It makes ya sick Ha. I feel like I just voted for George Bush. In six months Obama will known as the White House pet that Hillary and Bill keep around for show. I can't believe I've spent the last year helping Obama get elected.
Posted by: HemiHead66 | November 21, 2008 12:56 PM |
Barack Obama's election as America's first black president is fueling worldwide demand for a forgotten 1926 science-fiction novel from Brazil.More information can be found in Manuela Zoninsein's article about O Presidente Negro published by Slate in September:
Jose Bento Monteiro Lobato's ``O Presidente Negro'' (``The Black President'') tells the story of Jim Roy, a brilliant and charismatic leader who is elected America's first black president in the year 2228.
Out of print for 40 years, the pulp novel was republished in March by Brazil's largest media conglomerate, Organizacoes Globo, at the height of the Democratic primary battle between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, a contest that drew comparisons to Roy's race against a fictitious white feminist named Evelyn Astor.
Now the obscure work -- controversial for what some critics see as its defense of racism -- is going international. Last month, it was published in Italy by Edizzione Controluce under the title ``Il Presidente Nero.'' The book is being translated into English and Spanish from Portuguese.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in a June interview with the Sao Paulo newspaper Gazeta Marcantil, said Obama's victory was foretold by Monteiro Lobato.
`Pure Coincidence'
The book was rushed to publication in March after its antiquated Portuguese was updated for modern readers. Full-page advertisements in national magazines under the tagline ``Any resemblance to actual events is pure coincidence'' have spurred sales of 7,000 copies for 28 reais ($11.73) each. They printed 15,000 copies, the same amount as the original printing.
Brazilian bloggers debate the book's racial ideology as well as its prediction of the rise of China and a technology system much like the Internet.
``We knew we were sitting on a gold mine,'' said Lucia Machado, an executive at Globo Books, adding that sales were double the amount considered a commercial success for a new book in Brazil.
Monteiro Lobato is famous in Brazil for the children's fable ``Adventures of Little Nose.'' The ``Black President,'' when read at all, was criticized for its association with eugenics, a philosophy of human improvement through genetic engineering that was embraced by the Nazis.
The H.G. Wells-like storyline takes place in an age of racial purity, where black people are subjected to selective breeding, forced whitening and sterilization...
Of course, there are several differences between Lobato's story and the circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. In Lobato's fictional world, the United States prohibited the mixing of races—believing it would lead to "disintegration" or "denaturalization"—and thereby conserved white and black races in "a state of relative purity." Lobato also failed to predict the civil rights movement, which undid his predictions of an extreme version of "separate but equal." Unlike Roy, born in a supposed age of "pure races," Obama, born of a white mother and black father, witnessed America's social revolution.
In the 2228 of the novel, the white women's party, the Sabinas (a reference to the Roman legend of the rape of the Sabine women), has apparently reached feminism's pinnacle: Women are no longer considered equal to men—they are simply different and entirely independent. Homo, the ruling white men's party, and the Sabinas each command 51 million voters.
In previous elections, voters sided with their gender, with no regard to race. But with the creation of the Black Association, black men and women unite to create the largest political party, giving Roy 54 million supporters. Kerlog is forced to broker an alliance with Roy: black votes in exchange for easing the "Código da Raça" ("Race Code"), which set limits on the growth of the black population through selective breeding and genetic manipulation. To Kerlog's frustration, when the time comes to cast ballots, citizens loyally vote with their identity group, and the black man wins the presidency.
In response, Kerlog threatens race war. He persuades Astor to protect the interests of the white race and encourages an alliance. Lobato, at his most sexist, writes that Astor accepts this proposal on the grounds that man "is woman's husband for thousands of reasons ... long live man!" With hardly a second thought, she shepherds the 51 million female voters to the cause of the Homo Party. Kerlog demonstrates to a despairing Roy that his race will never assume control, and on the morning Roy is set to assume the presidency, he is found dead in his office. (Lobato hints at murder.) Kerlog calls for a re-election and emerges victorious. White leaders then mastermind the end of the black race in America, using a senseless and tragic sterilization technique, and Roy's dream of serving as the first black man in the nation's most powerful post is left by the wayside.
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri has criticized President-elect Barack Obama, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that Obama is a black American who does the bidding of whites.The BBC added (ht Drudge) that the Al Qaeda leader charged Obama with apostasy, which carries the death penalty:
In an audio message which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, al-Zawahri said that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X. He called Obama a "house negro."
He added that Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.
He also criticised Mr Obama - whose father is Muslim - for abandoning his Islamic roots.Let's see if Obama does better with his vow to "stamp out" Al Qaeda than Bush did with his promise to get Bin Laden "dead or alive."
"You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand with the enemies of Muslims," he said.
What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president.
What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America's interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.
