Pizza For Breakfast

I just finished an interesting book about the history of food in European modern history.  That is defined by the end of the Medieval period up to the Industrial Revolution in England.  The first half was about what people , food and religion, which wasn’t what you would expect.  Fasting was a large part of the topic, or the absence of food, as it has been used so much by so many different Christian doctrines.  One wonders if fasting was also a way to prevent shortages and control distribution of food, since not everything was as reliably plentiful then as it is now, and the name of the church was how this was institutionalized in conjunction with the ruling classes. 

This is a comment I sent to LA Weekly regarding a piece by one of their staff writers, Marc Cooper. 

This is the first piece I have read by Marc Cooper. Differing with Clinton’s policies, or leadership qualities is one thing, but why all the hate?  “Souless….go down in history as a loser”? How would you know?  The violence in the language a disturbing number of Obamaniacs use regarding Clinton are almost identical to those leveled at both Clintons by The Republicans in the 90’s, it is almost like they took their talking points from them.  It also recalls the seething hatred so-called Christians leveled at her as well.  The nastyness people feel free to level at her is a mystery to me, and I suspect that the impressions made by the right wing nuts and the press during the 90’s was so ingrained after years of it that people don’t even know why they think she is so bad. I wonder, since the Clintons remind the press corps of their lowest moments (remember when the press, spurred on by the Republicans, accused Clinton of ordering an air strike on Osama Bin Laden, called it a pr stunt?)  It also seems to indicate that since she is such an emotional issue for you (mostly) guys that she probably is the “real change candidate” and that change is what threatens you.  Maybe The Clintons weren’t progressive enough for you, but is Obama?  He is against Universal Health Care for one thing.  Is is sad and depressing to see how folks that want “peace, love & bi-partisanship”  are so mean and cruel to someone that also wants it.  Which leads me to the second part of the problem, a lot of progressives were furious with Bill Clinton because he didn’t live up to all their expectations, especially over welfare reform.  The left leaning side of the party in particular-do you think it will be any different for Obama? He isn’t that progressive!

I started out as an Edwards supporter, and am undecided at the moment but “mob think” has taken over with Obama supporters, the crazy projections that people are transferring onto him scare me-and so does Marc Cooper.

Yes, the mainstream media has been very harsh on Sen. Clinton and her husband.  A big part of it is sexist, and part of it could be that she is the real “change” candidate.  I think Clinton is making more mistakes now in the campaign, the constant hostility from the MSM and bloggers (mostly made up of young white males), is taking its toll.  Obama glibly goes on, lightly critisized and hardly vetted.  Further proof of sexism in the political press and editorial is the treatment given to the McCain lobbiest story, the lobbiest’s picture is of a blond in a cocktail dress, he in a business suit – not even a Tuxedo!

Obama, as self assured as he seems personally, represents not a party confident in its beliefs and ideologies, but one “desperate to win”, still too interested and willing to be defined by the pundit and editorial press and a small but vocal right-wing minority.  An untold but important segment of democrats are voting for him because they have become convinced, on very little evidence, that he can win based on his oratory and charisma and not because he would make the best president, as Todd Gitlin basically said on the Huffington Post – “Clinton wins on points….but Obama seems to have the momentum”.  I think it is sad and makes the Democrats look weak and pathetic to the rest of the country not so invested in the primaries.

This particular pidegon will come home to roost later in the general election, as I don’t believe the electorate in general will be as willing to forgive his lack of experience, mushy and chronically weak legislative record and bald faced ambition to become President before his time.  The press will with some high profile pundit exceptions, essentially “turn” on him and some less favorable items will emerge on him and his wife, who sounds like a ticking time bomb and gunpowder for the Republican attack machine.  Some of us who never thought it possible will be forced to give McCain a second look, as Obama’s flaws are belatedly pointed out in the media. 

 I do not look forward to the time when Fox Broadcasting starts to pound on him.  And some of us who never thought it possible to vote for a Republican again are forced to hold our noses and give McCain a second look. 

I think that DAVID EHRENSTEIN has an excellent point about how Obama’s color is so much a part of his allure.  But I wonder about “Better Educated” as code for white, I think it goes to the heart of the chnaging face of class in our society.  To me it could mean “East Ivy School educated or wanna be”, “white-color professional” is another one that it could be….It tells me that I am to believe that the “haves” are for Obama, because he advocates for the “have-nots” who for the most part are not voting for him, yet.  But why are the “haves” voting for him?  Is it because they know he will be controllable, while he is singing the “Songs of Solomon” to those dummies on the lower half of the economic ladder, they “our betters”, a club that is color blind if not gender blind, will be solving the worlds problems, with minimal discomfort to themselves.   Obama’s legislative record shows how cautious and timid he is, a perfect mouthpiece for the new “secular evangilicals”, long on faith, short on specifics while some grey cloud of advisors, made up of Washington regulars really run things.  What really bothers me is that is being marketed like bottled water, or a can of Pepsi Plus, which is icky and embarresing in a Presidential campaign.

