i think the Obama camp is being a bit too hypersensitive these days (see Rev. JJ, Bernie Mac)
<
p>one thing that Barry should learn from Reagan is that humor/satire is an awesome offensive weapon
leonidassays
joetssays
who had an afro
tbladesays
…the artist was making reference to the right’s attempt to demonize her as an outspoken sister girl and denigrate her as being outspokenly proud to be Black, and therefore an agitator. In other words, “good Black folk” straighten their hair in submission to Euro-centric beauty norms; to let Black hair grow naturally is an affront to the power structure and symbolizes a “rebel” and a “trouble maker”.
<
p>As sabutai points out, it evokes strong, 70s-era African American female symbols, whether it be Foxy Brown, Angela Davis, or Assata Shakur, who were all associated with Black radicalism and subverting White power structures.
It obviously was an attempt at satire, but it fails. It represents the basic stuff that you get from the Right about Obama, but it neither mocks nor exaggerates them. It’s a sad state of affairs that conservatives are hard to satirize or parody because they’re so insane, but that’s where we are.
He goes on to quote not-so-bright conservative Jonah Goldberg:
What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it’s almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review.
For me, what sells it as satire is the Foxy Brown 70s chick, not Obama himself. She looks like something out of Undercover Brother, and sells it as something that is patently ridiculous. It does rather straddle the line, which I imagine is what they were going for…
tbladesays
…and the flag burning in the fireplace are patently ridiculous and exaggerated enough for me.
<
p>I read this cover as a big “f-you” to the slack-jaws that believe email forwards and the professional slimebags who’ve propagated and perpetuated these lies via their media outlets or their party machinery.
eury13says
And I’m sure all the email-forwarding yokels will feel their shame completely when their latest edition of the New Yorker gets delivered.
<
p>Seriously, though, I’m more concerned that people will just catch a slight whiff of this story or see the magazine on a newsstand and think to themselves “well if the New Yorker is worried too, then he must really be questionable…”
stephgmsays
But I think it’s sad that hair grown long and in its natural state with no fuss or bother could ever be called “patently ridiculous.” To me the Foxy Brown style of Afro as exemplified in the caricature of Michelle Obama is charming and beautiful; I hope for a return of the aesthetic.
<
p>(As a small child I asked my mother to do my hair in the multidirectional multi-braid fashion that I’d see on other little girls in other cities but never in the white bread Nebraska town where we lived. She told me — with what in my memory seems like genuine regret — that my straight blonde hair was “all wrong” for that style.)
tbladesays
…it’s that we’ve never seen Michelle with that style and the fact that natural hair on a Back woman symbolizes strength, independence, and proud to be Black – all of which are seen as “scary” and “threatening” to the caricaturized conservative White patriarchal power base. What is ridiculous is that the slander-mongers that this cartoon is intended to lampoon want to paint Michelle as a Foxy Brown, Angela Davis, or Assata Shakur – all of whom are identified with afros – when there isn’t one single image of Michelle wearing that style.
<
p>To push the point further, and not to put words in subutai’s mouth, but I bet if Michelle decided tomorrow to wear a natural, Afro-centric hair style that people like sabutai and myself wouldn’t care at all, but the slimy element of the Right’s chattering class would find it ridiculous, would find ways to mock Michelle and somehow find it as “proof” of Michelle’s militant pro-Black agenda.
<
p>I think most people agree with your statement that “it’s sad that hair grown long and in its natural state with no fuss or bother could ever be called ‘patently ridiculous'”. sabutai* and myself weren’t saying the afro was ridiculous; it’s the caricature that exaggerated the fears of Michelle being a Black militant (of which an afro on a Black woman is a part) that is ridiculous.
<
p>For the record, I say people should rock whatever hairstyle they feel comfortable with and that’s appropriate for their profession. On the one hand, certain varieties of afros might not be appropriate for certain people in business because there are bigots out there that would not feel comfortable with people who are too overtly black; they might categorize certain ethnic hair styles as “unprofessional” looking based on the Euro-centric standard. But the knife cuts both ways because certain hairstyles worn by White people seem to be discriminated against, too. Imagine walking into a board room and meeting a guy with a mullet. I bet bald White women don’t have an easy time. And a green rooster-spiked mohawk would surely get one fired, or at least sent home in many corporate settings. Hairstyle is not only a marker of race, but a marker of class; an afroed Michelle fits into neither the race, class nor sex of the traditional power structure.
