Une idée préconçue, mais pas dénuée de fondements, compte tenu de l'histoire des Etats-Unis et des discriminations raciales qui transparaissent dans des inégalités sociales plus importantes que jamais. Aux Etats-Unis, un quart des Noirs vit sous le seuil de pauvreté, contre 8% chez les Blancs. En 2008, 70% des Afro-américains s'estimaient victimes de discriminations raciales, contre 60% en 2000 (source: BBC).

Selon toute vraissemblance, donc, Barack Obama pourrait perdre l'élection à cause de sa couleur de peau, en dépit de son avance dans les sondages, dopé par les effets de la crise financière internationale, à maintenant vingt-sept jours du scrutin présidentiel américain. Comme si il y'avait une sorte de barrière infranchissable pour l'électorat américain, barrière à laquelle celui-ci se butera, une fois dans la solitude de l'isoloir...Un handicap racial pour le candidat démocrate qui relève toutefois plus du pressentiment que du fait quantifiable. Jusqu'à cette étude de l'Université de Stanford, citée la semaine dernière par un éditorialiste du New York Times.

Handicap racial

Selon ces travaux, si le sénateur de l'Illinois était Blanc, il gagnerait 6% des voix. Un pourcentage "significatif, mais pas insurmontable", selon l'éditorialiste du NYTimes. Evidemment, en la matière, on marche sur des oeufs, car le racisme est de toutes façons "difficile à mesurer" , l'autocensure chez les sondés étant très forte sur ce genre de questions. Et, de toutes façons, ceux qui se considèrent ouvertement racistes (10%, selon l'enquête de l'Université de Stanford), "ne voteraient pour aucun candidat démocrate", fût-il Blanc ou Noir. Les partisans d'Hillary Clinton, persuadés que leur candidate serait plus à même de vaincre John Mc Cain, forte de son succès chez les "petits Blancs" du Midwest ou des Etats industriels de la "rust belt", se seraient-ils trompés? On serait tentés de répondre oui, tant le chiffrage du "handicap racial" d'Obama nous incite à minorer la question raciale dans la balance électorale.

Cependant, toujours selon les conclusions de l'étude, Barack Obama se trouve confronté à un phénomène plus complexe encore, avec ce paradoxe: "La plupart des voix qui lui manquent sont celles de Blancs bien intentionnés qui croient en l'égalité des droits et ne voient aucune objection dans le fait d'élire un Noir président des Etats-Unis", écrit-il.

L'étude suggère qu'il existerait une sorte de "racisme sans racistes", opéré de manière inconsciente:

"Des expériences ont démontré que même des Blancs qui soutiennent sincèrement l'égalité des droits vont recommander l'embauche d'un Blanc plus souvent qu'un Noir aux qualifications identiques".

Et dans une campagne marquée par un afflux de messages quotidiens, de sous-entendus et d'attaques souvent dures, difficile pour l'électeur de percevoir les deux candidats de façon claire, sans aucune ambiguité. Or, c'est, selon les chercheurs, dans ce genre de situation que la "discrimination inconsciente" peut jouer à plein:

"Si un candidat Noir à un quelconque job est hautement qualifié, il n'y a pas de discrimination. Cependant, dans une situation plus confuse, où des personnes raisonnables peuvent être en désaccord, la discrimination inconsciente peut jouer un rôle majeur".

Et dans le cadre de la campagne électorale, le racisme "inconscient" peut s'insinuer dans certains doutes que portent les électeurs envers un candidat, comme le manque d'expérience, leur permettant ainsi de s'affranchir de tout soupçons.

I am aware of one socialist party with two different names but one of which was assimilated by ACORN and the other established by ACORN. The first of these two parties is "New Party" and the second of the parties is "Working Families Party".
The first socialist party is centered in Chicago and the second in New York State.

In Chicago, The New Party placed at least one candidate onto the Board of Aldermen. I exposed this in my first article, Obama's ACORN. The goal of this party is to place members on city councils and even the presidency to destroy the country/system as we know it from within. Make no mistake Obama knows who and what this party is about. Read about Obama and New Party here at Red State. An excerpt from Red State in their piece titled, "Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996":

The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.) Read more about The New Party here from their own website:

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

Here is an excerpt from "Obama and the New Party" at Red State:

In 1995, the New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

“Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics -- until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”

Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

And now Obama has the endorsement of the Working Families Partyin New York state. Read about the Working Families Party from their website here. It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a link to the Working Families Party on the New Party website. Why should there be no surprise? Because they are basically one and the same organization. And to make things worse they are both outcroppings of ACORN. Remember above in the Red State article they described how ACORN assimilated the New Party.

