Nelson Mandela - there will be another

"We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again." said President Obama at the funeral for the recently passed South African leader.

A great many things have been said about Nelson Mandela since his death. Understand that Mandela was an early advocate of Gandhian non violence in his opposition to apartheid in South Africa. When he saw those tactics led to more restrictions, and harsher actions against the black South Africans, he decided to embark on sabotage (rejecting terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and outright revolution). For this he was convicted of treason against South Africa, and sentenced to life in prison. That's the short story. Here's a little more detail. 

Many say he was a communist, and that's the end of that. When he became President of South Africa in 1994, he did not seek to make South Africa a communist nation. He was, along with the African National Congress, linked to communist nations like Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Maybe he was, and changed. Maybe since the western democracies, like the United States, and Great Britain, called him a terrorist and did not support the cause to end apartheid, he sought support for his movement wherever he could find it. Revolutions it seems are not free in a practical sense. Communist? I don't know how dedicated he was to the movement.

Some are critical of things done by the African National Congress like "necklacing" (google it) and by the transitive property they reflect on him. Well, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington owned slaves while leading a movement that has in its founding document "...all men are created equal." Additionally, loyalists were not treated nicely in the War for Independence. Bad things happen in struggles for freedom. That's not an excuse, but it is what it is.

So while dignitaries exalt Mandela for his accomplishments at his funeral, and Obama tells us we'll never see another, I can tell you he's wrong, at least I hope he's wrong. As long as people are repressed, and denied freedom in places around the world, people like Nelson Mandela are needed. The next Mandela may be among the demonstrators in Egypt. They could be fighting in the Syrian civil war. The next one may be in a prison in China. 

The next Mandela is likely on a no fly list, or on a watch list, or suspected terrorist list. The worlds' intelligence structure has terabytes of data on the next Mandela. Most of Mandela's life was watched by the spy networks of the world. He was labeled a terrorist by the white South African regime that put him in prison for having the audacity to fight for freedom. He was called a terrorist by the Reagan Administration, and the Thatcher government in England (to name only two). That's what revolutionary leaders are before the movement they lead becomes successful. They're the bad guy.

In the end they're the revered hero. A lifetime of courageous dedication to a single cause - freedom. That's what it takes. Courage to be a bad guy, and the outlaw. Because you see, what may be seem the obvious moral cause is seldom seen that way by those whose advantage is protected by the injustice. So hope for the next Nelson Mandela. The world needs them. 

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. - Frederick Douglass

America's pastime

Really???

If you clicked the link you saw a story about a ND woman who decided it would be responsible on her part to pass out notes on Halloween to kids that are, in her judgement, "moderately obese." These notes called the kids who received them "moderately obese," admonished the parents regarding "consuming sugar and treats," and that she was "disappointed" in the village, and she was taking action since "it takes a village to raise a child."

Really???? Fat kids shouldn't eat too much candy? No shit!? Thanks for the wisdom. Do you really think the parents DON'T know their child has some extra chubb? Expecting parents to read these and say "Holy shit honey! Little Ashley got this note, and wouldn't you know it, she's 'moderately obese.' I had no idea. We're better people now! This is JUST THE THING that will get us to clear the pantry of unhealthy snacks, fatty lunch meats, and high fructose soft drinks. THANK GOD FOR THIS NOTE! IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. God bless this woman!!!"

I must sheepishly admit that the woman is a liberal apparently. Citation of the "takes a village" tipped me off. And while it does take a village to raise a child, what that means is when you're being a little dickhead as a kid your parents will find out from parents in the neighborhood (village).

Everybody's got an opinion, and that's cool. This is America. And we've been told that's what's so great from the time we're kids is that we're free to express them. But seriously, with the advent of social media sharing your opinion, telling your friends how full of shit they really are, and how fat the kids are in the neighborhood has replaced baseball as the national pastime.

Couple things....

OK, couple things that are on my mind, and I really need to get it out.

Redskins; racist slur, and terrible choice for a nickname. It doesn't honor Native Americans. Braves, and Warriors, are commonly understood to be names based on titles given to those that fought for their people. Chiefs is pretty well established to refer to the leaders. Indians is pretty benign, and like Vikings or Spartans is a group of people. They're all OK, but "redskins" is a slur. I know about Coach Deitz. I know the Redskins were the Braves in 1932. I know George Allen, when he was coach commissioned a group of Native Americans, and that group said the nickname was fine. Imagine that, a group created by the then coach liked the nickname. Wow! What a surprise.