<
p>————–
*Off topic question for sabutai – This doesn’t matter, but I’m curious anyway. I know your screen name is intentionally not capitalized, but does it take capitalization when it starts a sentence, or is sabutai like bell hooks and e.e. cummings, lower case regardless of placement?
I agree with much of what tblade said about the hair; as a matter of fact, I didn’t even realize that was supposed to be Michelle until other people said it here. I thought it was Generic Black Panther Sister Girl.
<
p>Tblade, when I registered, I erred in not capitalizing the name. If I could capitalize my handle and maintain connection/”ownership” of all my comments and diaries here, I would. I’m not really fussy how other people treat it.
p>1. The collectivity of all the right-wing whisper smears together makes such accusations seem, well, ridiculous on an individual basis. Also, notice that the couple is in the Oval Office, which spoofs the Manchurian candidate theory.
<
p>2. The context is important. The cartoon is published in the New Yorker- a publication read by witty east coast liberals- not time or the national review. I think the New Yorker subscribers, by and large, will comprehend the satiric purpose of the cartoon.
trickle-upsays
and I do not blame the campaign for being hostile to anything that is off-message.
<
p>From their point of view it has more chance of raising the noise level than of doing anything helpful.
<
p>But, my strategy includes satire and I give it a B.
davessays
What do you think of the profile? You can read it here
alexwillsays
I think the cartoon is great in the context of the magazine and the article within on “the Politics of Fear” as it become clear in the context..
<
p>But I think the irresponsible part was the put the image on the cover with out any of that context. Without a headline on the politics of fear, or better yet on debunking the politics of fear, the image stands as a reinforcement of every smear that has been put out there. The problem is that the image is extremely easily taken out of the intended context, and will likely become part of the smear campaign. That was the mistake.
I think that it would be funny if the subject wasn’t already a serious problem for Obama.
<
p>I don’t think the New Yorker is wrong for taking the shot at the email rumor mill (and those that take it as fact) but I think they really would’ve made their point clearer with a healine that gave context and intent. Or better yet, as mentioned here, put it inside.
<
p>I also think this will have an unending life on the blogs of a different color, reinforcing the racism that exists. No, Obama may not have a shot at those voters, but it brings out voters from the other side.
lightirissays
and I think the controversy about it reactionary and overblown, but that’s just me. All of the elements are there–I’m particularly fond of the OBL portrait over the mantle.
<
p>Too, I think the Obama campaign should have thought this through a little more before they reacted. While they may have, indeed, found the cover a little insensitive, had they thought more about it, they could have exploited an opportunity to slam the right-wing fringe who propagate this sort of nonsense.
<
p>In short, the Obama campaign squandered an opportunity to address and to disarm the idiocy that abounds on the internet all the while holding up the mirror in which we can all behold our own biases and preconceptions.
tbladesays
I was thinking about this further.
<
p>If Obama was too enthusiastic about embracing this caricature, he could be perceived as looking down on the White Americans who aren’t sophisticated enough to understand that he doesn’t hate the flag and he’s not black radical or a secret Muslim. Granted, those people aren’t going to vote for him anyway, but he opens himself up to the criticism that the “elite” Obama thinks certain people are “rubes” and are too stupid to understand him. In other words, the people that should be offended by this are the “idiots” who are seriously worried about the things depicted here.
<
p>Who knows what the right play for Obama would have been? No comment would have prompted Drudge rumors that he was “secretly fuming”. I think the Obama camp is rightly criticized for calling it “offensive”. Embracing it too much looks down on a certain group of Americans. But I think you’re correct in saying that this could have been (maybe still can?) be exploited as a plus by Team Obama.
lightirissays
this afternoon, and I think his take and comments on the kerfuffle are right. The cover is a good one, the conversation that has ensued is a necessary one, and that ultimately Mr. Blitt has done exactly what political cartoonists should be doing. (I was pleased to hear Spiegelman use the mirror metaphor in his commentary, as well.)
