Sunday, January 27, 2008

Just Like Her Daddy and Worse


The Princess Royal of the Kennedy clan, who has herself accomplished nothing in life except being born to wealth and privilege, has draped her father's moth-eaten cloak on Barack Obama, who, in her father's White House, would have been a footman or cook. Say what you will about Obama, he got there himself without the benefit of a rich daddy or corrupt political machine. He may be more unprepared to be president and more disastrous for this country (and my country) than was JFK, but we hope, at least, that he will be impervious to "love notes" from middle-aged political camp followers who are still trying to be influential without ever being relevant.


POSTSCRIPT:

Tomorrow the black sheep of the family, Sen. Ted Kennedy, will follow in his niece Caroline's footsteps and endorse Obama at American University. It is still possible that some Kennedy cousin might endorse Hillary; perhaps the other murderer or the rapist.

Barack Obama: The Future Is the Past

38 comments:

Charlie Bravo said...

Personally, I think that this could be that the Kennedy heir to Camelot is falling for the "exotic charm" of Obama. This is probably not sitting well with my neighbor, her uncle Teddy Kennedy, since he's expressed his admiration and support for Hillbilly. At least for the Billy part of HillBilly.
She's probably ignoring that race was a big deal under his father administration, and that the civil rights movement was boiling under the surface of the segregation that survived under the government of Jack Kennedy. It was the times of the KKK, the times during which Frank Sinatra embraced Cuban, Black, and Jewish Sammy Davis Jr. and rejected, flatly, Jack Kennedy for his treason to Cubans among other reasons.
JFK was deified by death.
Too bad that LBJ was afraid to reveal to the American people who was the man behind the man who pulled the trigger, Fidel Castro, because as he said, the Dems would not be able to win an election again in 100 years.

Anonymous said...

I don't even like to think about it but I'm convinced the Republican party doesn't stand a chance in November. Might as well concede now, save the money, and try again in 4 years.

Compare the participation numbers in the primaries. Historically, Demorats only loose when there is voter apathy and low turnout, unfortunately for Republicons there is rage on the left. Something I haven't seen since 1980, only that then it was rage against the left and Jemme Carer.

Again, ignore what candidate won which primary. Focus on the total voter turnout for each party. There lies the result of the general elections.

Let's hope the country can survive 4 years of Hitlery or Obamma Husein a/k/a JFK2008.

Vana said...

Anonymous:

Isn't that how it usually goes, we elect a Republican then a Democrat, really as you say the Reps should just save their money, because like it or not we are getting a Democrat this year, too bad it will be Hillary.

mike3k said...

Yes, we need 4 more years of the same disastrous Republican policies that nearly destroyed this country. The only way this country can recover is by electing a Democrat, and hopefully it won't be the Democrat In Name Only Hillary.

CorgiGuy said...

Personally i got no horse in this race, every time Obama beats Hillary, I raise a toast and I wouldn’t mind raising a lot more toasts between now and the Democratic Convention.

On the Republican side, the race is down to a man (mccain) who believes the First Amendment is optional and wants to keep us in war for 100 more years and one (romney) who changes his positions the way most of us change socks.

On the Democratic side, it’s down to Hillary and Obama and, given a choice between those two, I’d rather spend the next four years with the Senator from Illinois than the Senator from New York.

Carlos Miller said...

The whole comparison of Obama to Kennedy has already become cliched.

It goes to show you that Americans really don't want a president. They want a fantasy.

I really don't understand why more democrats are not voting for John Edwards because he is the best of the lot.

He is the one speaking against the corporations. He is the one speaking for all Americans.

The problem is, the corporate media fears him so they make him look irrelevant and because this country is made up of mostly sheep, they think it's a race only between Obama and Hillary.

Charlie Bravo,

Kennedy rejected Sinatra because of his ties to the mob, even though the mob did help him win the election.

Sinatra, being the proud man that he was, never looked back and became a republican. But Sinatra was always a liberal even when he was a republican.

If Castro was indeed the one who pulled the trigger on Kennedy, then why hasn't the government released that information?

It seems to me, the government's reluctance to release the complete investigation means they have something to hide.