Are these parties dangerous? They want do more than make an Open Ballot System....See this from their website:

WFP in Other States
The Working Families Party was founded in New York, but now we’re on the move.

In 2002, our first sister party was born next door, the Connecticut Working Families Party.

We’re building WFPs in Oregon, South Carolina, and Delaware too.

Expanding Fusion to Other States: the Open Ballot Voting Project

The Working Families Party requires people who support their cause to sing a pledge. It isn't a stretch to believe they require the politicians they endorse to require a similar signed pledge just as the New Party did. So the short and long of it, Obama has signed a pledge simply stating he is a "socialist".

It is time for the American electorate to open their eyes .... if Obama gets into the White House, ACORN wins. Their socialist policies win. And they will destroy our system of government from within. (Read about their efforts in New York State here in this piece from the New York Times.) Remember with Obama it is buyer beware!

"Among other provisions added in the Senate was a tax break for movie and television production companies that shoot films in the United States. While some lawmakers denounced this as a pet project, Mr. Coble [R - NC] said it was important to his state. The Civil War epic film “Cold Mountain,” he recalled, may have been set in North Carolina but it was filmed in Romania."

...

"As the Senate resurrected the legislation, Mr. Burgess [R-TX] agonized. He was seen by some Republicans as a potential switcher. He recognized that some provisions in the bill, including one that would extend a tax credit for production of wind energy, could help constituents. “We are the No. 1 wind-producing state,” Mr. Burgess said."

That was about as close as they got to a bribery investigation in the article, but it certainly is a good example of how taxpayer money is used to lubricate the spending ... more taxpayer money.  Whether the cause itself is good or bad, the process of attaching it to a larger bill with little to no debate being applied to the smaller point is certainly poor governance.

When explaining his votes against the bill both times in Congress, Jose Serrano D-NY:

"He said the White House predictions that an economic calamity would occur without the bailout had aroused his skepticism. “I know a hustle,” he said. “And I know a hustler.”"

This was a great example about how the boy who cried wolf has damaged the traditional value of the executive: Aside from using bribery and threats, the executive no longer has power to shift Congress.  I personally thought that President Bush's sorry address to the nation prior to the Senate bill passing was a deathknell for the bill by bringing up all the negative associations with his previous Boogie Man addresses.  Of course, I didn't expect $150 billion of lubricant to be added to the bill, in all my cynicism.  I was expecting thoe usual <10% Congressional commission.

"“All that [tax reductions for the middle class and Texans] is important to me,” he [Michael C. Burgess] said. “But at what price? Does it mean I have to vote for this $700 billion bailout, I mean, ‘rescue’ bill? Seven hundred billion dollars is still a problem for me. I’d like to see us do something more judicious.”"

What is fascinating is what isn't mentioned in the article, and what I had always thought was the primary responsibility of Congress:  Originating bills rather than amending Henry Paulson's.  Burgess begs for a better bill but doesn't seem to suggest he's in the power to contribute to the origination of one (credit to him for even inviting a third option, as the popular phrasing has been "Death or TARP" for the most part).  Albeit none of these Congressmen, to the best of my knowledge, are members of their parties leadership, it is sad to hear that not one stressed that they were against this bailout bill in particular, as opposed to the very concept of intervening.

"Over the last week, his [Jim Cooper, D-TN] office received thousands of calls and e-mail messages, a volume rivaled only by the 1993 debate over gays in the military, his aides said."

How about that for national priorities!  $700 billion (more, actually) to be spent on a hopeless attempt at saving the financial system, under threat of worldwide economic failure... About on par with the idea of a dude checking out another dude's junk in the shower.

"In conference calls and meetings with fellow Democratic moderates, Mr. Cooper told his colleagues that they had no choice but to vote for the package. “I said we’ve got to take a deep breath and put this into perspective,” he said. “What is the most important thing here? It’s saving the economy...” Mr. Cooper said the plunge [in car sales and it's effect on Tennessee's economy] was largely because of increased difficulty in getting car loans. Fears in the credit market, he said, threaten to devastate businesses and local banks."

Before Mr. Cooper decided to vote 'yes' on the bill, I would have loved to hear his explanation as to how the TARP was going to help people get car loans.  Or keep their jobs to pay for and qualify for their car loans.  I'm not saying that the TARP necessarily won't (though I think it won't at all, I'm willing to hear an argument in its favour), I'm really just interested in knowing if this very powerful man actually put that minimal level of thought in relating his desires to the legislation in front of him before voting for it.