<
p>I don’t think Obama and his campaign can do much with this now. The talking heads scooped them and have coopted the framing, unfortunately. Had he and his campaign been out in front in a more measured and pragmatic fashion, they could have framed the discussion, but they were too busy being offended. Grrr….
trickle-upsays
The joke, or discussion, or whatever, is now out there with no fingerprints from the Obama campaign.
<
p>Later on if necessary it can be one of several exhibits about how Obama is the subject of smears.
<
p>So maybe the campaign’s response was on the mark.
…they got an enormous amount of publicity for a drawing that isn’t consensus-offensive but inspired a lot of conversation. And probably sales.
lightirissays
the Obama campaign’s fingerprints are all over it because so many people took their cues from the campaign in developing their own responses. A lot of people didn’t know what to make of it when it first landed and looked to the campaign for signals. Well, they got ’em, and the discussion that could have been lead by Obama, in a true leadership fashion, will not be had.
stomvsays
that his spouse is far more attractive than the artist’s rendering, but it’s not certain if Michelle could say the same.
petrsays
Anybody who’s upset at the cartoon is not thinking. Win/win for the GOP.
Only because I think, with many, this picture will misfire. A lot of very unsophisticated people pay attention during Presidential elections. Can’t we focus on the other party? Couldn’t we spoof McSame’s “Maverick” status, or something?
petrsays
…
<
p>As much as I, and/or others, might find you to be sane and reasonable and wish that you were in charge, you are not, however, responsible for whether or no this picture ‘will misfire.’ You are responsible only for how YOU view it. Any attempts to withhold or suppress based upon a perception of others perceptions is, in fact, a moral wrong.
<
p>That’s an adult thinking process. If you follow it to its conclusion you will find what you think about the cover of the New Yorker and not what you think others will think.
<
p>I’m interested to know what YOU think of the cover completely and utterly devoid of what you think other people will, or ought, to think…
<
p>Personally, I think it’s a work of art. Well done with a sly and subtle wink.
is opportunity cost. Why are we wasting our time with this stuff, when we could be focusing putting the fire on McSame? We have the guy on the run – what are we wasting our time with this stuff for?
<
p>Anyway, that’s my 2 cents after I’ve read all the comments. Sorry I had to add another post to make it! (Should have held off posting until I read the comments.)
petrsays
I think the point (0.00 / 0)
is opportunity cost.(sic?) Why are we wasting our time with this stuff, when we could be focusing putting the fire on McSame? We have the guy on the run – what are we wasting our time with this stuff for?
<
p>Insofar as it misses the (overly politicized ) point of electing Obama to the presidency it is a waste of time.
<
p>Insofar as it is a window into where we are right now, it is a trenchant observation.
woburndemsays
Why are we talking about a bad joke when we have an economy in full melt down. PLEASE WAKE UP!
<
p>we are faced with what many economists are quietly stating as the worst set of events since the great depression and we stand on the brink of making that down turn look like a minor event. Banks are dumping portfolios at $.50 on the dollar to try to maintain some liquidity Northeast (where we all live) will be looking at $5-6 a Gallon Home heating fuel by January. Have you thought about this have you seen Indy Mac going down (largest bank since the 80 S&L collapse).
<
p>Think about this the average Massachusetts home makes $63,000 per year before taxes Federal and State. 40% of Northeast homes heat with Oil and consume 1000-1200 gallons a heating season unless it’s a bad winter then they can consume up to 1500 (old pre 1940’s construction little insulation, drafty windows, old heating systems) this will cost that family approximately $5,800 dollars this coming heating season almost 10% of their Gross pay then they have to eat and they have to pay 4+ a gallon for their vehicle to get to work and pay a mortgage or rent and cloths for kids Insurance and how about that Electric Bill to run the fridge and the heating system.
<
p>Lets think about, what happens if Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapse so what, well lets try about 80% of the mortgage loans stop being made what happens to House prices? What happens to all those loans out their for the last 15 years on Property say for 100,000- 150,000 that the homes are no longer worth 70,000 because No one can buy them? How about the bail out that is going through congress today have you thought about that we are going to say to stock holders in a Private Company don’t worry you lose money we will pay you back. With what more money borrowed from the Chinese? How about the Russians lets tap them they are making good money on their oil and gas or better yet lets get the Iranians to buy our bonds with the oil profits.