Anon,

If there is one thing we learned from the last election is that the republicans don't need a valid candidate when they have Diebold.

Orikinla Osinachi. said...

A rational summation.

American historians have miseducated millions of Americans who have read no other history books, except those written by Americans telling white lies.

Barack Obama must not fall into their trap, lest he would end up like them.

God help him before it is too late.

Charlie Bravo said...

Carlos, now that Teddy Old Fashioned (tumbler) Kennedy has endorsed Obama -he gave the boot to the Hillbilly duo- one is left to wonder what's Teddy being offered in return.... a cushy job as VP maybe?
I have no problem with liberalism, as long as liberalism is spelled and read as liberalism and not as cryptocommunism. So I am fine with Frank. By the way, I am listening to some Frank right now....
Castro was behind the trigger man, we will just have to wait till castro is not in the scene any longer so both government release some juicy information. As you mention, rightfully so, the government has something to hide -which leads you to the Kennedy-Nikita agreements about Cuba.
What tickles me is that during the JFK era racism was rampant in this country, and there were no racial relations to be spoken of, on the contrary, blacks were treated in unspeakable ways, almost as badly as Castro treat Cubans who happen to be black (by the way, I do not accept the definition of Afro Cuban, there are only Cubans and they come in many shades, from Viking to Nubian, Spaniard to Chinese and whatever mix passes in front of you....) and now the members of the Kennedy Clan support a mix man from African and white southerner ancestry. He didn't have to do a thing with slavery (unless his ancestors sold slaves) or with the Jim Crow "laws". He's as alien to black Americans as I am to a native of Kazakhstan. Are he backing him for this very same reason?
It's all hypocrisy, in both parties....

Anonymous said...

Manuel,

Bobby Jr, has been campaigning with Hillary.

Alex said...

This has to be the biggest joke in our country’s history.I don’t think Ted Kennedy garners as much respect within the Democratic party as the Times seems to suggest. And, assuming Obama wins the nomination, it would be easier for Republicans to paint him as “Ted Kennedy’s hand-picked candidate,” and I think we all know how Republicans feel about Ted Kennedy…

Alex said...

Obama can get all the indorsements from
those Senators including Kennedy, however,
Hillary will win the nomination and clean the clock
of the Republican candidate.

Alex said...

It sucks. I’ve watched numerous speeches by Obama on CSPAN. He speaks with authority but is vapid.

I remember John Kennedy.

Obama is no John Kennedy.

Alex said...

Lets not forget that Senator Obama in 2003 criticzed Ted Kennedy for bi-partisan work saying

“Ted, You getting old now, Ted ….”

Alex said...

Next.....Topic

carlos Miller said...

Charlie Bravo,

Sinatra is my favorite. I listen to him on a regular basis and never get sick of him.

But I really don't find the relevance in how anything that somebody's ancestors did during the 60s translates to who people vote for today.

It's true that Barack Obama is not as culturally entrenched with African Americans as say, maybe Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but I don't see why that should be a reason why they should vote against him.

People's blood lines in this country extend beyond the U.S. borders and that not only includes African Americans but me and you.

I was born here, but I have a strong connection to Colombia where the bulk of my family is living right now.

And the same goes for millions of fifth-generation Irish Americans who may have never been to the Old Country.

Whether you don't accept the definition of Afro Cuban, many black Cubans do. They are Cuban. They are descendent from Africa. And they are proud of that.

And they will probably identify with Obama because of their African ancestry just as many African Americans do.

Obama's advantage is his European background, which is why he can connect with many white voters in the way Al Sharpton can't.

And it is true that race relations in this country were horrible back in the 60s and were worse before that.

But it was JFK, among many others, who made great strides in changing that. LBJ simply finished what he started.

In fact, it was Eishenhower who started it by introducing the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which Kennedy voted against, by the way.

So yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy in politics. It's almost all hypocrisy.

But I still don't see how we can tie the hypocrisy of yesteryear to the hypocrisy of today.

carlos Miller said...

And speaking of the Chairman of the Board, here is one of my all-time favorite Youtube videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9k4uKcuLGk

Anonymous said...