After my own private Deadwood Festival I had for myself while on a Pet Sitting job (love those flat screens!) I have moved onto a daily regime of resisting the urge to read political news.  Thankfully this is done by avoiding clicking on links to blog posts in online magazines.  The rest of world is satisfied with a column on the front page.  I still want Hilary to win, so I did indulge in political news on Friday to find out that the shallowness of Obama’s support is gaining notice in that his campaign is trying to whip up the mania frenzy even more, and continues to play down his (brief) legislative record or policy.  Obamamania is something that the campaign may come to regret later, but it is getting the momentumn.  It is creepy to campaign like he is a brand of bottled water, or steak; as in ”all sizzle”.        

Sticking with my resolve to step away from observing the political process, I completely ignored the outside world from Saturday through Wednesday with the aid of three seasons of Deadwood.  I am so happy I did it, although the unfinished story was so much more apparent when watched one episode after another.  It felt like a really good book that I didn’t want to put down and in deed, rarely did. 

The results of the primary election, especially in Southern California was satisfying to me, as I remain unconvinced about Barak Obama.  I read two articles in the New York Times and on Maggie Mahar’s Healthbeat blog that make an excellent point regarding the Friedman column that talks about an MIT study that shows Hillary Clinton’s plan is better and more efficient than the Barak plan because she mandates that all Americans have a health plan.  What got me was that Obama is saying that the young/healthy will get health insurance without a mandate, which is not bourn out by the facts, it is simply not true.  It’s like saying that everyone will get a driver’s license even if it is not required by law.  It shows that Obama is, 1) Unaware of people’s true nature in this regard or, 2) That he is pandering to his young following, who are among those that choose not to have health insurance, even if they can afford it.  Clinton’s plan insists on a mandate as it decreases the cost for all that way.  The young and healthy are mistaken to think that they don’t need health insurance of course, which is all the more reason to insist that they do- as well as for the community.  Obama also wants to put more responsibility of payment on small businesses, putting more downward pressure on them in a recessionary time when customers are spending less. 

My Mother tells me that Obama wants to raise the Capitol Gains Tax.  She gets an important part of her limited fixed income from capitol gains, and she would have to sell her house to live.  And I still can’t see him going toe to toe with the likes of Mushareef or Putin, and I can see her do it.  She has faced down those that would have been happy to accuse her of murder, and did.  She has been on the world stage for 30 years, and (I’m not kidding), she knows many of the wives of the world’s leaders as well as face time with the leaders themselves.  Even if she wasn’t setting policy that eliminates a lot of valuable time spent assessing your peers for yourself.  

It has been a good week to stay informed.  The democratic primaries took the high road on the last debate before the final round of 2008 primaries and “Super Tuesday”, with a substantive debate between Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama.  It revealed that the two are a choice between two styles of leadership, as their policy positions are minor and would be open to compromise in either direction once they had to take on the actual task of governing. I can’t seem to see the charisma of Obama.  I don’t find him inspiring or sexy at all.  I do think he seems like a hell of a nice guy and a smart focused politician.  I’m just not sure that is enough for me.  I sense Hilary’s toughness and grasp of the issues, which I draw comfort and reassurance from.  One thing that came to my mind as I reflected on this was “What is The Presidency?”, is the job more like the Queen of England’s? Should the ability to inspire trump policy knowledge and know-how because it is more important that he can inspire than actually know if he can do the job? There are others that can actually run the government and he can sign off more as a “delegater” than being the guy that is delving into the details.  The platform of the National Democratic Party is more cohesive than ever, so is it too far-fetched to wonder what endorsers hope to play in an Obama administration?  Is this really the handing off to a new generation, or the perceived opportunity by the current establishment to get in line to influence a bright but relative new comer to the world stage?   That is why I am suspicious of the endorsement of so many of these name brand democrats, who are as establishment as can be.  If we want our President to be more ceremonial than truly at the helm, than Hilary is in trouble, as she is obviously someone who will work the job.  Another point in that direction is that do these Obama endorsements by Kennedy and Kerry reflect on the lack of influence they know they would have with Clinton?