Of course, he will benefit from the counsel and the contacts that his secretary of state can offer. But remember, he provided another and probably more expert source of that wisdom when he picked Joe Biden, the veteran chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate. The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author.
Radek Sikorski, an Oxford-educated politician who has lived in the US, was reported to have made the jibe by an opposition politician, Ryszard Czarnecki.
Writing in his blog, Mr Czarnecki, an MEP, quoted the foreign minister as saying: "Have you heard that Obama may have a Polish connection? His grandfather ate a Polish missionary."
A spokesman for the Polish foreign office conceded that Mr Sikorski had made the controversial comment, but denied that the foreign minister had intended to insult Mr Obama, whose father was Kenyan.
"Mr Sikorski did not tell a racist joke," said Piotr Paszkowski, the spokesman. "He was only giving an example of the unpalatable and racist 'jokes' that surround President Elect Obama."
Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, has made no comment on the affair. It appears that Mr Sikorski's position is not under threat despite calls from opposition politicians for an investigation to deter if the foreign minister broke anti-racism laws.
Our economic model is broken, and trying to restart it will just dig us deeper into a hole. The massive changes that are required can be made only through the violent rejiggering that takes place during recessions. That may sound coldhearted, but there's a precedent.A good reason to put Paul Volcker in charge of the Treasury in an Obama administration--he's done it before...
From 1979 to 1981, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker masterminded a nasty slowdown that broke stagflation -- the noxious combination of rising prices and no growth. Among other moves, Volcker pushed the yield on three-month Treasury bills up to an unheard-of 20 percent, stopping the economy in its tracks. Millions lost their jobs; Volcker was burned in effigy on the Capitol steps.
But when Volcker finally broke inflation's back in 1983, healthy growth resumed almost immediately, and Ronald Reagan rode the result to a landslide victory in 1984 -- a little fact that people worried about a one-term presidency for Barack Obama should note.
Bait and switch
Reminiscent of his Bazooka maneuver, quick draw Paulson reversed course quickly with his decision to not use any TARP funds to buy the assets that the plan was specifically funded to procure. Instead, he will simply dole out the loot to his buddies on Wall Street and use it for whatever seemingly worthy initiative strikes his fancy.
Although Congress loves to grandstand about oversight, it has thus far shown no courage to interfere, or even question, the change in strategy. Paulson claims that he is simply rolling with the punches. The truth however, is that the original plan was flawed from inception, as I clearly pointed out in a string of commentaries following his proposal. How could the Treasury Department, with all its funding and PhD’s, not make similar predictions? Paulson is either a liar or completely incompetent. My guess is he is both.
Enjoyed an exhibition of landscapes by Russian painter Nikolai Timkov now on display at the White-Meyer House in Washington. The beginning of Timkov’s career coincided with the establishment of Soviet Socialist Realism as the only authorized style of art. Prominent artists and writers joined political authorities in declaring that art and literature must depict the “reality of Revolutionary Russia.” Many artists turned to landscape painting as a way of avoiding overtly political subjects and glorification of Soviet leaders, while still celebrating a Russian identity. Unlike many of his peers, who adapted to the regulations by including appropriate, life-affirming genre motifs in their landscape paintings, Timkov concentrated firmly on the landscape itself. He kept his artistic integrity, perhaps at the expense of lost opportunities for advancement. Although he was admitted into the Union of Artists and participated in many exhibitions, he did not gain the prestige of colleagues who fulfilled the Party’s plans for monumental, representational art.
Receiving a prize in France for "political courage", he asked his audience "who defended human rights?" after the war erupted in August..
"Was it the president of the United States... Or was it France?" he asked.
Mr Sarkozy led a mission to Moscow that resulted in a ceasefire between Georgia and Russia.
Picking up the prize, awarded by Politique Internationale magazine, at a ceremony at his own Elysee Palace in Paris, Mr Sarkozy suggested the American president did not want to stake his credibility on a push for peace.
"When on 8 August someone had to leave for Moscow or Tbilisi, who defended human rights?" he asked rhetorically.
"Was it the president of the United States, who said 'This is unacceptable'? Or was it France which kept up the dialogue" between the leaders of Russia and Georgia, he asked, in a speech covered by the French AFP news agency.
"I remember the American president's call the day before our departure for Moscow: 'Don't go there, they [the Russians] want to go to Tbilisi, they're 40km away. Don't go, [just] condemn it'.
"I did go, along with [French Foreign Minister] Bernard Kouchner, and, as if by coincidence, while we were there the ceasefire was declared," Mr Sarkozy said.
The FBI recently released 10 videos of 9-11 footage to my client, Scott Bingham. The videos can be seen here.
The funny thing, looking back on it, is how long it took for even someone who predicted the disaster to grasp its root causes. They were learning about this on the fly, shorting the bonds and then trying to figure out what they had done. Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism. For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.