I wish I had more answers from the articles than questions, but I am glad to see Congressmen eager to defend their actions and actually act like they're accountable to their constituents, even if they are (of course) less forthcoming that I would wish.

... and the cow goes moo

by Olesya Vartanyan & Ellen Barry
New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/world/europe/07russia.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
October 7, 2008

KARALETI, Georgia - Russia accused the Georgian government on Monday of “seeking to provoke new hostilities” even as Russian peacekeepers were dismantling key checkpoints outside the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Authorities in Abkhazia said that an Abkhaz border guard was killed Monday in an exchange of fire with gunmen on the Georgian side. On Friday, a car bomb in the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, killed eight Russian soldiers and three Ossetian civilians.

Russia has said Georgia is responsible for these attacks and three others in the disputed territories in recent days. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, made a formal appeal to his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, on Monday, asking the European Union to “take necessary measures to stabilize the situation in keeping with its commitments.”

A peace deal brokered by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France had set this Friday as the deadline for Russian troops to withdraw from the buffer zones outside the enclaves.

Shota Utiashvili, a senior official at Georgia’s Interior Ministry, denied any Georgian involvement in the attacks, saying that Georgia opposed any delay in the withdrawal.

“This a completely absurd accusation,” he said.

In Karaleti, a village two miles north of Gori, ethnic Georgians passed freely through a Russian checkpoint where soldiers were busy winding up barbed wire, washing their clothes and packing their possessions.

A local farmer, Vitaly Shavshishvili, 34, had heard the Russians were leaving, but he wanted to see for himself. Though Karaleti has been peaceful, he said, his neighbors were afraid to leave their homes after dark, and he prayed for the return of the Georgian police.

In the aftermath of the August war between the countries, he said, his harvest of fruits and vegetables had rotted on the vine, costing him about $3,500, which he had hoped would last him a whole year. “Now we have hope only in God,” he said. “We have nothing to survive.”

Galina Gogiashvili, 68, who passed the checkpoint on a donkey cart, said she thought she would never feel safe in her home again. Even the returning Georgian authorities scared her.

“At least they should give us all guns, so we can defend ourselves,” she said.

Russian troops have been dismantling checkpoints for days, under the watch of some 200 European Union observers who began patrols in the buffer zone last week. Maj. Gen. Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, said early Monday that the six southernmost posts would be removed within 24 hours.

But the authorities in Abkhazia said that a border guard had been fatally wounded in a gunfight in the village of Nabakevi, near the border with Georgia. Military officials in Abkhazia also said a convoy of retreating peacekeepers had narrowly escaped being wounded in an explosion.

In a statement, Russia’s Foreign Ministry blamed Georgia for the attacks. “The impression is that some forces in Tbilisi, who oppose the normal and smooth transition of functions in the security zones in South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Russian peacekeepers to European Union observers, are deliberately trying to escalate tensions and seeking to provoke new hostilities through a series of terrorist acts,” the statement read.

But Mr. Utiashvili, the Georgian official, said that “there was no shootout with Georgian forces,” and that Georgia had no role in any attacks.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe also protested allegations printed in the Russian news media that the car that exploded in Tskhinvali on Friday had traveled into the area as part of an O.S.C.E. convoy. Ambassador Terhi Hakala, head of the organization’s mission to Georgia, said she was “outraged” at the report.

“The spreading of untruthful propaganda about the mission — which includes several previous entirely false accounts connected with O.S.C.E. staff and premises — is a serious matter, endangers O.S.C.E. personnel and may be taken as a signal of unwillingness on the part of those responsible to work constructively,” she said.

It's been a long time since Indiana has drawn a lot of attention in a presidential contest. But Mr. Obama is looking very seriously to this Midwest state, testimony to demographics that his campaign says makes it receptive to a Democrat — and some early polls suggest he might have a chance here.

So far so good. Here is my challenge for you, my dear friends in Bloomington: Make it happen! Paint Indiana blue. That would be awesome. Totally.

BTW: pollster.com just recently released interactive graphs for every state---pretty sweet, if you ask me. Take (e.g.) a look at the Map for Indiana. (Somehow, I was unable to embed the graph.)

BTW 2.0: I'm sick. You might ask: what else is new!? Well, I'm really sick---you know: fever and stuff...

The online game that Mr. Haarsma designed not only extends the fictional world of the novel, it also allows readers to play in it. At the same time, Mr. Haarsma very calculatedly gave gamers who might not otherwise pick up a book a clear incentive to read: one way that players advance is by answering questions with information from the novel.

“You can’t just make a book anymore,” said Mr. Haarsma, a former advertising consultant. Pairing a video game with a novel for young readers, he added, “brings the book into their world, as opposed to going the other way around.”

