In a 2001 interview on a a public radio station in Chicago, then state senator Barack Obama was being interviewed. snippets of his interview were leaked on the Drudge Report. Here's the transcript of this chopped up interview, minus the spooky music.
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Here's what the blogosphere got out of it...
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...
...the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...
... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do
One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was...to lose track of the... community organizing...activities...through which you bring about redistributed change...
...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts...
The court’s just not very good at it...
You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...
As soon as the word "redistribution" is uttered, people are already going crazy calling Obama a socialist, even mixing him up with Karl Marx (a Communist NOT a socialist, BTW. There is a difference). But let's dissect this speech little by little if we can.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...
...the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...
Obama never said that the Supreme Court SHOULD get into redistribution of wealth. He was answering the criticism that the court was going that far, and it wasn't. KEEP READING IT AGAIN. NO WHERE IN THOSE FIRST THREE SENTENCES WAS THERE ANY ADVOCATION OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. He didn't say that THAT was the failure of the civil rights movement.
... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do
One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was...to lose track of the... community organizing...activities...through which you bring about redistributed change...
Let's read that again:
"It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that."
Barack Obama was saying the same thing Michael Baisden was saying. It's not up to the courts to bring about change. It starts within the community. The tragedy he was speaking about was that the Civil Rights movement relied too much on the courts and not enough on their own community. If anything he was speaking AGAINST government interference in civil rights cases. Now back to the blogosphere...
...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts...
The court’s just not very good at it...
You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...
Any advocation for socialism there...NO!!! All he's saying is that the courts can't force the change we need on every body. It would be undiplomatic. It starts in your own community, it can't be legislated and it shouldn't. If anything, Obama's kind of sounding like a LIBERTARIAN.
But no...the word "redistributive" came up and now everyone's calling him a SOCIALIST! This reminds me of that "lipstick on a pig" fake controversy last month when the other side was slamming him for dogging Sarah Palin. Then it was LIPSTICK, now it's REDISTRIBUTION.
One more interview taken out of context.
Again...nice try...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Missed Opportunities
Ok, so I'm commenting pretty late on the debate, but better late than never.
Remember all the times that "Joe the Plumber" was been used as a political tool by both Obama and McCain? Well there was one charge that Joe (Sam) Wurzelbacher would have to pay higher taxes under Obama's plan of getting rid of the Bush tax shelters for folks making above 200K for individuals 250K for businesses. This is what Obama FAILED TO SAY:
He has this plan for business who create jobs in America. $3000 per American job created. So if Joe the Plumber ends up buying up that business and being in that bracket, he ends up coughing up another 900 a year, but HERE'S THE CLINCHER. If 5 net jobs are created from his business, if this tax credit thing goes through, ole Joey can enjoy another $15,000 that year. 15,000 minus 900 is 14,100. I wish this plan went beyond 2010.
On that same note, this is going to cost 60 billion dollars. How do you pay for it?
In a dream situation Barack Obama would just outright say that we have too many foreign bases around the world that we don't need to maintain. It's an unnecessary expense, but if he came out and said that the military special interests would be on his ass till kingdom come, and he'd be painted as anti-military. However, that's one way to pay for this tax credit, another opportunity missed by Barack Obama.
Here's another idea that Obama should've been talking about in paying for this tax credit. Rather than putting more new money into all these alternative fuels like Obama wants to do, let's redirect those oil and natural gas subsidies and use that money instead of driving the budget further into the hole. Obama could've built some fiscal conservative cred with this idea, but here again, another missed opportunity.
Another thing, Barack. Why the hell did you even spit that "spread the wealth" nonsense? Now you've thrown McCain and company a huge "socialist" bone. From what I've heard New Hampshire is a "don't spend what you ain't got" state, and McCain's headed that way to plead his case. You've got some explaining to do out there, because if the "socialism" thing stick out there, you're gonna' need Nevada to stay alive if Virginia and Florida go belly up.
There's a lot of opportunities that Barack Obama has missed to put this election away once and for all. It was his problem in the primaries, and it's becoming a growing concern in the general election. I'm worried he might let it slide too far this time, and that's why I'm CAUTIOUSLY optimistic about where the polls stand now.
Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I'd hate for them to come this far only to sing this song again...
Remember all the times that "Joe the Plumber" was been used as a political tool by both Obama and McCain? Well there was one charge that Joe (Sam) Wurzelbacher would have to pay higher taxes under Obama's plan of getting rid of the Bush tax shelters for folks making above 200K for individuals 250K for businesses. This is what Obama FAILED TO SAY:
He has this plan for business who create jobs in America. $3000 per American job created. So if Joe the Plumber ends up buying up that business and being in that bracket, he ends up coughing up another 900 a year, but HERE'S THE CLINCHER. If 5 net jobs are created from his business, if this tax credit thing goes through, ole Joey can enjoy another $15,000 that year. 15,000 minus 900 is 14,100. I wish this plan went beyond 2010.