Hey Manuel,
as usual, you were right on the money.

Today's Miami Herald:

Mitt Romney donned a guayabera for a Sweetwater rally, trading in his standard blue-suit, white-shirt ensemble for the traditional Cuban attire.

Romney told the crowd of roughly 150 at the Jorge Mas Canosa youth center that he ''would never give money to Fidel Castro'' -- prompting a swell of cheers.

It never fails.

Calm Bobby said...

Calm Bobby says hello. Check out the new site.

jimbuie said...

Well, we can agree on Frank Sinatra at least....I generally don't read blogs that engage in vicious personal attacks, preferring writing that informs or tries to persuade. I suppose there is some ideology behind your nihilistic attacks. What is it? Overthrow Castro? Won't he be dead in a few years and that will be unnecessary?

Charlie Bravo said...

hey Carlos, during my time in Cuba black Cubans were Cubans first and foremost, and then, well, they happened to be black. And believe me, people are surprised when I tell them when I came to the States, for some reason, they think that I've been here all my life, but.... no! (I mean, I never heard any of my many black friends -even people to whom I were as close that I am considered a member of the family- refer to the African ancestry. They most likely will include you, saying el que no tiene de congo tiene de carabali.
About Frank Sinatra, and the rest of the music, I have a pretty eclectic and inclusive taste, as you can tell by my many posts on rock and Porno Para Ricardo.

carlos Miller said...

Charlie Bravo,

It doesn't take a scholar to know that there has long been institutionalized racism throughout Latin America where blacks have been conditioned to deny their African heritage.

It's not only Cuba, but it's Puerto Rico, Dominican Republican, Colombia and Brazil.

To say there was no racism in Cuba before Castro is a farce, just like saying there is no racism in Cuba now.

Despite all you say about how accepting you are of the African culture, you still cannot accept somebody accepting Obama as a legitimate candidate unless they happen to fall for what you describe as his "exotic charm".

He is clearly charming and persuasive, but why should this be described as "exotic"? How is his charm and charisma any different than Bill Clinton's?

I know it's hard for a republican to understand because it's been two decades since they had a president with any personality.

Republicans were so enthralled by Reagan's personality that the corporate media couldn't cover anything else for a month after his death.

But after being Bushwacked twice, they obviously longed for somebody with a little charisma who wasn't so "exotic". Remember, Clinton is considered by many blacks to be the first "black president".

I also have "exotic" musical tastes, including the great Benny More and Joseito Fernandez, but not excluding the Stones, the Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine.

Charlie Bravo said...

RATM stinks, that's my not so humble opinion, as all commies do. They improved when they kicked that che licker of Zach de la Rocha out of the band to get a real artist, Chris Cornell, but boy, they have to go all commie in Cuba during the encounters of Audioslave with Cuban musicians -some of my friends and sources are those musicians, and they literally tell that idiot of the Nightwatchman to go fuck himself when he started talking about free education and free health care. The rest of the band thus alienated Cornell, who sided with the Cuban musicians.
Then they picked that Guevarista fartbag back, and their back to their mediocrity.

Well, the exotic charm is what the New York Times has been selling about Obama, that's their call, not mine, so direct your barbs to them.
Don't tell me that the patricians of the New England society, the Kennedy clan does not regard you and I as exotic. Let alone Obama. But politics are politics, and if they have to "embrace" me or you, or Obama be assured they would do it, even though they are most likely to take a hot shower afterwards or get professionally disinfected.
According to my experience in Cuba -and I lived there very long- there's no denying of African culture or ancestry, it's just that all Cubans, not only blacks, are Cuban first and whatever else they are afterwards. A Cuban of Chinese origins is Cuban first, a Cuban Jew is Cuban first, and so on. There's no "I am a quarter Jewish, a half black, and a quarter Chinese" like they would say here. They say: I am Cuban dude, I am Cuban. And that does not deny a thing, that includes everything.
Well, I've never said that there was no racism in Cuba, but whatever racism was there was less that the cross burnings, the segregation, the Klan, and the separate facilities for blacks or the getthoization of the USA. As far as I can remember, Cuban blacks were not lynched or segregated. My parents went to school with black children, their neighbors, when in the USA that was something that nobody would ever consider. There were many liberal professionals in Cuba who were black, before Castro.
But maybe you're not gonna hear that from many people....

