Dear motherfucking JACKASSES

who insist that Barack Obama is getting the 90% black votes because he is an African American...


John Kerry (a motherfucking white guy) got 88% of the black vote in 2004

Al fucking Gore, who is another motherfucking white guy, got 90% of the black vote in 2000

Black people didn't start voting for Barack Obama in huge numbers UNTIL BILL CLINTON RACEBAITED IN FUCKING SOUTH CAROLINA!!!


IS THAT FUCKING CLEAR, YOU GODDAMN LIARS!!! And as for YOU MS. FUCKING CLINTON, HOW THE HELL DO YOU COME SCREAMING THAT OBAMA IS SEXIST WHEN SAMANTHA POWER CALLED YOU A FUCKING "MONSTER" YET YOU AIN'T APOLOGIZING AND DENOUNCING THE FUCKING NAKED RACISM OF ONE OF YOUR SURROGATES!!! You didn't say that? WHY DO I THINK THAT IF OBAMA HAD PULLED THAT YOU AND YOUR MERRY BAND OF WHITE FEMINISTS WOULD HAVE BEEN SCREAMING FOR HIS HEAD!!!! FUCK YOU, YOU MOTHERFUCKING...!!!!!! And that there? Is just the TIP of the iceberg of the issues that I have on this fucking video.I am just too motherfucking angry to talk about this right now.

Someone said this over at the angryblackbitch blog

and it needs to be reiterated.


Dear White feminists who are SOOOOO concerned that a Woman of Colour wouldn't have gotten the same shake as Obama did....


WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU WHEN SHIRLEY CHISHOLM AND CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? Hmmm?

Of Snark and Men...

Obama Campaign Skewers Clinton E-mail Statement

from The NPR News Blog:

Wednesday morning, the Clinton campaign sent reporters and bloggers covering the campaign a statement that consisted of questions and comments under the title of "Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground."

The Obama campaign's communications department decided to annotate those questions and comments with some comments of their own... and boy, they held nothing back.

Below you'll find the annotated e-mail that has been making the rounds of the media. The Obama campaign's comments are in bold.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

( More delicious snark below )

Making money off suffering

Poorism? What Is Inequality Coming To?

Posted by: Sally Kohn , March 12, 2008

Take a trip through the most impoverished regions of the planet! Witness first-hand the poverty that strikes these communities! ... Wait a minute. What does this "tourism" of inequality say about ourselves?



It says something about the extremities of inequality in our world when rich people are now paying money to take tours of poor people. An article by Eric Weiner in the travel section of the Sunday New York Times highlights the growing business of “poorism” --- taking tour groups to visit the world’s slums and shanty towns for a glimpse at just how bad things really are.


Troubling enough is the irony of tourists paying enough money to a tour guide to traipse through a poor family’s home that, if given to that family instead, might actually help them escape from poverty. One excursion cited in the New York Times article charges $7.50 per person to gawk at the Dharavi slums of Mumbai, India. Worldwide, 3 billion people --- nearly half the world’s population --- live on less than two dollars a day, including almost 80% of Indians and, most assuredly, 100% of people living in the Dharavi slums.


It’s not that rich privileged folks seeing poverty first-hand is a bad thing. It’s vital that everyone from titans of industry to those of us privileged enough to have a home and running water understand the true depths of poverty that exist on our planet, in our own backyards and on the other side of the globe. Yet when, day-to-day, the privileged are so removed from the poor that we need tour guides and travel itineraries in order to actually witness what poverty is, it says something about just how extreme inequality has become.


Rest here

And this article hits it on the head

There is peculiar bit of jujitsu that white public figures have employed recently whenever they're called to account for saying something stupid about black people. When the hard questions start flying, said figure deflects them by claiming that any critical interrogation is tantamount to calling them a racist, which they most assuredly are not.

...


All of this leaves me wondering, Who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist? If twice claiming that a presidential candidate is only in the race because he's black doesn't make you racist; if shouting, "He's a nigger! He's a nigger" from stage doesn't make you racist; if calling an accomplished black woman "the cleaning lady" doesn't make you a racist, what does?
...
Playing the racist card

Sexual Perspective, Or how can you eat that?

Nobody in their right mind would want to do that. You’d have to be desperate/ damaged/ strung out on drugs to do that.”

This argument gets used a lot by people who are against porn, prostitution, other kinds of sex work. And those of us who have actually been in sex work and not loathed it (or know people who have) tend to counter simply by offering counter-examples: raising our hands, pointing to ourselves and each other, saying, “Me. Over here. Did sex work. Liked it (or didn’t hate it). Not a basket case. Case closed.”

But I think there’s a core assumption underlying the argument, one that makes it hard to argue against merely by offering boring old evidence. And it’s an assumption that doesn’t just apply to sex work. It’s an assumption that gets applied to all kinds of sexual variation . . . and not with very happy results.

Rest here

Introducing Vertical Farming

daysofthegun  introduced me to this concept

Vertical Farms	Vertical Farm At Night

The Problem

By the year 2050, nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during the interim. An estimated 109 hectares of new land (about 20% more land than is represented by the country of Brazil) will be needed to grow enough food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA). Historically, some 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management practices. What can be done to avoid this impending disaster?

A Potential Solution: Farm Vertically

The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world's urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.

It took humans 10,000 years to learn how to grow most of the crops we now take for granted. Along the way, we despoiled most of the land we worked, often turning verdant, natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts. Within that same time frame, we evolved into an urban species, in which 60% of the human population now lives vertically in cities. This means that, for the majority, we humans are protected against the elements, yet we subject our food-bearing plants to the rigors of the ¡°great outdoors¡± and can do no more than hope for a good weather year. However, more often than not now, due to a rapidly changing climate regime, that is not what follows. Massive floods, protracted droughts, class 4-5 hurricanes, and severe monsoons take their toll each year, destroying millions of tons of valuable crops. Don't our harvestable plants deserve the same level of ¡°comfort¡± and protection that we now enjoy? The time is at hand for us to learn how to safely grow our food inside environmentally controlled multistory buildings within urban centers. If we do not, then in just another 50 years, the next 3 billion people will surely go hungry, and the world will become a much more unpleasant place in which to live.

( Read more... )

The Rev Wright Flap.

That clip from Rev. Wright's Sermon was a barn burner!  Whoo!

Why is he so angry?  And how dare he say 'God damn America'?

In this diary, I intend to examine each and every one of his claims from the clip to see if anything he said makes any sens at all.  Please follow me below the fold..

First let's examine the first claim.

Rev. Wright: "They give us the drugs."  

Unfortunately, that is a true and well documented statement.  Anyone old enough to remember the Iran Contra hearings will remember that the illegal operation was financed by the CIA through the sale of crack cocaine.  As the dailykos community has debated the injustice of disparate sentencing guidelines, most of us are aware that black and latino communities were targeted to receive the crack and suffered devestating effects because of it.  Worse still, many of the evil geniuses who brought us Iran Contra have been prominently featured in George Bush's government where they have presided over rendition, torture, murder and all the other skills they picked up in the 1980s.

 

 

rest here
Rev. Wright's sermon dissected

I find it highly amusing that this is being given so much attention when white rightwing preachers have been condemning gay people to the flames of hell, in addition to Muslims (Hagee, whose endorsed McCain) without much of a problem. I also find it rather amusing that criticizing America is unpatriotic. Oh well)