Mr. Haarsma is not the only one using video games to spark an interest in books. Increasingly, authors, teachers, librarians and publishers are embracing this fast-paced, image-laden world in the hope that the games will draw children to reading.

Spurred by arguments that video games also may teach a kind of digital literacy that is becoming as important as proficiency in print, libraries are hosting gaming tournaments, while schools are exploring how to incorporate video games in the classroom. In New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is supporting efforts to create a proposed public school that will use principles of game design like instant feedback and graphic imagery to promote learning.

Publishers, meanwhile, are rushing to get in on the action. Scholastic, the American publisher of the Harry Potter series, recently released “The Maze of Bones,” the first installment in a 10-book mystery series that is tied to a Web-based game.

In advance of the publication of “Brisingr,” the third book in the best-selling “Inheritance” fantasy series by Christopher Paolini, Random House Children’s Books commissioned an online game. About 51,000 people have signed up since June to play and chat on message boards on the site.

But doubtful teachers and literacy experts question how effective it is to use an overwhelmingly visual medium to connect youngsters to the written word. They suggest that while a handful of players might be motivated to pick up a book, many more will skip the text and go straight to the game. Others suggest that video games detract from the experience of being wholly immersed in a book.

Some researchers, though, say that even when children don’t read much text, they are picking up skills that can help them thrive in a visually oriented digital world. And some educational experts suggest that video games still stimulate reading in blogs and strategy guides for players.

Motoko Rich
New York Times

I paraphrase here... but the real Mavericks, active in politics as they have been, have a history of advocation of civil liberties, accusations of Communism thrown at them, and anti-war stances. And their thoughts on McCain wanting to call himself a "Maverick"? Terrellita Maverick says McCain “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”

You betcha.

I think John James Audubon's illustrations are fascinating and beautiful.

In case you don't have time to watch it, here's a brief paraphrase:

Interviewer: Why are you such a negative jerk?

Palin: It's the New York Times' fault for bringing up Ayers in the first place. Barack, we hardly know ya!

Interviewer: So you think the public should learn a lot about the candidates?

Palin: That's what campaigns are "all about."

I don't know how she says this stuff with a straight face. Either the NYT is good or its bad. If it's bad, it's because it investigates a candidate's past. But if it's good, it's because it investigates a candidate's past. So it's good and bad. Logic, we hardly know ya!

The rich irony in all of this, of course, is that Palin herself is like a politician of another land: Russia. Her every move is designed to evade and control the media and her supporters. We're familiar with her refusal to talk to the media. But what about refusing to let people at her rally talk to the media? It happened in Clearwater.

The two party system in this country encourages mindless voting based on party loyalty, but Democrats are notoriously fickle and ornery (as in the Hillary-loving, Obama-hating PUMAs) while Republicans love to close ranks against their enemies. Remember odious drinking straw and political pundit Anne Coulter claiming she'd support Hillary, her arch nemesis, if McCain got the nomination of her beloved party?

Didn't happen.

Republicans are such robots that, regarding Sarah Palin, they have actually managed to convince themselves that up is down and ignorance is strength. When presented with a microphone the Republican Vox Populi Stultorum spontaneously begin to speak in talking points and obvious untruths.

I just heard a lady on NPR say that Sarah Palin has "really energized her" (talking point) and that she's "just such a class act" (obvious untruth).

Actually Sarah "Tanning Bed In The Governor's Mansion" Palin's act being categorized as one of "class" is so offensively and hideously wrong that it utterly demolishes the mere true/false dichotomy of conventional logic and confirms the existence of an omnipotent deity.

To sum up: these people would vote for the neighbor who poisoned their dog and fed it to them at a dinner party as long as he was a Republican.

Next step: world domination.

Or, you know, my life pretty much stays the same. Likelier, but less exciting.

PS. You should read that blog. It's pretty incredible.

One of my professors from last year is quoted in this article!  Love me some Alan Rosenthal: In Governors' Races, the Emphasis is Local, Not National

Dad (and all baseball fans), you'll love this: To Their Adoring Fans, Older Stadiums Feel Like Home

A Union soldier was shot...in 2008: A Rebel Soldier's Aim Is Still Pretty Accurate, but His Timing Is Off

The derivation of the word (and the name) MAVERICK: Who You Callin' a Maverick

Manhattan's Marriage Bureau: Drab Setting, but Joyous Work

Basically a summary of my American Political Humor class in an article: Laugh, or the World Laughs at You

Finally, (and not from the Times), Phylan helped me find the most eye-opening guide to a college campus I've ever seen: Bob Jones University's General Expectations, Dress Code and finally the unbelievable Residence Hall Life.  Wow.