<
p>We are facing a crisis and we are running around talking about a Picture on the cover of a magazine as some how fitting into a key corner of our Lives. Shame on the New Yorker for wasting our time and their money on an issue that should be so far down the list you need a telescope to see that far down the list.
<
p>Now if you think I don’t think racism is an issue your wrong I do. Should we be talking about race as a key issue in a campaign no I don’t think so. How about the issue of Fear, well I think that issue has ruled us for 4 years and look where we are today. It’s time to put that issues in a jail cell and throw away the key.
<
p>No, I want to hear Obama talk about what can be done NOW I want to hear what our Representatives and Senators are going to do about things NOW before November. I want government to be proactive not wait until we collapse and try to be REACTIVE putting out a fire. How about the trillion dollars we are potentially on the hook for in the mortgage melt down going to cut oil prices across this country China subsidizes its cost of energy to every family how about a system of the government saying ok we are going to cap to the consumer oil at $2.50 a gallon for gas and home heating oil and we pick up the tab for the rest. No don’t get started on this is some how socialism or communism we subsidize farms for crying out load we subsidize Oil companies now how about subsidizing you and I for a change. We built this county not the CEO’s alone we did every hour we have worked or our parents or grandparents or our children every man and women has worked to build this country we need to remember and focus on that.
<
p>Sorry to go off but I am sick and tired of the jokes and satire at a time when we need our best efforts focused before we are in so deep we may never see the light in my life time again.
<
p>Best to All
howland-lew-naticksays
How many times have we seen important issues brushed aside so we can follow the trivia of Brittany, Paris, and the other host of celebs?
<
p>Let’s get our priorities straight. We have an out-of-control law-breaking administration. We have a do-nothing, enabling, congress whose only interest in getting re-elected. Together they are pillaging the wealth of the country for themselves and their financial backers. We are deeply involved in a drastically mis-managed war of conquest that is bleeding taxpayers dry while it feeds our politicians and their military-industrial campaign donors. Locally, we have a police department that cannot stop a rampage of murder on the streets, but can contribute to the murders with no fear of punishment. We have a bloated state bureaucracy that can only tell us that it needs more money to be effective and when they get that, tell us they need even more to be effective.
i think the Obama camp is being a bit too hypersensitive these days (see Rev. JJ, Bernie Mac)
<
p>one thing that Barry should learn from Reagan is that humor/satire is an awesome offensive weapon
who had an afro
…the artist was making reference to the right’s attempt to demonize her as an outspoken sister girl and denigrate her as being outspokenly proud to be Black, and therefore an agitator. In other words, “good Black folk” straighten their hair in submission to Euro-centric beauty norms; to let Black hair grow naturally is an affront to the power structure and symbolizes a “rebel” and a “trouble maker”.
<
p>As sabutai points out, it evokes strong, 70s-era African American female symbols, whether it be Foxy Brown, Angela Davis, or Assata Shakur, who were all associated with Black radicalism and subverting White power structures.
<
p>
Wonder where I could get a copy
Or Google Shopping:
http://www.google.com/products…
He goes on to quote not-so-bright conservative Jonah Goldberg:
For me, what sells it as satire is the Foxy Brown 70s chick, not Obama himself. She looks like something out of Undercover Brother, and sells it as something that is patently ridiculous. It does rather straddle the line, which I imagine is what they were going for…
…and the flag burning in the fireplace are patently ridiculous and exaggerated enough for me.
<
p>I read this cover as a big “f-you” to the slack-jaws that believe email forwards and the professional slimebags who’ve propagated and perpetuated these lies via their media outlets or their party machinery.
And I’m sure all the email-forwarding yokels will feel their shame completely when their latest edition of the New Yorker gets delivered.
<
p>Seriously, though, I’m more concerned that people will just catch a slight whiff of this story or see the magazine on a newsstand and think to themselves “well if the New Yorker is worried too, then he must really be questionable…”
But I think it’s sad that hair grown long and in its natural state with no fuss or bother could ever be called “patently ridiculous.” To me the Foxy Brown style of Afro as exemplified in the caricature of Michelle Obama is charming and beautiful; I hope for a return of the aesthetic.