But he couldn’t figure out exactly how the rating agencies justified turning BBB loans into AAA-rated bonds. “I didn’t understand how they were turning all this garbage into gold,” he says. He brought some of the bond people from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and UBS over for a visit. “We always asked the same question,” says Eisman. “Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.” He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. “They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.
As an investor, Eisman was allowed on the quarterly conference calls held by Moody’s but not allowed to ask questions. The people at Moody’s were polite about their brush-off, however. The C.E.O. even invited Eisman and his team to his office for a visit in June 2007. By then, Eisman was so certain that the world had been turned upside down that he just assumed this guy must know it too. “But we’re sitting there,” Daniel recalls, “and he says to us, like he actually means it, ‘I truly believe that our rating will prove accurate.’ And Steve shoots up in his chair and asks, ‘What did you just say?’ as if the guy had just uttered the most preposterous statement in the history of finance. He repeated it. And Eisman just laughed at him.”
“With all due respect, sir,” Daniel told the C.E.O. deferentially as they left the meeting, “you’re delusional.”
This wasn’t Fitch or even S&P. This was Moody’s, the aristocrats of the rating business, 20 percent owned by Warren Buffett. And the company’s C.E.O. was being told he was either a fool or a crook by one Vincent Daniel, from Queens.
popular 3D map tool, Google Earth, offering millions of users the chance to visit a virtual ancient Rome.Here's the link to Google Earth for Ancient Rome.
Google has reconstructed the sprawling city - inhabited by more than one million people as long ago as AD320.
Users can zoom around the map to visit the Forum of Julius Caesar, stand in the centre of the Colosseum or swoop over the Basilica.
Researchers behind the project say it adds to five centuries of knowledge.
"This is another step in creating a virtual time machine," said Bernard Frischer of Virginia University, which worked with Google on the Roman reconstruction.
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, World War I came to an end...we celebrate it today in memory of all veterans. Here's a link to the official Department of Veterans Affairs website.
Last Friday, someone I know and yours truly took in the National Gallery of Art's Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture Around the Bay of Naples. It's a nice show. Not the bordello paintings and priapic satyrs one associates with the ruined resort. Rather highbrow, dealing with Pompeii past, present, and perhaps future...
Historically, Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton) have been much more pro-disclosure than Republican Presidents (Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush II). I would expect the Obama administration to be more like the Clinton and Carter FOIA model than that of the current administration.
Initially, I look for the Ashcroft memorandum to be stricken. This memorandum which came out in the Fall of 2001 said that any properly used FOIA exemption would be defended by the Justice Department. It superseded (without expressly stating that it did) the Reno memorandum of 1993 which said even if something could be withheld under a FOIA exemption, agencies should look to make discretionary disclosures of material as long as there was no foreseeable harm in government activities in releasing the material. For instance, privileged material in a document that could be withheld under FOIA exemption 5 should be looked at to see if the material could be released even though legally it could be withheld under FOIA exemption 5--the test was would the release do any foreseeable harm to the government. If the answer was no, the material went. Under current policy agencies don't have to ask, they just defend the withholding. Under the Obama administration I look for a similar foreseeable harm test to return.
I also look for an increased awareness in FOIA programs. FOIA Operations will get greatersupportt from those in charge of agencies. While money will be tight in the new administration, I look for investments in the use of new technology to streamline FOIA Operations making them more efficient and answerable to requesters. Additionally, I think the Department of Justice will provide more guidance in FOIA operations, both legally and procedurally.
Finally, I think agencies will overall be more pro-disclosure. I don't know how to quantify that idea, but I think there is a feeling in many FOIA Offices that they can't release information because the current administration doesn't want them to. I think this will slowly change and some agencies will release information they are now withholding. Again, I can't quantify it nor give specific examples.
TO: Obama Foreign Policy ExpertsA reminder of the Washington truism not to write anything that you don't want to see in the Washington Post the next day...
FROM: Tony Lake and Susan Rice
DATE: November 7, 2008
RE: Thank You
We want to thank you, and thank you again, for all that you have done to help elect Barack Obama President of the United States. Your wisdom and expertise have been invaluable. We will remain extremely grateful for your incredibly hard work and for your many personal and collective contributions.
We are obviously entering a new phase now with the transition. The transition will be a separate operation from the campaign, which is now disbanding. So too must our foreign policy expert teams disband.
The transition operation will be brief and comparatively lean. Given the need to complete this work expeditiously and efficiently, please understand that only a limited number of people will be able to support those activities. But, please also be assured that participation in the transition is in no way a prerequisite to, nor an assurance of, being offered any position in the Obama-Biden administration.