Obama smear machine targets Andy Martin

Obama’s presidential campaign attacks Andy Martin as Hawaii investigation opens

ANDY MARTIN

Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

“MAN BITES DOG” STORY AS BARACK OBAMA’S MUD MERCHANTS TARGET ANDY MARTIN

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS LIBERAL RAGE AT ANDY MARTIN’S COMMENTS ON FOX NEWS’ “HANNITY’S AMERICA”

ANDY PREDICTS THAT SEAN HANNITY’S PROGRAM ON OBAMA’S RADICAL ASSOCIATIONS IS AND WILL REMAIN THE MOST IMPORTANT OPINION BROADCAST OF THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN

“OPERATION ALOHA OBAMA” IN HAWAII: 8 DAYS AWAY!

(NEW YORK)(October 7, 2008) Over the weekend Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin sharpened their attacks on Senator Barack Obama’s associations with radicals such as mad bomber William Ayers of Chicago. According to a report in the New York Times Tuesday, Democrats retaliated by launching “strong attacks” on ContrarianCommentary.com’s Andy Martin. What? Who the hell is Andy Martin? To be attacked by Barack Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/politics/07fox.html

Why has Obama author Andy Martin [see below, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask] suddenly become a topic in the New York Times and the target of liberal Democratic attacks? Is the silly season early, or is there something more sinister afoot?

Why does what happened Sunday night on Fox News have the hard left in American politics “strongly attacking” Andy Martin?

A “dog-bites-man” story is not news. Dogs bite. But a “man-bites-dog” story is news, because people don’t usually bite dogs. Obama’s attacks on Martin were a man-bites-dog moment. When a presidential campaign stoops to persuade the newspaper of record, the New York Times, to focus on Andy Martin’s appearance on Sean Hannity’s program, something unusual has happened.

We know why Obama would target Sean Hannity. But Andy Martin? What’s next? A marriage proposal from Rachel Maddow? (No snickering and no Keith Olbermann jokes).

First, some context. Although the Times’ Jim Rutenberg repeated the false catechism about Obama (he hardly knew Bill Ayers, never was a Muslim, blah, blah) he did report my comments on Hannity’s program accurately. Rutenberg also disclosed that “liberals” were attacking me with 25 year-old falsehoods from a lawsuit where I was never even a party.

I don’t intend to dignify the false accusations lodged against me any further, except to say that I exposed a federal judge in Connecticut, Jose Cabranes, as a cocaine addict and crook, and he retaliated by making false accusations against me. I had the last laugh, however, because I blocked Cabranes from reaching the U. S. Supreme Court.

Obviously, if Obama has to reach back 25 years to hurl falsehoods against me he has nothing more current to undermine my credibility. I will accept Obama’s mudslinging as a compliment to my integrity, and suggest he hire new mud merchants.

Now to the crux of what happened Sunday night, because something very serious did take place to trigger Obama’s burst of bile.

First, kudos to Sean Hannity. Sean and I don’t always agree but the stars aligned Sunday night for us to perform a rare public service for every American. Hannity produced a courageous program that sought to put Obama’s lifetime of radicalism in context. Sean Hannity is one courageous broadcaster and, on the matter of Barack Obama, one insightful commentator.

Now me. I have been the pathfinder on Barack Obama for over four years. When I began, all we had was Obama’s lies. We had his “autobiography,” Dreams From My Father, which was nothing more than a fictional work. I had to hack a pathway through the forest of Obama’s evasions and prevarications. And I succeeded. Bit by bit, I built an assemblage of facts, a pathway that others coming behind me would follow. More importantly, like a crash investigator trying to paste fragments of shattered metal on a model of a downed airplane, I began to assemble the facts into coherent patterns, and then larger and larger assemblages.

All of my work came together on Hannity’s program Sunday night.

Last month I began to assemble the patterns and associations involving Obama’s lifetime of radicalism and pieced them together. I may not be 100% right, but I am not 100% wrong either. ContrarianCommentary.com produced the first Ayers-Obama-Al Mansour timeline, from California (Al Mansour) to Columbia (Ayers and Obama) to Chicago. Suddenly all of these disparate and disconnected factoids assembled into a coherent picture.

Rutenberg correctly quoted me that “I don't pretend to be an exclusively fact-based reporter, though I try as hard as I can to get to the facts.” Indeed. I am not a “reporter” assembling facts for a morning newspaper. I am an analyst and expert opinion columnist. I take “facts” that may or may not make sense in isolation, and I analyze them until patterns emerge and conclusions are apparent.