Anonymous said...

Carlos Miller,

The LAST election proved that unlike the Republicons, the Demorats paid their Diebold retainer. Remember? The Demorats won, helooooooo?

carlos Miller said...

If you look at the history of the Irish in the United States, you can see they were discriminated against almost as bad as blacks. They were considered just a step above blacks.

This is one reason why a group of Irish immigrants, who were drafted into the Mexican-American War during the mid-1800s, ended up crossing lines and joining the Mexican army.

The Irish had been repressed for so long by the English, then to come here and be repressed by Americans, these Irish just said, Fuck it, and joined the Mexicans. They were not going to escape persecution only to persecute others.

Their leader was Captain O'Reilly, who is considered a hero in Mexico, although you never hear about that story in this country. They were called Los San Patricios and they fought under the Irish flag.

The Irish, because of their skin color, were able to overcome this discrimination and assimilate until one of them became president.

Perhaps New England high society might regard blacks and Hispanics as "exotic" but because many of them are descendants of the persecuted Irish, they are also more tolerant and compassionate about other races than say, the south.

This is one reason why the Northeast, and especially Boston, is very liberal. Another reason are the Jews, who were also persecuted throughout history and also have a sense of compassion for other cultures who are discriminated against.

Although I'm not Irish, I spent 18 months in Dublin and developed a strong bond with the Old Country. They were some of the most hospitable people I have ever encountered in my travels, and I've done a lot of traveling.

Their literary and musical contributions to the world rival most countries several times larger than them.

The Cubans in Cuba also rank very high as hospitable people even though they don't have much. Many Cubans, are of course, blood relatives of the Irish because many are descendant from Galicia, which was a Celtic settlement.

That's the beauty of traveling. To find the connections rather than the differences.

Whatever you want to say about Ted Kennedy, you can't deny he has always stood up for the less privileged whether they be black, white or Hispanic.

There is no country on our side of the world that has such an ugly, racist history as the United States.

That probably has much to do with the fact that this country was settled by Northern Europeans rather than Southern Europeans, who were in closer proximity to Africa - not to mention that Spain was under Moorish rule for several centuries.

So rather than kill the Indians off, the Spaniards and Portugese interbred with them and created families. Yes, there was and still is a class distinction because of this, but it wasn't as bad as it was here where they were just wiped out.

Anyway, what is so wrong with free healthcare and free education? A country that invests in its people invests in itself. A healthy, educated population is only going to benefit the country as a whole.

This is not communism. This is just common sense.

And we could surely use a band like RATM with Zach de La Rocha now, more than ever.

Carlos Miller said...

Anon,

I meant to say the 2004 election because even though the dems won, they haven't done shit. This is why I call myself a liberal, not a democrat.

But the dems did win in such overwhelming manner that Diebold was unable to do anything.

Not that they didn't try. Or at least ES&S did, which is one of the three republican sponsoring voting machines in this country that are running our elections.

Just read this story about Sarasota.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/11/cbsnews_investigates/main2174376.shtml

For more info on the matter, read my blog post:

http://carlosmiller.com/2008/01/06/democracy-in-the-21st-century/

Charlie Bravo said...

Carlos, the problem is that in Cuba, free health care and free education don't exist. That's why when Tom Morello started lecturing Cubans in Cuba about free health care, and free education, the Cubans got pretty enraged at him. One of them shouted that he had paid dearly with his personal liberties, and that all was a scam.
About Celtic, I know about that, since my gene map gets a bunch for over there, as well... like many Cubans as you say.
Before Castro, education was free too.
I still have somewhere the "boletas de matricula" of my father, and he paid only 15 pesos (15 dollars of 1956) to cover all the courses and lectures of the academic year 1955-1956. Most Cubans his age are the product of the Cuban public education system guaranteed by first the constitution of the republic in Arms (the first independence war) and then by the constitution of 1940. Needless to say, that one could go for free -there are documents probably in the internet- of people whose fees would be waved for economic necessity or for exceptional grades. Castro himself benefited of this system, and there's a museum in Cuba where they have all his receipts for his law school tuition: the total was $60 pesos, since he did one year free.
By the way, I was looking for a good fisheye lens for my Canon Rebel, but I found are kind of expensive, any suggestion?

carlos Miller said...