<
p>(As a small child I asked my mother to do my hair in the multidirectional multi-braid fashion that I’d see on other little girls in other cities but never in the white bread Nebraska town where we lived. She told me — with what in my memory seems like genuine regret — that my straight blonde hair was “all wrong” for that style.)
…it’s that we’ve never seen Michelle with that style and the fact that natural hair on a Back woman symbolizes strength, independence, and proud to be Black – all of which are seen as “scary” and “threatening” to the caricaturized conservative White patriarchal power base. What is ridiculous is that the slander-mongers that this cartoon is intended to lampoon want to paint Michelle as a Foxy Brown, Angela Davis, or Assata Shakur – all of whom are identified with afros – when there isn’t one single image of Michelle wearing that style.
<
p>To push the point further, and not to put words in subutai’s mouth, but I bet if Michelle decided tomorrow to wear a natural, Afro-centric hair style that people like sabutai and myself wouldn’t care at all, but the slimy element of the Right’s chattering class would find it ridiculous, would find ways to mock Michelle and somehow find it as “proof” of Michelle’s militant pro-Black agenda.
<
p>I think most people agree with your statement that “it’s sad that hair grown long and in its natural state with no fuss or bother could ever be called ‘patently ridiculous'”. sabutai* and myself weren’t saying the afro was ridiculous; it’s the caricature that exaggerated the fears of Michelle being a Black militant (of which an afro on a Black woman is a part) that is ridiculous.
<
p>For the record, I say people should rock whatever hairstyle they feel comfortable with and that’s appropriate for their profession. On the one hand, certain varieties of afros might not be appropriate for certain people in business because there are bigots out there that would not feel comfortable with people who are too overtly black; they might categorize certain ethnic hair styles as “unprofessional” looking based on the Euro-centric standard. But the knife cuts both ways because certain hairstyles worn by White people seem to be discriminated against, too. Imagine walking into a board room and meeting a guy with a mullet. I bet bald White women don’t have an easy time. And a green rooster-spiked mohawk would surely get one fired, or at least sent home in many corporate settings. Hairstyle is not only a marker of race, but a marker of class; an afroed Michelle fits into neither the race, class nor sex of the traditional power structure.
<
p>————–
*Off topic question for sabutai – This doesn’t matter, but I’m curious anyway. I know your screen name is intentionally not capitalized, but does it take capitalization when it starts a sentence, or is sabutai like bell hooks and e.e. cummings, lower case regardless of placement?
I agree with much of what tblade said about the hair; as a matter of fact, I didn’t even realize that was supposed to be Michelle until other people said it here. I thought it was Generic Black Panther Sister Girl.
<
p>Tblade, when I registered, I erred in not capitalizing the name. If I could capitalize my handle and maintain connection/”ownership” of all my comments and diaries here, I would. I’m not really fussy how other people treat it.
No charge.
here’s why:
<
p>1. The collectivity of all the right-wing whisper smears together makes such accusations seem, well, ridiculous on an individual basis. Also, notice that the couple is in the Oval Office, which spoofs the Manchurian candidate theory.
<
p>2. The context is important. The cartoon is published in the New Yorker- a publication read by witty east coast liberals- not time or the national review. I think the New Yorker subscribers, by and large, will comprehend the satiric purpose of the cartoon.
and I do not blame the campaign for being hostile to anything that is off-message.
<
p>From their point of view it has more chance of raising the noise level than of doing anything helpful.
<
p>But, my strategy includes satire and I give it a B.
What do you think of the profile? You can read it here
I think the cartoon is great in the context of the magazine and the article within on “the Politics of Fear” as it become clear in the context..
<
p>But I think the irresponsible part was the put the image on the cover with out any of that context. Without a headline on the politics of fear, or better yet on debunking the politics of fear, the image stands as a reinforcement of every smear that has been put out there. The problem is that the image is extremely easily taken out of the intended context, and will likely become part of the smear campaign. That was the mistake.
I think that it would be funny if the subject wasn’t already a serious problem for Obama.