For those of you interested in applying for a position in the future administration, a transition website has been set up where you can (and, in fact, must) apply by filling out a form and submitting your resume. It is: www.change.gov. We hope very much that you will apply. You should follow the instructions to indicate your interest in being considered for a position in the government. This is a real website, which will be used to fill important positions in the government below the cabinet level. There will be no other channel through which applications will be accepted. Please also feel free to copy Mona Sutphen who will be tracking your applications at: REDACTED, with any resumes and materials you submit in the official channel.
Finally, and importantly, we ask each of you please do not under any circumstances speak to the press, any foreign officials, or embassies on behalf of the transition or President-elect Obama. Please also do not encourage solicitation of such contacts. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of this request. It would be highly damaging for foreign governments or media to receive information that they believe falsely to represent the views of the President-Elect.
If you receive any inquiries, please refer them to:
Dan Pfeiffer, REDACTED (for press inquiries)
Denis McDonough REDACTED or Mark Lippert REDACTED (for any inquiries from foreign officials and embassies)
Their new email accounts should be active by next week.
Thank you again for all that you have done to help make this historic moment possible.
Susan and Tony
From the Goldendoodle website, the breed sounds like a perfect puppy for an Obama White House, IMHO:The Goldendoodle gets its name from its mixed heritage - golden retriever and poodle. Goldendoodles are a hybrid dog, a first generation cross, and as such they exhibit "hybrid vigour". the term used to describe the burst of fertility, good health and growth that is seen in the progeny when two unrelated breeds are mated.
Goldendoodles were first deliberately bred in North America as a larger version of the popular Cockapoo around the mid 1990s. Their non/light shedding coats and ability to live with families with allergies has made them very popular companions.
In addition to taking us on a Chicago Barack Obama tour last weekend, Bob and Mary brought us to a screening of Oliver Stone's W in a Rogers Park arthouse. The film was a little long--one of our guides snored a bit--but overall, thought-provoking and strangely sympathetic. It was a serious attempt to explain the Bush Presidency in the context of an Oedipal struggle between father and son. George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) is the hero of the story (does anyone remember that his Presidency had big problems?), while George W. Bush was portrayed by Josh Brolin as a prodigal son. Stone took Bush's "I'm the decider" line seriously. In this picture, Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) is a servile yes man who pulls troops out of Iraq for Bush 41 while he goes all the way to Baghdad for Bush 43--a departure from Washington conventional wisdom that Cheney tells Bush what to do. There's also a glowing depiction of Laura Bush (Elizabeth Banks), and a harsh portrait of Barbara Bush (Ellyn Burstyn, who's really nice in real life, she was kind to me years back when I worked as a PA on one of her TV movies). Brolin's Bush is loveable, which is a nice piece of acting work. He really believes in Jesus, he really prays, he really has malice towards none, he really wants to do what's right. He really cares when he visits wounded soldiers. The tragedy is that W's just not up to the job.
With the aid of the Hispanic vote in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the United States. He is also the first African American who will reside in the White House on Pennsyvania Avenue come 20 January 2009. Election 2008 was far from being a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 elections that were stained by controversies about hanging chads and insinuations of corrupt voting practices in Florida in 2000 and Ohio four years later.
Barack Obama began to build a commanding lead of electoral votes soon after polls began to close on the east coast and never faltered. Once Pennsylvania turned a dark shade of blue, a hotly contested state along with Ohio and Florida, a win for Barack Obama had become a near certainty. And then Florida and Ohio gave up their electoral votes to the popular democratic candidate, two states that had put current President George Bush over the top in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
Change has occurred. Young voters below the age of thirty turned out to vote in large numbers. Hence, the face of the voting public has also changed. No longer do the faces resemble over thirty, white, middle and upper middle class faces that have essentially lived in a vacuum of among their own kind. Young voters of today have been and are constantly exposed to, and intermingle with varied groups of people of varied races, ethnic and religious groups. They exchange thoughts and ideas about the current state of global affairs. They are far from being nationalistic by any stretch of the imagination. What has empowered the youth of today to be more curious, informed and eager to participate in order to make a difference, a change, is access to the internet. It is a fast and efficient way of accumulating information. Some of it not all that accurate. Still their faith in what they read and visualized online never caused them to waiver in their support of the man who they believed could and would bring about the kind of change they want to see. They genuinely care about quality of life they desire to live in the next four years and possibly beyond.
For now, the "I Voted" sticker remains gloriously the same. Oh, some jurisdictions may dress it up -- Prince William's sticker is much jazzier than the District's simple white circle with the red "X" in the box -- but the message is clearer than ever: I kick it old school. I waited in line with everyone else on the appointed day, because "everyone" is the whole idea. The "I Voted" sticker has been around a long time, at least five election cycles. (A Florida manufacturer claims to have been making "the original" version since 1986, but it probably goes back further.)