If you have a Canon Rebel, you need to be aware of the 1.6x crop factor, which, in my opinion, would not give you the true advantage of a Fisheye.

It would turn a 15 mm lens into 25 mm lens.

I don't own a fisheye, but I do own a 20 mm lens and when I switched from film to digital several years ago, I bought a 10D, which at the time, was the shit.

But the crop factor always annoyed me because I was suddenly my wide-angle lens was 32mm, instead of 20mm.

I like wide angles because my style of PJ is to get up in people's faces. Yes, it gets me in trouble, but I've never been one to sit back with a telephoto lens to capture the action. I like to be in the action.

So now I own two 5Ds and they have the full frame, so my wide angle is 20 mm again.

As far as buying lenses go, I believe in buying all Canon even though they are more expensive than Sigma.

There's an old saying in the business. Spend the money and buy the good lens and cry once. Or save the money and buy the cheaper lens and cry every time you take a picture.

I'd rather cry once.

I'm not sure what you would be using a fisheye for, but it's not one of those lenses you use everyday. I would recommend buying a full-frame camera before buying a fisheye, or you can buy the fisheye with the intention of eventually getting the full-frame.

Having said all that, this lens has gotten good reviews. And yes, it is pricey. But you'll have sharp, clear glass to capture those tears.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=12069&is=USA&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

jimbuie:

You have a very low threshhold for "vicious political attack." Feelings passionately expressed, with the full resources that language and knowledge of history can command, are hardly "vicious" (depraved, defective, malicious); but, rather, shock us because they are imbued with something that is very rare in political discourse today — sincerity. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were far from civil. At times they were downright crude on both sides. But they were also a forthright expression of the political philosophies of both candidates, something which no candidate from either party would dare attempt today even in the most politically-correct language.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Carlos:

Irish conscripts in the Mexican-American War, who were literally taken from the very emigrant ships as they docked in U.S. harbors, deserted in mass numbers to the other side because they objected to the desecration of Catholic churches in Mexico by American troops in a war which Abraham Lincoln, from the floor of the House of Representatives, declared to be the most unjust in human history.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Charlie:

You are right. Tuition at the University of Havana in the 1950s was $50 per year. This sum was reduced or eliminated altogether according to a student's particular financial needs. Every year a special subsidy was approved by Congress and signed by the president which covered the cost of tuition for most university students.

Today, of course, when education is supposedly "free" in Cuba, students are obliged to perform thousands of hours of unpaid "national service" in the course of acquiring their degrees and, upon graduation, must be available to serve as indentured servants abroad before they can return home and accept a job from the State which pays less than a gig as a taxi driver. If a Cuban wants to put his degree to a practical use by moving abroad (supposing this is allowed) then he must reimburse the regime for the full cost of his education or it will not issue transcripts or any other documents attesting to the legitimacy of the degree. I do not say this, of course, for your benefit, because you are better acquainted with these facts than am I, but for American readers that may be following your discussion with Carlos.

Rene M. Grave de Peralta said...

There is no chance you can convince an American or even perhaps most Cuban-Americans that there was little or no racism in Cuba back in the fifties. Nor can you convince Latin Americans from countries with large indigenous populations. They can not conceive it as it goes contrary to their experience and their history.

From that experience and history and from their own ambivalence, if not suppressed inclinations, they extrapolate what they are sure must be the Cuban experience. They can not imagine a country so integrated, that the particular shade of the skin's pigment had roughly the same emotional impact as the color of the eyes or the persons height. Some impact, but not much.

My own experience is this; when I see a black person I notice it right away and there is a part of me that is aware I am in the presence of a black person, unless I happen to be among Cubans, or discover that the "black" person is Cuban. In that case, their color just vanishes, they are just a Cuban.