<
p>I don’t think the New Yorker is wrong for taking the shot at the email rumor mill (and those that take it as fact) but I think they really would’ve made their point clearer with a healine that gave context and intent. Or better yet, as mentioned here, put it inside.
<
p>I also think this will have an unending life on the blogs of a different color, reinforcing the racism that exists. No, Obama may not have a shot at those voters, but it brings out voters from the other side.
and I think the controversy about it reactionary and overblown, but that’s just me. All of the elements are there–I’m particularly fond of the OBL portrait over the mantle.
<
p>Too, I think the Obama campaign should have thought this through a little more before they reacted. While they may have, indeed, found the cover a little insensitive, had they thought more about it, they could have exploited an opportunity to slam the right-wing fringe who propagate this sort of nonsense.
<
p>In short, the Obama campaign squandered an opportunity to address and to disarm the idiocy that abounds on the internet all the while holding up the mirror in which we can all behold our own biases and preconceptions.
I was thinking about this further.
<
p>If Obama was too enthusiastic about embracing this caricature, he could be perceived as looking down on the White Americans who aren’t sophisticated enough to understand that he doesn’t hate the flag and he’s not black radical or a secret Muslim. Granted, those people aren’t going to vote for him anyway, but he opens himself up to the criticism that the “elite” Obama thinks certain people are “rubes” and are too stupid to understand him. In other words, the people that should be offended by this are the “idiots” who are seriously worried about the things depicted here.
<
p>Who knows what the right play for Obama would have been? No comment would have prompted Drudge rumors that he was “secretly fuming”. I think the Obama camp is rightly criticized for calling it “offensive”. Embracing it too much looks down on a certain group of Americans. But I think you’re correct in saying that this could have been (maybe still can?) be exploited as a plus by Team Obama.
this afternoon, and I think his take and comments on the kerfuffle are right. The cover is a good one, the conversation that has ensued is a necessary one, and that ultimately Mr. Blitt has done exactly what political cartoonists should be doing. (I was pleased to hear Spiegelman use the mirror metaphor in his commentary, as well.)
<
p>I don’t think Obama and his campaign can do much with this now. The talking heads scooped them and have coopted the framing, unfortunately. Had he and his campaign been out in front in a more measured and pragmatic fashion, they could have framed the discussion, but they were too busy being offended. Grrr….
The joke, or discussion, or whatever, is now out there with no fingerprints from the Obama campaign.
<
p>Later on if necessary it can be one of several exhibits about how Obama is the subject of smears.
<
p>So maybe the campaign’s response was on the mark.
<
p>On to the next silly thing.
…they got an enormous amount of publicity for a drawing that isn’t consensus-offensive but inspired a lot of conversation. And probably sales.
the Obama campaign’s fingerprints are all over it because so many people took their cues from the campaign in developing their own responses. A lot of people didn’t know what to make of it when it first landed and looked to the campaign for signals. Well, they got ’em, and the discussion that could have been lead by Obama, in a true leadership fashion, will not be had.
that his spouse is far more attractive than the artist’s rendering, but it’s not certain if Michelle could say the same.
Anybody who’s upset at the cartoon is not thinking. Win/win for the GOP.
Only because I think, with many, this picture will misfire. A lot of very unsophisticated people pay attention during Presidential elections. Can’t we focus on the other party? Couldn’t we spoof McSame’s “Maverick” status, or something?
…
<
p>As much as I, and/or others, might find you to be sane and reasonable and wish that you were in charge, you are not, however, responsible for whether or no this picture ‘will misfire.’ You are responsible only for how YOU view it. Any attempts to withhold or suppress based upon a perception of others perceptions is, in fact, a moral wrong.
<
p>That’s an adult thinking process. If you follow it to its conclusion you will find what you think about the cover of the New Yorker and not what you think others will think.
<
p>I’m interested to know what YOU think of the cover completely and utterly devoid of what you think other people will, or ought, to think…
<
p>Personally, I think it’s a work of art. Well done with a sly and subtle wink.
<
p>
is opportunity cost. Why are we wasting our time with this stuff, when we could be focusing putting the fire on McSame? We have the guy on the run – what are we wasting our time with this stuff for?