The District of Columbia Voter's Guide showed up several days ago in our mail, and on the front cover was a cartoon of a ballot and a pencil holding hands and jumping happily. There was something rudimentary and childlike, almost Hello Kitty about them. It made it feel like social studies class. It's dorky cool, more cool than watching Kirsten Dunst vote early. "You complete us," read the cute words beneath the Pencil and the Ballot, in a retro '70s-style italic. What followed was 57 sober pages of instructions, rules, sample ballots, statements from candidates and long lists of potential advisory neighborhood commissioners.
There's so much to love about the standing part today, amid all the drab beige, taking in the smell of someone else's coffee, rereading the entire newspaper, stuck in the line of voters that doesn't seem to move but, in fact, does. Then comes the sticker.
What a wonderful and boring thing, voting together.
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
 |
| From Chicago Barack Obama Tour |
THE WALLS ENCIRCLING THE CUBAN FILMMAKERS IN EXILE © 2008 ABIP
Speech by Agustin Blazquez at the VII Annual Congress of the New York Cuban Cultural Center at the New York Film Academy on Saturday, October 25, 2008.
Translated with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton.
My name is Agustin Blazquez. I write and make documentaries about Cuba. I was born in Cardenas, Matanzas, Cuba and grew up in the towns of Coliseo and Limonar, and later on I lived in Havana. In 1967, I unwittingly became a member of what I call “the most openly hated minority in the U.S.”
Even though ours is the most prosperous minority in the U.S., we are politically incorrect. It is all right to humiliate and insult us politically and nothing happens – certainly, no one ever apologizes.
Like the “military circles” technique that Castroites used in the Escambray and Los Organos mountains for almost seven years to crush the Cuban democratic insurgency, the same technique is being used by the prevalent left in the U.S. against the Cuban filmmakers in exile.
Crushing democracy is difficult there and here. It’s still not completely crushed there after 50 years and is certainly strong as ever in the hearts of the exiles here. We continue riding, taking our Don Quixote quest wherever we can.
Since my arrival to the U.S. in 1967 I was surprised to see on TV and the written press what was being said about Cuba. And surprised by the sympathies of school teachers about the Cuban revolution. I began to understand the massive ignorance of our reality.
Soon I realized that as an exile I still faced that formidable enemy, Fidel Castro, but also the press and the U.S. academic world.
Beginning in 1968 I began to write letters to the mainstream media, trying to clarify their errors and guide them to sources of information where they could find the accurate reality of Cuba. After years of receiving only silence as their reply, I decided to write articles. But not directed to the media—it become obvious that the truth about Cuba was not what they were interested in.
I knew I needed to write to the American people – a people who have shown compassion for those repressed. My audience was certainly not Cubans, because we know very well the story because of our firsthand experience in Cuba. We have chosen to live in the U.S., therefore our fight must be focus to the American public opinion that is so misinformed and mislead about survival in the surrealism of Castroland.
With the invaluable collaboration and dedication of one American, Jaums Sutton, who has been editing my articles and who later overcame the annoying technical aspects of making documentaries, more than 300 articles and six documentaries saw the light. The first documentary, COVERING CUBA was premiered at the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC in November 1995.
The circles of the U.S. left have been getting tighter than the U.S. Embargo. In August 2004 the American Film Institute rejected my third documentary of the series about the case of Elian Gonzalez because it considered it to be “too controversial.” However, they didn’t have objection to instead show Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
The preferred prejudiced predilection for Moore is not just monetary. He belongs to the prevalent reactionary left in the U.S. that control the worlds of the information media, the cultural and academic elites of this nation.
It was during the Elian affair that this hatred and resentment against us was clearly demonstrated through derogative epithets in the editorial commentaries and articles (including by Michael Moore), political cartoons (like the ones of the late Herblock in The Washington Post) and TV reports about Cuban exiles presented in a negative light to the public opinion in the U.S.
The radical encircling rejection against the Cuban American exile filmmakers is easy: just declares as right-wingers, Batista supporters and all that repertoire of negative epithets openly dedicated to us by the mainstream media and the cultural and academic elites in the U.S. I don’t think the majority of us are like that. At least in my case I am an Independent.
The Cuban American filmmakers in exile are mainly rejected from film festivals – for as long as we present the reality of the Cuban tragedy. Let’s be clear: if we do something that favors the Castro regime, then, they open the doors. That’s why I don’t even bother to send my documentaries to film festivals, because first, they steel my fee money and second, they reject it.
I am very straight in my principles, therefore, why should I patronize to our own detractors? So, I only go to film festivals when I am invited.
As a writer and filmmaker in the U.S., I have plenty of freedom to make a film or to write whatever I want. I am not censured to do what I please. But, the thing is that with their cunning “gentlemen’s agreement” of rejecting or simply ignoring what we have to say, they are censuring our message and not allowing it in the form of films, documentaries, books or articles to reach the American public.
