage is bad, you can never catch up: You give the misleading stories more life and your opponents further chances to beat you up in the media.” If you read the government document it highlights how Saddam Hussein (SH) supported terrorist organizations throughout his reign but clearly states and I quote, “

…But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”

We know the various nations within the Middle East support terrorist groups but the question is, is it a causus belli (cause for war)? The reality is the Bush Administration doesn’t have the credibility to fight this fight. The political capital that Bush boasted about after being re-elected was a chimera. As a result of Bush’s almost five years of inequities, the nation is left fighting the war’s origins, its progress and its future.

The reason why the war in Iraq is so contentious goes beyond the cost in human life and treasure; it is unpopular because most people know the reason for going to war was built on falsehoods. Those who look even deeper into the war know that Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not really affiliated with the Bin-Laden crowd but instead were mostly comprised of those in Iraq who had the most to lose with the passing of the Ba’athist regime. Those who are currently causing mayhem in Mesopotamia are almost exclusively Iraqis. In a recent article in the Washington Post entitled Iraq’s Jihad Myths, Reuel Marc Gerecht writes:

“But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller).”

Now as the war moves into a new stage, a post-surge stage, Americans are confounded by not only the falsehoods that got us involved in the war but also the changing dimensions of what victory and defeat mean. As one Democratic candidate states he will begin withdrawal upon taking office, and the Republican candidate is willing to stay committed for a hundred years, the commanding general in Iraq has recently said the Iraqi government is failing to live up to their part of the bargain due to the divisions that have made the progress so difficult. John McCain seems to win the debate if we talk about the Iraq War in the present and Barack Obama seems to win if we talk about the Iraq War in the past but it is the future in Iraq that is so troublesome as has always been the case there. In each step along the way, that which appears to be the condition in Iraq has rarely been accurate and when something definitive occurs in Iraq it doesn’t stay defined for very long; it changes like the a sandy landscape. The more articles that appear from both the right and the left, the more anyone can be right about Iraq at any given time because the conditions in this war torn region are never fixed. In this way William Kristol can claim there were Al_Qaeda links to SH’s government even though the Defense Department clearly state’s there was no “smoking gun”. This type of thinking got us involved in the war and those on the right obviously still cling to this phantom rationale.

As we know Barack Obama is attracting unprecedented numbers of Black Americans to the polls during the primaries. The notion of a Black President enfranchises these voters in ways never seen before. Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, seems to have an affect on Black voters like that other Illinois politician, Abe Lincoln had in the 19th century. Obama is the zeta to Lincoln’s alpha; the pinnacle of nearly 150 years of the struggle to be free but never quite equal might end with the 2008 election. If Obama does win the Democratic Primary, what impact will he have beyond the Presidential race? If large number of Black voters swamp the polls on November 2, what will be the secondary effect? If Blacks go to the polls for Obama it can only help incumbents like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Her seat in the Senate is the one most in jeopardy to be lost by the Democrats. Landrieu, however, is playing it close to the vest. She has not endorsed either candidate thus far. You would think that in her most private moments she cheers on Obama like a rabid NASCAR fan. Another key seat up for grabs is Trent Lott’s old slot in Mississippi. Ronnie Musgrove (D) will be running against Roger Wicker (R). Already said to be a close race, a huge African-American turnout could turn the tide in a very Red State. The most interesting race that involves the “Obama Factor” will be in Alabama. Jeff Sessions, a two term Senator, would normally be a shoe-in but recent events swirling around the incarceration of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman around spurious information and involving Karl Rove aired recently on CBS’ 60 Minutes. If you didn’t catch the episode watch it here. Jeff Sessions pressured CBS to not air the program. Why would he do this if he has nothing to hide? Sessions will be running against a Black female candidate named Vivian Figures. What will Obama’s impact be on this race if he is on the Presidential ballot in November? Will Red States turn black in 2008 under the weight of interested African American voters? If so, the party will owe a debt of gratitude to them along with Barack Obama for making it possible. Never in the history of this country have African Americans been in a position to have this much power…and this much equality.  It has been a long time in coming.

Democrats Dream of a Filibuster Proof Senate

No one who is employed watches the main-stream media (MSM) more than I do. I often have it running as background noise while I eat, read, surf the net and even sleep. There is a great redundancy to the reporting. It really doesn’t matter where you obtain your news. Whether it is MSNBC at the left of the spectrum, CNN at center left or FOX on the right; when a fire engulfs a building in New York City there is a rhythm in which all three cut into the story, like a trio of dancing couples entering a vacant dance floor. On election coverage the rhythm of story repetition can be as rapid as a West Indies soca song. During lulls in the media wars there will be those stories of fair haired damsels brutally slain, or missing toddlers in remote locals and a suspected make and model of car for which to be on the lookout. But is there really a down cycle? My contention is the MSM has failed us. The stories Americans should be focused on receive only glancing blows unless there is carnage involved. When was the last time you heard a really in depth story about the war in Iraq?  I am talking about one where there are multiple reporters on the ground highlighting all the nuances of the conflict; interviews with sergeants, the facts about the demise of Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), the current strategy for victory and the assessment of progress. Al-Anbar is much safer now. Where are the reporters covering that story? It seems if the US is spending upwards of $1 trillion there, shouldn’t it be a priority of the media and America in general to care? And of course there is the forgotten war in Afghanistan; the staging ground for Bin Laden and his gang. With nations waffling on their commitment there, the forces engaged are insufficient. But we would not know that from our news. The internet is a great outlet for information about the conflicts but most Americans don’t have the time or desire to seek out such stories. Instead we endure an endless cycle of stories about why Obama’s campaign called Hillary a monster or why McCain lost his temper about a 2004 collaboration attempt by John Kerry or even worse why a pretty girl at UNC was slain. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not callous to the sorrow involved in the case but last I heard over 4000 Americans and countless Iraqis have died in Iraq and 3000 Americans are attempting to be avenged in Afghanistan. When a story of one person’s death gets twenty times more coverage than those that matter to all of us, the MSM has failed us.