On that same note, this is going to cost 60 billion dollars. How do you pay for it?
In a dream situation Barack Obama would just outright say that we have too many foreign bases around the world that we don't need to maintain. It's an unnecessary expense, but if he came out and said that the military special interests would be on his ass till kingdom come, and he'd be painted as anti-military. However, that's one way to pay for this tax credit, another opportunity missed by Barack Obama.
Here's another idea that Obama should've been talking about in paying for this tax credit. Rather than putting more new money into all these alternative fuels like Obama wants to do, let's redirect those oil and natural gas subsidies and use that money instead of driving the budget further into the hole. Obama could've built some fiscal conservative cred with this idea, but here again, another missed opportunity.
Another thing, Barack. Why the hell did you even spit that "spread the wealth" nonsense? Now you've thrown McCain and company a huge "socialist" bone. From what I've heard New Hampshire is a "don't spend what you ain't got" state, and McCain's headed that way to plead his case. You've got some explaining to do out there, because if the "socialism" thing stick out there, you're gonna' need Nevada to stay alive if Virginia and Florida go belly up.
There's a lot of opportunities that Barack Obama has missed to put this election away once and for all. It was his problem in the primaries, and it's becoming a growing concern in the general election. I'm worried he might let it slide too far this time, and that's why I'm CAUTIOUSLY optimistic about where the polls stand now.
Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I'd hate for them to come this far only to sing this song again...
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Is the economy making YOU sick?
A year or two ago, there was finally a push for more organic and natural foods. The word was getting out by the media and the powers that be that this is the way to go, and that we should think twice and read the labels before buying the product. The problem is, organic and natural food is more expensive than the food loaded with preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, rBST, and other additives that aren't good for us.
What the freakout of the moment this time around? THE ECONOMY. So now everyone is holding on for dear life to their wallets (and rightfully so), and the attitude right now is "to hell with my health if it's gonna' put me in the hole." So in turn, the people are more tempted to settle for food that is more harmful to them if it costs less. This is where a vicious cycle starts, because now you put your health at risk for as long as the economy is down, and in extreme cases this could lead to health problems down the road, leading to bigger hospital bills and higher costs in health care in the form of premiums.
What I suspect is that the food industry KNEW this economic crisis was going on, and decided to roll out their organic and natural foods anyway. The foods end up not selling as much because of the economy. Now the food industry has that much "justification" to say that organic and natural does not work. Then they go back to adding all those additives and putting our food at risk, even the foods that are SUPPOSED to be healthy. On a side note, I think that's what's going to happen to this new Red Bull Natural Cola that's coming out; talk about some bad timing.
I think a major reason why this is happening is because farms that pump all this crap in our foods are subsidized by our own government. Get rid of those subsidies and use half of it for ethanol and the other half to pay down that national debt. I understand that people have to cut back on some things because of this trying economy, but please remember this. YOUR BODY IS YOUR BEST INVESTMENT. It would save tons of money on health care costs and insurance premiums if we all learn to invest in our bodies in nothing else.
Now what does this have to do with media and politics? Take a look at the candidates you're voting for. Who's a better friend to the additive wing of the food industry or to the insurance companies depending on bad health to have an excuse to raise premiums? Whoever that is, stay the hell away from him or her!
Your body is your best investment.
What the freakout of the moment this time around? THE ECONOMY. So now everyone is holding on for dear life to their wallets (and rightfully so), and the attitude right now is "to hell with my health if it's gonna' put me in the hole." So in turn, the people are more tempted to settle for food that is more harmful to them if it costs less. This is where a vicious cycle starts, because now you put your health at risk for as long as the economy is down, and in extreme cases this could lead to health problems down the road, leading to bigger hospital bills and higher costs in health care in the form of premiums.
What I suspect is that the food industry KNEW this economic crisis was going on, and decided to roll out their organic and natural foods anyway. The foods end up not selling as much because of the economy. Now the food industry has that much "justification" to say that organic and natural does not work. Then they go back to adding all those additives and putting our food at risk, even the foods that are SUPPOSED to be healthy. On a side note, I think that's what's going to happen to this new Red Bull Natural Cola that's coming out; talk about some bad timing.
I think a major reason why this is happening is because farms that pump all this crap in our foods are subsidized by our own government. Get rid of those subsidies and use half of it for ethanol and the other half to pay down that national debt. I understand that people have to cut back on some things because of this trying economy, but please remember this. YOUR BODY IS YOUR BEST INVESTMENT. It would save tons of money on health care costs and insurance premiums if we all learn to invest in our bodies in nothing else.
Now what does this have to do with media and politics? Take a look at the candidates you're voting for. Who's a better friend to the additive wing of the food industry or to the insurance companies depending on bad health to have an excuse to raise premiums? Whoever that is, stay the hell away from him or her!
Your body is your best investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