In other words we are effectively blocked. It is a real blockade as effective as Castro’s blockade against information and popular incentive in his fiefdom.
Therefore, the mainstream media and the cultural and academic elites are using the same Castro techniques against us in the U.S.
We are also rejected from grants since the majority of these institutions have been effectively infiltrated by those elements limping from the left leg. So we don’t have much support for our projects and we have to end up using money of our own pocket, our initiative, our dedication and doing the work “for the love of art” – in this case our love for freedom, democracy, justice and human rights.
Also – unfortunately – we don’t have much support from our own exile community. In my opinion we still haven’t learned to fight using the arms that our documentary and fictional film productions offer.
In addition to the cases of censure of Nestor Almendros – who I knew in Paris in 1965 – and Jimenez Leal, there is the case of Leon Ichaso with his film Bitter Sugar that was rejected and ignored by Hollywood. Ichaso had to do it with a very low budget. But, he was able to produce an extraordinary production with great acting and photography and a clear presentation of reality. And the case of Andy Garcia’s film The Lost City that suffered due to a lack of funds. Where are the rich Cuban exiles when there is work to be done?
By talking a lot in Miami or in New Jersey this wall that encircles us will not be broken.
The images can bring our message further than our words to each other. We need from our community the same support that the left offers to Michael Moore.
Our productions cost money and if our own community doesn’t help, who is going to do it?
For my seventh documentary of the series COVERING CUBA a non-profit corporation was founded. Its name is UNCOVERING CUBA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (UCEF)*. Since November 2007 to date we have a total of $2,093.70! You can laugh.
Well, this is better than nothing. However, most of Cuban Americans exile filmmakers are on the same train as I am. So I ask you, what can you do with that?!
But, for now, I continue doing the work I feel compelled to do.
© 2008 ABIP
Say you do go to the polls to cast your vote. Which candidate, Barack Obama or John McCain, would get your vote?
After a long period of silence and deep thought:
"McCain."
You've said John McCain. Is that correct?
"Yes. Senator John McCain."
Without making assumptions about African Americans typically voting Democratic, may I say that your answer does come as a bit of a surprise.
"Why does it? Because you're not African American, you don't understand."
No dispute there. Though pollsters, and they are not completely accurate, have said that Barack Obama has a definite lead over John McCain among potential African American voters.
"That's right. They are not accurate. Nobody's ever talked to me. You're the first. And I have to tell you that I'm not comfortable with speaking about my politics or religion in public. I believe they should always be kept private."
Understood. But might we continue, with the understanding that you may end this interview whenever you wish?
He nods his agreement.
Good. Now the compelling question here and now is why Senator McCain and not Senator Obama?
"Simple. Republicans always speak their minds. Even the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said as much."
Sorry...
"Am I allowed to speak bluntly here?"
Of course. You will not be censored.
"I've been called more niggers, and it's the last time I'll use that hateful word, more times by more left leaning, sympathetic Democrats than I have by conservative, right wing Republicans. But they never said it to my face. No. They always had a smile and a handshake for me whenever we were face to face. I'm talking about liberal Democrats now."
That's a rather inflammatory statement to make.
"Well, it's true. I come from a place where the Klan was king, a so-called 'red' state. Yet I believe I received as good an education in high school that the white students got. And it was an integrated, predominately white school."
Could you to be more specific? Where and what period of time are you speaking of?
"I won't say where, but I'm talking about the fifties and sixties. Yes, some did call me that name I won't repeat. And 'colored' folks, as we were called then, weren't allowed to eat in certain restaurants. So the racists and racism were always around. But at least I knew where I wasn't wanted"
To clarify what's been said here, are you saying that Democrats where you lived were less accommodating than Republicans?
"Let me be more direct. A Democrat would talk to me, tell me how sorry they were to see how the 'colored' folks were being treated. But could we live among them? Would I be invited to their homes for dinner or parties? Would they permit their daughters or sons to date outside their race? Now, they never said as much directly. They were too smart for that. And they're even smarter today. So the sixties did teach them something. But you see, I'm not talking about where I grew up. I'm talking about a 'blue' state."
Again, which state are you referring to?
"Where I live now. If you know where, I don't want you to print it. All right?"
Agreed. Though there may come a time when it will all come out.
"I'll deal with it then."
Please, continue.
"I mean when I came here I could not find a place to live. Because I was a student then, I was told by apartment managers that they didn't rent to students. We both know how ridiculous that sounds. A bank called police when they saw the size of a check I wanted to deposit. A cashier's check. The issuing bank's president had to verify the check before they would honor it. Where and when have you heard of that? Now I'm not saying that all these people were Democrats. I knew nothing about their politics. But the state as a whole has always been known as liberal, more progressive than most states. That's what I expected to experience. What I'm trying to say is that I always knew where I stood where I came from. So I always knew what I had to do to get around certain obstacles. But when you don't know..."