It's simple; go into any Native American run casino, and call everyone there "redskin." If you don't get your ass kicked, then "redskin" is probably not a slur. It's not about "context." Context is an excuse, that does not apply to any other slur.

Tea-party bullshit; if you don't think the government is good for anything, then you can't complain about it being shut down.

The whole thing is ridiculous. The "Don't Tread On Me" flag is misused. War for Independence was not about taxes, it was about taxation without representation, which you have. I know because I see the mouth breathers you've elected to Congress. The Confederate Battle Flag is also being bandied about at Tea Party rallied, and is also out of place. It's not about "States rights," (and neither was the Civil War unless you want to stipulate that the only state right they were concerned about was slavery).  It's not about government debt either, because you didn't say boo when the deficit exploded under W. And, no, saying W was not a "true conservative" does not re-establish cred to the conservative brand. You dummies loved everything he did for eight years.

Oh yeah, and if government is bad, why do you want to blame the shutdown on Democrats? If government is bad, then logically a shutdown of a bad thing would be good. It would seem to me that you should be taking credit for it.

Lastly Obamacare - Constitutional. Sorry. Passed by the House, and the Senate, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court. That's about as Constitutional as it gets. If conservatives were smart they'd take credit for the whole thing anyway. It's an idea out of the conservative Heritage Foundation. It was implemented by GOP Governor Romney (remember him!?)

No, really. Who's naive and clueless??

"Just another pie-eyed liberal who wants the government to right all the wrongs, and make everything fair for everyone."

"You libs are so naive. You think the answer for every thing is more government. If we could just get the government out of the way of the free market it would be so much better."

"Competition in the market is just more efficient by virtue of competition."

Tea Partiers and other extreme conservatives call liberals "naive" for putting the purpose of helping others on the shoulders of government. To hear them it would be best for all concerned if most everything was left to the magic of the private sectors' market forces.

What does the free market, unfettered by regulation, produce? One only needs to look at the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Child labor, there's that. Increased poverty, and stagnant wages. Income disparity, More frequent boom bust cycles with deeper recessions.

Really? History? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? 19th Century - unfettered capitalism. Ring a bell? How was it for people who worked for a living? We have, in the United States the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. The financial sector has been deregulated time and again since the 1980s. For the Tea-Billies - deregulation means less government, and more "free market." So the money that greases the skids of the economy has been pretty much going where it wants to in it's chase for profit. You know, profit, the end all be all motivation that, according to the cult of conserva-libertarian-Ayn Rand objectivism will fix everything. Everything I say.

Who's really being naive here? If you think that, despite - you know - history, unfettered capital markets will address what a society need, you're being naive. 

So what does history tell us unfettered free market forces yield? Historically business seeks the greatest market share it can get. Theory says a player captures market share by being better: better product, or more less expensive by being a more efficient producer. Market share rules, but unfettered, players in a market find it more effective to capture market share by leveraging it's comparative advantages to buy more. Rockefeller didn't only dominate the early petroleum industry by seeking to be the most efficient producer of kerosene, and later gasoline. He also did it by leveraging early leadership to own and control as much delivery as possible throughout the economy. JP Morgan's General Electric didn't only get in early, but it used frivolous legal maneuvers to choke out early players like Westinghouse whose pockets were not so deep. It's not about being the best in a market. Believing that as business dogma is naive. It's about being the quickest to be the biggest in a market, then dominating the competition with size, not necessarily out performing them. Conservatives say that's business, and it is. What it's not is capitalism, and it's not market forces creating optimal outcomes for the society that they are in. If there's not enough competition, then market forces can't work. Participants get bigger and bigger, and when threats of competition are neutralized - through acquisition, or elimination - players become rent seekers, and extract revenue while controlling costs.

How was it to be in labor in the 19th century, and early 20th century economies? Generally it sucked. Long hours, no overtime, shitty wages. Add to that the greater frequency of panics, recessions, and depressions.

It's been said that business is the worlds most competitive sport. Make no mistake, capitalism remains the most efficient economic system to base a society on, but it needs to be regulated. That is to say it needs regulations, not central planning. It needs the government to be an official and enforce the rules. Every competition needs rules, and referees, otherwise it's not really a competition.