Using these time-tested techniques from Viet-Nam to Iraq, I have consistently been ahead of the news curve with “early warning” analysis of problems, and with advance notice of developing patterns. I don’t know if Mr. Ayers would like the analogy, but I am like a “Weatherman” who predicts the weather long in advance using the best information available, and as that information changes and evolves. Since all of my commentary is published under my name, I have a track record you can check. A track record of accuracy, independence and integrity.

And Sunday night Sean Hannity allowed me to tell a national audience about the developing patterns I saw in Barack Obama's life, in his career, and in a potential presidency if he were elected. I drew a line from Ayers-to-Obama-to-Chavez and Castro and, yes, that was a hard line. But a correct one. Obama's authoritarian tendencies are carefully shielded from public view. But they do emerge from time to time. Someone recently said Obama has a first class mind. He does. But he has a flawed psyche.

Barack Obama’s ideology is a dagger pointed at American democracy. I do not step back one inch from that belief, which I am confident is an informed and impartial belief.

Perhaps in an attempt to make me appear partisan, Rutenberg mentioned I was a Republican. That’s true. But when I write columns and commentary, I write impartially, not as a partisan for any campaign or cause. I skewer Republicans as often as Democrats. I have never had any contact with any presidential campaign and I scrupulously keep away from them. My ethics are at least as high as those at the Washington Post or New York Times. My opinions are my own. I have been on three (count ‘em) presidential or presidential candidate enemies’ lists, of both parties, spanning five (5) decades. I must be doing something right. And I must be an honest man.

For the first time Sunday night, a national audience got to see an informed analysis of all of the bits and pieces about Obama that are floating in the air, but which have never been pasted on the airplane (political) model of our democracy. That is why Obama panicked. Finally, he was exposed.

How the New York Times can report that the newspaper has “found no evidence that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers were particularly close,” when they jointly administered a $100 million plus radical slush fund which they dispensed together in Chicago, is beyond me. The Times is entitled to its own opinions. The paper is not entitled to its own version of the facts (Keith and Rachel are another case entirely; they are entitled to their own world.)

Likewise, how the Times can repeat that Obama was never a Muslim, when he was obviously a Muslim until the age of ten, is another false “fact” that the Times shamelessly regurgitates as one of Obama's lies.

Some Americans are anxious to elect a black president. They are willing to cut corners to do so. I am not. I am anxious to see that we elect the best man (or woman) in dangerous times. I have no particular hatred for Barack Obama, and no particular favor for John McCain. But as a matter of analysis with integrity, and analysis with impartiality and nonpartisanship, Seam Hannity and I have it all over the New York Times. That is why I believe that Sean’s program Sunday night could just, might just become the most important TV program of the presidential campaign.

Hannity and I did something rare in journalism today: Sean was very courageous, and I was very truthful. That is why the hard left went into a paroxysm and why someone such as myself who is an Internet columnist suddenly found himself targeted by liberals at the New York Times. Hannity and I told the truth. The Emperor Obama has no clothes (or wears radical garb if you prefer).

I will do a little bit of invented dialogue:

Good night Sean (from Andy).

And good night Andy (from Sean).

We will sleep well, knowing we put principles above expediency, and told the truth about a dangerous man who very much wants to be president of the United States. And should not be.

And now you know “the rest of the story.” Good day. (And a tip of the hat to my Chicagoan neighbor Paul Harvey.)

(Good night, Sean.)

[BEGINNING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH: ANDY MARTIN SPEARHEADS AN OBAMA INVESTIGATION IN HAWAII]

---------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or the publisher now available.
---------------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I recently decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and became Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I became the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am not a member of any political organization. The views expressed are entirely independent. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my news and opinion columns for ContrarianCommentary.com. /s/ Andy Martin
----------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."
The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or cell (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Everyone's calling themselves a maverick these days. According to the NY Times, the Maverick family is fuming:

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

Every time we hear it we think, drink! And it makes us happy. Simple solution. Revisiting this post will remind you that a maverick is "an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party." So, McCain's stunt is an excuse to drink away the obvious tension between popular democracy and the actual term maverick as used in election politics. Thanks, blogosphere.

October 6, 2008

Companies Unlikely to Use Arbitration With Each Other

By JONATHAN D. GLATER

Corporate executives routinely sing the praises of arbitration clauses, the language buried in the fine print of contracts for mobile phones or credit cards, for example, that typically bars a consumer from going to court in the event of a dispute.