And it's the reason John McCain could get your vote.
"Nothing against Barack Obama now. He seems like a good man. I think. But he's just one. And just because he's an African American and a Democrat, doesn't mean things will get better for African Americans if he becomes president. His burden will be a mighty one....
A Comprehensive StrategyI like the part about joining with Russia to fight the Taliban--right now I think the Bush administration and the British are trying to negotiate a deal with the Taliban, so if Obama sticks to this point, it could mark a real change...
Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and we are not returning to the Cold War. Retrofitting outdated 20th century thinking to address this new 21st century challenge will not advance American national interests. Instead, Obama and Biden will address the new challenges Russia poses by pursuing an integrated and vigorous strategy that encompasses the entire region. The core components of this strategy include:
• Supporting democratic partners and upholding principles of sovereignty throughout Europe and Eurasia while working proactively to gauge effectively the intentions of actors in the region, and address tensions between countries before they escalate into military confrontations.
• Strengthening the Transatlantic alliance, so that we deal with Russia with one, unified voice.
• Helping to decrease the dependence of our allies and partners in the region on Russian energy.
• Engaging directly with the Russian government on issues of mutual interest, such as countering nuclear proliferation, reducing our nuclear arsenals, expanding trade and investment opportunities, and fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban; and also reaching out directly to the Russian people to promote our common values.
• Keeping the door open to fuller integration into the global system for all states in the region, including Russia, that demonstrates a commitment to act as responsible, law-abiding members of the interna- tional community.
Wiktionary (a portmanteau of wiki and dictionary) is a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 151 languages. Unlike standard dictionaries, it is written collaboratively by volunteers using wiki software, allowing articles to be changed by almost anyone with access to the Web site.
Like its sister project Wikipedia, Wiktionary is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Because Wiktionary is not limited by print space considerations, most of Wiktionary's language editions provide definitions and translations of words from many languages, and some editions offer additional information typically found in thesauri and lexicons. Additionally, the English Wiktionary includes Wikisaurus, a category that serves as a thesaurus, including lists of slang words,[1] and the Simple English Wiktionary, compiled using the Basic English subset of the English language.
This afternoon someone I know and I went to the T-Mobile store in NW DC to take a look at the new Google G1 phone. There was only one working model in the shop, and the salesman took a while to get it going. He didn't have one himself (he had a Nokia) and didn't seem that enthusiastic about the "cool" features. The case looked flimsy and plastic, the slide-up keyboard looked just like a Sidekick to this novice. The GPS function didn't work--the salesman said it was because we were indoors, but according to today's Washington Post, the real reason is that T-Mobile's Washington, DC 3G network is still under Defense Department control. Even without the 3G feature, the look and feel of the G1 just made me want an iPhone more...but I'll have to wait, because as a former New Yorker who grew up in the era of Ma Bell's monopoly, I still cannot buy any product that says AT&T...I have a G1 On loan from T-Mobile. I like it. The GPS works great. The
browser loads faster than the iPhone. And it's cheaper! Someone I Know has
an iPhone, and it's nice too. To undeerstand what it's all about, read this
article in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android
Someone I know just gave me a new 13-inch Apple MacBook laptop for an early birthday present. I've been using it since last Saturday--the souped-up 2.4 GHz model with extra memory. I love it! I love the keyboard that lights up in the dark. I love the built-in camera and microphone for using Skype. I love the giant trackpad that's one big button. I love the one-piece metal body. I love the look and feel of it. I haven't had a Mac laptop since 2003, when I left my old black MacBook in Tashkent. Since then, I used a Fujitsu LifeBook. It was sort of blocky, clumsy and had a Microsoft operating system that just got slower and slower and slower and slower until I'd had enough. Even though the MacBook weighs 4.5 pounds instead of 3, it is so beautiful to look at and and fun to type on that I just can't stop playing with it. And it costs less than my MacBook did in 1999...
Thinking about launching your own blog? Here's some friendly advice: Don't. And if you've already got one, pull the plug...IMHO, not yet.
I'm coming to Orlando tomorrow, Monday, October 20th.Here's a link to local media coverage of the event on Channel 13.
I'll be holding a rally with Senator Hillary Clinton and talking to folks about what we can all do together to change this country.
See the details below and RSVP for the event:
http://fl.barackobama.com/OrlandoChange
Hope to see you there,
Barack
P.S. -- Here's the invitation for the event:
This Monday, October 20th, please join Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Orlando, where Barack will talk about his vision for creating the kind of change we need.