<
p>Anyway, that’s my 2 cents after I’ve read all the comments. Sorry I had to add another post to make it! (Should have held off posting until I read the comments.)
<
p>Insofar as it misses the (overly politicized ) point of electing Obama to the presidency it is a waste of time.
<
p>Insofar as it is a window into where we are right now, it is a trenchant observation.
Why are we talking about a bad joke when we have an economy in full melt down. PLEASE WAKE UP!
<
p>we are faced with what many economists are quietly stating as the worst set of events since the great depression and we stand on the brink of making that down turn look like a minor event. Banks are dumping portfolios at $.50 on the dollar to try to maintain some liquidity Northeast (where we all live) will be looking at $5-6 a Gallon Home heating fuel by January. Have you thought about this have you seen Indy Mac going down (largest bank since the 80 S&L collapse).
<
p>Think about this the average Massachusetts home makes $63,000 per year before taxes Federal and State. 40% of Northeast homes heat with Oil and consume 1000-1200 gallons a heating season unless it’s a bad winter then they can consume up to 1500 (old pre 1940’s construction little insulation, drafty windows, old heating systems) this will cost that family approximately $5,800 dollars this coming heating season almost 10% of their Gross pay then they have to eat and they have to pay 4+ a gallon for their vehicle to get to work and pay a mortgage or rent and cloths for kids Insurance and how about that Electric Bill to run the fridge and the heating system.
<
p>Lets think about, what happens if Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapse so what, well lets try about 80% of the mortgage loans stop being made what happens to House prices? What happens to all those loans out their for the last 15 years on Property say for 100,000- 150,000 that the homes are no longer worth 70,000 because No one can buy them? How about the bail out that is going through congress today have you thought about that we are going to say to stock holders in a Private Company don’t worry you lose money we will pay you back. With what more money borrowed from the Chinese? How about the Russians lets tap them they are making good money on their oil and gas or better yet lets get the Iranians to buy our bonds with the oil profits.
<
p>We are facing a crisis and we are running around talking about a Picture on the cover of a magazine as some how fitting into a key corner of our Lives. Shame on the New Yorker for wasting our time and their money on an issue that should be so far down the list you need a telescope to see that far down the list.
<
p>Now if you think I don’t think racism is an issue your wrong I do. Should we be talking about race as a key issue in a campaign no I don’t think so. How about the issue of Fear, well I think that issue has ruled us for 4 years and look where we are today. It’s time to put that issues in a jail cell and throw away the key.
<
p>No, I want to hear Obama talk about what can be done NOW I want to hear what our Representatives and Senators are going to do about things NOW before November. I want government to be proactive not wait until we collapse and try to be REACTIVE putting out a fire. How about the trillion dollars we are potentially on the hook for in the mortgage melt down going to cut oil prices across this country China subsidizes its cost of energy to every family how about a system of the government saying ok we are going to cap to the consumer oil at $2.50 a gallon for gas and home heating oil and we pick up the tab for the rest. No don’t get started on this is some how socialism or communism we subsidize farms for crying out load we subsidize Oil companies now how about subsidizing you and I for a change. We built this county not the CEO’s alone we did every hour we have worked or our parents or grandparents or our children every man and women has worked to build this country we need to remember and focus on that.
<
p>Sorry to go off but I am sick and tired of the jokes and satire at a time when we need our best efforts focused before we are in so deep we may never see the light in my life time again.
<
p>Best to All
How many times have we seen important issues brushed aside so we can follow the trivia of Brittany, Paris, and the other host of celebs?
<
p>Let’s get our priorities straight. We have an out-of-control law-breaking administration. We have a do-nothing, enabling, congress whose only interest in getting re-elected. Together they are pillaging the wealth of the country for themselves and their financial backers. We are deeply involved in a drastically mis-managed war of conquest that is bleeding taxpayers dry while it feeds our politicians and their military-industrial campaign donors. Locally, we have a police department that cannot stop a rampage of murder on the streets, but can contribute to the murders with no fear of punishment. We have a bloated state bureaucracy that can only tell us that it needs more money to be effective and when they get that, tell us they need even more to be effective.
<
p>Yeah, we have more important fish to fry.