“Arbitration is an efficient, effective, and less expensive means of resolving disputes for consumers, employers, investors, employees and franchisees, in addition to the many businesses that use the same system to resolve business disputes,” more than a dozen business trade groups wrote in a letter to Congress in May.

Now three law professors suggest that companies are far less likely to use arbitration clauses in contracts with each other than they are in contracts with consumers.

“I believe they’re really using arbitration as a way of avoiding class action litigation,” said Theodore Eisenberg, a law professor at Cornell. Because it is not worth it to a single upset consumer to sue a big company, he said, “the only thing those companies fear is your having a plaintiffs’ lawyer aggregate you and people like you into a class action.”

Arbitration provisions are a controversial topic, although it is fair to say they are getting less attention right now in light of the current financial turmoil. But legislation limiting their use in nursing home contracts is working its way through Congress and on Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case about the enforceability of arbitration agreements.

The findings by Professor Eisenberg, whose co-authors on the most recent study were Geoffrey P. Miller of New York University School of Law and Emily Sherwin of Cornell Law School, might prove provocative. Their study, which was described in an article this summer in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, included contracts by 21 different telecommunications and financial services companies.

They found that companies included mandatory arbitration clauses in 75 percent of consumer agreements but in just 24 percent of contracts over all. Every consumer contract with an arbitration clause also waived possible group, or class, arbitration.

In prior studies, they found that companies used arbitration clauses in just 11 percent of contracts with other companies, Professor Eisenberg said. Companies say that arbitration is “a fair and cost-saving process,” he continued. “If they believe that is true across the board, why don’t they insist on it when they contract with each other?”

The research drew on public companies’ regulatory disclosures of material contracts — those that, generally, would be of interest to investors — and that has fueled some of the criticism of the results.

“If it’s a big, important contract, then you don’t put in an arbitration clause,” said Stephen J. Ware, a law professor at the University of Kansas. A dispute over a significant contract may call for the costlier but more thorough litigation process, he said, while smaller contracts with consumers do not.

“It’s entirely possible that businesses are being consistent in using arbitration more for immaterial contracts than for material contracts,” said Professor Ware, who is working on an article critical of the conclusions reached by Mr. Eisenberg and his colleagues.

The particular industries that Professor Eisenberg looked at, Professor Ware said, also may affect the findings. The finance and telecommunications sectors are more likely to include arbitration requirements in consumer contracts than are other sectors, he said.

The research does not address the question of whether arbitration more often leads to results favoring consumers or whether the process benefits corporations. That is another hotly debated issue.

For starters, the Times' video page is atrocious. And when I use atrocious, I mean considering it is the New York Friggin Times. First, the search function is crap. How about using tags? The Times could stand to do this with their text stories too. For a company that has done a lot to improve its web presence, the lack of tags just baffles me??? This blog has tags, why can't the New York Times? People are used to tags for pictures and blog posts and sorting email, so if anything it would just be familiar.

The second problem, I have with the video page is why can't they tell you what video is the most popular? Or the one that has been shared the most? These are basic metrics at Youtube and other video sites, so why wouldn't the Times use this feature. At the Times, the Most Read story is a treasured possession for a writer. It apparently drives their coverage - according to what I've heard from people who have worked there, so why wouldn't they do the same with the video?

The third problem I have with Times videos is that they are for the most part boring. Watch this video from the New Hampshire primary and if you make it past a minute let me know. The Times and a lot of newspapers that are now trying to do video are making a huge mistake when they try to regurgitate a TV news broadcast. There's no need to put reporters on camera or to have their monotone voiceovers. There's no need to always have a steady camera and to do establishing shots. Most of my belief in what makes video good comes from a class I took with Michael Rosenblum. His basic belief is that journalistic video needs to be more entertaining and thematic. Tell a story, he says.

Now compare that Times video with a video I did of a small speech by Michelle Obama in New Hampshire. I had almost no idea that the speech was happening until we got there. I just started filming and then grabbed some interviews afterward. I know the technical aspects aren't as good and the sound could be better, but you tell me, which is more interesting.

Again, I'm not saying my video is shot better, but what tells a better story? And what doesn't sound like the 11 o'clock news?

Just some food for thought.

Oh, and they don't let you embed their videos either. That just doesn't make sense. Spread the brand. People will still see the commercials you embed.

Two cases in point:

William Kristol, The Wright Stuff from the New York Times

The conservative columnist's softball chat with the vice presidential wannabe received 525 comments, before turning off that option. Check out the ire oozing out of each comment, short and long.