If you really think that unfettered capitalism leads always to optimal results, you need to crack more than a few history books, because you're a doe-eyed child.

The shine is off...... Oh Big Jaw....

3 games into the 2013 season, and the 49ers are 1-2. The sole win being week one against the Packers, and that was in doubt until a 4th down conversion late led to a clinching FG. Even then the "soft" Packers were every bit as physical as the big bad Niners. If not for Green Bay's inability to Cover Aquan Boldin, San Francisco might very well be 0-3.

I have to admit. I didn't think ol' Big Jaw Harbaugh would have fallen this soon. 3 weeks and the biggest, baddest bully in the NFC had 3 punks stand up and hit 'em back. Big Jaw had no answers to that, because if he's not the toughest kid on the block he's not much else. Simple scheme with no answers if it doesn't work.

I knew for sure in week 2. A 49er defender planted Seahawk QB Russell Wilson after he handed off on a read option, and I thought "Wow. Ol' Big Jaw can dish it out, but in the lead up to week one when Clay Matthews talked about hitting Kaepernick, Ol' Big Jaw didn't like hearing that." Anyway - Wilson got up without a lineman rescuing him. and Seattle continued it's ass kicking of Big Jaw's Boys. The 49ers had nothing to answer. No changes. not one adjustment - just more "we're tougher." That didn't work either.

Week 3, the Colts did the same thing. The Colts! We already knew the Seahawks were badasses, but the Colts? They punched the Niners in the teeth, and Big Jaw had nothing. Captain Comeback's old team told him to sit down and STFU. Trent Richardson - Pow! Ahmad Bradshaw - Pow! It was like the old Batman TV show. I kept waiting for the graphics to come up, and the camera angle to go to 45 degrees.

He was the coach to be man, Ol' Big Jaw Harbaugh. Now, surely things will be better when Michael Crabtree, and Vernon Davis come back, but then it's the same talent in the same old scheme that only works when he's able to push your team around. Now they now just hit him back. The Niners aren't so tough. Whose gonna do Pepsi commercials and stare at a blank white board now? Maybe ol' Big Jaw should put the Pepsi down, and draw on the board and figure out something to do now that everyone knows his team isn't that tough?

Whose culture of dependency?

Why is it they need to cut food stamps citing "ending the culture of dependency" for poor people, but they never talk about cutting subsidies for big agriculture, or defense contractors, or telecoms, or any of the other big businesses who, for years, use subsidies, and other tax loopholes. Isn't THAT a "culture of dependency" too? There's one important difference. People that use food stamps are, well first off 2/3rd are kids, but the rest are not campaign donors. So the tough talk the tea party simpletons put out there about budgets, and "dependency" is just a collection of platitudes that gets their benefactors to open the checkbook.

It's the same thing in a different vein when it comes to the circle jerk in the House with the 42nd vote to repeal the ACA, or to de-fund it in the looming debt limit. Why are House Republicans passing a bill that will not pass a Senate controlled by the Democrats, or surely get the VETO if it gets to the White House? Principle? A principled politician - that's really sweet of you. It's to show the check writers they're deserving of a little something something for the PAC. Those check writers don't want the ACA.

Here's my question: if the ACA is so bad, and will be so much suckitude in application why don't those who oppose it just let it suck, ride the suckage to election wins - since it'll suck so much right - and the repeal it?

Answer: It won't suck, and there goes the "culture of dependency" that those check writers will have to live without.

It's important to remember that when these things because they're never mentioned in the "red team/blue team" bullshit narrative that mainstream media thinks is "balanced" coverage.

Redskins - c'mon how is that not a slur?!?!?!

Every year it comes up, and every year it stays the same. Washington Redskins. Change the name. It doesn't honor the native Americans. It's a slur.

I've got a  better idea than trying to get the Washington Redskins to change their name. Let's use all the slurs we can. Shit, it's a melting pot.

Here are a few names suggestions:

Carolina Cousin Fuckers, Memphis Toothless Hillbillies, Philadelphia Greaseballs, New York Goombas, Houston Hicks, Dallas Redneck Pussies, San Francisco Sodomizers, Montreal Mongoloids, Notre Dame Drunk Irish, Kansas City Crackers,