Early Vote for Change Rally
with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
Amway Arena North Staircase
600 W. Amelia Street
Orlando, FL 32801
Monday, October 20th
Gates Open: 3:00 p.m.
Program Begins: 6:00 p.m.
http://fl.barackobama.com/OrlandoChange
This event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required; however, an RSVP is strongly encouraged. Space is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
For security reasons, do not bring bags or umbrellas. Please limit personal belongings. No signs or banners permitted.
Paid for by Obama for America
When, in 2006, the roof began to fall in, Wall Street was in a quandary. It held outsize volumes of triple-A-rated mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). That they were not, in fact, triple-A, had become painfully obvious. Curious analysts consulted the financial statements of the top mortgage dealers, including Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, for clarification.
Readers, however, found no clarification and no foreshadowing of the troubles to come. Neither in Bear's year-end 2006 report (10K, in Securities and Exchange Commission jargon) nor in its March 31, 2007, quarterly filing was there a meaningful word of warning about the sagging prices of the MBSs that did so much to pull Bear down. Those seeking to learn Merrill's exposure to the mortgage contraptions called collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, were similarly stymied. Although Merrill was to write off $23 billion worth of CDOs in 2007, the phrase "collateralized debt obligation" did not appear once in its 2006 10K.
Because there was often no market for these idiosyncratic securities, Wall Street did not have to value them at market prices. Rather, it marked them "to model." That is, it assigned them prices at which they would trade, according to one mathematical construct or another, if they could trade. Of course, these mathematical constructs tended to cast things in a cheerful, management-approved way. Only later did a telltale plunge in the value of traded mortgage indices open the eyes of the market to the full extent of the troubles.
Prices can be unwelcome pieces of information. When an especially unwelcome batch wells up after a financial collapse, governments try to quash it. So it is today. The SEC has suppressed short selling. The bailout bill will open the door to the suspension of market-value accounting. The Fed is moving heaven and earth to cheapen the value of the dollar.
Long after the crisis burst into the open, the Fed and Treasury downplayed it. It was, they insisted, "contained." Last week they asserted that, unless the House voted "yea," the wheels would come off this $14 trillion economy. President Bush himself has broadly hinted that the nation is on the cusp of disaster.
How can they be so sure? And how can they know that the unintended consequences of the radical policies they are pushing through won't be worse than the panic that they themselves are helping to foment? When the Fed insists it has no choice but to print up hundreds of billions of new dollars and when the keepers of accounting standards bend in the face of criticism that market prices hurt, what they are really saying is the that financial truth is too awful to bear. Heaven help us all if they're right
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — An American member of al-Qaida pointed to economic troubles in the United States as proof that "the enemies of Islam" face defeat, in an English-language video released Saturday.Destroying the US economy was one of Bin Laden's stated goals. Blowing up the World Trade Center couldn't do it--but this bailout just might...
In a half hour video message, California-native Adam Gadahn urged Pakistanis to unite against their government and U.S. forces, and taunted Americans over their economic crisis, relating it to their military interventions.
"The enemies of Islam are facing a crushing defeat, which is beginning to manifest itself in the expanding crisis their economy is experiencing," said Gadahn, in a clip of the message distributed by the SITE Intelligence Group, a Washington-based monitor of militant Web sites.
"A crisis whose primary cause, in addition to the abortive and unsustainable crusades they are waging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, is their turning their backs on Allah's revealed laws, which forbid interest-bearing transactions, exploitation, greed and injustice in all its forms." [...]
Gadahn also urged Pakistanis to unite and establish an Islamic state..
No major newspaper would run any op-ed from me. I gave up and sent one to American.com, which you can see here. The bottom line:
The financial bailout isn't as bad as Main Street thinks. It's worse.
I think I'll just paste the other one below the fold.
Next, I am going for a long bike ride. You might want to look up a quote from August 1914 about "the lamps are going out all over Europe. We will not see them lit again for a long time." I'm sure a commenter will be able to locate the exact quote and the speaker, an English minister whose name eludes me.
Much of Europe was happy and optimistic when war was finally declared. Many people are happy today that war that has been declared on free markets. Looking at the bright side, it could be worse. This war does not involve sending millions of young men to fight in trenches and launch human wave assaults against machine guns.
The only subject on which Palin displayed superior knowledge was when she corrected Biden on the proper delivery of "Drill, baby, drill!" Christie Hefner thought Palin's sex-tinged twist on the chant should be appropriated for a commercial. Perhaps for Viagra.
Other than that, Palin's grasp fluctuated between wafer thin and skin deep. The moment that most drove me to want to send her a book on Greek gods and heroes was her head-scratching response to the question about her Achilles heel. She apparently didn't know what that meant since she spent her allotted time listing all of her attributes as opposed to her most glaring weakness.