Alexandra Marks, McCain seeks to shift race's focus from the Christian Science Monitor

Marks talks about the game changing McCain needs at this low-getting-lower point in the race for the White House. Check out the 61 comments that follow.

NY Times Deal book article describes the the current market environment for the Hedge Fund Industry.  A few points to be noted.

1. Increased number of redemption's , expect this trend to continue as high net wealth investors, FoF's, pension funds, endowments shift assets out of the hedge fund industry to go into cash or other alternative investments.

2. The de-leveraging of risk, many hedge funds utilize leverage as a method to enhance returns. Hedge Funds obtain the ability to leverage up through their prime brokers.  In a capital restrictive environment, some HF's won't be able to obtain the leverage necessary to obtain the same type of returns as in the past.

3. Increased volatility in the current market environment. The volatile market environment will be beneficial for hedge funds that able to capitalize in the choppy market environment.  This will also be a cause of the shakeout in the HF industry.

4. Assets being trapped in certain prime brokerage units, specifically Lehman Brothers. This is the smallest problem of all but still brings up the fact that counter party risk is an important consideration to be observed.

Expect the turmoil in the industry to continue as it will be a shakeout for most participants.  The steady players as well as the larger Hedge Funds out there will be better able to survive the shakeout.  Some hedge funds will even benefit as they gain from the transfer of capital from small funds to big funds.  This will be a truly trying time for the FoF (fund of funds) industry as their ability to generate alpha and reduce idiosyncratic risk through manager selection and style selection will be thoroughly tested through this volatile environment.

Kristol published an op-ed today which describes, disturbingly accurately, a "conversation" with Sarah Palin, which somehow, manages to match up almost word for word with this week's GOP talking points. Kristol again calls her a "hockey mom," and adds to that "military mom"--something which Palin has proclaimed since the start of the campaign, despite the fact that only 36% of women with close relatives (i.e. sons/husbands) approve of Bush's handling of the war. And more military families believe Democrats would do a better job with the military than Republicans

Kristol goes on in vain. Citing the "success of the VP debate" (which a CBS poll of undecideds found Biden winning 41-23), Kristol wants another. Then again, after eight years of George W. Bush, I could see why Bill Kristol considered Palin's ability to at least form sentences to be a success. Palin turns Kristol into a man of words and offered action, convincing him to write this paragraph, designed to piss all Democrats and liberals off:

And, really, shouldn’t the public get the benefit of another Biden-Palin debate, or even two? If there’s difficulty finding a moderator, I’ll be glad to volunteer.

He's just trying to get a rise out of me, and so I'll restrain any response here.

Kristol goes on to introduce the latest GOP strategy--call a Obama a Muslim terrorist with a radical Christian preacher. That strategy didn't work once, and it won't work again. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but at least it was original then. Oh, and Hillary wasn't on any tapes like this:

Kristol laid out the GOP strategy in the New York Times in an op-ed. Ethically speaking, this type of thing couldn't happen at the Berkeley Beacon, let alone should it be allowed to happen at the biggest newspaper in the world. Even conservative publications (such as Kristol's Weekly Standard) do not simply pimp out actual strategies; even opinion journalism is analytical, and there is nothing to be found on that strategy here. Why do you think its good to go down this road, Bill? Do Obama's associations actually bother you, and if so, why? Is it based on any fact?

It's pathetically obvious the Times hired Kristol to make money. Except that it didn't. The Newspaper business is going down, and the hiring of Kristol didn't do anything to stop the 500 jobs that the New York Times had to cut a couple of weeks ago. So if he isn't there to make money, why put up with this? Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the Times famously disagreed with the decision in this column, also quoting Nicholas Von Hoffman on the hiring of the creative conservative (that's about as much as I'll give him) William Safire:

“The Times could have saved themselves about 50 grand a year if they just sent an office boy over to the White House to pick up the press releases”

Exchange "50 grand" for "150 grand" and "White House" for "McCain/Palin Campaign." Yeah, see what I mean.

To think of the thousands of journalism students working hard and paying tuition with expensive, unregulated loans, I only hope they some how don't read this. Personally, I don't see how the Times rationalizes publishing Kristol's lies. There's a prior restraint issue here; if Kristol were to actually write an article, analyzing, making his own conclusions, maybe even be at least vaguely creative, fine, let him write. But he hasn't done that.

Also, did anyone mention that William Ayers, the so-called terrorist never killed anyone? Did anyone mention the McCain campaign now being involved with two anti-Semetic preachers? Oh, and the remarkably relevant Keating Five scandal?

Nicholas Kristof makes a compelling argument that people who are not consciously racist often discriminate unconsciously.

Again, scary bad for Obama.