I have a little theory which says that the reason that this country became so racist is actually quite ironic. The American were actually more civilized and understood Christianity better than the Spaniards. They could see that enslaving a fellow human being was barbaric and unchristian. But they felt they had to have slaves, particularly in the South's agrarian economy. What to do? No problem, declare that the Africans weren't quite human. That, is the definition of Racism as opposed to just plain prejudice. The Spaniards on the other hand, had an older concept of slavery and had no problem enslaving their fellow human beings. A further irony is that this led to more humane treatment in that families were not broken up like you would break up a family of pigs or cattle, their culture (including their music) was not taken away and their language survived and all of it became a huge part of Cuban culture. Even their religion survived, in spite of the powerful Catholic Church's efforts.

As far as Obama being like Kennedy, well, he does have that quality to get people excited and hopeful. He's not quite as good as Kennedy was (no "ask not what your country can do for you" speech yet), but he does remind me of Kennedy in that way. But that skill or quality can be used for good or ill. History is replete with charismatic leaders that did their countries little good and even led them to destruction. My problem with Obama, is that I have no idea what he really stands for, as he is too new to the scene.

And Frank? The Summer Wind is still one of my all time favorites.

Rene M. Grave de Peralta said...

Oh and my dad went to the University of Havana, then went to Law School and became a judge. Before he became a judge, we didn't have a pot to piss in (o.k. we did have a pot to piss in, but not much more), so I know it must have been free or pretty damn cheap.

Charlie Bravo said...

Thanks Carlos, advice taken, I was tending to steer away from the cheap.... but your assertion confirm what I was thinking!

an average patriot said...

No wonder you had such a good comment. Just wanted you to see my reply to you and see which Blog is your flagship so I can monitor your concerns!
Anyway manuel
Before Obama announced his intention I discussed him running on Kos, Then I thought he was a good man for the job but needed more training.
However, today knowing he is not stupid I know he will listen to all the good advice around him not before he ignores it as bush the decider does, but knowing a good Commender is only as good as the leaders he surrounds himself with, he will listen.
As you read though it is a monstrous concern of mine that there are interests on the right that will not allow a Black in office and thus the excuse will be provided for Bush to declare martial Law and stay at the helm of his created new (dis)order Forever Wars.

Carlos Miller said...

Rene,

I was born and raised in a Cuban neighborhood in Miami. All my friends were Cubans.

Growing up, the one thing I learned is that Cubans are racist against blacks. Not necessarily my friends because kids are naturally non-racist. Kids just seek out kids their age.

But their parents were racist. I'm not talking about donning hoods and burning crosses type racism. It was much more subtle and non-violent than that, but it was still there.

And they had more of an issue with African Americans than with black Cubans however, I remember back during Mariel, one of the biggest complaints from the local Cubans about the new Cubans was that many of them were black, not to mention that a few of them were criminally insane.

These prejudices were more prevalent within the older generations of Cubans than the new generation of Cubans, and it probably doesn't make them any more unique than whites-skinned people of any country during that era.

But there is absolutely no comparison between the racism among Cubans to the racism historically in the United States.

A Thought said...

Politicians come down, put on a guayabera and claim how they are going to get rid of Castro. That is the last you ever hear of it.

In my opinion, neither one of the current political parties in this country is up to snuff. They have completely lost touch with the American people and are basically walking photo ops.

The infatuation with this country of anyone whose last name is Kennedy needs to stop. Jacqueline Kennedy was taught to look pretty and marry well; she did both to the best of her ability. JFK got to political office through his daddy's machinations that were fueled with illegal booze money. And we still have Ted; more irrelevant as the years pass. The only reason he is there is because of his last name.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

A.T.:

The Kennedys are the "royalty" that America deserves. Plebeians can be as bad at kingcraft as those to the purple born.

And welcome again to RCAB. Many will surely remember you as a distinguished contributor and voice of sanity on Oscar Corral's now-extinct Miami's Cuban Connection.

A thought said...

Thank you for the warm welcome! It took me a while to come back simply because of the holidays, etc. But I cannot be without my voices of reason in this otherwise insane city for very long....